No discipline could have earned this sight; only grace could give it, and it has already been given.

A precise grammar of denial, resting on the list's own completeness.

Shankara's attention falls on the wording itself. Why is sacrifice named apart from Vedic study, when study of the Veda would seem to include it already? He resolves this by separating the bare recitation of the Veda from the further discipline of studying the meaning of the sacrificial rite as its own science. Both are named, both are denied, and the argument rests on the sheer completeness of the list rather than on a separately developed account of grace.

A brief comment turning entirely on devotion as the missing condition.

What survives from Ramanuja here is short, and it should be read as short rather than expanded past its own scope. His point is that whoever lacks single-pointed, utmost devotion cannot see the Lord as he truly is, no matter what else they have studied or practiced. The disciplines named in the verse are set aside not because they are worthless but because devotion, not accomplishment, is the actual condition they lack.

Genuine silence; any extension is clearly marked as speculation.

No comment from Madhva survives on this verse. Nothing in his own words can honestly be reported here. If one wished to extend his broader thought from nearby verses, a possible thought would be that the closing phrase, seen by no one but you, confirms his graded hierarchy of souls, some fit by their own eternal nature to receive what others cannot reach however hard they strive. But this is offered only as a labeled possibility, never as a report of what Madhva actually wrote about 11.48.

Genuine silence; any extension is clearly marked as speculation.

Abhinavagupta's surviving commentary offers nothing on this verse; the gap is real, not a matter of an obscure or hard-to-find passage. If one wished to extend his wider idiom, one might suggest that no external technique can manufacture the self-recognition of consciousness, since recognition dawns of itself and cannot be forced into being by exertion. This remains only a possibility consistent with his approach elsewhere, never a report of his actual words on this verse.

The disciplines ranked, then surpassed, by grace whose door is devotion.

Sridhara opens by naming Arjuna krta-artha, one whose purpose is fulfilled, simply by having received this exceedingly difficult sight. He reads the verse as a deliberate ranking: study, sacrifice, gift, rite, and austerity are each honored in turn and then placed beneath the one thing that actually opens this vision, grace, whose inward door, he notes, is devotion, a claim the text itself will state outright a few verses on.

The verse's own repetition read as an airtight case for grace.

Madhusudana reads the structure of the verse itself as doing the argumentative work. The word not, repeated before every item, and the word and, gathering in whatever else the list has left unnamed, are built to leave no discipline, however impressive, standing as a loophole. Read this way, the verse functions almost like a closed proof that grace, not technique, is the sole sufficient condition for this sight.