Bhagavad Gita - Chapter 13 - Shloka (Verse) 4

व्याख्या -- तत्क्षेत्रम् -- तत् शब्द दोका वाचक होता है -- पहले कहे हुए विषयका और दूरीका। इसी अध्यायके पहले श्लोकमें जिसको इदम् पदसे कहा गया है? उसीको यहाँ तत् पदसे कहा है। क्षेत्र सब देशमें नहीं है? सब कालमें नहीं है और अभी भी प्रतिक्षण अभावमें जा रहा है -- यह क्षेत्रकी (स्वयंसे) दूरी है।यच्च -- उस क्षेत्रका जो स्वरूप है? जिसका वर्णन इसी अध्यायके पाँचवें श्लोकमें हुआ है।यादृक् च -- उस क्षेत्रका जैसा स्वभाव है? जिसका वर्णन इसी अध्यायके छब्बीसवेंसत्ताईसवें श्लोकोंमें उसे उत्पन्न और नष्ट होनेवाला बताकर किया गया है।यद्विकारि -- यद्यपि प्रकृतिका कार्य होनेसे इसी अध्यायके पाँचवें श्लोकमें आये तेईस तत्त्वोंको भी विकार कहा गया है? तथापि यहाँ उपर्युक्त पदसे क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञके माने हुए सम्बन्धके कारण क्षेत्रमें उत्पन्न होनेवाले इच्छाद्वेषादि विकारोंको ही विकार कहा गया है? जिनका वर्णन छठे श्लोकमें हुआ है।यतश्च यत् -- यह क्षेत्र जिससे पैदा होता है अर्थात् प्रकृतिसे उत्पन्न होनेवाले सात विकार और तीन गुण? जिनका वर्णन इसी अध्यायके उन्नीसवें श्लोकके उत्तरार्धमें हुआ है।स च -- पहले श्लोकके उत्तरार्धमें जिस क्षेत्रज्ञका वर्णन हुआ है? उसी क्षेत्रज्ञका वाचक यहाँ सः पद है और उसीके विषयमें यहाँ सुननेके लिये कहा जा रहा है।यः -- इस क्षेत्रज्ञका जो स्वरूप है? जिसका वर्णन इसी अध्यायके बीसवें श्लोकके उत्तरार्धमें और बाईसवें श्लोकमें किया गया है।यत्प्रभावश्च -- वह क्षेत्रज्ञ जिस प्रभाववाला है जिसका वर्णन इसी अध्यायके इकतीसवेंसे तैंतीसवें श्लोकतक किया गया है।तत्समासेन मे श्रृणु -- यहाँ तत् पदके अन्तर्गत क्षेत्र और क्षेत्रज्ञ -- दोनोंको लेना चाहिये। तात्पर्य है कि वह क्षेत्र जो है? जैसा है? जिन विकारोंवाला और जिससे पैदा हुआ है -- इस तरह क्षेत्रके विषयमें चार बातें और वह क्षेत्रज्ञ जो है और जिस प्रभाववाला है -- इस तरह क्षेत्रज्ञके विषयमें दो बातें तू मेरेसे संक्षेपमें सुन।यद्यपि इस अध्यायके आरम्भमें पहले दो श्लोकोंमें क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञका सूत्ररूपसे वर्णन हुआ है? जिसको भगवान्ने,ज्ञान भी कहा है तथापि क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञके विभागका स्पष्टरूपसे विवेचन (विकारसहित क्षेत्र और निर्विकार क्षेत्रज्ञके स्वरूपका प्रभावसहित विवेचन) इस तीसरे श्लोकसे आरम्भ किया गया है। इसलिये भगवान् इसको सावधान होकर सुननेकी आज्ञा देते हैं।इस श्लोकमें भगवान्ने क्षेत्रके विषयमें तो चार बातें सुननेकी आज्ञा दी है? पर क्षेत्रज्ञके विषयमें केवल दो बातें -- स्वरूप और प्रभाव ही सुननेकी आज्ञा दी है। इससे यह शङ्का हो सकती है कि क्षेत्रका प्रभाव भी क्यों नहीं कहा गया और साथ ही क्षेत्रज्ञके स्वभाव? विकार और जिससे जो पैदा हुआ -- इन विषयोंपर भी क्यों नहीं कहा गया इसका समाधान यह है कि एक क्षण भी एक रूपमें स्थिर न रहनेवाले क्षेत्रका प्रभाव हो ही क्या सकता है प्रकृतिस्थ (संसारी) पुरुषके अन्तःकरणमें धनादि जड पदार्थोंका महत्त्व रहता है? इसीलिये उसको संसारमें क्षेत्रका (धनादि जड पदार्थोंका) प्रभाव दीखता है। वास्तवमें स्वतन्त्ररूपसे क्षेत्रका कुछ भी प्रभाव नहीं है। अतः उसके प्रभावका कोई वर्णन नहीं किया गया।क्षेत्रज्ञका स्वरूप उत्पत्तिविनाशरहित है? इसलिये उसका स्वभाव भी उत्पत्तिविनाशरहित है। अतः भगवान्ने उसके स्वभावका अलगसे वर्णन न करके स्वरूपके अन्तर्गत ही कर दिया। क्षेत्रके साथ अपना सम्बन्ध माननेके कारण ही क्षेत्रज्ञमें इच्छाद्वेषादि विकारोंकी प्रतीति होती है? अन्यथा क्षेत्रज्ञ (स्वरूपतः) सर्वथा निर्विकार ही है। अतः निर्विकार क्षेत्रज्ञके विकारोंका वर्णन सम्भव ही नहीं। क्षेत्रज्ञ अद्वितीय? अनादि और नित्य है। अतः इसके विषयमें कौन किससे पैदा हुआ -- यह प्रश्न ही नहीं बनता। सम्बन्ध -- पूर्वश्लोकमें जिसको संक्षेपसे सुननेके लिये कहा गया है? उसका विस्तारसे वर्णन कहाँ हुआ है -- इसको आगेके श्लोकमें बताते हैं।

इदं शरीरम् इत्यादि श्लोकोंद्वारा उपदेश किये हुए क्षेत्राध्यायके अर्थका संक्षेपरूप यह तत्क्षेत्रं यच्च इत्यादि श्लोक कहा जाता है क्योंकि जिस अर्थका विस्तारपूर्वक वर्णन करना हो? उसका संक्षेप पहले कह देना उचित ही है --, जिसका पहले इदं शरीरम् इत्यादि ( वाक्य ) से वर्णन किया गया है? यहाँ तत् शब्दसे उसीका संकेत करते हैं। यह जो पूर्वोवत क्षेत्र है वह जैसा है अर्थात् अपने धर्मोंके कारण वह जिस प्रकारका है तथा जैसे विकारोंवाला है और जिस कारणसे जो कार्य उत्पन्न होता है -- यहाँ च शब्द समुच्चयके लिये है और कार्य उत्पन्न होता है यह वाक्यशेष है। तथा जिसे क्षेत्रज्ञ कहा गया है वह भी जिस प्रभाववाला अर्थात् जिनजिन उपाधिकृत शक्तियोंवाला है? उन क्षेत्र और क्षेत्रज्ञ दोनोंका उपर्युक्त विक्षेषणोंसे युक्त यथार्थ स्वरूप तू मुझसे संक्षेपसे सुन अर्थात् सुनकर निश्चय कर।

He states the purport of the subsequent verse -- with 'That' etc. 'Vivakshitam' (intended) means desired to be known.

He states the fruit of the praise -- with 'hear' etc. Not only is the true nature of the Field etc. plausible from the words of a trustworthy person alone, but also from Vedic sentences, he says -- with 'and by Chandas' etc. The manifoldness of even the four Vedas like Rig etc. is accepted due to the difference of branches.

Not only is the stated true nature established by Sruti and Smriti, but it is also logical, he says -- with 'moreover'. Doubting 'what are those aphorisms (sutras)?', he says -- 'Self alone' etc.

By the word 'etc.', 'The knower of Brahman attains the Supreme', 'Now he who worships another deity' etc., the aphorisms of knowledge and ignorance are stated. 'Self' is the mention of the Knower of the Field, and that implies the Field.

Considering that aphorisms like 'Now therefore the enquiry into Brahman' are also grasped here, otherwise there would be repetition with 'by Chandas' etc., he qualifies -- with 'reasoned'.

He presents the summary verse of the meaning of the Chapter on the Field taught by 'This body' etc., for the ease of understanding -- 'That' etc.

'That' refers to what was indicated by 'This body'. And 'which' (yaccha) indicated Field is by nature inert, distinct by divisions of moving and non-moving etc., and has the nature of being an object of perception etc., (is) that.

And 'what like' (yadruk) -- like what it is by its own properties, and of what mode. And 'what modifications' (yadvikari) -- which are its modifications, (is) that. 'From what' (yatas) -- and from what, what effect arises, this is to be supplied. And from what -- it comes to be from the conjunction of Nature and Spirit.

As for 'which' (yat) -- by which divisions of moving and non-moving etc. it is distinct -- this was not explained by the Teachers (Acharyas) intending the futility of the word 'yat' due to the inclusion of the meaning of 'yat' in what was said in 'yaccha'. Here, all 'cha's (ands) are for the purpose of conjunction.

'And he' (sa cha) -- the Knower of the Field who is indicated, by nature of the essence of Existence-Consciousness-Bliss. 'Possessing what powers' (yat-prabhavah) -- whose are the powers (shaktis), he. That true nature of the Knower of the Field qualified by the aforesaid adjectives, 'in brief' (samasena), i.e., concisely, 'from Me' i.e., from My words, 'hear', meaning determine after hearing.

'What modifications' (yadvikari) -- endowed with what modification.

'And from what, what' (yatascha yat) -- from what, what goes, i.e., proceeds. 'And he' (sa cha) -- and he is the impeller.

From 'and from what, what', the statement is that the Field proceeds. 'And who he is' (sa cha yah) -- this refers to the essential nature alone.

He begins to explain the terms Field and Knower of the Field -- with 'That' etc.

And 'which' (yaccha) field has been indicated, 'what like' (yadruk) -- of what kind it is by its own properties. 'What modifications' (yadvikari) -- and what are its modifications. 'And from what, what' (yatascha yat) -- from which modification what is born -- so say the ancients. That aforesaid field, and 'what' (yaccha) is its nature, 'what like' (yadruk) is its mode, 'what modifications' (yadvikari) -- and what are its modifications, and 'from what' (yatascha) part of the field what is born -- hear that.

Similarly, 'and he' (sa cha) the Knower of the Field, 'who' (yah) is of what nature, and 'of what power' (yatprabhavascha) -- hear that also from Me.

That, this true nature of the Field and the Knower of the Field has been sung 'by Sages' like Parashara etc. 'in many ways', i.e., in many modes -- 'I and you and similarly others are carried by the elements, O ruler of earth. Even the aggregate of elements (body), fallen into the stream of Gunas, goes to destruction. For, O lord of the earth, these Gunas, Sattva etc., are subject to Karma; and Karma is accumulated by Avidya, and that exists in all creatures. The Self is pure, imperishable, peaceful, attributeless, and beyond Prakriti; growth and decay do not belong to this one in all creatures.' (V.P. 2.13.69-71). Similarly, 'Since the lump (body) characterized by head, hands, etc. is distinct from the person (Pumsa), then O King, where should I make this designation 'I' in this?' (V.P. 2.13.89). And also, 'Are you this head? Or are you the neck? Similarly the belly? Are you the feet etc.? What indeed are you? What is this of yours, O lord of the earth? You are situated distinct from all limbs, O King. Becoming expert, contemplate on 'Who am I' indeed, O ruler of earth.' (V.P. 2.13.102-103).

Thus, of the two which are distinct, the nature of being consisting of Vasudeva is also stated -- 'The senses, mind, intellect, Sattva, splendor, strength, firmness, the Field and indeed the Knower of the Field are said to be consisting of Vasudeva.' (M.B. Shanti Parva 149.136).

'By Chandas' -- by various, separately diverse Chandas, i.e., by Rig, Yajur, Sama, and Atharva (Vedas), the nature of the body and the Self has been sung separately -- 'From that, from this Self, ether was born; from ether, air; from air, fire; from fire, water; from water, earth; from earth, herbs; from herbs, food; from food, man. That indeed is this man consisting of the essence of food' (Tai. U. 2.1) -- having stated the nature of the body; having stated the Pranamaya inner to that, and the Manomaya inner to that; 'From that, from this Manomaya, other inner Self is the Vijnanamaya' (Tai. U. 2.4) -- having stated the nature of the Knower of the Field; 'From that, from this Vijnanamaya, other inner Self is the Anandamaya' (Tai. U. 2.5) -- thus, due to being the Inner Self even of the Knower of the Field, the Anandamaya Supreme Self is stated.

Thus, in Rig, Sama, and Atharva also, here and there, the separateness of Field and Knower of the Field, and their nature of being Brahman is clearly sung.

And 'by words of Brahma Sutra' -- indeed by words called Sutras propounding Brahman, i.e., by Sariraka Sutras; 'reasoned' (hetumadbhih) -- endowed with reasons; 'decisive' (vinishcitaih) -- ending in conclusion. Beginning with 'Not ether, because of no scriptural text' (Br. Su. 2.3.1), the decision on the mode of the Field is stated. Beginning with 'The Self is not (born), because of no scriptural text and because of eternity from them' (Br. Su. 2.3.17) and by 'The knower, for that very reason' (Br. Su. 2.3.18) etc., the decision on the true nature of the Knower of the Field is stated. And by 'But from the Supreme, because of scriptural text about that' (Br. Su. 2.3.41), the nature of consisting of Bhagavan is stated due to being impelled by Bhagavan.

The true nature of the Field and Knower of the Field, sung in many ways thus, is being spoken by Me briefly and clearly, hear (it) -- this is the meaning.

Here, although it is intended that Prakriti divided by twenty-four divisions is the 'Field', still, since non-discrimination through the sense of 'I' is evident only in that (Prakriti) transformed into the form of the body, therefore to discriminate that, 'This body is the Field' etc. was said.

Intending to expand on this very thing, He promises -- 'That Field' etc. That Field which was spoken of by Me, 'what' (yat) it is by nature—inert, having the nature of being seen, etc.; and 'what like' (yadrik)—possessing attributes like desire etc.; 'having what modifications' (yadvikari)—endowed with which modifications like senses etc.; and 'from what' (yatascha)—it comes to be from the conjunction of Nature (Prakriti) and Spirit (Purusha). 'Which' (yat)—by which divisions of moving and non-moving etc. it is distinct, this is the meaning.

And that Knower of the Field, 'who' (yah) he is by nature; and 'of what power' (yatprabhavascha)—endowed with which powers through the connection with inconceivable lordship; hear all that briefly from Me.

To Arjuna who is indeed listening, 'Hear again' is said for the sake of attention -- 'That Field' etc. Since there is a reference to what will be described starting with 'The great elements' (13.6) and ending with 'aggregate' (13.7), the first and last words 'Yat' refer to the inert substance and its aggregate (respectively), so there is no repetition—with this intention he says 'What substance'.

In accordance with the support of senses etc. to be described, he states the meaning of the word 'Yadrik' -- 'Of which it is the support'. The modifications which exist as its effects, that is 'Yadvikari' (having what modifications); to reveal that the purport is in what is indicated by the word 'Yat' there, 'And what are its modifications' is said.

'From what' (yatah)—this does not refer to the material cause etc., because that was stated first—with this intention he says 'From what cause'. Referring to the specific cause to be stated later as 'consciousness, firmness' (13.7), he says 'For what purpose'. Since purpose resides in the intellect of the creator of the field, the Lord, it is also used as a cause, and (as in grammar) 'He lives for (because of) study'.

'What nature'—this refers to the aggregate. For body-ness etc. is indeed a specific configuration. Therefore, the first word 'Yat' is for determining the specific inert or non-inert substance; but the second is, when inertness is determined, for determining whether it consists of one of the many inert substances or constitutes an aggregate, this is the sense.

'Me' (Mam)—since the Supreme Self is also the Self, to remove the delusion that it refers to Him, he says 'And that Knower of the Field'. By 'who' and 'of what power', the nature and the mode are indicated. 'Powers' are wonderful, excellent specific natures.

भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण न केवल क्षेत्र की वस्तुओं का उल्लेख ही करेंगे? वरन् क्षेत्र के गुण धर्म? उसके विकार तथा कौन से कारण से ऋ़ौन सा कार्य उत्पन्न हुआ है? इसका भी वर्णन करेंगे। उसी प्रकार? क्षेत्रज्ञ का स्वरूप तथा उपाधियों से सम्बद्ध उसके प्रभाव को भी इस अध्याय में बतायेंगे। ये सब? मुझसे संक्षेप में सुनो।अनन्त आत्मा के स्वरूप को दर्शाने वाले विशेषणों को पुन दोहराने मात्र से अथवा उस पर विशेष बल देकर कहने से एक निष्ठावान् साधक को कोई विशेष लाभ भी नहीं होता और न उसके विकास में कोई सहायता मिलती है। जिन कारणों से हमारे जीवन की समस्यायें उत्पन्न होती हैं उनकी ओर से दृष्टि फेर लेने का अर्थ है? समस्या को नहीं सुलझाना। हमारे आसपास का यह जगत्? जिसे हमने ही प्रेक्षित किया है? तथा वे ही प्रक्रियायें जिनके द्वारा हम कार्य करते हुये असंख्य विषयों? भावनाओं और विचारों की विविधता को देखते हैं इन सबका हमें सूक्ष्म निरीक्षण तथा अध्ययन करना चाहिये। इसकी उपेक्षा करने का अर्थ स्वयं को विशाल आवश्यक सारभूत ज्ञान से वंचित रखना है। यह अपनी ही प्रवंचना है।शत्रुओं के विरुद्ध युद्धनीति सम्बन्धी योजना बनाने के लिए शत्रुपक्ष की रणनीति का कमसेकम सामान्य ज्ञान होना आवश्यक होता है। इसी प्रकार? क्षेत्र से युद्ध करके उस पर विजय पाकर उसके बन्धनों से स्वयं को मुक्त करने के लिये यह जानना आवश्यक है कि क्षेत्र क्या है तथा परिस्थिति विशेष में ये उपाधियाँ किस प्रकार कार्य और व्यवहार करती हैं।इस प्रकार? शरीरशास्त्र? जीवशास्त्र? मनोविज्ञान तथा अन्य प्राकृतिक विज्ञान की शाखायें भी जीवन को समझने में अपना योगदान देती हैं। अध्यात्म का ज्ञानमार्ग समस्त लौकिक विज्ञानों का चरम बिन्दु है और उसकी पूर्तिस्वरूप है। इस बात की पुष्टि इसी तथ्य से होती है कि? युद्धभूमि पर भी अर्जुन को इस ज्ञान का उपदेश देते समय? भगवान् इस बात पर बल देने के लिए भूलते नहीं कि इस क्षेत्र का सम्पूर्ण ज्ञान होना महत्व की बात है। इसका हमें सूक्ष्म अध्ययन करना चाहिये।क्षेत्र और क्षेत्रज्ञ के याथात्म्य को देखने? अध्ययन करने और समझने में शिष्य की अभिरुचि उत्पन्न करने के लिए भगवान् इस विषय वस्तु की स्तुति करते हुये कहते हैं

'That Field' etc. 'By Sages' etc. By which it undergoes modification is 'Yadvikari' (having what modification).

'Briefly' -- He determines all questions (or these questions) with a general answer indeed without division.

And although this has been said in many ways by Sages and by Vedas. Still, I explain it briefly -- thus.

"That which has the modification is 'yadvikari'" -- so someone (Shankara) says, that is incorrect. Because in a Bahuvrihi compound, the suffix 'ini' would be useless. But "That which is the modification", i.e., "yadvikara", he who has that is "yadvikari" -- with this sense he says -- 'Yat' (what). Here by 'with which modification', he suggests a Karmadharaya compound. 'Endowed' is the meaning of 'ini'.

'And from what, what' (yatascha yat) -- from this "from what and what", "what effect arises" -- thus someone explained (Shankara); that is incorrect; because the meaning is already obtained by 'yadvikari' and because it requires supplying words. And because 'modifications and qualities' (13.20) can be explained otherwise. And another says "From what humility etc. what knowable is attained" -- that is also incorrect; because of supplying words alone. Because 'Humility' (13.8) etc. and 'Beginningless' (13.13) etc. are established otherwise -- with this sense he explains differently -- 'Yatascha' (and from what). 'Yatah' -- by whose impelling. 'Yat' -- this is the form of the root 'iN' ending in Shatri (present participle) replacing Lat. Since 'iN' and 'ya' (to go) do not have much difference in meaning, 'yati' (goes) is said. Since all fields do not have motion, resorting to secondary usage, he explains -- 'Pravartate' (proceeds/functions).

'And who he is' (sa cha yah) -- the explanation that this is 'a promise regarding the Jiva' is incorrect; because he is not the topic and the word Kshetrajna does not refer to him -- with this sense he says -- 'Sa cha' (and he). Because the impeller is the topic as per 'from whom the field proceeds', this is the intention.

(Objection): Well, if so, this must be stated -- is 'yatascha yat' and 'sa cha yah' only one promise/proposition or two? Not the first, because two 'cha' words would be inappropriate; and due to the connection with 'briefly that' (tat samasena), 'sa cha yah' would be useless. Not the second, because there is no difference in meaning -- therefore, accepting the second, he says -- 'Yatascha' etc. The statement 'Yatascha yat' is in the form of a promise to say "from this one alone qualified by such properties the field proceeds". The statement 'Sa cha yah' is in the form of a promise to say "merely the nature of the impeller" -- thus there is a difference in meaning, this is the meaning.

He begins to explain the meaning stated briefly -- 'That Field' etc.

'That' refers to the Field mentioned before as 'This body', which is the class of inert things; and 'what' (yaccha)—by nature inert, seen, limited etc.; and 'what like' (yadrik cha)—having qualities like desire etc.; 'having what modifications' (yadvikari)—endowed with which modifications like senses etc.; 'and from what' (yatascha)—from what cause; 'what' (yat)—effect arises—this is to be supplied. Or, 'from what' (yatah)—from what conjunction of Prakriti and Purusha it comes to be. 'What' (yat)—by which divisions of moving and non-moving etc. it is distinct, this is the meaning. Here, due to the irregular use of 'cha', the conjunction of all is to be seen.

'And that Knower of the Field' (sa cha kshetrajnah)—'who' (yah) he is by nature—of the nature of self-luminous consciousness and bliss; and 'of what power' (yatprabhavascha)—whose powers are created by adjuncts (upadhis); that true nature of the Field and Knower of the Field qualified by all adjectives, 'briefly' (samasena) from 'My' (me) words hear. Having heard, determine (it), this is the meaning.

Having promised thus, 'I tell the nature of the Field and Knower of the Field along with the distinctions, hear that', He says -- 'That Field' etc.

That Field spoken of by Me, 'what' (yat) -- consists of My existence; though of inert form etc., 'what like' (yadrik) -- consists of My desire for sport. 'Having what modifications' (yadvikari) -- endowed with various modifications by the desire for wonderful sport. 'And from what' (yatascha) -- and which arises from the conjunction of Prakriti and Purusha, which consist of My parts, for the sake of My sport. 'That' (tat) -- is of wonderful forms like moving, non-moving, birds, etc.

And that Knower of the Field is by nature of the form of My part, 'of what power' (yatprabhavah) -- though subtle, possessing inconceivable powers like fitness to be served by the all-pervading etc.; (and) that which has been spoken of in many ways by others than Him due to ignorance of the true nature, hear all that 'briefly' (samasena) 'from Me' (me).

Whatever was indicated as 'This body', 'That' (tat) refers to that by that word. 'And which' (yaccha) is this indicated Field, 'what like' (yadrik)—of what kind it is by its own properties. The word 'cha' (and) is for the purpose of conjunction. 'Having what modifications' (yadvikari)—which modification belongs to which, that is 'yadvikari'. 'From what' (yatah)—and from what cause 'what' (yat) effect arises—this is the completion of the sentence.

'And he' (sa cha)—the Knower of the Field who was indicated, he; 'of what power' (yatprabhavah)—whose powers are created by adjuncts, he is 'yatprabhavah'.

That true nature of the Field and Knower of the Field as qualified, 'briefly' (samasena) 'from Me' (me), i.e., from My words, hear; having heard, determine (it), this is the meaning.

He praises that intended true nature of the Field and Knower of the Field to stimulate the listener's intellect --

Intending to expand on this, He promises -- 'That Field' etc.

'And what' (yaccha) -- what substance; 'what like' (yadrik) -- the support of which things; and what modifications are here; 'and from what' (yatascha) -- for what purpose it was manifested; 'what' (yat) -- of what nature.

And that Knower of the Field, 'who' (yah) -- of what nature, 'of what power' (yatprabhavah); hear all that briefly 'from Me' (me).

तत् that? क्षेत्रम् field? यत् which? च and? यादृक् what like? च and? यद्विकारि what its modifications? यतः whence? च and? यत् what? सः He? च and? यः who? यत्प्रभावः what His powers? च and? तत् that? समासेन in brief? मे from Me? श्रृणु hear.Commentary I will tell you? O Arjuna? what the field is? why the body is called the field? what are its modifications or changes in other words what transformations it undergoes? what are its properties? what effects arise in it from what causes? to whom it belongs? whether it is cultivated or whether it grows wild.That field refers to the field mentioned in verse 1.Who He is Who is that knower of the field What are His powers (Prabhavas are powers such as the power of seeing? hearing? etc.) which originate from the limiting adjuncts (such as the eys? the ears? etc.) Do thou hear My speech which describes succinctly the real nature of the field and the knower of the field in all these specific aspects.O Arjuna? I am ite sure that thou wilt clearly comprehend the truth on hearing My speech.The body is the field. The ten senses represent the ten bulls. The bulls work unceasingly day and night through the field of the objects of the senses. The mind is the supervisor. The individual soul is the tenant. The five vital airs (Pranas) are the five labourers. The Primordial Nature is the mistress of the field. This field is Her property. She Herself watches over the field vigilantly. She is endowed with the three alities. Rajas sows the seed Sattva guards it Tamas reaps the harvest. On the threshing floor or MahatTattva (the cosmic mind) with the help of the ox called time? She -- Primordial Nature -- thrashes out the corn. If the individual soul does evil actions? it sows the seeds of sin? manures with evil? reaps a crop of sin? and undergoes the pains of Samsara? viz.? birth? decay? old age? sickness? and the three kinds of afflictions. If it does virtuous actions it sows the good seeds of virtue and reaps a crop of happiness.Lord Krishna now speaks very highly in the following verse of the true nature of the field and the knower of the field in order to create interest in the hearer.

Srnu, hear, i.e., having heard, understand; me, from Me, from My utterance; samasena, in brief; about (all) tat, that-the true nature of the field and the Knower of the field, as they have been described; as to yat, what; tat, that-tat stands for that which has been indicated as 'This body' (in verse 1); ksetram, field is, which has been referred to as 'this'; ca, and; yadrk, how it is along with its own alities; yadvikari, what its changes are; ca, and; yatah, from what cause; arises yat, what effect (-arises is understood-); sah ca yah, and who He, the Knower of the field indicated above, is; ca, and; yat-prabhavah, what His powers are. Yat-probhavah is He who is possessed of the powers arising from the adjuncts. The word ca has been used (throughout) in the sense of and.
For making the intellect of the hearer interested the Lord praises that true nature of the field and the Knower of the field which is intended to be taught:

What the 'Field is' namely, what its substance is; what it is 'like', namely, what things depend on it; what its 'modifications' are, namely, what its transformations are; what the 'purpose' is for which it has been originated; 'what it is,' namely, what its true nature is; 'who it is,' namely, who the individual self is and what Its nature is like; what Its 'powers', are, namely, what powers It possesses. All this, briefly learn from Me.