Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 13 - Shloka (Verse) 1

No translation.

In the first and middle hexads, the meanings of 'Tvam' (Thou) and 'Tat' (That) words were stated. The final hexad, focused on the meaning of the sentence (Mahāvākya), predominated by right knowledge, is now begun.

Desiring to introduce the Chapter on the Field (Kṣetra) as the first of the final hexad, (the author) recounts the intervening (previously mentioned) subject matter with the word - 'Saptama' (Seventh). (The author) prevents the independence of the two natures (Prakṛtis) with the word - 'Īśvarasya' (Of the Lord). The nature (Prakṛti) of the form of Sattva etc., mentioned by 'Bhūmi' (Earth) etc., is 'Aparā' (inferior); the reason for this is stated with - 'Saṁsāra' (Transmigration) etc. (The author) recounts the nature mentioned by 'Itas tvanyām' (But another than this) etc., with - 'Parā ca' (And the superior) this word. The reason for the superiority is indicated by - 'Īśvarātmikā' (Whose nature is the Lord) this word. Why does the Lord have two natures? Having raised this doubt, (the author) says it is for the sake of causality, with the word - 'Yābhyām' (By which two).

Recounting the subject matter, (the author) states the manner of beginning the forthcoming chapter with the word - 'Tatra' (Therein). Having stated the connection with the intervening (distant) subject matter, and intending to state it with the non-intervening (immediate) one, (the author) quotes the non-intervening one with - 'Atīteti' (By the past) this word. 'The conclusion was stated' is the connection. (The author) explains the conclusion itself with the word - 'Yathā' (As). They exist, they perform the collection of duties, so everything was said in the manner previously stated, this is the construction.

Quoting the non-intervening one alone, (the author) asserts the connection of the following (chapter) with it, with the word - 'Kena' (By what). The word 'Ca' (and) is for the combination of the statement of the knowledge of the truth with the stated meaning.

Fearing that the Jīvas (souls), possessed of the distinction of pleasure, pain, etc., and different in each field (body), do not have unity with the Imperishable (Brahman), and intending to negate the quality of Saṁsāra (transmigration) as belonging to the Self and to state its inherence in the aggregate, (the author) states the manner of the aggregate's origin with the word - 'Prakṛtiśca' (And Prakṛti). Enjoyment (Bhoga) and Liberation (Apavarga) are the goals, and they alone are to be accomplished, this is the sense.

If it is said that in the immediately following verse the body is mentioned, its origin should be stated, why is the aggregate's stated? Upon this, (the author) says with the word - 'So'yam' (That this). (The author) introduces the word of the Lord on the stated meaning with - 'Tadetat' (That this).

Therein, (the author) indicates the Self as different from the aggregate-object-of-sight due to being the seer, with the word - 'Idam' (This). The stated, something distinguished as directly visible, is the remainder.

(The author) states the difference of the body from the Self by the etymology of the name 'Kṣetra' (Field) with - 'Kṣata' (Injury/destruction) this word. 'Kṣaya' (Decay) is destruction, 'Kṣaraṇam' (Flowing) is diminution. As a seed sown in a field bears fruit, likewise, (the author) says with - 'Kṣetravadvā' (Or like a field) this word.

The word 'Iti' (thus) standing above the word 'Kṣetra' is the subject of the word 'Kṣetra', otherwise there would be futility (of the word 'Iti'), this is said with - 'Iti śabdaḥ' (The word 'Iti') this word. 'Kṣetram' (Field) in this manner, by this word 'Kṣetra', this is the meaning.

Having stated the visible body, (the author) states the seer, who is additional to it, with - 'Etat' (This) this word. The natural knowledge 'I am a man' (is to be known) divisionally as additional to oneself, like the instructional knowledge 'The body is not the Self, because it is visible' etc., this is the meaning.

(The author) states the fact that, just like the word 'Iti' in 'Kṣetram', the word 'Iti' here also is the subject of the word 'Kṣetrajña' (Knower of the Field) with - 'Iti śabdaḥ' (The word 'Iti') this word. 'Kṣetrajñaḥ' (Knower of the Field), in this manner, by the word 'Kṣetrajña', they call him, this is the connection.

(The author) mentions the speakers through a question with - 'Ka' (Who) etc.

The Blessed Lord said -- This body, which is perceived with the same substratum (Sāmānādhikaraṇya) as the Self (the enjoyer) - as in 'I am a god', 'I am a man', 'I am stout', 'I am lean' - is a separate entity (arthāntarabhūta) from the Self, the enjoyer, and is His field of enjoyment (bhogakṣetra), thus is it declared by those who know the true nature of the body (śarīrayāthātmyavit).

The one who knows this (body), both as constituent parts and as an aggregate, with the notion 'This I know', is called the 'Kṣetrajña' (Knower of the Field), an entity separate from this object-of-knowledge (vedyabhūta) (the body) due to being the knower, by the knowers of that (the Kṣetrajña) - the knowers of the true nature of the Self.

Although at the time of inquiring into objects like a jar, which are separate from the body, (one) investigates the knower, the Self, with the same substratum as the body, as in 'I am a god', 'I am a man', 'I know the jar, etc.', yet at the time of experiencing the body, the knower (veditā) experiences the body too, like the jar, etc., as an object-of-knowledge (vedyatayā), with the notion 'This I know'. Therefore, the body, being an object-of-knowledge to the knower, the Self, is a separate entity just like the jar, etc. Similarly, the knower, the Kṣetrajña, is a separate entity even from the body, which is an object-of-knowledge, just as from the jar, etc.

The perception with the same substratum is justified because the body is, in reality, essentially a sole attribute of the Self, like the nature of a cow (Gotva) etc., and is inseparably established (apṛthaksiddhi) from it.

There, because the unique form of the knower is not the object of the senses like the eyes, etc., and is the object of a mind purified by Yoga, the deluded ones see the knower as having only the form of nature (Prakṛti), merely due to the proximity of nature (the body). As (the Lord) will state later - 'The deluded do not see (the Self) when it departs, or stays, or enjoys, or is conjoined with the qualities, but those with the eye of knowledge see.' (Bhagavad Gītā 15.10).

गीता की अनेक पाण्डुलिपियों में यह श्लोक नहीं मिलता है? जबकि कुछ अन्य हस्तलिपियों में यह अर्जुन की जिज्ञासा के रूप में दिया हुआ है।प्रकृति और पुरुष भारतीय सांख्य दर्शन के प्रणेता कपिल मुनि जी ने जड़ और चेतन तत्त्वों का निर्देश क्रमश प्रकृति और पुरुष इन दो शब्दों से किया है। इन दोनों के संयोग से ही उस सृष्टि का निर्माण हुआ है इन्हें अर्जुन जानना चाहता है।क्षेत्र और क्षेत्रज्ञ इन दो शब्दों का अर्थ इस अध्याय की प्रस्तावना में स्पष्ट किया गया है।ज्ञान और ज्ञेय इस अध्याय में ज्ञान शब्द से तात्पर्य उस शुद्धान्तकरण से हैं? जिसके द्वारा ही आत्मतत्त्व का अनुभव किया जा सकता है। यह आत्मा ही ज्ञेय अर्थात् जानने योग्य वस्तु है।अर्जुन की इस जिज्ञासा के उत्तर को जानना सभी साधकों को लाभदायक होगा।

The discerning ones who worship me in the manner stated. Those with unswerving minds are dear to me, I deliver them from the world. (1)

Hearing this statement, Dhanañjaya, desiring to know that, being overwhelmed with love, the intelligent one, informed the Lord. (2)

Now, how can devotion exist in the absence of the knowledge of the complete nature of the manifested world (Prapañca) etc.? Therefore, he asks for that knowledge with the word -- 'Prakṛtim' (Nature).

Nature, the previously stated one, which is of the form of Your own power; and Puruṣa (Spirit), the Jīva (individual soul) which is Your own part; Kṣetra (Field), the place of origin of everything; Kṣetrajña (Knower of the Field), the knower of its nature; Jñāna (Knowledge), the nature of knowledge; Jñeya (Object of Knowledge), everything to be attained by that knowledge, O Keśava, giver of liberation even to Brahmā and Śiva, I desire to know for the sake of devotion.

प्रकृतिम् the Prakriti (matter)? पुरुषम् the Purusha (Spirit or Soul)? च and? एव even? क्षेत्रम् the field? क्षेत्रज्ञम् the knower of the field? एव even? च and? एतत् this? वेदितुम् to know? इच्छामि (I) wish? ज्ञानम् knowledge? ज्ञेयम् what ought to be known? च and? केशव O Kesava.Commentary In some of the books you will not find this verse. If you include this verse also? the number of verses of the Bhagavad Gita will come to 701. Some commentators look upon this verse as an interpolation.We have come to the beginning of the third section of the Gita. Essentially the same knowledge is taught in this section but there are more details.This discourse on Kshetra (matter) is commenced with a view to determine the essential nature of the possessor of the two Prakritis (Natures)? the lower and the higher? described in chapter VII? verses 4 and 5.In the previous discourse a description of the devotee who is dear to the Lord is given from verse 13 to the end. Now the estion arises What sort of knowledge of Truth should he possess The answer is given in this discourse.Nature is composed of the three alities. It transforms itself into the body? senses and the sensual objects to serve the two purposes of the individual soul? viz.? Bhoga (enjoyment) and Apavarga (liberation).The Gita is divided into three sections illustrative of the three words of the Mahavakya or Great Sentence of the Sama Veda -- TatTvamAsi (That thou art). In accordance with this view the first six chapters deal with the path of action or Karma Yoga and the nature of the thou (TvamPada). The next six chapters explain the path of devotion or Bhakti Yoga and the nature of That (TatPada). The last six chapters treat of the path of knowledge or Jnana Yoga and the nature of the middle term art (AsiPada) which establishes the identity of the individual and the Supreme Soul (Jiva Brahma Aikyam).Arjuna now wishes to know in detail the difference between Prakriti and Purusha (Matter and Spirit). He desires to have a discriminative knowledge of the difference between them.