In the Gita’s tenth chapter, why does Krishna identify various opulences with himself instead of saying they belong to him?

Answer Podcast

The Opulences of Krishna: “I Am Them” vs. “They Belong to Me”

Question: In the tenth chapter, describing Krishna’s opulences, why does He say “I am them” rather than “They belong to Me”?

Answer: Firstly, many Sanskrit words are not easily translated into English, and we often rely on working translations. The word translated as “opulence” is vibhuti. Literally, bhuti means “existence,” and the prefix vi- often implies “special” or “extraordinary.” So, vibhuti broadly means “special existence.” In this context, the question being addressed is: “How can I remember You (Krishna) in this world?”

Remembrance of Krishna can occur directly by contemplating His pastimes—an inner recollection of what we’ve heard or read. But how can we remember Him as we navigate the outer world? The entire theme of the tenth chapter is that any special manifestation, any “special existence,” that reveals a spark or potency of Krishna (as stated in 10.41) can serve as a reminder of the Supreme’s existence beyond this world.

Another perspective is that the chapter illustrates how the One above the many manifests as one among the many. The Supreme Lord, who exists in a distinct category of being, manifests in this world not as just an ordinary one among the many, but as the best among the many. For example, among rivers, which is the largest? Among mountains, which is the highest? As human beings, we are innately attracted to excellence, transcendence, superlativeness—to whatever is best. When we learn a new sport, we want to know who the best players are. In a new country, we seek out the head of state, the most powerful or wealthiest person. Even in a new temple, we ask who is in charge. We are naturally drawn to that which is strongest, highest, and best.

Krishna’s teaching here provides the background: when these entities or beings possess these superlative attributes, where do they derive them? Krishna explains that their excellence is a manifestation of His opulence or greatness.

Now, to your specific question: why does He directly identify Himself with them, saying “I am them,” rather than “They belong to me”? Krishna does use language like “My opulence” elsewhere, as in 10.41. However, when He says, “Among the Pandavas, I am Arjuna,” or “Among water bodies, I am the ocean,” it’s clear from the context that this isn’t an absolute ontological oneness. Arjuna doesn’t suddenly claim, “Oh, then we are one, You don’t need to enlighten me, I’m already enlightened.” So, it’s explicitly not about absolute identity.

Instead, there’s a recollectional oneness. One thing is so closely connected to the other that it serves as a powerful reminder. Krishna is essentially saying, “Whatever you find attractive, know that its attractiveness originates from Me. Therefore, don’t just be attracted to that thing; become attracted to Me.” This direct identification isn’t a literal identity; it’s not that Krishna is literally the ocean or Arjuna.

The Bhagavad-gita is a poem, a Gita. Poetry frequently employs rhetorical devices and literary ornaments to enhance its beauty. Poetry does not always use literal, direct speech. Thus, when Krishna says, “I am the best among them,” He means that the essential attribute of that particular thing, which makes it excellent and attractive, originates from Him. In that sense, the opulence of the Absolute is that He manifests as the excellence of all excellent things. It is not that those things are Him, but rather their excellence is Him, or more precisely, it is because of Him that those things possess their excellence. So, the “oneness” here is more of a poetical or literary ornament in the poetry; it is not a philosophical or absolute ontological oneness.

The Gita uses non-literal language quite frequently. For instance, one of its fundamental teachings is that the soul (avinashi) can never be destroyed. Yet, in the sixteenth chapter, Krishna twice speaks of things that “destroy the soul” – first, lust, anger, and greed (16.21), and then atheistic worldviews (16.09). This is clearly metaphorical; these vices do not annihilate the eternal soul but severely degrade its consciousness and spiritual progress.

Another example is the verse, “What is night for all beings is day for the self-controlled.” While sometimes interpreted literally as devotees waking early, the essential point is metaphorical: the domain of interest and activity for materialists (sense gratification) is the domain of inactivity and disinterest for spiritualists. Conversely, the domain of spiritual activity and interest for the enlightened is like “night” for the materially absorbed. The concepts of “day” and “night” represent domains of activity and interest, making it a clear metaphorical usage.

Thus, the Gita employs metaphorical and non-literal language sufficiently, particularly in its tenth chapter. This chapter is perhaps the most consistent example of a particular rhetorical device—direct identification for emphasis—used repeatedly within a single chapter.