श्रीमद् भगवद्गीता

मूल श्लोकः

क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि सर्वक्षेत्रेषु भारत।

क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोर्ज्ञानं यत्तज्ज्ञानं मतं मम।।13.3।।

 

Hindi Translation By Swami Tejomayananda

।।13.3।। हे भारत ! तुम समस्त क्षेत्रों में क्षेत्रज्ञ मुझे ही जानो। क्षेत्र और क्षेत्रज्ञ का जो ज्ञान है, वही (वास्तव में) ज्ञान है , ऐसा मेरा मत है।।
 

Sanskrit Commentary By Sri Shankaracharya

।।13.3।। --,क्षेत्रज्ञं यथोक्तलक्षणं चापि मां परमेश्वरम् असंसारिणं विद्धि जानीहि। सर्वक्षेत्रेषु यः क्षेत्रज्ञः ब्रह्मादिस्तम्बपर्यन्तानेकक्षेत्रोपाधिप्रविभक्तः? तं निरस्तसर्वोपाधिभेदं सदसदादिशब्दप्रत्ययागोचरं विद्धि इति अभिप्रायः। हे भारत? यस्मात् क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञेश्वरयाथात्म्यव्यतिरेकेण न ज्ञानगोचरम् अन्यत् अवशिष्टम् अस्ति? तस्मात् क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोः ज्ञेयभूतयोः यत् ज्ञानं क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञौ येन ज्ञानेन विषयीक्रियेते? तत् ज्ञानं सम्यग्ज्ञानम् इति मतम् अभिप्रायः मम ईश्वरस्य विष्णोः।।ननु सर्वक्षेत्रेषु एक एव ईश्वरः? न अन्यः तद्व्यतिरिक्तः भोक्ता विद्यते चेत्? ततः ईश्वरस्य संसारित्वं प्राप्तम् ईश्वरव्यतिरेकेण वा संसारिणः अन्यस्य अभावात् संसाराभावप्रसङ्गः। तच्च उभयमनिष्टम्? बन्धमोक्षतद्धेतुशास्त्रानर्थक्यप्रसङ्गात्? प्रत्यक्षादिप्रमाणविरोधाच्च। प्रत्यक्षेण तावत् सुखदुःखतद्धेतुलक्षणः संसारः उपलभ्यते जगद्वैचित्र्योपलब्धेश्च धर्माधर्मनिमित्तः संसारः अनुमीयते। सर्वमेतत् अनुपपन्नमात्मेश्वरैकत्वे।।न ज्ञानाज्ञानयोः अन्यत्वेनोपपत्तेः -- दूरमेते विपरीते विषूची अविद्या या च विद्येति ज्ञाता (क0 उ0 1।2।4)। तथा च तयोः विद्याविद्याविषययोः फलभेदोऽपि विरुद्धः निर्दिष्टः -- श्रेयश्च प्रेयश्च इति विद्याविषयः श्रेयः? प्रेयस्तु अविद्याकार्यम् इति। तथा च व्यासः -- द्वाविमावथ पन्थानौ (महा0 शान्ति0 241।6) इत्यादि? इमौ द्वावेव पन्थानौ इत्यादि च। इह च द्वे निष्ठे उक्ते। अविद्या च सह कार्येण हातव्या इति श्रुतिस्मृतिन्यायेभ्यः अवगम्यते। श्रुतयः तावत् -- इह चेदवेदीदथ सत्यमस्ति न चेदिहावेदीन्महती विनष्टिः (के0 उ0 2।5) तमेवं विद्वानमृत इह भवति (नृ0 पू00 6)। नान्यः पन्था विद्यतेऽयनाय (श्वे0 उ0 3।8) विद्वान्न बिभेति कुतश्चन (तै0 उ0 2।4)। अविदुषस्तु -- अथ तस्य भयं भवति (तै0 उ0 2।7)? अविद्यायामन्तरे वर्तमानाः (क0 उ0 1।2।5) ब्रह्म वेद ब्रह्मैव भवति (मु0 उ0 3।2।9) अन्योऽसावन्योऽहमस्मीति न स वेद यथा पशुरेवं स देवानाम् आत्मवित् यः स इदं सर्वं भवति (बृह0 उ0 1।4।10) यदा चर्मवत् (श्वे0 उ0 6।20) इत्याद्याः सहस्रशः। स्मृतयश्च -- अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानं तेन मुह्यन्ति जन्तवः (गीता 5।15) इहैव तैर्जितः सर्गो येषां साम्ये स्थितं मनः (गीता 5।19) समं पश्यन् हि सर्वत्र (गीता 13।28) इत्याद्याः। न्यायतश्च -- सर्पान्कुशाग्राणि तथोदपानं ज्ञात्वा मनुष्याः परिवर्जयन्ति। अज्ञानतस्तत्र पतन्ति केचिज्ज्ञाने फलं पश्य तथाविशिष्टम् (महा0 शा0 201।16)। तथा च -- देहादिषु आत्मबुद्धिः अविद्वान् रागद्वेषादिप्रयुक्तः धर्माधर्मानुष्ठानकृत् जायते म्रियते च इति अवगम्यते देहादिव्यतिरिक्तात्मदर्शिनः रागद्वेषादिप्रहाणापेक्षधर्माधर्मप्रवृत्त्युपशमात् मुच्यन्ते इति न केनचित् प्रत्याख्यातुं शक्यं न्यायतः। तत्र एवं सति? क्षेत्रज्ञस्य ईश्वरस्यैव सतः अविद्याकृतोपाधिभेदतः संसारित्वमिव भवति? यथा देहाद्यात्मत्वमात्मनः। सर्वजन्तूनां हि प्रसिद्धः देहादिषु अनात्मसु आत्मभावः निश्चितः अविद्याकृतः? यथा स्थाणौ पुरुषनिश्चयः? न च एतावता पुरुषधर्मः स्थाणोः भवति? स्थाणुधर्मो वा पुरुषस्य? तथा न चैतन्यधर्मो देहस्य? देहधर्मो वा चेतनस्य सुखदुःखमोहात्मकत्वादिः आत्मनः न युक्तः अविद्याकृतत्वाविशेषात्? जरामृत्युवत्।।न? अतुल्यत्वात् इति चेत् -- स्थाणुपुरुषौ ज्ञेयावेव सन्तौ ज्ञात्रा अन्योन्यस्मिन् अध्यस्तौ अविद्यया देहात्मनोस्तु ज्ञेयज्ञात्रोरेव इतरेतराध्यासः? इति न समः दृष्टान्तः। अतः देहधर्मः ज्ञेयोऽपि ज्ञातुरात्मनः भवतीति चेत्? न अचैतन्यादिप्रसङ्गात्। यदि हि ज्ञेयस्य देहादेः क्षेत्रस्य धर्माः सुखदुःखमोहेच्छादयः ज्ञातुः भवन्ति? तर्हि? ज्ञेयस्य क्षेत्रस्य धर्माः केचित् आत्मनः भवन्ति अविद्याध्यारोपिताः? जरामरणादयस्तु न भवन्ति इति विशेषहेतुः वक्तव्यः। न भवन्ति इति अस्ति अनुमानम् -- अविद्याध्यारोपितत्वात् जरामरणादिवत् इति? हेयत्वात्? उपादेयत्वाच्च इत्यादि। तत्र एवं सति? कर्तृत्वभोक्तृत्वलक्षणः संसारः ज्ञेयस्थः ज्ञातरि अविद्यया अध्यारोपितः इति? न तेन ज्ञातुः किञ्चित् दुष्यति? यथा बालैः अध्यारोपितेन आकाशस्य तलमलिनत्वादिना।।एवं च सति? सर्वक्षेत्रेष्वपि सतः भगवतः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य ईश्वरस्य संसारित्वगन्धमात्रमपि नाशङ्क्यम्। न हि क्वचिदपि लोके अविद्याध्यस्तेन धर्मेण कस्यचित् उपकारः अपकारो वा दृष्टः।।यत्तु उक्तम् -- न समः दृष्टान्तः इति? तत् असत्। कथम् अविद्याध्यासमात्रं हि दृष्टान्तदार्ष्टान्तिकयोः साधर्म्यं विवक्षितम्। तत् न व्यभिचरति। यत्तु ज्ञातरि व्यभिचरति इति मन्यसे? तस्यापि अनैकान्तिकत्वं दर्शितं जरादिभिः।।अविद्यावत्त्वात् क्षेत्रज्ञस्य संसारित्वम् इति चेत्? न अविद्यायाः तामसत्वात्। तामसो हि प्रत्ययः? आवरणात्मकत्वात् अविद्या विपरीतग्राहकः? संशयोपस्थापको वा? अग्रहणात्मको वा विवेकप्रकाशभावे तदभावात्? तामसे च आवरणात्मके तिमिरादिदोषे सति अग्रहणादेः अविद्यात्रयस्य उपलब्धेः।।

अत्र आह -- एवं तर्हि ज्ञातृधर्मः अविद्या। न करणे चक्षुषि तैमिरिकत्वादिदोषोपलब्धेः। यत्तु मन्यसे -- ज्ञातृधर्मः अविद्या? तदेव च अविद्याधर्मवत्त्वं क्षेत्रज्ञस्य संसारित्वम् तत्र यदुक्तम् ईश्वर एव क्षेत्रज्ञः? न संसारी इत्येतत् अयुक्तमिति -- तत् न यथा करणे चक्षुषि विपरीतग्राहकादिदोषस्य दर्शनात्। न विपरीतादिग्रहणं तन्निमित्तं वा तैमिरिकत्वादिदोषः ग्रहीतुः? चक्षुषः संस्कारेण तिमिरे अपनीते ग्रहीतुः अदर्शनात् न ग्रहीतुर्धर्मः यथा तथा सर्वत्रैव अग्रहणविपरीतसंशयप्रत्ययास्तन्निमित्ताः करणस्यैव कस्यचित् भवितुमर्हन्ति? न ज्ञातुः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य। संवेद्यत्वाच्च तेषां प्रदीपप्रकाशवत् न ज्ञातृधर्मत्वम् -- संवेद्यत्वादेव स्वात्मव्यतिरिक्तसंवेद्यत्वम् सर्वकरणवियोगे च कैवल्ये सर्ववादिभिः अविद्यादिदोषवत्त्वानभ्युपगमात्। आत्मनः यदि क्षेत्रज्ञस्य अग्न्युष्णवत् स्वः धर्मः? ततः न कदाचिदपि तेन वियोगः स्यात्। अविक्रियस्य च व्योमवत् सर्वगतस्य अमूर्तस्य आत्मनः केनचित् संयोगवियोगानुपपत्तेः? सिद्धं क्षेत्रज्ञस्य नित्यमेव ईश्वरत्वम् अनादित्वान्निर्गुणत्वात् (गीता 13।31) इत्यादीश्वरवचनाच्च।।ननु एवं सति संसारसंसारित्वाभावे शास्त्रानर्थक्यादिदोषः स्यादिति चेत्? न सर्वैरभ्युपगतत्वात्। सर्वैर्हि आत्मवादिभिः अभ्युपगतः दोषः न एकेन परिहर्तव्यः भवति। कथम् अभ्युपगतः इति मुक्तात्मनां हि संसारसंसारित्वव्यवहाराभावः सर्वैरेव आत्मवादिभिः इष्यते। न च तेषां शास्त्रानर्थक्यादिदोषप्राप्तिः अभ्युपगता। तथा नः क्षेत्रज्ञानाम् ईश्वरैकत्वे सति? शास्त्रानर्थक्यं भवतु अविद्याविषये च अर्थवत्त्वम् -- यथा द्वैतिनां सर्वेषां बन्धावस्थायामेव शास्त्राद्यर्थवत्त्वम्? न मुक्तावस्थायाम्? एवम्।।ननु आत्मनः बन्धमुक्तावस्थे परमार्थत एव वस्तुभूते द्वैतिनां सर्वेषाम्। अतः हेयोपादेयतत्साधनसद्भावे शास्त्राद्यर्थवत्त्वं स्यात्। अद्वैतिनां पुनः? द्वैतस्य अपरमार्थत्वात्? अविद्याकृतत्वात् बन्धावस्थायाश्च आत्मनः अपरमार्थत्वे निर्विषयत्वात्? शास्त्राद्यानर्थक्यम् इति चेत्? न आत्मनः अवस्थाभेदानुपपत्तेः। यदि तावत् आत्मनः बन्धमुक्तावस्थे? युगपत् स्याताम्? क्रमेण वा। युगपत् तावत् विरोधात् न संभवतः स्थितिगती इव एकस्मिन्। क्रमभावित्वे च? निर्निमित्तत्वे अनिर्मोक्षप्रसङ्गः।,अन्यनिमित्तत्वे च स्वतः अभावात् अपरमार्थत्वप्रसङ्गः। तथा च सति अभ्युपगमहानिः। किञ्च? बन्धमुक्तावस्थयोः पौर्वापर्यनिरूपणायां बन्धावस्था पूर्वं प्रकल्प्या? अनादिमती अन्तवती च तच्च प्रमाणविरुद्धम्। तथा मोक्षावस्था आदिमती अनन्ता च प्रमाणविरुद्धैव अभ्युपगम्यते। न च अवस्थावतः अवस्थान्तरं गच्छतः नित्यत्वम् उपपादयितुं शक्यम्। अथ अनित्यत्वदोषपरिहाराय बन्धमुक्तावस्थाभेदो न कल्प्यते? अतः द्वैतिनामपि शास्त्रानर्थक्यादिदोषः अपरिहार्य एव इति समानत्वात् न अद्वैतवादिना परिहर्तव्यः दोषः।।न च शास्त्रानर्थक्यम्? यथाप्रसिद्धाविद्वत्पुरुषविषयत्वात् शास्त्रस्य। अविदुषां हि फलहेत्वोः अनात्मनोः आत्मदर्शनम्? न विदुषाम् विदुषां हि फलहेतुभ्याम् आत्मनः अन्यत्वदर्शने सति? तयोः अहमिति आत्मदर्शनानुपपत्तेः। न हि अत्यन्तमूढः उन्मत्तादिरपि जलाग्न्योः छायाप्रकाशयोर्वा ऐकात्म्यं पश्यति किमुत विवेकी। तस्मात् न विधिप्रतिषेधशास्त्रं तावत् फलहेतुभ्याम् आत्मनः अन्यत्वदर्शिनः भवति। न हि देवदत्त? त्वम् इदं कुरु इति कस्मिंश्चित् कर्मणि नियुक्ते? विष्णुमित्रः अहं नियुक्तः इति तत्रस्थः नियोगं श्रृण्वन्नपि प्रतिपद्यते। वियोगविषयविवेकाग्रहणात् तु उपपद्यते प्रतिपत्तिः तथा फलहेत्वोरपि।।ननु प्राकृतसंबन्धापेक्षया युक्तैव प्रतिपत्तिः शास्त्रार्थविषया -- फलहेतुभ्याम् अन्यात्मविषयदर्शनेऽपि सति -- इष्टफलहेतौ प्रवर्तितः अस्मि? अनिष्टफलहेतोश्च निवर्तितः अस्मीति यथा पितृपुत्रादीनाम् इतरेतरात्मान्यत्वदर्शने सत्यपि अन्योन्यनियोगप्रतिषेधार्थप्रतिपत्तिः। न व्यतिरिक्तात्मदर्शनप्रतिपत्तेः प्रागेव फलहेत्वोः आत्माभिमानस्य सिद्धत्वात्। प्रतिपन्ननियोगप्रतिषेधार्थो हि फलहेतुभ्याम् आत्मनः अन्यत्वं प्रतिपद्यते? न पूर्वम्। तस्मात् विधिप्रतिषेधशास्त्रम् अविद्वद्विषयम् इति सिद्धम्।।ननु स्वर्गकामो यजेत न कलञ्जं भक्षयेत् इत्यादौ आत्मव्यतिरेकदर्शिनाम् अप्रवृत्तौ? केवलदेहाद्यात्मदृष्टीनां च अतः कर्तुः अभावात् शास्त्रानर्थक्यमिति चेत्? न यथाप्रसिद्धित एव प्रवृत्तिनिवृत्त्युपपत्तेः। ईश्वरक्षेत्रज्ञैकत्वदर्शी ब्रह्मवित् तावत् न प्रवर्तते। तथा नैरात्म्यवाद्यपि नास्ति परलोकः इति न प्रवर्तते। यथाप्रसिद्धितस्तु विधिप्रतिषेधशास्त्रश्रवणान्यथानुपपत्त्या अनुमितात्मास्तित्वः आत्मविशेषानभिज्ञः कर्मफलसंजाततृष्णः श्रद्दधानतया च प्रवर्तते। इति सर्वेषां न प्रत्यक्षम्। अतः न शास्त्रानर्थक्यम्।।

विवेकिनाम् अप्रवृत्तिदर्शनात् तदनुगामिनाम् अप्रवृत्तौ शास्त्रानर्थक्यम् इति चेत्? न कस्यचिदेव विवेकोपपत्तेः। अनेकेषु हि प्राणिषु कश्चिदेव विवेकी स्यात्? यथेदानीम्। न च विवेकिनम् अनुवर्तन्ते मूढाः? रागादिदोषतन्त्रत्वात् प्रवृत्तेः? अभिचरणादौ च प्रवृत्तिदर्शनात्? स्वाभाव्याच्च प्रवृत्तेः -- स्वभावस्तु प्रवर्तते (गीता 5।14) इति हि उक्तम्।।

तस्मात् अविद्यामात्रं संसारः यथादृष्टविषयः एव। न क्षेत्रज्ञस्य केवलस्य अविद्या तत्कार्यं च। न च मिथ्याज्ञानं परमार्थवस्तु दूषयितुं समर्थम्। न हि ऊषरदेशं स्नेहेन पङ्कीकर्तुं शक्नोति मरीच्युदकम्। तथा अविद्या क्षेत्रज्ञस्य न किञ्चित् कर्तुं शक्नोति। अतश्चेदमुक्तम् -- क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि (गीता 13।2) ? अज्ञानेनावृतं ज्ञानम् (गीता 5।15) इति च।।अथ किमिदं संसारिणामिव अहमेवम् ममैवेदम् इति पण्डितानामपि श्रृणु इदं तत् पाण्डित्यम्? यत् क्षेत्रे एव आत्मदर्शनम्। यदि पुनः क्षेत्रज्ञम् अविक्रियं पश्येयुः? ततः न भोगं कर्म वा आकाङ्क्षेयुः मम स्यात् इति। विक्रियैव भोगकर्मणी। अथ एवं सति? फलार्थित्वात् अविद्वान् प्रवर्तते। विदुषः पुनः अविक्रियात्मदर्शिनः फलार्थित्वाभावात् प्रवृत्त्यनुपपत्तौ कार्यकरणसंघातव्यापारोपरमे निवृत्तिः उपचर्यते।।इदं च अन्यत् पाण्डित्यं केषाञ्चित् अस्तु -- क्षेत्रज्ञः ईश्वर एव। क्षेत्रं च अन्यत् क्षेत्रज्ञस्यैव विषयः। अहं तु संसारी सुखी दुःखी च। संसारोपरमश्च मम कर्तव्यः क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञविज्ञानेन? ध्यानेन च ईश्वरं क्षेत्रज्ञं साक्षात्कृत्वा तत्स्वरूपावस्थानेनेति। यश्च एवं बुध्यते? यश्च बोधयति? नासौ क्षेत्रज्ञः इति। एवं मन्वानः यः सः पण्डितापसदः? संसारमोक्षयोः शास्त्रस्य च अर्थवत्त्वं करोमीति आत्महा स्वयं मूढः अन्यांश्च व्यामोहयति शास्त्रार्थसंप्रदायरहितत्वात्? श्रुतहानिम् अश्रुतकल्पनां च कुर्वन्। तस्मात् असंप्रदायवित् सर्वशास्त्रविदपि मूर्खवदेव उपेक्षणीयः।।यत्तूक्तम् ईश्वरस्य क्षेत्रज्ञैकत्वे संसारित्वं प्राप्नोति? क्षेत्रज्ञानां च ईश्वरैकत्वे संसारिणः अभावात् संसाराभावप्रसङ्गः इति?,एतौ दोषौ प्रत्युक्तौ विद्याविद्ययोः वैलक्षण्याभ्युपगमात् इति। कथम् अविद्यापरिकल्पितदोषेण तद्विषयं वस्तु पारमार्थिकं न दुष्यतीति। तथा च दृष्टान्तः दर्शितः -- मरीच्यम्भसा ऊषरदेशो न पङ्कीक्रियते इति। संसारिणः अभावात् संसाराभावप्रसङ्गदोषोऽपि संसारसंसारिणोः अविद्याकल्पितत्वोपपत्त्या प्रत्युक्तः।।ननु अविद्यावत्त्वमेव क्षेत्रज्ञस्य संसारित्वदोषः। तत्कृतं च सुखित्वदुःखित्वादि प्रत्यक्षम् उपलभ्यते इति चेत्? न ज्ञेयस्य क्षेत्रधर्मत्वात्? ज्ञातुः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य तत्कृतदोषानुपपत्तेः। यावत् किञ्चित् क्षेत्रज्ञस्य दोषजातम् अविद्यमानम् आसञ्जयसि? तस्य ज्ञेयत्वोपपत्तेः क्षेत्रधर्मत्वमेव? न क्षेत्रज्ञधर्मत्वम्। न च तेन क्षेत्रज्ञः दुष्यति? ज्ञेयेन ज्ञातुः संसर्गानुपपत्तेः। यदि हि संसर्गः स्यात्? ज्ञेयत्वमेव नोपपद्येत। यदि आत्मनः धर्मः अविद्यावत्त्वं दुःखित्वादि च कथं भोः प्रत्यक्षम् उपलभ्यते? कथं वा क्षेत्रज्ञधर्मः। ज्ञेयं च सर्वं क्षेत्रं ज्ञातैव क्षेत्रज्ञः इति अवधारिते? अविद्यादुःखित्वादेः क्षेत्रज्ञविशेषणत्वं क्षेत्रज्ञधर्मत्वं तस्य च प्रत्यक्षोपलभ्यत्वम् इति विरुद्धम् उच्यते अविद्यामात्रावष्टम्भात् केवलम्।।अत्र आह -- सा अविद्या कस्य इति। यस्य दृश्यते तस्य एव। कस्य दृश्यते इति। अत्र उच्यते -- अविद्या कस्य दृश्यते इति प्रश्नः निरर्थकः। कथम् दृश्यते चेत् अविद्या तद्वन्तमपि पश्यसि। न च तद्वति उपलभ्यमाने सा कस्य इति प्रश्नो युक्तः। न हि गोमति उपलभ्यमाने गावः कस्य इति प्रश्नः अर्थवान् भवति। ननु विषमो दृष्टान्तः। गवां तद्वतश्च प्रत्यक्षत्वात् तत्संबन्धोऽपि प्रत्यक्ष प्रश्नो निरर्थकः। न तथा अविद्या तद्वांश्च प्रत्यक्षौ? यतः प्रश्नः निरर्थकः स्यात्। अप्रत्यक्षेण अविद्यावता अविद्यासंबन्धे ज्ञाते? किं तव स्यात् अविद्यायाः अनर्थहेतुत्वात् परिहर्तव्या स्यात्। यस्य अविद्या? सः तां परिहरिष्यति। ननु ममैव अविद्या। जानासि तर्हि अविद्यां तद्वन्तं च आत्मानम्। जानामि? न तु प्रत्यक्षेण। अनुमानेन चेत् जानासि? कथं संबन्धग्रहणम् न हि तव ज्ञातुः ज्ञेयभूतया अविद्यया तत्काले संबन्धः ग्रहीतुं शक्यते? अविद्याया विषयत्वेनैव ज्ञातुः उपयुक्तत्वात्। न च ज्ञातुः अविद्यायाश्च संबन्धस्य यः ग्रहीता? ज्ञानं च अन्यत् तद्विषयं संभवति अनवस्थाप्राप्तेः। यदि ज्ञात्रापि ज्ञेयसंबन्धो ज्ञायते? अन्यः ज्ञाता कल्प्यः स्यात्? तस्यापि अन्यः? तस्यापि अन्यः इति अनवस्था अपरिहार्या। यदि पुनः अविद्या ज्ञेया? अन्यद्वा ज्ञेयं ज्ञेयमेव। तथा ज्ञातापि ज्ञातैव? न ज्ञेयं भवति। यदा च एवम्? अविद्यादुःखित्वाद्यैः न ज्ञातुः क्षेत्रज्ञस्य किञ्चित् दुष्यति।।

ननु अयमेव दोषः? यत् दोषवत्क्षेत्रविज्ञातृत्वम् न च विज्ञानस्वरूपस्यैव अविक्रियस्य विज्ञातृत्वोपचारात् यथा उष्णतामात्रेण अग्नेः तप्तिक्रियोपचारः? तद्वत्। यथा अत्र भगवता क्रियाकारकफलात्मत्वाभावः आत्मनि स्वत एव दर्शितः -- अविद्याध्यारोपितैः एव क्रियाकारकादिः आत्मनि उपचर्यते तथा तत्र तत्र य एनं वेत्ति हन्तारम् (गीता 2।19) प्रकृतेः क्रियमाणानि गुणैः कर्माणि सर्वशः (गीता 3।27) नादत्ते कस्यचित्पापम् (गीता 5।15) इत्यादिप्रकरणेषु दर्शितः। तथैव च व्याख्यातम् अस्माभिः। उत्तरेषु च प्रकरणेषु दर्शयिष्यामः।।

हन्त तर्हि आत्मनि क्रियाकारकफलात्मतायाः स्वतः अभावे? अविद्यया च अध्यारोपितत्वे? कर्माणि अविद्वत्कर्तव्यान्येव? न विदुषाम् इति प्राप्तम्। सत्यम् एवं प्राप्तम्? एतदेव च न हि देहभृता शक्यम् (गीता 18।11) इत्यत्र दर्शयिष्यामः। सर्वशास्त्रार्थोपसंहारप्रकरणे च समासेनैव कौन्तेय निष्ठा ज्ञानस्य या परा (गीता 18।50) इत्यत्र विशेषतः दर्शयिष्यामः। अलम् इह बहुप्रपञ्चनेन? इति उपसंह्रियते।।

इदं शरीरम् (गीता13।1) इत्यादिश्लोकोपदिष्टस्य क्षेत्राध्यायार्थस्य संग्रहश्लोकः अयम् उपन्यस्यते तत्क्षेत्रं यच्च (गीता 13।3) इत्यादि? व्याचिख्यासितस्य हि अर्थस्य संग्रहोपन्यासः न्याय्यः इति --,

Hindi Commentary By Swami Chinmayananda

।।13.3।। पूर्व श्लोक में यह कहा गया है कि जड़ उपाधियाँ क्षेत्र हैं और इनका अधिष्ठान चैतन्य स्वरूप आत्मा क्षेत्रज्ञ है। यहाँ सबको चकित कर देने वाला कथन है कि समस्त क्षेत्रों में क्षेत्रज्ञ मुझे ही जानो। यदि? सब क्षेत्रों में ज्ञाता एक ही है ? तो इसका अर्थ यह हुआ कि बहुलता और विविधता केवल जड़ उपाधियों में ही है और उनमें व्यक्त चैतन्य सर्वत्र एक ही है। इस सर्वश्रेष्ठ? सर्वातीत एक सत्य को यहाँ उत्तम पुरुष एक वचन के रूप में निर्देशित किया गया है? क्षेत्रज्ञ मैं हूँ? क्योंकि सभी साधकों को यह इसी रूप में अनुभव करना है कि? वह मैं हूँ? (सोऽहम्)।हम पहले भी इंगित कर चुके हैं कि भगवान् श्रीकृष्ण गीता का उपदेश योगारूढ़ की स्थिति के विरले क्षणों में कर रहे हैं। वे सर्वव्यापी आत्मस्वरूप से तादात्म्य किये हुये हैं। इस श्लोक का उनका कथन विद्युत् के इस कथन के समान है कि? मैं ही विश्वभर के बल्बों में प्रकाशित हो रही ऊर्जा हूँ।इस सम्पूर्ण विविध नामरूपमय सृष्टि के पीछे विद्यमान एकमेव सत्य का निर्देश करने के पश्चात् भगवान् अपना मत बताते हुये कहते हैं कि क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञ का विवेकजनित ज्ञान ही वास्तविक ज्ञान कहलाने योग्य है? क्योंकि यही ज्ञान हमें अपने सांसारिक बन्धनों से मुक्त कराने में समर्थ है। इस ज्ञान के अभाव में ही हम जीव भाव के समस्त दुखों को भोग रहे हैं।ज्ञानमार्ग के निष्ठावान् साधकों के लिए यह क्षेत्र और क्षेत्रज्ञ का ज्ञान उपयोगी और आवश्यक होने के कारण उन्हें उसका विस्तृत अध्ययन करना होगा।

Sanskrit Commentary By Sri Abhinavgupta

।।13.2 -- 13.3।।क्वचित् श्रुतौ क्षेत्रज्ञ उपास्यः इति श्रूयते। स च किमात्मा? उत ईश्वरः अथ तृतीयः कश्चिदन्य एव इति प्रश्नाशङ्कायाम् -- श्रीभगवानादिशतिं -- इदमिति? क्षेत्रज्ञमिति। संसारिणां शरीरं क्षेत्रम्? यत्र कर्मबीजप्ररोहः। अत एव तेषामात्मा आगन्तुककालुष्यरूषितः क्षेत्रज्ञ उच्यते। प्रबुद्धानां तदेव क्षेत्रम्। अन्वर्थभेदस्तु तद्यथा -- क्षिणोति कर्मबन्धमुपभोगेन? त्रायते जन्ममरणभयात् इति। तांश्च प्रति परमात्मा वासुदेवः (S? वासुदेवाख्यः) क्षेत्रज्ञः। एतत्क्षेत्रं (S?N यो वेदयति। वेदेत्यन्तर्भा यो वेदयति अन्तर्भा -- ) यो वेद? वेदयति इत्यन्तर्भावितण्यर्थो (N -- ण्यर्थोऽत्र) विदिः। तेन यत्प्रसादादचेतनमिदं चेतनीभावमायाति स एव क्षेत्रज्ञो नान्यः कश्चित्। विशेषस्तु परिमितव्याप्तिकं रूपमालम्ब्य आत्मेति भण्यते अपरिच्छिन्नसर्वक्षेत्रव्याप्त्या परमात्मा भगवान् वासुदेवः। ममेति कर्मणि षष्ठी अहमनेन ज्ञानेन ज्ञेयः इत्यर्थः।

English Translation of Abhinavgupta's Sanskrit Commentary By Dr. S. Sankaranarayan

13.2-3 Somewhere in the scriputures it is heard that 'The Field-sensitizer must be worshipped'. Is He the same as the Soul, or the Lord or an altogether different third entity ? On a doubt regarding this problem - The Bhagavat instructs-Idam etc. Ksetrajnam etc. For persons of wordly life their body is the Ksetra 'Field' where the seeds of action grow. That is why their personal Soul covered with incoming (or foreign, not-natural) dirt, is called Field-sensitizer. In the case of the enlightened persons, the self-same body is [again] the Ksetra, But there is difference in etimological meaning viz : It decays the fetters of the result of action by means of consuming [it]; and it protects [them] from the fear of birth-and-death [cycle]. With reference to these persons, the Supreme Soul, Vasudeva is the Field-sensitizer. He who sensitizes this Field : He who causes it to know. Here the root vid includes within itself, the meaning of the causal suffix ni. Therefore [the meaning is :] He, on account of Whose grace this insentient [body] attains the status of being sentient, He alone, an no one else, is the Field-sensitizer. But, the [only] difference is this : Taking into consideration th aspect of limited pervaisveness, He is taken to be Soul; and on account of [His] unlimited pervasiveness in all the Fields, [He is called] the Supreme Soul, the Bhagavat Vasudeva. Of Me : the Sixth Case here is in the objective sense. Hence the idea is : I may be known by means of this knowledge.

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

13.3 Ca api, and; viddhi, understand; mam, Me, the supreme God who is transcendental; to be the ksetrajnam, 'Knower of the field' with the characterisitics noted above; sarva-ksetresu, in all the fields. The idea is this: Know the 'Knower of the field'- who has become diversified by limiting adjuncts in the form of numerous 'fields' ranging from Brahma to a clump of grass-as free from differentiations resulting from all the limiting adjuncts, and as beyond the range of such words and ideas as existece, nonexistence, etc. O scion of the Bharata dynasty, since there remains nothing to be known apart from the true nature of the field, the knower of the field and God, therefore; tat, that; is jnanam, Knowledge, right knowledge; yat, which; is the jnanam, knowledge; ksetra-ksetrajnayoh, of the field and the knower of the field-which are the two knowables-, and by which Knowledge the field and the knower of the field are made objects of knowledge. This is mama, My, God Vishu's; matam, opinion. Objection: Well, if it be that in all the field there exists God alone, and none else other than Him, as the enjoyer, then God will become a mundane being; or, due to the absence of any mundane creature other than God, there will arise the contingency of the negation of mundance existence. And both these are undesirable, since the scriptures dealing with bondage, Liberation and their causes will become useless, and also becuase they contradict such valid means of knowledge as direct perception. In the first place, mundane existence which is characterized by happiness, sorrow and their cause is apprehended through direct perception. Besides, from the perception of variety in the world it can be inferred that mundane existence results from virtue and vice. All this becomes illogical if God and the individual soul be one. Reply: No, because this becomes justifiable owing to the difference between Knowledge and ignorance. 'These two, viz that which is know as Knowledge and that which is known as ignorance are widely contradictory, and they follow divergent courses' (Ka. 1.2.4.); and similarly, the different results, viz Liberation and enjoyment, belonging (respectively) to those Knowledge and ignorance, have also been pointed out to be contrary by saying that Liberation is the goal of Knowledge, and enjoyment is the result of ignorance (see Ka. 1.2.2). Vyasa, also has said so: 'Now, there are these two paths' (Mbh Sa. 241.6) etc. and, 'There are only these two paths,' etc. Here (in the Gita) also, two kinds of steadfastness have been stated. And it is understood from the Vedas, the Smrtis and reason that ignorance together with its effects has to be destroyed by Knowledge. As for the Vedic texts, they are: 'If one has realized here, then there is truth; if he has not realized here, then there is great destruction' (Ke. 2.5); 'Knowing Him in this way, one becomes Immortal here' (Nr. Pu. 6); 'There is no other path to go by' (Sv. 3.8); 'The enlightened man is not afraid of anything' (Tai. 2.9.1). On the other hand, (the texts) with regard to the unenlightened person are: 'Then, he is smitten with fear' (Tai. 2.7.1); 'Living in the midst of ognorance' (Ka. 1.2.5); One who knows Brahman becomes Brahman indeed. In his line is not born anyone who does not know Brahman' (Mu. 3.2.9); '(While he who worships another god thinking,) "He is one, and I am another," does not know. He is like an animal to the gods' (Br. 1.4.10). He who is a knower of the Self, 'He becomes all this (Universe)' (Br. 1.4.10); 'When men will fold up space like (folding) leather, (then) there will be cessation of sorrow, without knowing the Deity' (Sv. 6.9). There are thousands of texts like these. And the Smrti texts (from the Gita) are: 'Knowledge remains covered by ignorance. Thery the creatures become deluded' (5.15); 'Here itself is rirth conered by them whose minds are established on sameness' (5.19); 'Since by seeing eally the God who is present alike everywhere (he does not injure the Self by the Self, therefore he attains the supreme Goal)' (13.28), etc. And as for reason, there is the text, 'Men avoid snakes, tips of kusa-grass as also well when they are aware of them. Some fall into them owing to ignorance. Thus, see the special result arising from knowledge' (Mbh. Sa. 201.17). Similarly, it is known that an unelightened person, who identifies himself with the body etc. and who practises righteousness and unrighteousness under the impulsion of attachment and aversion, takes birth and dies. It cannot be reasonably denied by anyone that, those who see the Self as different from the body etc. become liberated as a result of the cessation of righteous and unrighteous conduct, which depends on the destruction of attachment and aversion. The being so, the Knower of the field, who is reality is God Himself, appears to have become a mundane soul owing to the various adjuncts which are products of ignorance; as for instance the individual soul becomes identified with the body etc. For it is a well-known fact in the case of all creatures that their self-identify with the body etc. which are not-Self is definitely caused by ignorance. Just as, when a stump, of a tree is firmly regarded as a man, the alities of a man do not thery come to exist in the stump, nor do the alities of the stump come to the person, similarly the property ofconsciousness does not come to the body, nor those of the body to consciousness. It is not proper that the Self should be identified with happiness, sorrow, delusion, etc., since they, like decrepitude and death, are eally the products of ignorance. Objection: May it not be said that this is not so, becuase of dissimilarity? The stump and the man, which are verily objects of perception, are superimposed on each other through ignorance by their perceiver. On the other hand, in the case of the body and the Self,, the mutual superimposition occurs verily between a knower and an object of perception. Thus, the illustration is not eally applicable. Therefore, may it not be that the properties of the body, though objects of knowledge, belong to the Self which is the knower? Reply: No, since there arises the contingency of (the Self) becoming devoid of consciousness! If alities such as happiness, sorrow, delusion, desire, etc. of the body etc., which are the field and are objects of knowledge, indeed belong to the knower, then it will be necessary to explain the particular reason why some of the alities of the object of knowledge-the field-superimposed through ignorance belong to the Self, while decrepitude, death, etc. do not. (On the contrary) it is possible to infer that they (happiness etc.) do not pertain to the Self, since, like decrepitude etc., they are superimposed on the Self through ignorance, and because they are either avoidable or acceptable. This being so, the mundane state, consisting of agentship and enjoyership pertaining to the objects of knowledge, is superimposed on the knower through ignorance. Hence, nothing of the knower is affected thery-in the same way as nothing of the sky is affected by the superimposition of surface, diret, etc. (on it) by fools. Such being the case, not the least touch of the mundane state is to be apprehended with regard to the almighty [see footnote on p.5, and p.168.] God, the Knower of the field, even though He exists in all the fields. For it is nowhere seen in the world that anybody is benefitted or harmed by a ality attributed to him through ignorance. As for the statement that the illustration is not eally applicable-that is wrong. Objection: How? Reply: Because what is intended as common between the illustration and the thing illustrated is merely the superimposition through ignorance. There is no disagreement as to that. However, as for your contention that the illustration fails with regard to the Knower, that too has been shown to be inapt by citing the example of decrepitude etc. [If it be held that objects of experience may be superimposed on one another, but they cannot be superimposed on the experiencer, the answer is that this cannot be a universal proposition. For decrepitude and death, which are matters of experience, are superimposed on the Self, the experiencer.] Objection: May it not be that the Knower of the field becomes a mundane being owing to his having ignorance? Reply: No, because ignorance is of the nature of tamas. Since ignorance has the nature of covering, it is indeed a notion born of tamas; it makes one perceive contrarily, or it arouses doubt, or it leads to non-perception. For it disappears with the dawn of discrimination. And the three kind of ignorance, viz non-perception etc. [Etc: false perception and doubt.], are experienced when there are such defects as blindness etc. which are forms of tamas and have the nature of veiling. [It is known through the process of agreement and difference that false perception etc. arise from some defects,and they are not the alities of the Self.] Objection: Here it is asserted that if this be the case, then ignorance is a ality of the knower? Reply: No, for the defects such as blindness are seen to belong to the eye which is an organ. As for your notion that 'ignorance is a ality of the experiencer, and the very fact of being possessed of the ality of ignorance is what constitutes the mundane state of the Knower of the field; the assertion which was made (by the Vedantin) in that connection, "that the Knower of th field is God Himself and not a mundane being, " is improper,'-this is not so. As for example: Since such defects as false perception etc. are seen to belong to the organ eye, therefore false perception etc. or their causes, viz defects like blindness etc., do not belong to the perceiver. Just as blindness of the eyes does not pertain to the perceiver since on being curved through treatment it is not seen in the perceiver, similarly notions like non-perception, false perception, doubt, and their causes should, in all cases, pertain to some organ; not to the perceiver, the Knower of the field. And since they are objects of perception, they are not alities of the Knower in the same way that light is of a lamp. Just because they are objects of perception, they are cognized as different from one's own Self. Besides, it is denied by all schools of thought that in Liberation, when all the organs depart, there is any association with such defects as ignorance etc. If they (the defects) be the alities of the Self Itself, the Knower of the field, as heat is of fire, then there can never be a dissociation from them. Again, since there can be no association with or dissociation from anything for the immutable, formless Self which is all-pervading like space, therefore it is established that the Knower of the field is ever identical with God. This follows alos from the utternance of the Lord, 'Being without beginning and without alities' (31), etc. Objection: Well, if this be so, then, owing to the nonexistence of the world and the mundane creatures, there will arise the defect of the uselessness of the scriptures, etc. Reply: No, since this (defect) is admitted by all. A defect that is admitted by all who believe in the Self is not to be explained by one alone! Objection: How has this been admitted by all? Reply: People of all schools of thought who believe in the Self admit that there is no worldly behaviour or the behaviour of a worldling in the liberated ones. Yet, in their case (i.e. in those various schools), it is not admitted that there is any possibility of such a defect as the scriptures becoming useless, etc. Similarly, in our case let the scriptures be useless when the knowers of the field become identified with God; and purposeful within the sphere of ignorance. This is just as in the case of all the dualists, where it is admitted that the scriptures etc. become useful in the state of bondage, not in the state of Liberation. Objection: Well, for us all dualists, bondage and Liberation of the Self are real in the truest sense. So, when things to be renounced or accepted as also the means thereto are real, the scriptures etc. become meaningful. On the other hand, may it not be that for the non-dualists, since duality deos not exist in truest sense, it being the creation of ignorance, therefore the state of bondage of the Self is not ultimately real, and hence the scriptures etc. become purposeless as they remain shorn of a subject-matter? Reply: No, since it is not logical that the Self should have different states. If this were possible at all, then the states of bondage and freedom of the Self should be simultaneous, or successive. As to that, they cannot occur simultaneously, since they are contradictory-like rest and motion in the same object. Should they occur successively and without being caused, then there will arise the contingency of there being no Liberation; if they occur through some cause, then, since they do not exist inherently, there arises the contingency of their being ultimately unreal. In this case also the assumption becomes falsified. Moreover, when ascertaining the precedence and succession of the states of bondage and Liberation, the state of bondage will have to be considered as being the earlier and having no beginning, but an end. And that is contrary to valid means of knowledge. Similarly it will have to be admitted that the state of Liberation has a beginning, but no end- which is certainly opposed to valid means of knowledge. And it is not possible to established eternality for something that has states nd undergoes a change from one state to another. On the other hand, if for avoiding the defect of non-eternality the different states of bondage and Liberation be not assumed, then, even for the dualists such defects as the purposelessness of the scriptures become certainly unavoidable. Thus, the situation being similar (for both), it is not for the Advaitin (alone) to refute the objection. Nor do the scriptures become purposeless, because the scriptures are applicable to the commonly known unenlightened person. It is indeed in the case of the ignorant person-not in the case of the enlightened one-that there occurs the perception of identity of the Self with the effect (i.e. enjoyership) and the cause (i.e. agentship) which are not-Self. For, in the case of the enlightened persons, it is impossible that, after the dawn of the realization of non-identity of the Self with effect and cause, they can have Self identification with these as 'I'. Surely, not even a downright fool, or a lunatic and such others, see water and fire or shade and light as identical; what to speak of a discriminating person! Therefore, such being the case, the scriptures dealing with injunction and prohibition do not concern a person who sees the distinction of the Self from effect and cause. For, when Devadatta is ordered to do som work with the words, 'You do this,' Visnumitra who happens to be there does not, even on hearing the ?nd, conclude, 'I have been ordered.' But this conclusion is reasonable when the person for whom the order is meant is not understood. So also with regard to cause and effect. Objection: Can it not be that, even after having realized the Self as different from effect and cuase, it is ite reasonable from the standpoint of natural relationship, [Natural relationship-Self-identification with the body through ignorance.] that with regard to the scriptures one should have the understanding, 'I am enjoined to adotp the means that yields a desired result, and am porhibited from adopting the means that leads to an undesirable result'? As for instance, in the case of a father and son, or between others, even though there exists the awareness of the distinction between each other, still there is the comprehension of the implication of the injunctions and prohibitions meant for one as being also meant for the other. [In the (Br. (1.5.17) we read, 'Now therefore the entrusting: When a man thinks he will die, he says to his son, "You are Brahman, you are the sacrifice, and you are the world,"' etc. It has been enjoined here in this manner that the son should accept as his own all the duties thus entrusted to him by the father. Similarly, it is understood that when a son in unable to perform his own duties, the father has to accept them. So also in the case of brothers and others. Thus, in the case of the enlightened person also, though there is a comprehension of his own distinction from effect and cause, still, owing to his earlier relationship with ignorance, body, etc., there is no contradiction in his understanding that the injunctions and prohibitions are meant for him.] Reply: No, since identification of the Self with effect and cause is possible only before attaining the knowledge of the Self as distinct (from them). It is only after one has followed (or eschewed) what is enjoined or prohibited by the scriptures that he comprehends his own distinction from the effect and cause; not before. [In B.S. (3.4.26-7) it is said that the merit earned by the performance of scriptural duties helps to generate knowledge of Brahman. Therefore these duties are not meant for the enlightened. (By following what is enjoined, and avoiding what is prohibited, one's mind becomes purified, and then only one understands he is different from cause and effect-agentship and enjoyership.-Tr.)] Therefore it is established that the scriptures dealing with injunctions and prohibitions are meant for the ignorant. Objection: Well, if (injunctions and prohibitions) such as, 'One who desires heaven shall perform sacrifices', 'One should not eat poisoned meat,' etc. be not observed by those who have realized the Self as distinct and by those who view only the body as the Self, then, from the absence of any observer of those (injunctions etc.) there would follow the uselessness of the scriptures. Reply: No, because engagement in or abstention from actions follows from what is ordained by the scriptures. As for one who has realized the identity of the Lord and the knower of the field, one who has realized Brahman-he does not engage in action. Similarly, even the person who does not believe in the Self does not engage in action, under the idea that the other world does not exist. However, one who has inferred the existence of the Self on the ground of the wellknown fact that study of the scriptures dealing with injunctions and prohibitions becomes otherwise purposeless, who has no knowledge of the essential nature of the Self, and in whom has arisen hankering for the results of actions-he faithfully engages in action. This is a matter of direct perception to all to us. Hence, the scriptures are not purposeless. Objection: May it not be that the scriptures will become meaningless when, by noticing abstention from action in the case of men with discrimination, their followers too will abstain? Reply: No, because discrimination arises in some rare person only. For, as at present, some rare one among many people comes to possess discrimination. Besides, fools do not follow one who has discrimination, because (their) engagement in action is impelled by defects such as attachment etc. And they are seen to get engaged in such acts as black magic. Moreover, engagement in action is natural. Verily has it been said (by the Lord), 'But it is Nature that acts' (5.14). Therefore, the mundane state consists of nothing but ignorance, and is an object of perception (to the ignorant man who sees it) just as it appears to him. Ignorance and its effects do not belong to the Knower of the feild, the Absolute. Moreover, false knowledge cannot taint the supreme Reality. For, water in a mirage cannot taint the supreme Reality. For, water in a mirage cannot make a desert muddy with its moisture. Similarly, ignorance cannot act in any way on the Knower of the field. Hence has this been said, 'And understand Me to be knower of the field,' as also, 'Knowledge remains covered by ignorance' (5.15). Objection: Then, what is this that even the learned say like the worldly people, 'Thus [Possessed of aristorcracy etc.] am I,' 'This [Body, wife, etc.] verily belongs to Me'? Reply: Listen. This is that learnedness which consists in seeing the field as the Self! On the contrary, should they realize the unchanging Knower of the field, then they will not crave for enjoyment or action with the idea, 'May this be mine.' Enjoyment and action are mere perversions. This being so, the ignorant man engages in action owing to his desire for results. On the other hand, in the case of an enlightened person who has realized the changeless Self, engagement in aciton in impossible because of the absence of desire for results. Hence, when the activities of the aggregate of body and organs cease, his withdrawal from action is spoken of in a figurative sense. Some may have this other kind of learnedness: 'The Knower of the field is God Himself; and the field is something different and an object of knowledge to the Knower of the field. But I am a mundane being, happy and sorrowful. And it is my duty to bring about the cessation of worldly existence through the knowledge of the field and the Knower of the field, and by continuing to dwell in His true nature after directly perceiving through meditation God, the Knower of the field,' and he who, understands thus, and he who teaches that 'he (the taught) is not the Knower of the field,' and he who, being under such an idea, thinks, 'I shall render meaningful the scriptures dealing with the worldly state and Liberation'-is the meanest among the learned. That Self-immolator, being devoid of any link with the traditional interpreters of the purport of the scriptures, misinterprets what is enjoined in the scriptures and imagines what is not spoken there, and thery himself becoming deluded, befools others too. Hence, one who is not a knower of the traditional interpretation is to be ignored like a fool, though he may be versed in all the scriptures. As for the objection that, if God be one with the knower of the field, He will then become a mundane being, and that, if the knowers of the fields are one with God, then from the nonexistence of mundane beings will follow the absence of the mundane state, -these two objections have been refuted by admitting Knowledge and ignorance as having different characteristics. Objection: How? Reply: By saying that any defect imagined through ignorance does not affect the supreme Reality which is the substratum of that (imagination). In accordance with this an illustration was cited that a desert is not made muddy by water in a mirage. Even the defect of the possibility of nonexistence of the mundange state, conseent on the nonexistence of individual souls, stands refuted by the explanation that the mundane state and the individual souls are imagined through ignorance. Objection: The defect of mundane existence in the knower of the field consists in his being possessed of ignorance. And sorrowfulness etc. which are its products are matters of direct experience. Reply: No, since whatever is known is an attribute of the field, therefore the knower-the knower of the field-cannot reasonably be tainted by the defects arising from it. Whatsoever blemish-not existing in the knower of the field-you attribute to It is logically an object of experience, and hence it is verily a ality of the field; not the ality of the knower of the field. Nor does the knower of the field become tainted thery, because of knower cannot possibly have any conjunction with an object of knowledge. Should there be a conjunction, then there will be no possibility at all of its (the latter's) becoming a knowable. Oh! Sir, if being ignorant, sorrowful, etc. be alities of the Self, how is it that they are directly perceived? Or how can they be alities of the Knower of the field? If the conclusion be that all that is known consititutes the field, and that the one who knows is verily the knower of the field, then, to say that being ignorant, sorrowful, etc.are the alities of the knower of the field and that they are directly perceived is a contradictory statement having only ignorance as its basis. Here, (the opponent) asks: To whom does ignorance belong? (The answer is that) it belongs verily to him by whom it is experienced! Objection: In whom is it perceived? Reply: Here the answer is: It is pointless to ask, 'In whom is ignorance experienced?' Objection: How? Reply: If ignorance be perceived (by you), then you perceive its possessor as well. Moreover, when that possessor of ignorance is perceived it is not reasonable to ask, 'In whom is it perceived?' For, when an owner of cattle is seen, the estion, 'To whom do the cattle belong', does not become meaningful. Objection: Well, is not the illustration dissimilar? Since, the cattle and their owner are directly perceived, their relation also is directly perceived. Hence the estion is meaningless. Ignorance and its possessor are not directly perceived in that manner, in which case the estion would have been meaningless. Reply: What will it matter to you if you know the relation of ignorance with a person who is not directly perceived as possessed of ignorance? Opponent: Since ignorance is a source of evil, therefore it should be got rid of. Reply: He to whom ignorance belongs will get rid of it! Opponent: Indeed, ignorance belongs to myself. Reply: In that case, you know ignorance as also yourself who possess it? Opponent: I know, but not through direct perception. Reply: If you know through inference, then how is the connection (between yourself and ignorance) known? Surely it is not possible for you the knower to have at that time ['When you are knowing your own ignorance.'] the knowledge of the relation (of the Self) with ignorance which is an object of knowledge; ['After having perceived ignorance as an object of your knowledge, how can you who continue to be the knower cognize yourself as the knower of that ignorance? For this would lead to the contradiction of the same person becoming the subject and the object of cognition.'] because the cognizer is then engaged in cognizing ignorance as an object. Besides, there cannot be someone who is a (separate) cognizer of the relation between the knower and ignorance, and a separate cognition of that (relation), for this would lead to infinite regress. If the knower and the relation between the knower and the thing known be cognizable, then a separate cognizer has to be imagined. Of him, again, another knower has to be imagined; of him again a separate cognizer would have to be imagined! Thus, an infinite regress be comes unavoidable. Again, whether the knowable be ignorance or anything else, a knowable is verily a knowable; similarly, even a knower is surely a knower; he does not become a knowable. And when this is so, [Since the knower cannot be known, therefore his relation with ignorance also cannot be known by himself or by anybody else] nothing of the cognizer-the knower of the field-is tainted by such defects as ignorance, sorrowfulness, etc. Objection: May it not be said that the (Self's) defect is surely this, that the field, which is full of defects, is cognized (by It)? Reply: No, because it is the Immutable, which is consciousness, by nature, that is figuratively spoken of as the cognizer. It is just like figuratively attributing the act of heating to fire merely because of its (natural) heat. Just as it has been shown here by the Lord Himself that identification with action, cause and effect are absent in the Self, and that action, cause, etc. are figuratively attributed to the Self owing to their having been superimposed (on It) through ignorance, so has it been shown by Him in various places: 'He who thinks of this One as the killer৷৷.' (2.19), 'While actions are being done in ever way by the gunas of Nature' (3.27), 'The Omnipresent neither accepts anybody's sin৷৷.' (5.15), etc. It has been explained by us, too, in that very way, and in the following contexts also we shall explain accordingly. Objection: Well, in that case, if identification with action, cause and effect be naturally absent in the Self, and it they be superimpositions through ignorance, then it amounts to this that actions are meant for being undertaken only by the ignorant, not by the enlightened. Reply: It is true that is comes to this. This very fact we shall explain under the verse, 'Since it is not possible for one who holds on to a body৷৷.' (18.11). And, in the context dealing with the conclusion of the purport of the whole Scripture, we shall explain this elaborately under the verse, '৷৷.in brief indeed, O son of Kunti,৷৷.which is the supreme consummation of Knowledge' (ibid. 50) It is needless here to expatiate further, Hence we conclude. The next verse, '(Hear about)৷৷.what that field is,' etc., summarizing the purport of the chapter dealing with the 'field' taught in the verses begining from 'This body৷৷.'etc., is being presented. For it is proper to introduce briefly the subject-matter that is sought to be explained.

English Translation By Swami Gambirananda

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.