Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 13 - Shloka (Verse) 2

व्याख्या -- इदं शरीरं कौन्तेय क्षेत्रमित्यभिधीयते -- मनुष्य यह पशु है? यह पक्षी है? यह वृक्ष है आदिआदि भौतिक चीजोंको इदंतासे अर्थात् यहरूपसे कहता है और इस शरीरको कभी मैंरूपसे तथा कभी मेरारूपसे कहता है। परन्तु वास्तवमें अपना कहलानेवाला शरीर भी इदंतासे कहलानेवाला ही है। चाहे स्थूलशरीर हो? चाहे सूक्ष्मशरीर हो और चाहे कारणशरीर हो? पर वे हैं सभी इदंतासे कहलानेवाले ही।जो पृथ्वी? जल? तेज? वायु और आकाश -- इन पाँच तत्त्वोंसे बना हुआ है अर्थात् जो मातापिताके रजवीर्यसे पैदा होता है? उसको स्थूलशरीर कहते हैं। इसका दूसरा नाम अन्नमयकोश भी है क्योंकि यह अन्नके विकारसे ही पैदा होता है और अन्नसे ही जीवित रहता है। अतः यह अन्नमय? अन्नस्वरूप ही है। इन्द्रियोंका विषय होनेसे यह शरीर इदम् (यह) कहा जाता है।पाँच ज्ञानेन्द्रियाँ? पाँच कर्मेन्द्रियाँ? पाँच प्राण? मन और बुद्धि -- इन सत्रह तत्त्वोंसे बने हुएको सूक्ष्मशरीर कहते हैं। इन सत्रह तत्त्वोंमेंसे प्राणोंकी प्रधानताको लेकर यह सूक्ष्मशरीर प्राणमयकोश? मनकी प्रधानताको लेकर यह मनोमयकोश और बुद्धिकी प्रधानताको लेकर यह विज्ञानमयकोश कहलाता है। ऐसा यह सूक्ष्मशरीर भी अन्तःकरणका विषय होनेसे इदम् कहा जाता है।अज्ञानको कारणशरीर कहते हैं। मनुष्यको बुद्धितकका तो ज्ञान होता है? पर बुद्धिसे आगेका ज्ञान नहीं होता? इसलिये उसे अज्ञान कहते हैं। यह अज्ञान सम्पूर्ण शरीरोंका कारण होनेसे कारणशरीर कहलाता है -- अज्ञानमेवास्य हि मूलकारणम् (अध्यात्म0 उत्तर0 5। 9)। इस कारणशरीरको स्वभाव? आदत और प्रकृति भी कह देते हैं और इसीको आनन्दमयकोश भी कह देते हैं। जाग्रत्अवस्थामें स्थूलशरीरकी प्रधानता होती है और उसमें सूक्ष्म तथा कारणशरीर भी साथमें रहता है। स्वप्नअवस्थामें सूक्ष्मशरीरकी प्रधानता होती है और उसमें कारणशरीर भी साथमें रहता है। सुषुप्तिअवस्थामें स्थूलशरीरका ज्ञान नहीं रहता? जो कि अन्नमयकोश है और सूक्ष्मशरीर भी ज्ञान नहीं रहता? जो कि प्राणमय? मनोमय एवं विज्ञानमयकोश है अर्थात् बुद्धि अविद्या(अज्ञान)में लीन हो जाती है। अतः सुषुप्तिअवस्था कारणशरीरकी होती है। जाग्रत् और स्वप्नअवस्थामें तो सुखदुःखका अनुभव होता है? पर सुषुप्तिअवस्थामें दुःखका अनुभव नहीं होता और सुख रहता है। इसलिये कारणशरीरको आनन्दमयकोश कहते हैं। कारणशरीर भी स्वयंका विषय होनेसे? स्वयंके द्वारा जाननेमें आनेवाला होनेसे इदम् कहा जाता है।उपर्युक्त तीनों शरीरोंको शरीर कहनेका तात्पर्य है कि इनका प्रतिक्षण नाश होता रहता है (टिप्पणी प0 668.1)। इनको कोश कहनेका तात्पर्य है कि जैसे चमड़ेसे बनी हुई थैलीमें तलवार रखनेसे उसकी म्यान संज्ञा हो जाती है? ऐसे ही जीवात्माके द्वारा इन तीनों शरीरोंको अपना माननेसे? अपनेको इनमें रहनेवाला माननेसे इन तीनों शरीरोंकी कोश संज्ञा हो जाती है।इस शरीरको क्षेत्र कहनेका तात्पर्य है कि यह प्रतिक्षण नष्ट होता? प्रतिक्षण बदलता है (टिप्पणी प0 668.2)। यह इतना जल्दी बदलता है कि इसको दुबारा कोई देख ही नहीं सकता अर्थात् दृष्टि पड़ते ही जिसको देखा? उसको फिर दुबारा नहीं देख सकते क्योंकि वह तो बदल गया।शरीरको क्षेत्र कहनेका दूसरा भाव खेतसे है। जैसे खेतमें तरहतरहके बीज डालकर खेती की जाती है? ऐसे ही इस मनुष्यशरीरमें अहंताममता करके जीव? तरहतरहके कर्म करता है। उन कर्मोंके संस्कार,अन्तःकरणमें पड़ते हैं। वे संस्कार जब फलके रूपमें प्रकट होते हैं? तब दूसरा (देवता? पशुपक्षी? कीटपतङ्ग आदिका) शरीर मिलता है। जिस प्रकार खेतमें जैसा बीज बोया जाता है? वैसा ही अनाज पैदा होता है? उसी प्रकार इस शरीरमें जैसे कर्म किये जाते हैं? उनके अनुसार ही दूसरे शरीर? परिस्थिति आदि मिलते हैं। तात्पर्य है कि इस शरीरमें किये गये कर्मोंके अनुसार ही यह जीव बारबार जन्ममरणरूप फल भोगता है। इसी दृष्टिसे इसको क्षेत्र (खेत) कहा गया है।अपने वास्तविक स्वरूपसे अलग दीखनेवाला यह शरीर प्राकृत पदार्थोंसे? क्रियाओंसे? वर्णआश्रम आदिसे,इदम् (दृश्य) ही है। यह है तो इदम् पर जीवने भूलसे इसको अहम् मान लिया और फँस गया। स्वयं परमात्माका अंश एवं चेतन है? सबसे महान् है। परन्तु जब वह जड (दृश्य) पदार्थोंसे अपनी महत्ता मानने लगता है (जैसे? मैं धनी हूँ? मैं विद्वान् हूँ आदि)? तब वास्तवमें वह अपनी महत्ता घटाता ही है। इतना ही नहीं? अपनी महान् बेइज्जती करता है क्योंकि अगर धन? विद्या आदिसे वह अपनेको बड़ा मानता है? तो धन विद्या आदि ही बड़े हुए उसका अपना महत्त्व तो कुछ रहा ही नहीं वास्तवमें देखा जाय तो महत्त्व स्वयंका ही है? नाशवान् और जड धनादि पदार्थोंका नहीं क्योंकि जब स्वयं उन पदार्थोंको स्वीकार करता है? तभी वे महत्त्वशाली दीखते हैं। इसलिये भगवान् इदं शरीरं क्षेत्रम् पदोंसे शरीरादि पदार्थोंको अपनेसे भिन्न इदंता से देखनेके लिये कह रहे हैं।एतद्यो वेत्ति -- जीवात्मा इस शरीरको जानता है अर्थात् यह शरीर मेरा है? इन्द्रियाँ मेरी हैं? मन मेरा है? बुद्धि मेरी है? प्राण मेरे हैं -- ऐसा मानता है। यह जीवात्मा इस शरीरको कभी मैं कह देता है और कभी,यह कह देता है अर्थात् मैं शरीर हूँ -- ऐसा भी मान लेता है और यह शरीर मेरा है -- ऐसा भी मान लेता है।इस श्लोकके पूर्वार्धमें शरीरको इदम् पदसे कहा है और उत्तरार्धमें शरीरको एतत् पदसे कहा है। यद्यपि ये दोनों ही पद नजदीकके वाचक हैं? तथापि इदम् की अपेक्षा एतत् पद अत्यन्त नजदीकका वाचक है। अतः यहाँ इदम् पद अङ्गुलिनिर्दिष्ट शरीरसमुदायका द्योतन करता है और एतत् पद इस शरीरमें जो मैंपन है? उस मैंपनका द्योतन करता है।तं प्राहुः क्षेत्रज्ञ (टिप्पणी प0 668.3) इति तद्विदः -- जैसे दूसरे अध्यायके सोलहवें श्लोकमें सत्असत्के तत्त्वको जाननेवालोंको तत्त्वदर्शी कहा है? ऐसे ही यहाँ क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञके तत्त्वको जाननेवालोंको तद्विदः कहा है। क्षेत्र क्या है और क्षेत्रज्ञ क्या है -- इसका जिनको बोध हो चुका है? ऐसे तत्त्वज्ञ महापुरुष इस जीवात्माको क्षेत्रज्ञ नामसे कहते हैं। तात्पर्य है कि क्षेत्रकी तरफ दृष्टि रहनेसे? क्षेत्रके साथ सम्बन्ध रहनेसे ही इस जीवात्माको वे ज्ञानी महापुरुष क्षेत्रज्ञ कहते हैं। अगर यह जीवात्मा क्षेत्रके साथ सम्बन्ध न रखे? तो फिर इसकी क्षेत्रज्ञ संज्ञा नहीं रहेगी? यह परमात्मस्वरूप हो जायगा (गीता 13। 31)।मार्मिक बातयह नियम है कि जहाँसे बन्धन होता है? वहाँसे खोलनेपर ही (बन्धनसे) छुटकारा हो सकता है। अतः मनुष्यशरीरसे ही बन्धन होता है और मनुष्यशरीरके द्वारा ही बन्धनसे मुक्ति हो सकती है। अगर मनुष्यका अपने शरीरके साथ किसी प्रकारका भी अहंताममतारूप सम्बन्ध न रहे? तो वह मात्र संसारसे मुक्त ही है। अतः भगवान् शरीरके साथ माने हुए अहंताममतारूप सम्बन्धका विच्छेद करनेके लिये शरीरको क्षेत्र बताकर उसको इदंता(पृथक्ता) से देखनेके लिये कह रहे हैं? जो कि वास्तवमें पृथक् है ही।शरीरको इदंतासे देखना केवल अपना कल्याण चाहनेवाले साधकोंके लिये ही नहीं? प्रत्युत मनुष्यमात्रके लिये परम आवश्यक है। कारण कि अपना उद्धार करनेका अधिकार और अवसर मनुष्यशरीरमें ही है। यही कारण,है कि गीताका उपदेश आरम्भ करते ही भगवान्ने सबसे पहले शरीर और शरीरीका पृथक्ताका वर्णन किया है।इदम् का अर्थ है -- यह अर्थात् अपनेसे अलग दीखनेवाला। सबसे पहले देखनेमें आता है -- पृथ्वी? जल? तेज? वायु तथा आकाशसे बना यह स्थूलशरीर। यह दृश्य है और परिवर्तनशील है। इसको देखनेवाले हैं -- नेत्र। जैसे दृश्यमें रंग? आकृति? अवस्था? उपयोग आदि सभी बदलते रहते हैं? पर उनको देखनेवाले नेत्र एक ही रहते हैं? ऐसे ही शब्द? स्पर्श? रूप? रस और गन्धरूप विषय भी बदलते रहते हैं? पर उनको जाननेवाले कान? त्वचा? नेत्र? जिह्वा और नासिका एक ही रहते हैं। जैसे नेत्रोंसे ठीक दीखना? कम दीखना और बिलकुल न दीखना -- ये नेत्रमें होनेवाले परिवर्तन मनके द्वारा जाने जाते हैं? ऐसे ही कान? त्वचा? जिह्वा और नासिकामें होनेवाले परिवर्तन भी मनके द्वारा जाने जाते हैं। अतः पाँचों ज्ञानेन्द्रियाँ (कान? त्वचा? नेत्र? जिह्वा और नासिका) भी दृश्य हैं। कभी क्षुब्ध और कभी शान्त? कभी स्थिर और कभी चञ्चल -- ये मनमें होनेवाले परिवर्तन बुद्धिके द्वारा जाने जाते हैं। अतः मन भी दृश्य है। कभी ठीक समझना? कभी कम समझना और कभी बिलकुल न समझना -- ये बुद्धिमें होनेवाले परिवर्तन स्वयं(जीवात्मा) के द्वारा जाने जाते हैं। अतः बुद्धि भी दृश्य है। बुद्धि आदिके द्रष्टा स्वयं(जीवात्मा) में कभी परिवर्तन हुआ नहीं? है नहीं? होगा नहीं और होना सम्भव भी नहीं। वह सदा एकरस रहता है अतः वह कभी किसीका दृश्य नहीं हो सकता (टिप्पणी प0 669)।इन्द्रियाँ अपनेअपने विषयको तो जान सकती हैं? पर विषय अपनेसे पर (सूक्ष्म? श्रेष्ठ और प्रकाशक) इन्द्रियोंको नहीं जान सकते। इसी तरह इन्द्रियाँ और विषय मनको नहीं जान सकते मन? इन्द्रियाँ और विषय बुद्धिको नहीं जान सकते तथा बुद्धि? मन? इन्द्रियाँ और विषय स्वयंको नहीं जान सकते। न जाननेमें मुख्य कारण यह है कि इन्द्रियाँ? मन और बुद्धि तो सापेक्ष द्रष्टा हैं अर्थात् एकदूसरेकी सहायतासे केवल अपनेसे स्थूल रूपको देखनेवाले हैं किन्तु स्वयं (जीवात्मा) शरीर? इन्द्रियाँ? मन और बुद्धिसे अत्यन्त सूक्ष्म और श्रेष्ठ होनेके कारण निरपेक्ष द्रष्टा है अर्थात् दूसरे किसीकी सहायताके बिना खुद ही देखनेवाला है।उपर्युक्त विवेचनमें यद्यपि इन्द्रियाँ? मन और बुद्धिको भी द्रष्टा कहा गया है? तथापि वहाँ भी यह समझ लेना चाहिये कि स्वयं(जीवात्मा) के साथ रहनेपर ही इनके द्वारा देखा जाना सम्भव होता है। कारण कि मन? बुद्धि आदि जड प्रकृतिका कार्य होनेसे स्वतन्त्र द्रष्टा नहीं हो सकते। अतः स्वयं ही वास्तविक द्रष्टा है। दृश्य पदार्थ (शरीर)? देखनेकी शक्ति (नेत्र? मन? बुद्धि) और देखनेवाला (जीवात्मा) -- इन तीनोंमें गुणोंकी भिन्नता होनेपर भी तात्त्विक एकता है। कारण कि तात्त्विक एकताके बिना देखनेका आकर्षण? देखनेकी सामर्थ्य और देखनेकी प्रवृत्ति सिद्ध ही नहीं होती। यहाँ यह शङ्का हो सकती है कि स्वयं (जीवात्मा) तो चेतन है? फिर वह जड बुद्धि आदिको (जिससे उसकी तात्त्विक एकता नहीं है।) कैसे देखता है इसका समाधान यह है कि स्वयं जडसे तादात्म्य करके जडके सहित अपनेको मैं मान लेता है। यह मैं न तो जड है और न चेतन ही है। जडमें विशेषता देखकर यह जडके साथ एक होकर कहता है कि मैं धनवान हूँ मैं विद्वान हूँ आदि और चेतनमें विशेषता देखकर यह चेतनके साथ एक होकर कहता है कि मैं आत्मा हूँ मैं ब्रह्म हूँ आदि। यही प्रकृतिस्थ पुरुष है? जो प्रकृतिजन्य गुणोंके सङ्गसे ऊँचनीच योनियोंमें बारबार जन्म लेता रहता है (गीता 13। 21)। तात्पर्य यह निकला कि प्रकृतिस्थ पुरुषमें जड और चेतन -- दोनों अंश विद्यमान हैं। चेतनकी रुचि परमात्माकी तरफ जानेकी है किन्तु भूलसे उसने जडके साथ तादात्म्य कर लिया। तादात्म्यमें जो जडअंश है? उसका आकर्षण (प्रवृत्ति) जडताकी तरफ होनेसे वही सजातीयताके कारण जड बुद्धि आदिका द्रष्टा बनता है। यह नियम है कि देखना केवल सजातीयतामें ही सम्भव होता है अर्थात् दृश्य? दर्शन और द्रष्टाके एक ही जातिके होनेसे देखना होता है? अन्यथा नहीं। इस नियमसे यह पता लगता है कि स्वयं (जीवात्मा) जबतक बुद्धि आदिका द्रष्टा रहता है? तबतक उसमें बुद्धिकी जातिकी जड वस्तु है अर्थात् जड प्रकृतिके साथ उसका माना हुआ सम्बन्ध है। यह माना हुआ सम्बन्ध ही सब अनर्थोंका मूल है। इसी माने हुए सम्बन्धके कारण वह सम्पूर्ण जड प्रकृति अर्थात् बुद्धि? मन? इन्द्रियाँ? विषय? शरीर और,पदार्थोंका द्रष्टा बनता है। सम्बन्ध -- उस क्षेत्रज्ञका स्वरूप क्या है -- इसको आगेके श्लोकमें बताते हैं।

समस्त कार्य? करण और विषयोंके आकारमें परिणत हुई त्रिगुणात्मिका प्रकृति पुरुषके लिये भोग और अपवर्गका सम्पादन करनेके निमित्त देहइन्द्रियादिके आकारसे संहत ( मूर्तिमान् ) होती है? वह संघात ही यह शरीर है? उसका वर्णन करनेके लिये श्रीभगवान् बोले --, इदम् इस सर्वनामसे कही हुई वस्तुको शरीरम् इस विशेषणसे स्पष्ट करते हैं। हे कुन्तीपुत्र शरीरको चोट आदिसे बचाया जाता है इसलिये? या यह शनैःशनैः क्षीण -- नष्ट होता रहता है इसलिये? अथवा क्षेत्रके समान इसमें कर्मफल प्राप्त होते हैं इसलिये? यह शरीर क्षेत्र है इस प्रकार कहा जाता है। यहाँ इति शब्द एवम् शब्दके अर्थमें है। इस शरीररूप क्षेत्रको जो जानता है -- चरणोंसे लेकर मस्तकपर्यन्त ( इस शरीरको ) जो ज्ञानसे प्रत्यक्ष करता है अर्थात् स्वाभाविक या उपदेशद्वारा प्राप्त अनुभवसे विभागपूर्वक स्पष्ट जानता है उस जाननेवालेको क्षेत्रज्ञ कहते हैं। यहाँ भी इति शब्द पहलेकी भाँति एवम् शब्दके अर्थमें ही है? अतः क्षेत्रज्ञ ऐसा कहते हैं। कौन कहते हैं उनको जाननेवाले अर्थात् उन क्षेत्र और क्षेत्रज्ञ दोनोंको जो जानते हैं वे ज्ञानी पुरुष ( कहते हैं )।

Now he states the connection of the thirteenth chapter—with 'Evam' (Thus). Thus, by the first and second hexads, the nature of Prakriti and Purusha, the nature of the Supreme Self, and the pervasion of both by the Supreme Self are stated. Now, having previously discriminated the nature, difference, and reality of Prakriti, Purusha, and their association, the reality of the Supreme Self who pervades both is being distinctly purified/clarified.

This is the meaning: The discrimination between body and self, and the discrimination between Pradhana (Prakriti) and Purusha were indeed spoken before; therefore, one should not think that they should not be spoken of here (again), because here the nature, cause, and modification of the body designated by the word 'Kshetra' (Field), and the nature and power of the Inner Self designated by the word 'Kshetrajna' (Knower of the Field), are distinguished in detail.

The mode of their association and its cause, 'beginninglessness', are expanded upon. And their dependence on the Lord is clearly stated. And the causes of bondage and liberation, 'association with Gunas' and 'cessation of that', are spoken of in detail. And thus, the detailed exposition of what was spoken briefly is done here—thus.

(Objection) Now, in the absence of the question "Prakritim purusham chaiva" (Prakriti and Purusha indeed) here, how is this ("Idam shariram..." etc.) proper? (Answer) No. Because the question is seen in some manuscript collections. But the author of the Bhashya (Ramanuja) considered it non-authoritative (Anarsha) and did not count it even in the hundred-and-four verses (of the Gita).

Even in the absence of the question, the answer is not contradictory, as the meaning is established by the desire to know the distinctions mentioned before. There, he states the meaning of the verse "This body, O Kaunteya, is called the Field" (13.2)—"This is the aggregate of gods, humans, etc."

The indication "Idam" (This) here is because it is directly perceivable. Intending this very thing, "Samsthanam" (Aggregate/Conformation) is said. 'Kshetram' (Field) is so because it is the field of enjoyment (Bhoga) and the field of action (Karma). For lexicographers say "Kshetra is used for seed germination, holy place, and field (kedara)."

And thus, like that (a field), the word 'Kshetra' is famous in this sense because it is the ground for the germination of the seed of the fruits of actions. As stated in Vishnu Purana: "They perform those actions, sinful and others. There and there they enjoy the fruit along with all beings.

Action is joined in this Field of pleasure and pain; having attained human plowing (cultivation), he is not born again." Similarly, it is 'Kshetra' because it is helpful like a field, by being the instrument of enjoyment for the enjoyer.

Or, 'Kshetram' because it protects from injury (Kshatat trayate). Therefore indeed it is called 'Shariram' (Body). He states its meaning through the derivation of the word 'Kshetrajna' (Knower of the Field)—"He who knows this" (Etat yo vetti).

Knowing here refers to the state of having natural knowledge; by the force of that, he controls the body and engages it in its respective functions; this is the meaning.

By 'He who knows', his distinction from the inert Field, and his being the subject of the 'I-cognition' which grasps the Self, are stated. 'Tadvidah' (Knowers of That)—they who know those two, the Field and the Knower of the Field, are 'Tadvidah'.

Meaning, knowers of the mode of distinction (Viveki) to be described later. Meaning, knowers of the Self distinct from the body. By that, it is indicated that the relationship is one of Pervaded and Pervader (Vyapya-vyapaka-bhava) like clay and pot, not a relationship of attribute and possessor of attribute (Dharma-dharmi-bhava) like quality in a substance.

I salute Him who, relying upon Māyā, the sole deluder of the world, having created, having entered the body as the individual soul (jīvatā), attains various forms of selfhood through the minds (intellects). That Kṛṣṇa, who is truly wealth of bliss, the one non-dual Brahman, known only by the heads of the Vedas (Upaniṣads), the eternal Śrī Śaṅkara. (1)

As the distinction of Ākāśa (space) from the pot, etc., does not exist in reality, so too in the Nirguṇa (qualitiless), extremely pure Brahman, the field (bhūḥ) of intellect, etc., is superimposed. That Vāsudeva who is one essence, devoid of Māyā, immeasurable, Him I worship; the Self composed of Sat (existence), Ānanda (bliss), Cit (consciousness), the Guru of gurus, the destroyer of darkness (Tamas), Śarva (Auspicious). (2)

I praise the Goddess, the mother of the multitude of devotees' aims, the destroyer of the demons of obstacles, Sūrya, the Lord (Gaṇeśa) who, with the lion (Mṛgendra), killed the great obstructive host in the form of a serpent (nāga), who has all sins (āga) removed by the thunderbolt of His trunk, the purifier, the auspicious, the object of meditation, Gajānana (elephant-faced), the Indra (chief) of the Gaṇas (troops), the master, revered by the hosts of gods. (3)

Thus, having expounded the meaning of the 'Tvam' word and the 'Tat' word by the two hexads, the third hexad is begun for the purpose of expounding the indivisible meaning. There, 'Earth, water, fire, air, space, mind, intellect, and also ego - this is My nature, divided eightfold. This is the inferior. But know, O mighty-armed, My other nature, the superior, which has become the Jīva (life-element), by which this world is sustained. Understand that all beings have these as their source. I am the origin and the dissolution of the entire universe.' - thus, in the seventh chapter, two natures of Īśvara (the Lord) were indicated: one, the Aparā (inferior), having the characteristic of the Field (Kṣetra), consisting of the three Guṇas, because it is the cause of Saṁsāra (transmigration); and the other, the Parā (superior), having the characteristic of the Field, being the very Self of Īśvara, because it is the Self of Īśvara (Īśvarātmaka). By which two, Īśvara attains the state of being the cause of the origin, etc., of the world. There, for the purpose of determining the truth of Īśvara, who is endowed with them, by means of the description of the two natures characterized as the Kṣetra and Kṣetrajña, and in the twelfth chapter, the attributes of the knower of the truth like 'He who is unhating towards all beings, friendly and compassionate too,' were stated. For the sake of ascertaining that knowledge of the truth, by which the persons endowed with it, and distinguished by the stated attributes, become dear to Me, the Blessed Lord also spoke, beginning with - 'Idam' (This).

'Idam' (This) is the visible object obtained by direct perception, etc. (The author) specifies the object denoted by 'Idam' - 'Śarīram' (Body). The nature (Prakṛti) consisting of the three Guṇas, having transformed into the form of all effects, causes, and objects, is aggregated in the form of the body, senses, etc., solely for the purpose of the Puruṣa's enjoyment (Bhoga) and liberation (Apavarga); that aggregate is called by the word 'Śarīra'.

'Idaṁ śarīram' (This body), O son of Kuntī! It is 'Kṣetra' because it protects (trāṇāt) from injury (kṣata). It diminishes (kṣiṇoti) the Self by ignorance (Avidyā) and protects (trāti) it by knowledge (Vidyā). It decays (kṣīyate), it is destroyed (naśyati), it diminishes (kṣarati), it is wasted away (apakṣīyate), therefore also it is called 'Kṣetra'. Or, because the fruit of action is produced in it, just like in a field (kṣetravat). The intent of the address is that just as Kuntī is a 'Kṣetra' because she is the place of your manifestation, so too is this (body) a 'Kṣetra' because it is the place of the Self's manifestation. By this, the difference of the body from the Self is indicated. The word 'Iti' which is placed after the word 'Kṣetra' is the subject of the word 'Kṣetra', otherwise it would be futile; 'Kṣetram' (Field), in this manner, by this word 'Kṣetra', it is designated, it is stated, this is the meaning. Having shown the visible body, (the author) shows the Self, the seer, who is additional to it. The one who knows this body-field, from the sole of the foot to the top of the head, by the natural knowledge 'I am a man, this is my body,' or by the instructional knowledge 'The body is not the Self, because it is visible, like a pot,' or by the knowledge of its distinctness from oneself, makes it an object (of knowledge), him 'Tadvidaḥ' (those who know that) - those who know the Kṣetra and Kṣetrajña as the seen and the seer - him they call the 'Kṣetrajña' (Knower of the Field), 'Kṣetrajña' in this manner. They speak of him by the word 'Kṣetrajña', this is the meaning.

Salutation to the giver of knowledge.

The previously mentioned knowledge, object of knowledge, field, and spirit, having been summarized, are shown distinctly by this chapter.

(Objection) Now, in the second (chapter, 2.25), the nature of the 'Tvam-pada' (Self) is stated as "This is called unmanifest, unthinkable, unchangeable; eternal, all-pervading, stable, immovable, ancient." Similarly, in the twelfth (chapter, 12.3), the nature of the 'Tat-pada' (Brahman) is stated as "But those who worship the imperishable, indefinable, unmanifest, all-pervading, unthinkable, immutable, unmoving, firm."

And there is no possible difference between the two, because of the identity of characteristics. Indeed, the characteristics of both are similar: unmanifestness, unthinkableness, immovableness, all-pervasiveness, etc. And all-pervasiveness is not possible for two (entities), because of the contingency of non-all-pervasiveness due to mutual exclusion. Nor should it be said that even in the absence of difference in characteristics, there are specific differences inherent in the respective selves (Jivas/Ishvara/Muktas) which bring about mutual difference between liberated selves, between Jiva and Ishvara, and which spontaneously separate the self from its own substratum. Because there is no proof for the existence of such specific differences.

(Sankhya Objection) Now, let there not be specific differences; but difference among Purushas (selves), even though attributeless, is established by the inexplicability of the arrangement of bondage and liberation. As stated by the elders of Sankhya: "The multiplicity of Purushas is established because of the fixed arrangement of birth, death, and instruments, and because of non-simultaneous activity, and indeed because of the reversal of the three Gunas." If you say that meaning is 'there is no unity of Purusha' due to the fixed arrangement of birth etc., due to not seeing simultaneous activity, and due to the difference of Sattvika/Rajasa nature—(Answer) No. Because of the contingency of confusion of experience (Bhoga-sankarya) in the doctrine of many all-pervading selves. For it cannot be established that when one inner organ is modified in the form of pleasure etc., the experiencer of that is one sentient being alone. Because the contingency of experience by all (selves) due to the non-difference of proximity to all (selves) is unavoidable. Just as there is a fixed arrangement for grasping sound for the single Self, even with the difference of the adjunct in the form of the inner organ (Antahkarana), like the difference of the adjunct in the form of the ear-conch for the single ear (Shrotra); similarly, the fixed arrangement of birth etc. will also be established, so the multiplicity of Purushas should not be stated.

And thus, when non-difference between Jiva and Ishvara is established due to identity of characteristics, what is the use of the subsequent text intended to propound that (identity)?—If you say this, (Answer) It is true. Although there is no difference in the state of Knowledge (Vidya) due to the Shruti "But when the whole has become the Self, then with what should one see what?" (Brihadaranyaka 4.5.15); still, the start of the subsequent text is justified because it is intended to refute the difference between Jiva and Ishvara which is applicable in the state of Ignorance (Avidya) and in the state of worldly dealing (Vyavahara) in the relation of 'ruled and ruler' and 'doer and causer', as seen in Shrutis like: "He who has entered inside, the ruler of men" and "He alone indeed makes him do good deeds whom He wishes to lead up from these worlds."

There, to state the non-difference of this (Jiva) with the meaning of the word 'Tat' (Brahman) spoken immediately before, and for the sake of fitness, He shows the distinction of the Knower of the Field from the Field by the relation of 'illuminated and illuminator', like a pot from the shining sun—with "Idam" (This). This body, which is perishable (Visharana-dharmi), illuminated as non-Self, extending from the pot (gross body) up to the ego (subtle body), O Kaunteya; is called 'Kshetram' (Field) because it 'destroys' (Kshinoti) the self by Avidya, and 'protects' (Trayate) by Vidya, or because it is the place for the germination of the seed of actions (Karma-bija-praroahasthanam). He who knows this (Field), illuminates it, that conscious Self (Chidatma) they call 'Kshetrajna' (Knower of the Field)—a name meaningful (Anvarta-samjnam) (as Knower of the Kshetra). Who call it so? The knowers of That, i.e., the knowers of the Field and the Knower of the Field. By this, although the body, senses, and ego appear as if included in the category of 'illuminator' (Bhāsaka) due to experiences like "I go, I see, I enjoy"; still, their nature of 'non-Self' (Anatma-bhava), which is characterized by being the 'illuminated' (Bhasyatva), is established in reality.

Now he states the connection of the thirteenth chapter—with 'Evam' (Thus).

Thus, by the first and second hexads, the nature of Prakriti and Purusha, the nature of the Supreme Self, and the pervasion of both by the Supreme Self are stated.

Now, having previously discriminated the nature, difference, and reality of Prakriti, Purusha, and their association, the reality of the Supreme Self who pervades both is being distinctly purified/clarified.

This is the meaning: The discrimination between body and self, and the discrimination between Pradhana (Prakriti) and Purusha were indeed spoken before; therefore, one should not think that they should not be spoken of here (again), because here the nature, cause, and modification of the body designated by the word 'Kshetra' (Field), and the nature and power of the Inner Self designated by the word 'Kshetrajna' (Knower of the Field), are distinguished in detail.

The mode of their association and its cause, 'beginninglessness', are expanded upon.

And their dependence on the Lord is clearly stated.

And the causes of bondage and liberation, 'association with Gunas' and 'cessation of that', are spoken of in detail.

And thus, the detailed exposition of what was spoken briefly is done here—thus.

(Objection) Now, in the absence of the question "Prakritim purusham chaiva" (Prakriti and Purusha indeed) here, how is this ("Idam shariram..." etc.) proper?

(Answer) No. Because the question is seen in some manuscript collections.

But the author of the Bhashya (Ramanuja) considered it non-authoritative (Anarsha) and did not count it even in the hundred-and-four verses (of the Gita).

Even in the absence of the question, the answer is not contradictory, as the meaning is established by the desire to know the distinctions mentioned before.

There, he states the meaning of the verse "This body, O Kaunteya, is called the Field" (13.2)—"This is the aggregate of gods, humans, etc."

The indication "Idam" (This) here is because it is directly perceivable.

Intending this very thing, "Samsthanam" (Aggregate/Conformation) is said.

'Kshetram' (Field) is so because it is the field of enjoyment (Bhoga) and the field of action (Karma).

For lexicographers say "Kshetra is used for seed germination, holy place, and field (kedara)."

And thus, like that (a field), the word 'Kshetra' is famous in this sense because it is the ground for the germination of the seed of the fruits of actions.

As stated in Vishnu Purana: "They perform those actions, sinful and others. There and there they enjoy the fruit along with all beings.

Action is joined in this Field of pleasure and pain; having attained human plowing (cultivation), he is not born again."

Similarly, it is 'Kshetra' because it is helpful like a field, by being the instrument of enjoyment for the enjoyer.

Or, 'Kshetram' because it protects from injury (Kshatat trayate).

Therefore indeed it is called 'Shariram' (Body). He states its meaning through the derivation of the word 'Kshetrajna' (Knower of the Field)—"He who knows this" (Etat yo vetti).

Knowing here refers to the state of having natural knowledge; by the force of that, he controls the body and engages it in its respective functions; this is the meaning.

By 'He who knows', his distinction from the inert Field, and his being the subject of the 'I-cognition' which grasps the Self, are stated.

'Tadvidah' (Knowers of That)—they who know those two, the Field and the Knower of the Field, are 'Tadvidah'.

Meaning, knowers of the mode of distinction (Viveki) to be described later.

Meaning, knowers of the Self distinct from the body.

By that, it is indicated that the relationship is one of Pervaded and Pervader (Vyapya-vyapaka-bhava) like clay and pot, not a relationship of attribute and possessor of attribute (Dharma-dharmi-bhava) like quality in a substance.

That which was said, that 'I am the deliverer of the devotees from Saṁsāra (transmigration)'. Now, in the thirteenth (chapter), the knowledge of the truth (Tattvajñāna) is declared for the accomplishment of that. (1)

'I shall be their deliverer from the ocean of Saṁsāra, which is death,' was previously promised. And since deliverance from Saṁsāra is not possible without the knowledge of the Self, therefore, the chapter on the discrimination of Prakṛti (Nature) and Puruṣa (Spirit) is commenced for the purpose of teaching the knowledge of the truth.

There, the two natures, called 'Aparā' (Inferior) and 'Parā' (Superior), which were stated in the seventh chapter, the transmigration (Saṁsāra) belongs to the part of consciousness (Cit-aṁśa) which has attained the state of Jīva (individual soul) due to the non-discrimination of those two, by which two the Lord (Īśvara) engages in creation, etc., for the enjoyment of the Jīva; desiring to truly describe the same two natures, which are denoted by the words Kṣetra (Field) and Kṣetrajña (Knower of the Field), as distinct from each other, the Blessed Lord spoke - with the word 'Idam' (This).

This body, the abode of enjoyment, is called 'Kṣetra' (Field), because it is the ground for the sprouting of Saṁsāra. The one who knows this, who considers it as 'I' and 'Mine', him they call the 'Kṣetrajña' (Knower of the Field), because he is the enjoyer of its fruit, like a farmer.

'Tadvidaḥ' (Those who know that) are the knowers of the discrimination between Kṣetra and Kṣetrajña.

To state the connection of the subsequent text, he first addresses an objection (Purvapaksha) that the two Yogas having identical characteristics cannot logically apply to two distinct entities, Jiva and Ishvara, especially since they are both 'Sarvagata' (all-pervading).

He says it is true that both Jiva and Ishvara are described with identical non-dual attributes (Avyakta, Achala, etc.) in the second and twelfth chapters, and logically two 'Sarvagata' entities cannot coexist.

However, the purpose of the subsequent text (Chapter 13) is to refute the apparent difference between Jiva and Ishvara, which holds true only in the state of ignorance (Avidya) and worldly transaction (Vyavahara).

He then introduces the topic of the two, Kshetra (Field) and Kshetrajna (Knower), to show the distinction between the body and the soul,

which is necessary before establishing the identity with Brahman.

He explains the nature of Kshetra (the body) as being perishable and the place where the seeds of Karma germinate,

and Kshetrajna as the conscious entity who knows and illuminates the Kshetra, thus being distinct from it like light from a pot.

The knowledge of these two is the subject of the Tadvidāh (Knowers of That).

He emphasizes that the relationship between the body and the soul is one of pervaded (body) and pervader (soul),

not of substance and attribute (Dharma-Dharmi-Bhava),

and that the soul's nature as the Knower is primary,

refuting the view that the Jiva is perceived as non-distinct from the body

due to the Ego-sense (Aham-pratyaya) [as the real 'I-sense' is the soul itself in this system].

He supports this distinction by citing that the mind of the Yogi,

when purified,

realizes the soul as distinct from the body,

and not vice-versa.

पूर्णत्व का अनुभव आत्मरूप से होता है? न कि दृश्य रूप से। हिन्दू ऋषियों का इस विषय में एकमत है कि अन्तर्मुखी होकर आत्मविचार करना ही आत्मबोध तथा उसके साक्षात् अनुभव का साधन मार्ग है। इस अध्याय में आत्मा और उसकी उपाधियों का सुन्दर दार्शनिक पद्धति से विभाजन किया गया है। आत्मानात्मविवेक जनित बोध ही साधक को दर्शायेगा कि किस प्रकार पारमर्थिक सत्य की दृष्टि से जड़ अनात्मा का आत्यन्तिक (सर्वथा) अभाव है।जाग्रत पुरुष ही अपनी किसी एक विशेष मनस्थिति से स्वप्नद्रष्टा बन जाता है? और जब तक स्वप्न बना रहता है तब तक उस स्वप्नद्रष्टा के लिये वह अत्यन्त सत्य प्रतीत होता है। परन्तु जाग जाने पर उस स्वप्न का अभाव हो जाता है? और जाग्रत् पुरुष यह जानता है कि वह स्वप्न उसके ही मन का विभ्रम मात्र था। इसी प्रकार आत्मानुभूति की वास्तविक जागृति में इस दृश्य प्रपंच का अभाव होता है। साधक अपने आत्मस्वरूप से ही आत्मा का अनुभव करता है? जिसमें इस छायारूप जगत् का कोई अस्तित्व ही नहीं है।इस प्रकार? वेदान्त दर्शन के अनुसार विचार करने पर ज्ञात होता है कि समस्त प्राणी दो तत्त्वों से बने हैं। एक तत्त्व है जड़अचेतन और दूसरा है चेतन तत्त्व। प्रस्तुत श्लोक में इन दोनों को परिभाषित किया गया है।यह शरीर क्षेत्र कहलाता है इस यान्त्रिक युग में यह समझना सरल है कि ऊर्जा को व्यक्त होने अथवा कार्य करने के लिए उपयुक्त क्षेत्र की आवश्यकता होती है। तभी वह व्यक्त होकर मानव की सेवा कर सकती है।इंजन के बिना वाष्पशक्ति तथा पंखे के बिना विद्युत् शक्ति हमें क्रमश गति और मन्द समीर प्रदान नहीं कर सकती। इसी प्रकार? जिन शरीरादि उपाधियों के माध्यम से आत्मचैतन्य व्यक्त होता है? उन्हें ही यहाँ क्षेत्र कहा गया है।इसको जो जानता है उसे क्षेत्रज्ञ कहते हैं यह क्षेत्र जड़ पदार्थों से बना हुआ है। तथापि? इसमें चैतन्य की अभिव्यक्ति होने से यह कार्य करता है और विषयों को जानता है। वास्तव में? यह चेतन तत्त्व जो इन उपाधियों से व्यक्त होकर विषयों को प्रकाशित कर रहा है वह क्षेत्रज्ञ है। शास्त्रीय भाषा में कहेंगे कि उपाधि से अवच्छिन्न चैतन्य ही क्षेत्रज्ञ अथवा जीव कहलाता है।जब तक जीव शरीर धारण किये रहता है? उसकी उपस्थिति जानने की प्रवृत्ति से स्पष्ट ज्ञात होती है। इस जिज्ञासा की प्रवृत्ति की मात्रा विभिन्न व्यक्तियों में विभिन्न तारतम्य में हो सकती है। परन्तु? इसके व्यक्त होने को ही हम जीवन का लक्षण मानते हैं। प्राणी की विषय ग्रहण की तथा उनके प्रति अपनी प्रतिक्रियाओं को व्यक्त करने की क्षमता ही जीवन का व्यवहार है? और जब यह ज्ञाता? शरीर का त्याग करके चला जाता है तब हम उस शरीर को मृत घोषित करते हैं। यह ज्ञाता ही क्षेत्रज्ञ है।तद्विद (तत्त्वज्ञजन) यहाँ? भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण हमें आश्वस्त करते हैं कि क्षेत्र और क्षेत्रज्ञ की ये परिभाषाएं उनकी स्वच्छन्द घोषणा नहीं हैं और न ही ये केवल परिकल्पित अनुमान है? अपितु स्वयं ब्रह्मनिष्ठ ऋषियों द्वारा ही ये प्रमाणित की गई हैं। संक्षेप में? संपूर्ण जड़ जगत् क्षेत्र है? और चैतन्य स्वरूप आत्मा क्षेत्रज्ञ कहा जाता है।क्या इस विषय में केवल इतना ही जानना है नहीं? आगे सुनो

In some Śruti (scriptural passage) it is heard that the Kṣetrajña (Knower of the Field) is the object of worship. And is that the Self (Ātmā)? Or is it Īśvara (The Lord)? Or is it some third entity, quite different? Upon the doubt of this question -- the Blessed Lord commands -- with 'Idam' (This) and 'Kṣetrajñam' (Knower of the Field).

The body of the transmigrating beings is the Kṣetra (Field), where the seed of Karma sprouts. For this very reason, their Self, tainted by adventitious impurity, is called the Kṣetrajña.

For the enlightened, that same (body) is the Kṣetra (or Kṣetrajña). The difference in meaning according to etymology is thus: - (Kṣetrajña) destroys (kṣiṇoti) the bond of Karma through enjoyment, (and) protects (trāyate) from the fear of birth and death. And to them (the enlightened), the Supreme Self Vāsudeva (or the one called Vāsudeva) is the Kṣetrajña.

This Kṣetra, he who knows ('Veda'), (or) causes to know ('Vedayati') - here the root 'Vid' has the sense of the causative 'ṇic' inherent in it. By Him, by whose grace this non-sentient (body) attains the state of sentience, He alone is the Kṣetrajña, not any other.

The distinction is that, relying upon a form of limited pervasion, (He) is called the Self (Ātmā); by the unlimited pervasion of all fields, the Supreme Self is the Blessed Vāsudeva.

'Mama' (My) is the genitive case in the sense of the object (Karmaṇi Ṣaṣṭhī); the meaning is 'I am to be known by this knowledge'.

Showing the subject matter of the chapter through its connection with the previous ones - with the word 'Pūrvokta' (Previously stated).

That knowledge, and the means of knowledge, which were stated before up to the conclusion of the sixth (chapter); and the nature of Brahman, the object of knowledge (Jñeya), which was stated by the six (chapters) starting from the seventh; and also the Kṣetra (Field) which was stated by 'Bhūmiḥ āpaḥ' (Earth, water) etc.; and the distinction of the Puruṣa (Spirit) which was stated by 'Na tvevāhaṁ' (Nor was it that I) etc. - the Blessed Lord shows all that by this chapter.

For what purpose? 'Piṇḍīkṛtya' (Having collected) - having unified what was scattered. The 'ktvā' suffix here is secondary, meaning for the sake of collection.

Since there would be no comprehension at all due to mixing upon collection, therefore (it is) said - 'Vivicya' (Having distinguished). Meaning, for the clarity of the context.

If the Yogins perceive, with a mind subdued by the practice of meditation, that formless, inactive light as something supreme, let them perceive it. But for us, let that which is some blue splendour running in the interior of the sandbanks of the Yamunā (Kālindī) be the delight of the eyes for a long time.

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

There, 'I shall be their deliverer from the ocean of Saṁsāra, which is death,' was stated earlier. And deliverance from the death characterized as Saṁsāra is not possible without the knowledge of the Self. Therefore, the knowledge of the Self's truth (Ātma-Tattva-Jñāna) must be stated, by which knowledge of the Self there is cessation of death and Saṁsāra, and by which knowledge of the truth the renunciates (saṁnyāsinaḥ), possessing attributes like non-hating (adveṣṭṛtva), etc., were previously explained.

And that (Tattva-Jñāna) takes as its object the non-difference (Abheda) of the Jīva (individual soul) with the non-dual Supreme Self (Paramātmā) alone, because all misfortune is caused by the illusion of difference from that (non-difference).

Upon the doubt: How can the Jīvas, who are transmigratory and distinct in each field, have non-difference with the one non-transmigratory Supreme Self? It must be stated that the transmigratoriness and distinctness belong to the non-Self, being superimposed by ignorance (Avidyā), and thus the Jīva does not have transmigratoriness or distinctness. For that purpose, the discrimination between Kṣetra and Kṣetrajña is performed in this chapter, in order to establish that the Kṣetrajña, the Puruṣa (Spirit), the Jīva, is one only in each field, changeless, by means of discrimination from the Kṣetras which are the body, senses, and inner instrument.

There, desiring to truly describe the truth by means of discrimination between the two natures, which were indicated in the seventh chapter by the words 'Aparā' and 'Parā', being the Kṣetra in the form of earth, etc., and the Kṣetrajña in the form of the Jīva, the Blessed Lord spoke - with the word 'Idam' (This). This body, the abode of enjoyment, along with the senses and inner instrument, O Kaunteya, is called 'Kṣetra' (Field). Because in it, the fruit of action is repeatedly produced, just like a crop. The one who knows this, who identifies with it as 'I' and 'Mine', him they call the 'Kṣetrajña' (Knower of the Field), because he is the enjoyer of its fruit, like a farmer. 'Tadvidaḥ' (Those who know that) are the knowers of the discrimination between Kṣetra and Kṣetrajña.

Here, by the passive usage 'Abhidhīyate' (is called), the state of being the object (Karma) of the Kṣetra due to its insentience (jaḍatva) is intended, and by accepting the word 'Iti' with the word 'Kṣetrajña' even without the accusative case (Dvitīyā), the absence of the state of being the object is intended, due to its self-luminosity (svaprakāśatva). Furthermore, the Kṣetra is called by anyone, no specific qualification is needed for the agent (kartṛ) there. But the Kṣetrajña is called only by the discriminators, even without the state of being the object, because it is imperceptible to those with gross vision; intending to state this, the Lord directs (the listener) with a distinct style of utterance, using the subject word in one place (Kṣetra) and not in the other (Kṣetrajña).

The Blessed Lord mercifully speaks the answer -- with the word 'Idam' (This). O Kaunteya, vessel of grace! This body, which is visible, endowed with the qualities of death, etc., is the Kṣetra (Field), the place where knowledge, etc., sprout, the place of origin of the Jīva (individual soul) who is His own part, for the sake of His sport (Līlā), is called (Abhidhīyate), is spoken of, by those who know that (Tadvidā), this is the meaning.

He who knows this truly (yāthātathyena), him 'Tadvidaḥ' (those who know that), the knowers of the Field, the wise ones, call the 'Kṣetrajña' (Knower of the Field). By stating the speech of others, it is indicated that (it) is not so (not called Kṣetrajña) by others (the ignorant).

By the pronoun 'Idam' (This), He specifies the said (object) as 'Shariram' (Body). O Kaunteya? 'Kshetra' (Field) is so, either because of protection (Trana) from injury (Kshata)? Or from wasting (Kshaya)? Or from perishing (Ksharana)? Or because of the manifestation of the fruit of action (Karma-phala-nishpattih) in this like in a Field (Kshetra)—the word 'Iti' here has the meaning of the word 'Evam' (Thus)—it is thus 'Abhidhiyate' (called) 'Kshetram' (Field).

This 'Etat'—this body (Kshetra)—'Yah vetti'—who knows, makes it an object of knowledge from head to toe; makes it an object compartmentally (Vibhagashah) by natural or scripturally instructed knowledge; that knower, they 'Prahuh' (call) 'Kshetrajnah' (Knower of the Field)—the word 'Iti' here, like before, has the meaning of the word 'Evam'—they call him 'Kshetrajnah'. Who are 'Tadvidah'? They who know those two, the Field and the Knower of the Field, are 'Tadvidah' (Knowers of That). .

Thus, the Field and the Knower of the Field are stated. 'Is the knowable object known merely by this much knowledge?'—The answer is 'No', this is said—

In the manner of a Sūtra (aphorism) is stated the first, and in the manner of a Vṛtti (commentary) is stated the second (teaching), now is commenced the third Bhāṣya (commentary) which determines the knowledge of all. That which was previously established by the discrimination between Parā and Aparā Prakṛti (higher and lower nature) - the form of the higher nature including its accessories is the Kṣetra (field), and the form of the lower nature which is the sentient Kṣetrajña (knower of the field) - thus instructing the Jñeya (knowable) which is the fundamental nature of the Imperishable (Brahman), and the Jñāna (knowledge) which is the means to it, Bhagavān spoke: "Idam" (This). Otherwise, the elaboration would not be proper without a question in the middle.

Here, some write another verse "Prakṛtiṃ puruṣaṃ ca" [13|1] in the Mūla (original text), but that is to be disregarded, as it is impossible, entirely unapplied, and is in the nature of an elaboration of the previously stated six (chapters).

Thus, with the intent that 'as in the body, so in the universe' - that Prakṛti which was previously called Anātmā (non-self), its modification, this body, is called the 'Kṣetra' because it is the abode of the Puruṣa or because of Jīvana (the process of living). When the Puruṣa does not know such a body viviktatayā (distinctly/separately), then he becomes a Saṃsārin (transmigrator) merely by being the Kṣetritvamātra (owner of the field). Whoever knows this (field) viviktatayā, knows the Kṣetra and himself as the Seer, him the knowers of that (truth) call the 'Kṣetrajña'.

Although the knowledge of Kṣetra and Kṣetrajña exists even in the state of Saṃsāra, it is not viviktatayā, but in Sāmānādhikaraṇya (co-existence) with the Kṣetra. Nevertheless, the Bhogya (object of experience) is different from the Bhoktā Ātman (experiencing self), as is seen in a dead body. Furthermore, that (knowledge) is possible only when there is a relation between the two (Kṣetra and Kṣetrajña), it is not possible in Kaivalya (liberation). The otherness (difference) of the Vettṛtva (capacity to know) from the Vedya (object of knowledge) is self-evident, as the difference of the Seer from the pot etc. is seen. For the extremely dull-witted who say "Devo'haṃ" (I am a deity) etc., like "Nāhaṃ" (I am not), its apṛthaksiddhi (non-separation) with the self is established due to its nature of being a mere attribute of the Self. This párthakya (separation) belongs only to the wise man who knows his own Self, the Kṣetrajña, as separate, not to everyone.

इदम् this? शरीरम् body? कौन्तेय O son of Kunti (Arjuna)? क्षेत्रम् the field? इति thus? अभिधीयते is called? एतत् this? यः who? वेत्ति knows? तम् him? प्राहुः (they) call? क्षेत्रज्ञः the knower of the field? इति thus? तद्विदः the knowers of that.Commentary Kshetra literally means field. The body is so called because the fruits (harvest) of actions in the form of pleasure and pain are reaped in it as in a field. The physical? the mental and the causal bodies go to constitute the totality of the field. It is not the physical body alone that forms the field.He who knows the field and he who beholds it as distinct from himself through knowledge is the knower of the field or matter.Those who know them The sages.

The Lord specifies the body as the object referred to by the pronoun idam (this). O son of Kunti, (this body) abhidhiyate, is referred to; ksetram iti, as the field-because it is protected (tra) against injury (ksata), or because it perishes (ksi), wastes away (ksar), or because the results of actions get fulfilled in the body as in a field (ksetra). The word iti is used in the sense of 'as'.
They-who?-tadvidah, who are versed in this, who know the 'field' and the 'knower of the field'; ahuh, call; tam, him, the knower; yah, who; vetti etat, is concious of, knows, it, the body, the field-makes it, from head to foot, an abject of his knowledge; makes it an object of perception as a separate entity, through knowledg which is spontaneous or is acired through instruction; ksetrajna iti, as the knower of the field. As before, the word iti is used in the sense of 'as'. They call him as the knower of the field.
Is it that the field and the knower of the field thus mentioned are to be understood through this much knowledge only? The answer is, no.

The body which is cognised in identity with the experiencing self by co-ordinate predication (Samanadhikaranya) in the propositions, 'I am a god, 'I am a man,' 'I am fat,' 'I am slender' etc., is described by those who know the real nature of the body as only the Field (Ksetra) of experience for the experiencing self, who is distinct from the body. Those who know this, namely, those who know the exact nature of the self, call It the Field-knower (Ksetrajna). That knower who knows the body, as divided into its different members and as their collectivity, can say 'I know it, the body, as an object.' The person with this perception is the one who is called the Ksetrajna or the Field-knower, who must necessarily be different from the Field (Ksetra), which is the object of this knowledge.
It is true that at the time of perceiving an object like a pot which is different from one's body, the seer who thinks 'I am a god who sees it' or 'I am a man who sees it' etc., is putting himself as identical with the body through co-ordinate predication. In the same way he experiences the body as an object of knowledge when he says 'I know this body.' Thus if the body is an object of knowledge, it must be different from the knowing self. Therefore, the Field-knower (Ksetrajna). The knower, is other than the body which is an object of knowledge like a jar, etc.
But this knowledge which arises by way of co-ordinate predication is justified on the ground that the body is inseparable from oneself; for it constitutes an attribute of the self like 'cow-ness' of the cow etc. The knowing self is however unie in being an eternal and subtle form of knowledge. But this is inaccessible to the ordinary man's organs of vision; it is accessible only to a mind refined by Yoga. The ignorant see the knower only in the form of Prakrti because of close proximity to or union with Prakrti. Sri Krsna thus declares later on: 'When in identiciation with the Gunas he departs or stays or experiences, the deluded perceive him not. They, who have the eye of knowledge, see' (15.10).