श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता

मूल श्लोकः

श्री भगवानुवाच

इदं शरीरं कौन्तेय क्षेत्रमित्यभिधीयते।

एतद्यो वेत्ति तं प्राहुः क्षेत्रज्ञ इति तद्विदः।।13.2।।

Hindi Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary By Sri Harikrishnadas Goenka

।।13.2।।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 )।

English Translation of Ramanuja's Sanskrit Commentary By Swami Adidevananda

13.2 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).

English Translation Of Sri Shankaracharya's Sanskrit Commentary By Swami Gambirananda

13.2 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.