Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 13 - Shloka (Verse) 27

व्याख्या -- यावत्संजायते ৷৷. क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञसंयोगात् -- स्थिर रहनेवाले वृक्ष? लता? दूब? गुल्म? त्वक्सार? बेंत? बाँस? पहाड़ आदि जितने भी स्थावर प्राणी हैं और चलनेफिरनेवाले मनुष्य? देवता? पशु? पक्षी? कीट? पतंग? मछली? कछुआ आदि जितने भी जङ्गम (थलचर? जलचर? नभचर) प्राणी हैं? वे सबकेसब क्षेत्र और क्षेत्रज्ञके संयोगसे ही पैदा होते हैं।उत्पत्तिविनाशशील पदार्थ क्षेत्र हैं और जो इस क्षेत्रको जाननेवाला? उत्पत्तिविनाशरहित एवं सदा एकरस रहनेवाला है? वह क्षेत्रज्ञ है। उस क्षेत्रज्ञ(प्रकृतिस्थ पुरुष)का जो शरीरके साथ मैंमेरेपनका सम्बन्ध मानना है -- यही क्षेत्र और क्षेत्रज्ञका संयोग है। इस माने हुए संयोगके कारण ही इस जीवको स्थावरजङ्गम योनियोंमें जन्म लेना पड़ता है। इसी क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञके संयोगको पहले इक्कीसवें श्लोकमें,गुणसङ्गः पदसे कहा है। तात्पर्य यह हुआ कि निरन्तर परिवर्तनशील प्रकृति और प्रकृतिके कार्य शरीरादिके साथ तादात्म्य कर लेनेसे स्वयं जीवात्मा भी अपनेको जन्मनेमरनेवाला मान लेता है।[स्थावरजङ्गम प्राणियोंके पैदा होनेकी बात तो यहाँ संजायते पदसे कह दी और उनके मरनेकी बात आगेके श्लोकमें विनश्यत्सु पदसे कहेंगे।]तद्विद्धि भरतर्षभ -- यह क्षेत्रज्ञ क्षेत्रके साथ अपना सम्बन्ध मानता है? इसीसे इसका जन्म होता है परन्तु जब यह शरीरके साथ अपना सम्बन्ध नहीं मानता? तब इसका जन्म नहीं होता -- इस बातको तुम ठीक समझ लो। सम्बन्ध -- पूर्वश्लोकमें भगवान्ने बताया कि क्षेत्र(शरीर) के साथ सम्बन्ध रखनेसे? उसकी तरफ दृष्टि रखनेसे यह पुरुष जन्ममरणमें जाता है? तो अब प्रश्न होता है कि इस जन्ममरणके चक्करसे छूटनेके लिये उसको क्या करना चाहिये इसका उत्तर भगवान् आगेके श्लोकमें देते हैं।

क्षेत्रज्ञ और ईश्वरकी एकताविषयक ज्ञान मोक्षका साधन है? यह बात यज्ज्ञात्वामृतमश्नुते इस वाक्यसे कही? परंतु वह ज्ञान किस कारणसे मोक्षका साधन है उस कारणको दिखानेके लिये यह श्लोक आरम्भ किया जाता है --, हे भरतश्रेष्ठ जो कुछ भी वस्तु उत्पन्न होती है? क्या यहाँ समानभावसे वस्तुमात्रका ग्रहण है इसपर कहते हैं कि जो कुछ स्थावरजंगम यानी चर और अचर वस्तु उत्पन्न होती है? वह सब क्षेत्र और क्षेत्रज्ञके संयोगसे ही उत्पन्न होती है? इस प्रकार तू जान। पू0 -- इस क्षेत्र और क्षेत्रज्ञके संयोगसे क्या अभिप्राय है क्योंकि क्षेत्रज्ञ? आकाशके समान अवयवरहित है? इसलिये उसका क्षेत्रके साथ रस्सीसे घड़ेके सम्बन्धकी भाँति? अवयवोंके संसर्गसे होनेवाला सम्बन्धरूप संयोग नहीं हो सकता। वैसे ही आपसमें एकदूसरेका कार्यकारणभाव न होनेसे सूत और कपड़ेकी भाँति? क्षेत्र और क्षेत्रज्ञका समवायसम्बन्धरूप संयोग भी नहीं बन सकता। उ0 -- बताया जाता है? ( सुनो )। क्षेत्र और क्षेत्रज्ञ? जो कि विषय और विषयी तथा भिन्न स्वभाववाले हैं? उनका? अन्यमें अन्यके धर्मोंका अध्यासरूप संयोग है? यह संयोग रज्जु और सीप आदिमें उनके स्वरूपसम्बन्धी ज्ञानके अभावसे अध्यारोपित सर्प और चाँदी आदिके संयोगकी भाँति? क्षेत्र और क्षेत्रज्ञके वास्तविक स्वरूपको न जाननेके कारण है। ऐसा यह अध्यासस्वरूप क्षेत्र और क्षेत्रज्ञका संयोग मिथ्या ज्ञान है। जो पुरुष शास्त्रोक्त रीतिसे क्षेत्र और क्षेत्रज्ञके लक्षण और भेदको जानकर? पहले जिसका स्वरूप दिखलाया गया है? उस क्षेत्रसे मूँजमेंसे सींक अलग करनेकी भाँति पूर्वोक्त लक्षणोंसे युक्त क्षेत्रज्ञको अलग करके देखता है अर्थात् उस ज्ञेयस्वरूप क्षेत्रज्ञको न सत्तन्नासदुच्यते इस वाक्यानुसार समस्त उपाधिरूप विशेषताओंसे अतीत ब्रह्मस्वरूपसे देख लेता है। तथा जो क्षेत्रको मायासे रचे हुए हाथी? स्वप्नमें देखी हुई वस्तु या गन्धर्वनगर आदिकी भाँति यह वास्तवमें नहीं है तो भी सत्की भाँति प्रतीत होता है? ऐसे निश्चयपूर्वक जान लेता है? उसका मिथ्याज्ञान उपर्युक्त यथार्थ ज्ञानसे विरुद्ध होनेके कारण नष्ट हो जाता है। पुनर्जन्मके कारणरूप उस मिथ्याज्ञानका अभाव हो जानेपर य एवं वेत्ति पुरुषं प्रकृतिं च गुणैः सह इस श्लोकसे जो यह कहा गया है कि विद्वान् पुनः उत्पन्न नहीं होता सो युक्तियुक्त ही है।

To introduce the subsequent text, he mentions the remote past topic -- with 'Not' etc. 'Avidya' is beginningless, indefinable ignorance; false knowledge and its impressions are the meaning of the word 'etc.' (Adi).

Having restated the remote, he restates the immediate -- 'Birth'.

Since ignorance is the root of all evil through remoteness and proximity, the right knowledge which removes it must be spoken of, he says -- 'Therefore'.

Doubting that since it has been spoken of repeatedly, engagement in the stated meaning is futile; thinking that 'Repetition of the extremely subtle meaning with different words is for the favor of different qualified aspirants', he says -- 'Stated'.

Since the Supreme is One everywhere, there is no possession of superiority and inferiority, he says -- 'Equal'.

He justifies Supremacy and Lordship -- 'Body'.

'Self' is Jiva, 'Him' (Tam) -- this is the statement of connection etc.

Doubting that with the destruction of the locus, the dependent also would be destroyed, he says -- 'And Him'. He qualifies as 'Imperishable' -- this is the connection.

He states the purport of the two adjectives in both places -- 'Of beings'.

Doubting 'Even if there is distinctness through destruction and non-destruction, how is there extreme distinctness, since having attributes and being different are equal (in both)?' -- 'How'.

To say that extreme distinctness is due to the absence of attributes etc. in the Supreme even though beings possess attributes etc., he states the priority of birth among the modifications of being -- 'Of all'.

He states the reason there -- 'Birth'. For without birth, subsequent modifications are not proper, because they are perceived only for one who has birth, this is the meaning.

Doubting that since some modification occurring even after destruction is possible, it (destruction) is not the final modification, he says -- 'From destruction'.

When its status as the final modification is established, he states the result -- 'Therefore'. Their -- of birth etc. -- effects, meaning occasional existences, which are their loci, along with them, this is the sense.

He concludes the stated extreme distinctness of the Supreme Lord from beings -- 'Therefore'. 'Attributelessness' means being devoid of all modifications of being, immutability, oneness, secondlessness.

He explains 'He who sees' etc. -- 'He who thus'.

He objects to the statement 'Seeing the Lord with stated attributes alone, he sees' -- 'Objection'.

Though one averse to the Lord and established in the non-Self is a seer (of the world), since he is a seer of the contrary, only one devoted to the Lord is a right seer -- intending this, it is a 'qualification', thus he refutes -- 'True'.

He explains that very thing with an example -- 'Just as' etc.

He concludes the meaning of 'He who sees' etc. -- 'Others'. Meaning distinct from those established in the Supreme Reality.

Here, 'Know the Knower of the Field also as Me' (13.2) -- thus knowledge regarding the unity of the Knower of the Field and the Lord is the means to liberation, 'knowing which one attains immortality' (13.12) -- to what was stated thus, He states the reason -- 'As much as' etc. Whatever 'being', meaning object, moving or unmoving, is born, originates completely, know that all that is born from the conjunction of the Field and the Knower of the Field. Indicating 'You are fit to know this', He says -- 'O Bull of the Bharatas'.

(Objection): Well, 'From the conjunction of the Field and the Knower of the Field' said by the Lord is not consistent; because, the Field being partless like the sky, a specific relation called 'conjunction' (Samyoga) with the Field -- which is through the contact of parts like that of a rope and a pot -- is impossible. And since a mutual cause-effect relationship between the Field and the Knower of the Field is not accepted like that of threads and cloth, even the relation defined as 'inherence' (Samavaya) through implication is impossible. And because identity is impossible for those of opposite natures like darkness and light?

(Answer): Not so. Just as the connection of superimposed snake, silver, etc. on rope, nacre, etc. exists due to the absence of discriminative knowledge of them; similarly, for the Object and the Subject which are of different natures -- the Field and the Knower of the Field -- a connection characterized by the mutual superimposition of their properties, caused by the absence of discrimination of the nature of the Field and the Knower of the Field, is possible.

And thus, according to scripture, having distinguished the Knower of the Field of described characteristics from the Field of described characteristics like a reed from Munja grass, he who sees Him as devoid of all adjuncts and non-different from the Lord; and (sees) the Field as 'non-existent appearing as existent' like a Maya-created elephant, an object seen in a dream, a city of Gandharvas, a double moon, or a rope-snake -- he who has such determined knowledge, for him, by right vision, due to the removal of false knowledge which is the cause of birth, liberation becomes reasonable, but not for another; therefore 'He who knows thus' (13.23) etc. was rightly stated.

And again He speaks of the nature of the Person and the Lord in context, endowed with attributes like equality etc. -- with 'As much as' etc.

Earlier in 'In the agency of effect and cause' (13.20), the mutual superimposition of properties of the Sentient and Insentient -- the Person and Nature -- was stated; and the causality of multiple births for that very thing which is of the form of attachment to Gunas was stated in 'Attachment to Gunas is the cause of this' (13.21); He clarifies that -- 'Whatever'.

'Being' (Sattva) means the form of Jiva.

'Attachment to Gunas' here is not attachment to forms etc., but the conjunction of the Field and the Knower of the Field -- characterized by the superimposition of the selfhood of one on the other -- should be understood.

The rest is clear.

Thus, in all beings mutually conjoined, he who sees the Self as distinct from the unequal forms like gods etc., situated there and there as the Supreme Lord regarding the respective bodies, senses, and minds, having the equal form of knowership, 'imperishable' due to nature unworthy of destruction even when those bodies etc. are perishing; he sees; he sees the Self situated as It is.

But he who sees the Self also as having unequal forms due to the unequal forms like gods etc. and endowed with birth, destruction, etc., he transmigrates eternally indeed -- this is the intention.

There, since Karma Yoga has been elaborated in the third, fourth, and fifth (chapters); and Dhyana Yoga has been elaborated in the sixth and eighth; and since Meditation etc. have the Self distinguished by Sankhya (knowledge) as their object, elaborating Sankhya alone, He says -- 'As much as' etc.

Up to the end of the chapter. Whatever mere object 'being' (Sattva) is born, know that all that comes to be from the union of the Field and the Knower of the Field -- from the superimposition of identity created by non-discrimination.

Thus the vision of the Self has been stated. For that purpose, by verses like 'Samam sarveshu' (Alike in all) etc., the mode of inquiry into the discrimination between Prakriti and Purusha will be stated. And that is to be taught only when there is undifferentiated perception (confusion). Otherwise, it would be purposeless. And that (confusion) does not happen without a defect (Dosha); and that defect here is a specific contact which brings about the state of being the enjoyer and the site of enjoyment. This is stated by the verse 'Yavat sanjayate' (As many as are born)—thus he states the connection with 'Atha' (Now).

By the word 'Sarva', it is stated that the word 'Yavat' here is meant to convey 'entirety'. The idea is that explaining the word 'Yavat' as having the meaning of 'Yat' (relative pronoun 'which') is improper because it is not expressive [of that] and has weak purpose.

The word 'Sattva' here refers to a living being (Jantu), because of the reading 'Sattva is used for substance, life-force, and resolve, but in the neuter gender for living beings' [Amarakosha 3.3.212]. The word 'Sthavara' (immobile) is used here to refute the doubt of [plants] being purely non-sentient according to the Jaina process, merely due to the absence of the manifestation of consciousness in trees, bushes, creepers, herbs, grass, etc. 'Sthavarajangamatmana' (in the form of moving and unmoving) is said to make known that the states of being immobile and mobile are not co-eval with the Self (not permanent), just like childhood, youth, old age, etc.

'Itaretara samyogat' (from the mutual union) is said to remove the doubt of the connection of another [entity] along with the Field (Kshetra) and the Knower of the Field (Kshetrajna). To show the predicate part, 'Samyogad eva' (from union alone) is said.

Just as the birth of a son is from the contact of mother and father, [one might think] a Sattva distinct from those two is born from the contact of Kshetra and Kshetrajna; regarding this he says—'Samyuktam eva' (only that which is combined). To exclude the well-known relationship between the Field and Field-Knower as being established separately (Prithak-siddha), he says 'Na tu' (But not [a new entity]). 'Tat viddhi' (Know that)—by the word 'Tat', the birth is referred to [based on 4.34].

क्षेत्र (प्रकृति) और क्षेत्रज्ञ (पुरुष) इन दोनों में ही स्वतन्त्र रूप से कोई एक ही तत्त्व इस चराचर जगत् का कारण नहीं है। इन दोनों के संयोग से जगत् उत्पन्न होता है परन्तु इन दोनों का संयोग वास्तविक नहीं? वरन् अन्योन्य धर्म अध्यासरूप है।अध्यास की प्रक्रिया में विद्यमान अधिष्ठान पर भ्रान्ति से किसी अन्य वस्तु की ही कल्पना की जाती है? जैसे स्तम्भ में प्रेत का अध्यास। इस प्रकार के अध्यास में? भ्रान्त व्यक्ति स्तम्भ में वस्तुत अविद्यमान प्रेत के रूप? गुण और क्रियाओं को देखता है। यह स्तम्भ पर प्रेत के धर्म का अध्यास है। इसी प्रकार? स्वयं अविद्यमान होते हुए भी जो प्रेत उस व्यक्ति को सद्रूप अर्थात् है इस रूप में प्रतीत हो रहा होता है? उसकी सत्ता वस्तुत स्तम्भ की ही होती है। यह है स्तम्भ के अस्तित्व के धर्म का प्रेत पर आरोप। गुणों के इस परस्पर अध्यास के कारण विचित्र बात यह होती है कि व्यक्ति को मिथ्या प्रेत तो दिखाई पड़ता है? परन्तु सत्य स्तम्भ नहीं मन की यह विचित्र युक्ति अध्यास कहलाती है। शुद्ध चैतन्य में क्षेत्र का सर्वथा अभाव है। क्षेत्र की अपनी न सत्ता है और न चेतनता। परन्तु? परस्पर विचित्र संयोग से इस चराचर जगत् की उत्पत्ति हुई प्रतीत होती है।इस अध्यास के कार्य को हम अपने में ही अनुभव कर सकते हैं। विचार करने पर विविधता पूर्ण सृष्टि निवृत्त हो जाती है और हमें यह ज्ञात होता है कि ब्रह्म ही वह परम सत्य अधिष्ठान है? जिस पर प्रकृति और पुरुष की क्रीड़ा हो रही है।उदाहरणार्थ? कोई एक व्यक्ति सामान्यत शान्त प्रकृति का है। परन्तु यदाकदा उसके मन में प्रबल कामना का उदय होता है। उस कामना से तादात्म्य करने के फलस्वरूप वह व्यक्ति कामुक बनकर ऐसा निन्द्य कर्म करता है? जिसका उसे पश्चात्ताप होता है इस उदाहरण में? कामना? कामुक व्यक्ति? पश्चात्ताप इन सबका अस्तित्व उस व्यक्ति में ही निहित होता है। यद्यपि वे उसमें हैं? किन्तु वस्तुत वह उसमें नहीं होता क्योंकि? उनके बिना भी उस व्यक्ति का अस्तित्व बना रहता है। तथापि? उस कामना वृत्ति से तादात्म्य करके वह पश्चात्ताप के योग्य कर्मों का कर्ता बन जाता है। इसी प्रकार? आत्मा परिपूर्ण होने के कारण उसमें क्षेत्र या अनात्मा की संभावना रहती है। प्रकृति को व्यक्त कर उसके साथ तादात्म्य से वह जीवरूप पुरुष बन जाता है। यह पुरुष मिथ्या आसक्तियों के द्वारा अपने संसार को बनाये रखता है। इस स्थिति में स्वयं को मुक्त कर अपने पूर्ण स्वरूप का साक्षात्कार करने का यही उपाय है कि हम आत्मा और अनात्मा का प्रमाण पूर्वक विवेक करें और प्रकृति से विलग होकर उसके कार्यों के साक्षी बनकर रहें।विवेक द्वारा प्राप्त सम्यक् दर्शन को अगले श्लोक में बताते हैं

As much as etc. Whatever moving and unmoving (exists), all that is not possible apart from the Knower of the Field -- thus.

Since everything promised by 'Tat kshetram yaccha' [13.4] etc. has been said, what is the use of the subsequent text? To this, He says—'Punashcha' (And again).

What is the reason for the repetition of what has been said? To this, 'Samyadi' (Equality etc.) is said. 'Samya' (Equality) is grasped primarily as an attribute of Ishvara, distinct from the attributes of both [Prakriti and Jiva].

And that description of the attributes of Prakriti and Purusha is included in what was promised as 'Yadrk' (of what nature); and the description of Ishvara's attributes is in 'Yat prabhavah' (what is His power).

Since Samsara is due to Avidya, liberation becomes reasonable through Vidya (Knowledge) -- to ascertain this meaning, the expansion of Samsara and the Knowledge that removes it is done until the end of the chapter.

\
\

Among these previously mentioned modes, which is the best and how is it to be known -- to this He says -- 'As much as'.

'As much as' -- whatever 'being', meaning object, is born, originates; what, without distinction? No, he says -- that which is movable and immovable, from the union of the Field and the Knower of the Field, that is born; know this thus, O Best of Bharata!

What, furthermore, is this 'union' of the Field and the Knower of the Field meant to be? Is it not a special connection, a union, caused by the joining of parts, like that of a pot with a rope, possible for the Knower of the Field with the Field? Since the Knower is partless, like space. Nor is it of the nature of inherence, like that between threads and a cloth, because the mutual relationship of cause and effect between the Field and the Knower of the Field is not accepted?

It is said: The union of the Field and the Knower of the Field, which are distinct in nature, the object and the subject, is characterized by the superimposition of the Knower and its attributes onto the Field and its attributes, rooted in the absence of discrimination between the true nature of the Field and the Knower of the Field, like the union of the rope, shell, etc., with the superimposed snake, silver, etc., due to the absence of knowledge discriminating them.

This union of the Field and the Knower of the Field, characterized by superimposition, is of the nature of false knowledge. He who, following the scripture, through perfect knowledge of the difference in the characteristics of the Field and the Knower of the Field, and having separated the Knower of the Field (defined as stated) from the Field (defined previously), just as a fiber is separated from a stalk of reed, perceives that which is to be known—Brahman, defined as having all specific limiting conditions negated by the statement 'It is said to be neither existent nor non-existent'—in its true form, and is certain in his understanding that the Field, like an elephant created by magic, or an object seen in a dream, or a city of celestial singers, is unreal yet appears as if real—from such a person, false knowledge departs, as it contradicts the correct perception described above.

The statement, 'The learned man is not born again' (Gita 13.23), made concerning the removal of the cause of birth (i.e., false knowledge), because 'he who thus knows the Spirit and Nature together with the qualities,' is reasonably established.

The absence of birth, resulting from the removal of the seeds of transmigration (samsara), such as ignorance (avidya), has been stated as the fruit of correct perception by the phrase 'He is not born again.' And the cause of birth has been stated to be the union of the Field and the Knower of the Field, caused by ignorance. Therefore, the correct perception which removes that ignorance, although already mentioned, is stated again by different words:

Now, to speak of the mode of inquiry into discrimination for the Self associated with Nature according to the Sankhya method, He says that 'moving and unmoving being is born of the union of Sat (Existence/Inert) and Chit (Consciousness)' -- with 'As much as'.

यावत् whatever? सञ्जायते is born? किञ्चित् any? सत्त्वम् being? स्थावरजङ्गमम् the unmoving and the moving? क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञसंयोगात् from the union between the field and the knower of the field? तत् that? विद्धि know? भरतर्षभ O best of the Bharatas.Commentary O Arjuna? remember that whatever is born? unmoving or moving? know thou that to be done to the union between the body and the Self.The knower of the field is like the ether without parts. Therefore? there cannot be a union of the field and the knower of the field through contact of each others parts like the contact of the drum and the stick or a rope and a vessel. There cannot be the inseparable connection between them like the connection that exists between the head and the neck? or the arm and the shoulder? because the field and its knower are not related to each other as cause and effect.Then? what sort of union is there between the field and its knower It is of the nature of mutual superimposition or illusion. This consists in confounding the one with the other as well as their attributes? like the union of a rope with a snake? and motherofpearl with silver? on account of lack of discrimination of their real nature. The attributes of the Self are transferred to the body and vice versa. The insentient body is mistaken for the sentient Self. The activities of the body or Nature are transferred to the silent? actionless Self. This sort of illusion or superimposition will disappear when one attains knowledge of the Self? when he is able to separate the field from the knower like the reed from the Munja grass? when he realises that Brahman which is free from all limiting adjuncts is his own immortal Self? and that the field is a mere appearance like the snake in the rope? silver in motherofpearl? an imaginary city in the sky? and is like an object seen in a dream or like the horses? places and forests projected by ajuggler. A sage who has the knowledge of the Self is not born again.

Bharatarsabha, O scion of the Bharata dynasty; yavat kincit, whatever; sattvam, object;-as to whether they are without exception the Lord says-sthavara-jangamam, moving or non-moving; sanjayate, comes into being; viddhi, know; tat, that; as originating ksetra-ksetrajna-samyogat, from the association of the field and the Knower of the field.
Objection: What, again, is meant by this 'association of the field and the Knower of the field'? Since the Knower of the field is partless like space, therefore Its conjunction with the field cannot be a kind of relationship like coming together of a rope and a pot through the contact of their parts. Nor can it be an intimate and inseparable relation as between a thread and a cloth, since it is not admitted that the field and the Knower of the field are mutually related by way of being cause and effect.
Reply: The answer is: The association of the field and the Knower of the field-which are the object and the subject, respectively, and are of different natures-is in the form of superimposition of each on the other an also of their alities, as a conseence of the absence of discrimination between the real natures of the field and the Knower of the field. This is like the association of a rope, nacre, etc. with the superimposed snake, silver, etc. owing to the absence of discrimination between them. This association of the field and the Knower of the field in the form of superimposition is described as false knowledge. After having known the distinction between and the characteristics of the field and the Knower of the field according to the scriptures, and having separated, like a stalk from the Munjagrass, the above-described Knower of the field from the field whose characteristics have been shown earlier, he who realizes the Knowable (i.e. the Knower of the field)-which, in accordance with 'That is neither called being nor non-being' (12), is devoid of all distinctions created by adjuncts- as identical with Brahman; and he who has the firm realization that the field is surely unreal like an elephant created by magic, a thing seen in a dream, an imaginary city seen in the sky, etc., and it appears as though real-for him false knowledge becomes eradicated, since it is opposed to the right knowledge described above.
Since the cause of his rirth has been eliminated. therefore what was said in, 'He who knows thus the Person and Nature along with the alities৷৷.', that the man of realization is not born again (23), has been a reasonable statement.
In 'He৷৷.will not be born again' (23) has been stated the result of right knowledge, which is the absence of birth owing to the destruction of ignorance etc., the seeds of worldly existence. The cause of birth, viz the association of the field and the Knower of the field brought about by ignorance, has also been stated. Hence, although right knowledge, which is the remover of that ignorance, has been spoken of, still it is being stated over again in other words:

Whatever being is born, whether it be movable or stationary, it is born only from the mutual combination of the Ksetra and Ksetrajna. The sense is that it is born only from this combination, i.e., is born as a compound of the two and never in their separateness.