क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि सर्वक्षेत्रेषु भारत।
क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोर्ज्ञानं यत्तज्ज्ञानं मतं मम।।13.3।।
13.3 And, O scion of the Bharata dynasty, under-stand Me to be the Knower of the field in all the fields. In My opinion, that is Knowledge which is the knowlege of th field and the knower of the field.
13.3 Know as Myself the Field-knower also who is the only form of the Knower in all the bodies like divinities, men etc., i.e., know them as ensouled by Me. By the expression also (Api) in, Know Me also (Api) as the Field-Knower, it is inferable that Know Me as the Field-Knower in all Fields has also been taught by implication. Just as the body, on account of its being the attribute of the knower, cannot exist separately, and is conseently denoted by way of co-ordinate predication (Samanadhikarnya) with it, in the same manner both the Field and the Field-Knower, on account of their being My attributes, cannot exist as entities separate from Me, and hence can be denoted as one with Me by way of co-ordinate predication. Both the Ksetra (Field) which is an aggregate of earth etc., and the Ksetrajna (the Jiva) have the Lord for their Self, because of their being of the nature of the body of the Lord. Such is the teaching of the Sruti passages beginning from He who dwelling in the earth, is within the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body is the earth, who controls the earth from within - He is your inner Controller and immortal Self (Br. U., 3.7.3), and ending with He who, dwelling in the individual self as the self within, whom the self does not know, whose body the self is, who controls the self from within - He is your inner Controller and immortal Self (Br. U. Madh., 3.7.22). It is the dwelling in of the Lord as the Self of all the knowers of the bodies (Field-Knowers or the Jivas) on account of His being the inner Controller, that is the justification for describing Him as in co-ordinate predication (Samanadhikaranya) with them. In the beginning and later on, it was taught to the effect, I am the self, O Arjuna, dwelling in the hearts of all beings (10.20), and Nothing that moves or does not move exists without Me (10.39) and I, with a single aspect of Myself, am sustaining the whole universe (10.42). In the middle He describes Himself by way of co-ordinate predication as, Of Adityas, I am Visnu etc. In the teachings concerning the difference between the body and its knower and concerning both of them as having Me for their Self - this knowledge of unity by co-ordinate predication alone is taught as My view. Some (the followers of Advaita and Bhedabheda) say: The sentence And know Me as the Knower should be understood as co-ordinate predication expressing identity between the individual self and the Supreme Self. Thus according to their view, the Lord (Isvara), who is Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute must be admitted to have become the individual self, as it were, through nescience (Ajnana). According to their docrine the teaching of identity given here in the Text seeks to sublate that nescience. Just as teaching by a reliable person to the effect, This is a rope, and not a snake, sublates the erroneous notion of a snake, the teaching of the Lord, who is most reliable, sublates the erroneous notion of the individual self (Ksetrjna) being different from Him. Such interpreters are to be estioned thus: Is this Teacher, Bhagavan Vasudeva, the Supreme Ruler, one whose nescience has been sublated by the exact knowledge of the Self or not? If His nescience has been sublated, then the perception of duality like Arjuna as the taught, and of actions like teaching, becomes impossible, because of the impossibility of superimposing a flase form on the Self which is in reality mere undifferentiated Consciousness. If, however, His nescience has not been sublated on account of His not having realised the Self, then, because of His ignorance, it is utterly impossible for Him to teach the knowledge of the Self. Elsewhere it has been stated: The wise, who have realised the truth, will instruct you in knowledge (4.34). Thus, the polemics of this nature are to be ignored as having been set forth to misguide the world by these ignorant daters whose arguments are contradicted by all Vedas, Smrtis, Itihasas, the Puranas, logic and their own words. The truth is this: Some of the Sruti texts declare that non-conscient matter, the conscient entity (the individual self) and the Supreme Brahman are different in nature from one another in the relation of object of enjoyment, the enjoyer (subject) and the Supreme Ruler as follows: From Prakrti, the Possessor of Maya projects this world, in which another (i.e. the individual self) is confined by Maya (Sve. U., 4.9); Know then Maya to be the Prakrti and the Possessor of Maya to be the Great Lord (Sve. U., 4.10); The perishable is Prakrti; the immortal and imperishable is Hara (the individual self); and the Lord alone rules over both the perishable Prakrti and the imperishable individual self (Sve. U., 1.10). Here, the expression, The immortal and the imperishable is Hara, points out the enjoyer (i.e., individual self); It is called Hara because the individual self siezes matter as an object of It own experience. Again, He is the cause, the Lord of the lord of senses (Ibid., 6.9); He has no progenitor and no Lord (Ibid., 6.9); He is the ruler of Prakrti, of the individual self, and the Lord of alities (Ibid., 6.16); He is the Lord of the Universe, the Ruler of individual selves, the eternal, the auspicious and the unchanging (Ma. Na., 13.3); The two unborn - the knowing Lord and the unknowing individual self, the omnipotent and the impotent (Sve. U.,1.9); The Constant among inconstants, the Intelligent among the intelligents, the one who grants the desires of the many (Ibid., 6.13. & Ka. U., 5.13); When one knows the enjoyer, the object of enjoyment and Actuater ৷৷. (Sve. U., 1.12); Regarding the individual self and the Actuater to be different, and blessed by Him, It attains immortality (Ibid., 1.6), and Ot these two, the one eats the sweet Pippala fruit, the other shines in his splendour without eating (Ibid., 4.6 and Mun. U., 3.1.1). Further, There is one unborn female, red, white and black, who produces many creatures like herself; there is another unborn being who loves her and is close to her; there is yet another male unborn who after having enjoyed here, gives her up (Ibid., 4.5); The cow (i.e. Prakrti) that has no beginning or end, is the mother and source of all beings (Cha. U., 4.5) and On the self-same tree, the individual self sits sunken in grief, and being ignorant and impotent, It grieves. When It sees the other, the gracious Lord and His glory, It attains freedom from grief (Sve. U., 4.7). The following passages of the Gita are alos to the point: This Prakrti, thus divided eightfold, composed of Ahankara etc., is Mine. This is My lower Prakrti. Know My higher Prakrti to be distinct from this - the Life Principle, by which the universe is sustained (7.4-5); All beings, O Arjuna, enter into My Nature at the end of a cycle. These I send forth again at the beginning of a cycle. Resorting to Prakrti, which is My own, I send forth again and again all this multitude of beings, helpless under the sway of Prakrti (9.7-8); Under my control, Prakrti gives birth to all that moves, and that which does not move. And because of this, O Arjuna, does the world spin (9.10); Know that Prakrti and the individual self are without beginning (13.19) The great Brahman (or Prakrti) is My womb; in that I lay the germ; from it, O Arjuna, is the birth of all beings (14.3). The great Brahman of Mine, which is the womb of this world, called Prakti, non-conscient matter, consisting of elements in a subtle state - in it I lay the germ called conscient entity. From that, namely, from the compound between conscient and unconscient entities, which is willed by Me, are born all these beings beginning with the gods and ending with the immobile things mixed up with the unconscient matter. Such is the meaning. In the Sruti also, the subtle original state of material elements is signified as Brahman: From Him are produced Brahman as also the world of matter and soul (Anna) having name and form (Mun. U., 1.1.9). Likewise, Sruti Texts declare that the Supreme Person constitutes the Self of all, and the conscient and non-conscient entities are inseparable from Him; for, those conscient and unconscient entities, which abide in the form of the experiencer and the experienced abiding in all states, form the body of the Supreme Person; conseently they are under His control. These Texts are as follows: He who, dwelling in the earth, is within the earth, whom the earth does not know, whose body the earth is, who is the Inner Ruler of the earth and ending with, He who, dwelling in the self, is within the self, whom the self does not know, whose body the self is and who is the Inner Controller of the self (Br. U. Madh., 3.7.3-22). Likewise another passage declares: He who is moving withing the earth, to whom the earth is the body, whom the earth does not know ৷৷. he who is moving within the Mrtyu (Nature), to whom Mrtyu is the body, whom Mrtyu does not know ৷৷. He is the Inner Self of all beings, sinless; He is the divine Lord, He is of the one Narayana (Sub. U., 7). Here the term Mrtyu denotes the subtle state of non-conscient entity which is expressed by the term Tamas, because in the same Upanisad, it is declared, The unmanifest (Avyakta) merges into Aksara (the imperishable), and the Aksara merges into Tamas (Ibid., 2). Elsewhere it is stated thus: Entering within, is the Ruler of all creatures, the self of all (Tai. A., 3.21). Therefore, the Supreme Person, who posseses conscient and non-conscient entities abiding in all states as His body, is in the form of the world, whether in the state of cause or of effect. So, with the purpose of making this explicit, some Srutis declare that the world in its states as cause and effect, is He Himself. They begin with, This Existence (Sat) alone was in the beginning, one only without a second ৷৷. It thought, May I become many, may I multiply. It creates Tejas (Cha. U., 6.2.1.2), and ends with All creatures here, my dear, have their root in the Sat (Being), have their home in the Sat, have Sat as their support. All this has Sat for its self. That is Existence. He is the Self. That you are, O Svetaketu (Cha. U., 6.8.4.6-7). Elsewhere is the following text beginning with, He desired, May I become many; He performed austerity; having performed austerity, He created all this, and concluding with, He became both the Satya (individual self) and Anrta (matter), He has remained true to His nature (Tai. U., 2.6.1). The difference in nature between conscient and unconscient entities and the Supreme Person, established in the other Sruti passages, is asserted here also: Lo! Entering into these three divinities (i.e. the Tejas, water and earth) in the form of living self (individual self), which is Myself, I distinguish name and form? (Cha. U., 6.3.2) and also in the text, Having created it, He entered into it. Having entered it, He became Sat and Tyat ৷৷. He became both conscious and unconscious, both the Satya (individual self) and Anrta (matter). He has remained true to His own nature (Tai. U., 2.6.1). It is in this way that all the distinctions of names and forms are brought about: The Sruti also declares, Then, this was undifferentiated. Now, it has been differentiated by names and forms (Br. U., 1.4.7). Therefore, He who exists in the states of effect and cause, and who has the conscient and unconscient entities in their gross and subtle states as His body, is the Supreme Person. Because the effect is not other than the cause, the effect becomes known when the cause is known, when the One becomes known, everything is known - thus what is posited by the Srutis stands explained. In the text, Entering into these three divinities by way of living self (individual self) which is My self, I distinguish name and form (Cha. U., 6.3.2) - all the non-conscient entities are pointed out by the expression, the three divinities, and then the distinguishing of names and forms arises on account of the individual selves having Him for Their Self, entering into those entities. Thus all expressive terms signify the Supreme Self who is alified by the individual selves and non-conscient matter. Therefore, co-ordinate predication (Samanadhikaranya) of a term denoting an effect with a term denoting the Supreme Self as cause, is ite appropriate. Thus the Supreme Brahman, who has conscient and non-conscient entities in their gross and subtle conditions as His modes, is Himself the effect and the cause; so Brahman is the material cause of the world. Brahman Himself constitutes the material cause of the world, because Brahman, who has the conscient and unconscient entities in their subtle state as His body, forms the cause of all. Still as that material cause is a composite entity (i.e., of individual selves, Prakrti aand Isvara), there is no mixing up of the natures of Brahman, conscient entities and non-conscient entities. This is perfectly tenable. Thus, for example, although the material cause of a multi-coloured cloth is a combination of white, black and red threads, the connection of whiteness etc., with the cloth is to be found only in the place where a particular kind of thread is woven in it; in the state of effect also, there is no mixing up of the colours everywhere. Similarly, although the world has for its material cause a combination of the Lord, conscient and non-conscient entities, still in its condition as an effect also, there is no mixing up of the respective alities of experiencer (subject), the experienced (object) and the Controller (God). Though these threads can exist separately they are brought together at a time by mans will and acire the character and effect as a conseence. But in the case of the world manifestation, there is a unieness. It consists in that the intelligent and insentient entities in both causal and effect conditions derive their existential nature only from, and as, modes of the Supreme Person, by forming His body. Thus the Supreme Person having those entities as His body, is always signified by all these terms indicating them. As for the differences in nature, their respective speciality of character holds good here (i.e., in the production of world as of the coloured cloth). Such being the case, though the Supreme Brahman enters the effect, owing to absence of transformation of His nature, the unchangeability is well established. To signify Brahman as effect is also very appropriate, because He is the Self sustaining the conscient and non-conscient entities from within their gross condition when they are differentiated by name and form: What is called effect is nothing other than the cause passing into another state of existence. The various scriptural statements that the Supreme Brahman is without attributes are also tenable in the sense that He is not associated with evil attributes, as the Sruti text, He is free from evil, ageless, deathless, sorrowless, hungerless, thirstless eliminates all evil attributes, and then says that He is full of auspicious attributes: Whose desire is real, whose will is real (Cha. U., 8.7.1). This Sruti text itself settles here what was generally declared elsewhere that negation of attributes (Guna-nisedha) pertains to evil attributes in Brahman. The doctrine that Brahman is of the nature of knowledge is also ite appropriate, because it amounts to saying that the true nature of Brahman, who is omniscient and omnipotent, who is antagonistic to all that is evil, and who is the mine of all auspicious attributes, can be adeately defined only as Knowledge, as one whose nature is Knowledge, since He possesses self-luminosity. The following texts teach that Brahman is the Knower: He who is all-knowing, all wise (Mun. U., 1.1.9); His high power is revealed, indeed, as various and natural, as consisting of knowledge, strength and activity (Sve.U., 6.8); My dear, by what means has one to understand the Knower? (Br. U., 2.4.14); and the text, Brahman is Existence, Knowledge and Infinity (Tai. U., 2.1.1). All these teach that Brahman is of the nature of Knowledge in as much as He can be defined only as Knowledge, and because also He is self-luminous. In the texts He desired, May I become many (Tai. U., 2.6.1), It thought, May I become many (Cha. U., 6.2.3), It became differentiated by names and forms - it is affirmed that Brahman thus exists of His own Will in a wonderful plurality of modes on account of His having the immovable and movable entities as His body. Conseently it is false to affirm the opposite view that the manifold entities do not have Brahman as their self in a real sense. Thus, it is the unreality of manifold existence (i.e., of entities without Brahman for the Self) that is denied in the following texts: He obtains death after death who sees difference here (Ka. U., 2.4.10), There is nothing here that is manifold (Ka. U., 2.4.11), But where there is duality, as it were, there one sees another ৷৷. but where everything has become the self ৷৷. there, by what can one see what ৷৷. who shall know which by what? (Br. U., 4.5.15). There is also no denial of the manifoldness of modes of the Brahman resulting from His assumption of various names and forms by His will. This is established in Sruti texts such as, May I become manifold (Tai. U., 2.6.1 and Cha. U., 6.2.3) etc. This manifold modality is proved to be existent in the commencement of even that passage which negates multiplicity by asserting. But where everything has become the self (Br. U., 4.5.15). Everything deserts Him who knows everything to be apart from Him (Br. U., 4.5.7), and Lo, verily, from this great Being has been breathed forth that which is Rg veda (Ibid., 2.4.10). Thus there is no contradiction whatsoever among the Srutis which assert difference in essence and in nature between the conscient self, non-conscient matter and the Lord, whose body the former entities are. There is no contradiction also in the scriptural statement that they are identical. The relation of the body and the self exists at all times between the Lord and the conscient and non-conscient entities. The Sruti texts themselves establish that those entities, which constitute the body (of the Lord), acire in causal condition, a subtle state, in which they cannot be differentiated. In the effect condition they are in a gross state with names and forms, and are capable of differentiation into a multiplicity of entities as modes of the Supreme. Thus there is no room whatsoever for entertaining such doctrines which ascribe nescience to Brahman (as in Advaita), for describing the differences in Brahman as due to limiting adjuncts (as in Bhedabheda) and other tenets (Yadavaprakasas). All these proceed from unsound logic and are in viloation of all Srutis. Let this over-long polemic be terminated here. The object of this long polemical passage is to refute the Advaitic interpretation of the statement Know the Field-Knower in all bodies as Myself as one of absolute identity between the Jiva and Isvara. The thesis of the author of the commentary is that the relation is not oneof absolute identity but only one of identity of reference of several inseparable entities to a comon substratum known technically as Samandadhikaranya or co-ordinate predication, also translated sometimes as grammatical co-ordination. The literal meaning of the expression is the relation of abiding in a common substratum. The relation of the Jiva and Prakrti to Isvara is as of body and soul or as a mode (Prakara) and its substratum (Prakari). The relation between the body and soul of an ordinary being is, however, separable at death. But it is inseparable in the case of Isvara and this Jiva-cum-Prakrti body. In this sense Isvara is the Field-knower (Ksetrajna) of the Field (Ksetra) constituted of all individual entities conscient and inconscient, just as in each individual personality the Jiva and the body are the field-knower and the field respectively. [Being in co-ordinate predication (Samanadhikaranya), Brahman is an inseparable but mutually distinct complex of Prakrti, Jiva and Isvara. The cosmic mode of body constituted of Prakrti and Purusa is at intervals in alternate states of latency and patency (Pralaya and Srsti or dissolution and manifestation). As the soul of a complex whole, He can be denoed by any of the terms entering into it - Isvara, Prakrti or Jiva. Brahan is sometimes mentioned in the Srutis as Asat when everything is in latency in Pralaya, and as Sat when all entities are in manifestations (Srsti). All these expressions denote Him only. He is described in some texts as attributeless. It means only that He is without any undesriable evil alities. He is on the other hand endowed with countless auspicious attributes. All these contentions are supported by numerous Vedic passages, which are oted in the commentary.]
Kshetrajnam chaapi maam viddhi sarvakshetreshu bhaarata; Kshetrakshetrajnayor jnaanam yattat jnaanam matam mama.
kṣhetra-jñam—the knower of the field; cha—also; api—only; mām—me; viddhi—know; sarva—all; kṣhetreṣhu—in individual fields of activities; bhārata—scion of Bharat; kṣhetra—the field of activities; kṣhetra-jñayoḥ—of the knower of the field; jñānam—understanding of; yat—which; tat—that; jñānam—knowledge; matam—opinion; mama—my
