In the first group of six chapters, the realisation of the real nature of the individual self as forming the ancillary to the worship of Bhagavan Vasudeva, the Supreme Brahman, the supreme object of attainment, has been taught. It is also taught therein that it can be accomplished by two worthy paths, namely, Jñana Yoga and Karma Yoga. Next, in the middle group of six chapters, intense and one-pointed devotion to Bhakti Yoga, preceded by the true knowledge of the Lord, the supreme goal, and His glory, has been propounded. It was also taught in a secondary sense that Bhakti Yoga constitutes the means for those who wish for great sovereignty (Aishvarya) and also for those who aspire after the state of isolation (Kaivalya) of the self. In the next group of six chapters, the topics propounded in the first two group are examined. These are: The attributes of the material body and of the self, the universe as the combination of these, the Ruler, His true nature, the real nature of Karma, Jñana and Bhakti and the ways of practising these. Now in the thirteenth chapter the following topics are discussed: (1) the nature of the body and the self; (2) examination of the real nature of the body; (3) the means for the attainment of the disembodied self; (4) the examination of the real nature of the self in disembodied state; (5) the cause of association of such a self with matter, and (6) the mode of discriminating between the body and the self.

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 (Kshetra) 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 (Kshetrajña). 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 Kshetrajña or the Field-knower, who must necessarily be different from the Field (Kshetra), 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 (Kshetrajña), 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 unique 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. Shri Krishna thus declares later on: ‘When in identification with the Gunas he departs or stays or experiences, the deluded perceive him not. They, who have the eye of knowledge, see’ (15.10).

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 consequently 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 Kshetra (Field) which is an aggregate of earth etc., and the Kshetrajña (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 Shruti 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 Vishnu’ 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 (Īshvara), who is Existence-Knowledge-Bliss Absolute must be admitted to have become the individual self, as it were, through nescience (Ajñana). According to their doctrine 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 (Kshetrjña) being different from Him. Such interpreters are to be questioned 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 false 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 debaters whose arguments are contradicted by all Vedas, Smrtis, Itihasas, the Puranas, logic and their own words. The truth is this: Some of the Shruti 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 ’(Shve.U., 4.9); ‘Know then Maya to be the Prakrti and the Possessor of Maya to be the Great Lord’ (Shve.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 (Shve.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 Its 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 qualities’ (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’ (Shve.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...’ (Shve.U., 1.12); ‘Regarding the individual self and the Actuater to be different, and blessed by Him, It attains immortality’ (Ibid., 1.6), and ‘Of 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 her, 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’ (Shve.U., 4.7). The following passages of the Gita are also 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 Prakrti, 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 Shruti also, the subtle original state of material elements is signifed 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, Shruti 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; consequently 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 within the earth, to whom the earth is the body, whom the earth does not know...he who is moving within the Mrtyu (Nature), to whom Mrtyu is the body, whom Mrtyu does not know. He is the Inner Self of all beings, sinless; He is the divine Lord, He is 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 Upanishad, it is declared, ‘The unmanifest (Avyakta) merges into Akshara (the imperishable), and the Akshara 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 possesses 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 Shrutis 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... It thought, “May I become many, may I multiply”. It creates Tejas’ (Cha.U., 6.2.1.3), 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 Shvetaketu’ (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 Shruti 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...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 Shruti 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 Shrutis 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 qualified 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 quite 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 and Īshvara), 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 qualities of experiencer (subject), the experienced (object) and the Controller (God). Though these threads can exist separately they are brought together at a time by man’s will and acquire the character and effect as a consequence. But in the case of the world manifestation, there is a uniqueness. 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 signifed 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 Shruti 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 Shruti text itself settles here what was generally declared elsewhere that negation of attributes (Guna-nishedha) pertains to evil attributes in Brahman. The doctrine that Brahman is of the nature of knowledge is also quite 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 adequately 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’ (Shve.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. Consequently 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... but where everything has become the self...there, by what can one see what...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 Shruti 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 Ṛg veda’ (Ibid., 2.4.10). Thus there is no contradiction whatsoever among the Shrutis 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 Shruti texts themselves establish that those entities, which constitute the body (of the Lord), acquire 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 (Yadavaprakasa’s). All these proceed from unsound logic and are in violation of all Shrutis. 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 Ishvara. 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 common substratum known technically as Samanadhikaranya 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 Īshvara 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 Īshvara and this Jiva-cum-Prakrti body. In this sense Īshvara is the Field-knower (Kshetrajña) of the Field (Kshetra) 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. *See page 459

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.

It is this truth regarding the Keshtra and Kshetrajña that has been sung in various ways by Parashara and other seers. For example, ‘I and you and others are composed of the elements; and the elements, following the stream of qualities, assume a shape; these qualities, Sattva and the rest, are dependent on Karma; and Karma, accumulated by nescience, influences the condition of all beings. The self is pure, imperishable, tranquil, void of qualities and is pre-eminent over Prakrti’ (V.P., 2.13.69-71). Similarly: ‘The body, characterised by head, hands, feet and the like is different from Purusha.’ Which of these can I designate by the name I?’ (Ibid., 2.13.89). And also: ‘Are you the head or the belly? Are you indeed the feet and other limbs, or do they belong to you, O King? You are distinct in your nature from all your members, O King. Know, O King, and understand “Who am I” ‘. (Ibid., 1.13.102-3) Moreover they state that Vasudeva constitutes the Self of the distinct entities (Kshetra and Kshetrajña): ‘The senses, Manas, Buddhi, vigour, splendour, strength, courage, both Kshetra and Kshetrajña have Vasudeva for their self. (Ma.Bha.Sha., 149.136). In various distinctive hymns, namely, in the Vedas, Ṛg, Yajus, Saman and Atharvan, the distinction of body and the self has been sung. The nature of the body is described in the following text: ‘From this Self, verily, ether arose; from the ether, air; from air, fire; from fire, water; from water, the earth; from the earth, herbs; from the herbs, food; from food, the person. The same person, verily, consists of the essence of food’ (Tai.U. ,2.1.2). Afterwards that which is inner than this (body) and which consists of Prana (or the vital breath), and that which is inner than this and which consists of mind are described. The nature of Kshetrjña is stated in the passage: ‘Verily, other than, and within, that one that consists of mind, that (the individual Self) consists of understanding’ (Ibid., 2.4.2). Later, the Supreme Brahman is stated in the text; ‘Verily, other than, and within, that one consisting of understanding, is the Supreme Self that consists of bliss’ (Ibid., 1.5.2). This is stated to be the Supreme Self, consisting of bliss, as forming the inner Self of the individual self. Similarly in the three Vedas, Ṛg, Saman and Atharvan, here and there, the distinctive existence of the Kshetra and the Kshetrajña is affirmed with Brahman for their Self. Likewise, the same purpose is taught in the words of the Brahma-sutras, namely, the aphorisms about Brahman, known also as the Shariraka-sutras, which are characterised by reasoning, decision and conclusion. In the Sutras commencing with, ‘Not ether, on account of the absence of the Shruti’ (B.S., 2.3.1), the nature and the mode of the Kshetra is determined. In the Sutras commencing with ‘Not the self, on account of the Shruti and on account of the eternity, (which is made out) from them’ (Ibid., 2.3.18), the true nature of the Kshetrajña is determined. In the Sutras ‘But from the Supreme, this being declared by Shruti’ (Ibid., 2.3.40), that Kshetrajña has the Lord for Its Self on account of Its being under the control of the Lord, is declared. It has been sung in various ways; the meaning of this Shloka is this: Listen about the truths of the Kshetra and the Kshetrajña which have been expounded in numerous ways and declared by Me in a lucid and brief manner.

The ‘great elements, the Ahankara, the Buddhi and the Avyakta’ are substances that originate the Kshetra. The ‘great elements’ are the earth, water, fire, air and ether. The ‘Ahankara’ here means Bhutadi (primeval element). The ‘Buddhi’ is called Mahat; the ‘Avyakta’ is known as the Prakrti. The ‘ten senses and the one’ and the five objects of senses are principles depending on the Kshetra. The ‘five sensorial organs’ are ear, skin, eye, tongue and nose. The five motor organs are speech, hands, feet, and the organs of excretion and reproduction. These are the ten senses. The Manas is the additional ‘one’ more. The ‘objects of the senses’ are five—sound, touch, form, taste and smell. Desire, hatred, pleasure and pain, being the transformation of the Ksetra, are said to be the modifications of the Kshetra. Though desire, hatred, pleasure and pain are the qualities of the self, yet they originate from the association of the self with the Kshetra. Shri Krishna will state that they are the attributes of the self; ‘In the experience of pleasure and pain, the self is said to be the cause’ (13.20) The combination of elements serves as the support (Adhrti) of the intelligent self. As such, the word Adhrti means substratum. The combination of material elements has arisen as the substratum for the self to experience pleasure and pain, and for acquiring worldly experiences and the final release. The combination of elements is formed by substances commencing from the Prakrti and ending with the earth; it is the basis of senses which are endowed with the modifications of the nature of desire, hatred, pleasure and pain. These form a Sanghata or an association of elements. It serves as the basis of the experience of pleasure and pain by the individual self. This is what is said of the Kshetra. This Kshetra has been explained briefly with its modifications and effects.

Now certain qualities, the effects of the Kshetra, worthy of being acquired as being the means for securing the knowledge of the self, are enumerated.

‘Amanitva’ means freedom from superiority complex towards eminent people. ‘Adambhitva’: ‘Dambha’ is the practice of Dharma for winning fame as a virtuous person; freedom from it is Adambhitva. ‘Ahimsa’ is absence of tendency to injure others by speech, mind and body. ‘Kshanti’ is the tendency of keeping the mind unmodified even when harmed by others. ‘Arjava’ means having a uniform disposition towards others in speech, mind and body. ‘Acaryopasana’ means being intent in prostrating, questioning, performing service etc., in regard to the teacher who imparts the knowledge of the self. ‘Shauca’ is the competence of the mind,speech and body, as enjoined by the Shastras, for the knowledge of the self and the means of this attainment. ‘Sthairya’ is possessing unshakable faith in the Shastras concerning the self. ‘Atma-vinigraha’ means the turning away from all objects that are different in nature from the self.

‘Absence of desire’ with regard to sense-objects means dispassion towards all objects different from the spiritual self by the constant awareness of the evil in them. ‘Absence of egotism’ means freedom from the misconception that the self is the body, which is in reality different from the self. This is only an illustration standing for other misconceptions too. It indicates freedom from the feeling of possession towards things which do not belong to one. ‘Perception of evil in birth, death, old age, disease and sorrow’ means the constant contemplation on the inevitable evil of birth, death, old age and sorrow while in the body.

‘Non-attachment’ means freedom from attachment to things other than the self. ‘Absence of clinging’ to son, wife, home and the like means absence of excessive affection for these beyond the limits allowed by the Shastras. ‘Constant even-mindedness’ to all desirable and undesirable events means the state of freedom from joy and grief with regard to occurrences springing from desire.

‘Constant devotion’ means devotion with a single end, namely, Myself the Lord of all; ‘remaining in places free from people’ means having no love for crowds of people.

‘Adhyatma-jñana’ is the knowledge that pertains to the self. Reflection for the attainment of knowledge of the truth, namely, being always intent in the thought having for its object the knowledge of the truth. ‘Knowledge’ is that by which the self is realised. The meaning is that it is the means for the knowledge of the self. The group of attributes mentioned before, beginning with modesty etc., are those that are favourable for the knowledge of the self in association with the body. All the evolutes of Kshetra, which are different from those mentioned above, constitute ignorance, as they are antagonistic to the knowledge of the self.

Now, the nature of Kshetrajña, characterised as the knower in the stanza, ‘He who knows it’ (13.1), is examined:

I shall declare that nature of the individual self (brahman) which is the object to be known, namely, what is to be gained by means of virtues like modesty etc., by knowing which one attains to the self which is immortal, birthless, free from old age, death and such other material qualities. [The expression is split up as—Anadi= beginningless; Mat-param=having Me as the Highest.] Anadi means that which is beginningless. Indeed, there is no origination for this individual self ( brahman ) and for the same reason, It is endless. The Shruti also declares: ‘The wise one is not born, nor dies’ (Ka.U., 2.18). ‘Matpara’ means having Me for the Highest. Verily, it has been told: ‘Know that which is other than this (lower nature), which is the life-principle, to be the highest Prakrti of Mine’ (7.5). By virtue of being the body of the Lord, the nature of the self finds joy in being completely subsidiary to Him. So the Shruti declares: ‘He who, dwelling in the self, is within the self, whom the self does not know, whose body the self is and who controls the self from within...’ (Br.U.Madh., 5.7.22). Similarly do the texts declare: ‘He is the cause, Lord of Lords and of sense organs. He has no progenitor, nor lord’ (Shve.U., 6.9); and ‘He is the Lord of the Pradhana and of the individual selves, and the Lord of qualities (Ibid., 6.16). That which is conjoined with the quality of infinite dimension or extensiveness can be designated as brahman. It is different from, and not circumscribable by, the body etc. The meaning is, It is the principle which apprehends the Kshetra. Shruti also declares: ‘He (i.e., the individual self) partakes of infinity’ (Shve.U., 5.9). By Its Karma It is circumscribed. It assumes Its infinite nature only when It is freed from the bonds of Karma. The term brahman is applied to designate the individual self as in: ‘He, crossing beyond the Gunas’, becomes fit for the state of brahman’ (14.26), ‘I am the ground of the brahman, who is immutable and immortal’ (14.27), and ‘Having attained to the state of brahman , tranquil, he neither grieves nor craves; regarding all beings alike, he attains supreme devotion to Me’ (18.54). It (brahman) is said to be neither being nor non-being. The terms ‘being’ and ‘non-being’ cannot signify the nature of the self because It is neither effect nor cause. For It is called ‘being’ (Sat) in the condition of effect when It has the form of gods etc. As It cannot possess names and forms in the condition of cause, It is said to be ‘non-being’ or Asat. So the Shruti texts declare: ‘In the beginning, verily, this (brahman ) was non-existence; therefrom the being was born’ (Tai.U., 2.7.1) and ‘Verily, this (brahman)-was then undifferentiated. It became differentiated by names and forms’ (Br.U., 1.4.7). The self’s conditions as effect and cause have arisen on account of veiling by Avidya or ignorance in the form of Karma. It is not an expression of Its real nature. So, the terms ‘being’ and ‘non-being’ do not signify the nature of the self, If it is argued that, in the passage ‘In the beginning, verily, this (Brahman) was non-existence’ (Tai.U., 2.7.1), it is the Supreme Brahman in the state of cause that is described—even then it can be pointed out that the Supreme Brahman in causal condition has, for His body, the conscient and non-conscient entities in a subtle state, incapable of being differentiated by names and forms. Such a description is therefore valid. On the same principle the nature of Kshetra (body) and Kshetrajña (individual self) in the state of cause can also be indicated by the term ‘non-being’. But this condition of the individual self has arisen due to Karma and such descriptions as ‘being’ and ‘non-being’ are applicable to the self only in the state of bondage. Its pure form cannot be signified by the terms ‘being’ and ‘non-being’.

Everywhere are Its hands and feet i.e., the self in Its pure form is able to perform everywhere the works of hands and feet. Its eyes, heads and mouths are everywhere; It performs everywhere the task of eyes etc. The Shruti declares; ‘Without feet or hands, He moves swiftly and seizes things; He sees without eyes, He hears without ears? (Shve.U., 3.19). It may be said that it means that the Supreme Brahman performs everywhere the task of hands, feet etc., even though He is devoid of hands and feet. If ‘Brahman’ is taken to mean the self, it can be asked how this power of the Supreme Brahman (namely, having hand, feet, eyes, etc., everywhere) can be attributed to the self, then the answer is that it is established in the Shrutis that the pure individual self has the capacity of performing the task of hands, feet etc., because It is equal to Him. Shruti also declares: ‘Then, the wise seer, shaking off good and evil, stainless, attains the supreme equality with Him’ (Mun.U., 3.1.3). Shri Krishna will also teach later on: ‘Resorting to this knowledge, It partakes of My nature’ (14.2). It exists encompassing all things, whatever aggregate of things that exist in the world; It encompasses them. The sense is that in Its pure state, It is all-pervasive, as It has no limitation of space etc.

Sarvendriya-gunabhasam i.e., shining by the functions of the senses—means that which is shedding light on the functions of all the senses. The ‘Gunas’ of the senses means the activities of the senses. The meaning is that the self is capable of knowing the objects with the functioning of the senses. ‘Yet devoid of the senses’ i.e., It is capable by Itself, of knowing everything. Such is the meaning. It is ‘detached’, namely, It is free, by nature, from attachment to the bodies of gods etc. ‘Yet supporting all,’ yet capable of supporting all bodies, such as of gods etc., as declared in the Shruti. ‘It is one, is threefold...’ (Cha.U., 7.26.2). It is devoid of Gunas, i.e., by nature It is devoid of Sattva etc., and yet It is the ‘experiencer of the Gunas’—It has the capability to experience Sattva etc.

Abandoning the elements like earth etc., It can exist outside the body. It can exist within them while performing spontaneous activities as established in the Shrutis: ‘Eating, playing, enjoying with partners or with vehicles’ (Cha.U., 8.12.3). ‘It is unmoving and yet moving’—it is by nature, unmoving, It is moving when It has a body. It is so subtle that none can comprehend It. Although existing in a body, this principle, possessed of all powers and omniscient, cannot be comprehended by bound ones because of Its subtlety and Its distinctiveness from the body. It is far away and yet It is very near—though present in one’s own body, It is far away from those who are devoid of modesty and other qualities (mentioned above) as also to those who possess contrary qualities. To those who possess modesty and such other qualities, the same self is very near.

Though the entity called the self is present everywhere in the bodies of divinities, men etc., It is ‘undivided’ because of Its form being that of the knower. However, to those who are ignorant, It appears divided, by such forms as those of divinities etc.—’I am a divinity,’ ‘ man’ etc. Though the self can be contemplated by way of co-ordinate predication as one with the body in such significations as, ‘I am divinity, I am a man, ‘ It can be known as being different from the body, because of Its being a knower. That is why it has already been pointed out at the beginning: ‘He who knows It? (13.1). Now Shri Krsna says that It can be known as different also on other grounds—as the ‘supporter of elements’ etc. Because It supports the earth and other elements combined in the shape of the body, the self can be known as being different from the elements supported. The sense is that It can be known as a separate entity. Likewise, It is that which ‘devours’, namely, the consumer of physical food etc. Because, It ‘devours’ the food, It can be known as an entity different from the elements. It causes ‘generation’—It is the cause of transformation of consumed food etc., into other forms like blood etc. As eating, generating etc., are not seen in a corpse, it is settled that the body, an aggregate of elements, cannot be the cause of devouring food, generating of species and supporting them.

This (self) alone is the ‘light’ which illuminates things like the sun, a lamp, a gem etc. It is knowledge alone in the form of the effulgence of the self which illuminates a lamp, the sun etc. But a lamp etc., dispel the darkness that intervenes between the sense of sight and its subject. Their illuminating power is limited to this extent. This is said to be beyond Tamas (darkness). The term Tamas denotes Prakrti in its subtle state. The meaning is that the self transcends Prakrti. Therefore, It is to be comprehended as knowledge, i.e., to be understood as of the form of knowledge. It is attainable by means of knowledge—such as modesty etc., already described. It is present in the heart of all, i.e., It is specially settled, or present in the heart of all beings like men etc.

This is a brief description of the principle of Kshetra—i.e., the text beginning with ‘The great elements, the Ahankara’ (13.5) and ending with ‘An association’ (13.6). ‘Knowledge’ which is the means for attaining the comprehension of the principle known as the self has been taught in the text beginning with ‘Modesty’ (13.7) and ending with ‘Reflection for attainment of knowledge of truth’ (13.11). The nature of Kshetrajña (the self) which is the object of knowledge has also been concisely taught by the text beginning with ‘The beginningless brahman having Me for the Highest’ (13.12) and ending with ‘present in the heart of all’ (13.17). My devotee, on knowing this, i.e., the truth about the Ksetra, the truth about the means for attaining the nature of the self as distinct from the Kshetra, and the truth about the Kshetrajña, becomes worthy to attain My state of being. What is called My state of being is My own nature (Svabhava), namely, the transcendence of transmigratory existence. The meaning is that he becomes worthy to attain the state of freedom from transmigratory existence.

Next (1) the beginninglessness of the conjunction between the Prakrti and the self which are completely distinct, (2) the difference in the workings of these two when they are associated with each other, and (3) the cause of this conjunction—these are treated:

Know this Prakrti and Purusha (self) are uncreated and are beginningless. Know that the modifications, desire, hatred etc., which cause bondage, and the qualities of modesty etc., which cause release, originate from Prakrti. The Prakrti, having no beginning, develops into the form of the body, and conjoint with the self, causes bondage through its own transformations such as desire and hatred. The same Prakrti, through its transformations like modesty etc., causes release. Such is the meaning.

The difference in the functions of Prakrti and Purusha in combination is stated—

The ‘Karya’ means the body, the ‘Karanas’ mean the instruments, i.e., the senses of perception and action plus the Manas. In their operations, the Prakrti, subservient to the self, is alone the causal factor. The sense is that their operations, which are the means of experience, have their foundation in the Prakrti, which has developed in the form of the body subservient to the self. In regard to this, the authority is the aphorism, ‘The self is an agent, on account of the scriptures having the purpose’ (B.S., 2.3.33) etc. The agency of the self means that the self is the cause of the will (effort) to support the body. The self (Purusha) associated with the body is the cause for experiencing pleasures and pains. The meaning is that It is the seat of those experiences.

Thus, has been explained the difference in the operations of the Prakrti and of the self when they are mutually conjoined. He now proceeds to explain how, though the self, which in Its pristine nature experiences Itself by Itself as nothing but joy, becomes the cause of experiencing both pleasure and pain derived from sense objects when It is conjoined with a body.

Indeed, the self seated in Prakrti experiences the Gunas born of Prakrti....

The term Guna figuratively represents effects. The self (in Its pristine nature) experiences Itself by Itself, as nothing but joy. But when dwelling in the body, i.e., when It is in conjunction with the Prakrti, It experiences the qualities born of Prakrti, namely, happiness, pain etc., which are the effects of Gunas like Sattva etc. He explains the cause of conjunction with the Prakrti:

The term Guna figuratively represents effects. The self (in Its pristine nature) experiences Itself by Itself, as nothing but joy. But when dwelling in the body, i.e., when It is in conjunction with the Prakrti, It experiences the qualities born of Prakrti, namely, happiness, pain etc., which are the effects of Gunas like Sattva etc. He explains the cause of conjunction with the Prakrti:

The self, settled in a series of bodies of divinities, men etc., which are modifications of Prakrti, becomes attached to happiness, pain etc., resulting from the Sattva and other qualities associated with the respective wombs, and hence engages Itself in virtuous and sinful deeds, constituting the means for happiness, misery etc. In order to experience the fruits of those good and evil deeds, It is born again in good and evil wombs. Then It becomes active and consequently is born again as a result of Its activities. As long as It does not cultivate qualities like modesty etc., which are the means for realising the self, so long Its entanglement in Samsara continues like this. Thus, it has been declared here that attachment causes births in good and evil wombs.

The self existing in the body becomes the ‘spectator and approver’ of this body by means of the will in consonance with the functioning of the body. Likewise, It is the ‘supporter’ of the body, Similarly, It becomes ‘experiencer’ of the pleasure and pain resulting from the activities of the body. Thus, by virtue of ruling and supporting the body and by making the body completely subservient, It becomes ‘the great lord’ (Maheshvara) in relation to the body, the senses and the mind. Shri Krishna will further declare: ‘When the lord acquires the body, and when he leaves it and goes on his way, he takes these as the wind carries scents from their places’ (15.8). In the body, It is said to be the ‘supreme self in relation to the body, the senses and the mind. The word ‘self’ (Atman) is applied to the body and the mind subsequently. It is said afterwards: ‘Some perceive the self by means of the self through meditation’ (13.24). The particle ‘also’ (api) indicates that the self is the ‘supreme lord’? in relation to the body just as It is the supreme self. The supremacy of the self has been described in the text beginning with ‘It is the beginningless brahman having Me for the Highest’ (13.12). It is true that the self (in Its emancipated state) has limitless power knowledge. But It becomes the great lord and the supreme self only in relation to the body. Such lordship and supremacy is the result of attachment to the Gunas arising from the beginningless conjunction with Prakrti.

He who ‘understands’, namely, knows truly with discrimination, the self to be thus, and also the Prakrti as having the aforesaid nature along with Sattva and other Gunas, whose nature will be later examined, is never born again, i.e., is never reborn conjointly with Prakrti again in ‘whatever state he may be placed,’ i.e., in whatever painful condition he may be placed in the bodies of divinities, men etc. The meaning is that at the time when the body ceases to exist, the self will attain the purified state characterised by boundless knowledge devoid of evil.

The different type of Yogis are described herein: (1) Some with perfect Yoga perceive the self (Atmanam) in the body with the mind (Atmana) by meditation. (2) Others with imperfect Yoga see the self, with mind rendered fit for Yoga, by Sankhya Yoga, namely, Jñana Yoga, (3) Still others, (a) unqualified to practise Jñana Yoga, and (b) qualified but preferring an easier method, and (c) also distinguished persons like Janaka—all these perceive the self after being qualified for Yoga by Karma Yoga which contains within itself knowledge (Jñana).

But some, namely, those who are not qualified for Karma Yoga etc., for realising the self, listen to Jñanins who know the truth, and meditate on the self through Karma Yoga, etc.—they too pass beyond death. It means that those who are devoted to what they hear only, even they, intent on hearing and devoid of evils, begin in due course, the practice of Karma Yoga etc., and pass beyond death. By the term ‘too’ ( api ), the difference in levels is made out.

Now, in order to teach the contemplation on the distinctness of the self conjoined with the Prakrti, he says that all entities, movables and immovables, are the product of combination between the conscient and the non-conscient:

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

He who sees the Atman as It really is—he is the one who sees the Atman as a distinct entity in all embodied beings that are composed of Prakrti and Purusha, even in bodies of diverse nature of gods, men etc. The true seer is one who sees the Atman as the supreme ruler in all these bodies as the imperishable self, though the bodies are subject to destruction. Conversely the purport is that he who sees the Atman, only as characterised by the unequal forms of the bodies as men, gods etc., and as possessed of birth, death etc.—such a person is perpetually caught up in transmigratory existence.

‘The ruler’ (the self) abides in the bodies of divinities and the rest as their supporter, controller and as their Sheshin (principal). He who sees the self free from dissimilar shapes of divinities etc., and as being of the same form of knowledge, he does not injure himself by ‘himself’, namely, by his mind. Therefore, as a result of seeing the sameness of the nature of the self in every place as a knower, he attains the ‘highest goal.’ What is to be reached is called ‘goal’. He attains the supreme, namely, the self in its pure form. On the contrary, if he should view the self as dissimilar in every place, i.e., identifies It with the bodies, then he ‘injury the self, namely, hurls It into the middle of the ocean of Samsara.

When he perceives that ‘all acts are performed by the Prakrti’ in the manner previously stated in, ‘Prakrti is said to be the cause of agency to the body and sense-organs’ (13.20), and perceives also that ‘the self, being of the form of knowledge, is not the doer,’ and that the self’s conjunction with the Prakrti, Its direction of the body and Its experiences of happiness and misery are the result of ignorance of the nature of Karma—then indeed he perceives the pure self.

When he perceives that the diversified ‘modes of existence’ of all beings as men, divinities etc., are founded on the two principles of Prakrti and Purusha; when he perceives that their existence as divine, human, short, tall etc., is rooted in ‘one’ common foundation, namely, in the Prakrti, and not in the self; when he sees that ‘their expansion’, i.e., the successive proliferation into sons, grandsons and such varieties of beings, is from Prakrti alone—then he reaches the brahman. The meaning is that he attains the self devoid of limitations, in Its pure form of knowledge.

This ‘supreme self’ (Atman) has been defined as having a nature different from that of the body. While existing in the body, It is ‘immutable’, i.e., It is not liable to decay as It is ‘without a beginning,’ i.e., never created at any point of time. Because It is ‘free from Gunas,’ being devoid of Sattva and other Gunas of Prakrti, It neither acts nor gets tainted; It is not tainted by the qualities of the body.

Granted that the self being without Gunas, does not act; but how is it possible that the Atman is not tainted by Its constant association with the qualities of the body? To this, Shri Krishna replies:

As the ‘all-pervading ether,’ though in contact with all substances, is ‘not tainted’ by the qualities of all these substances, as it is ‘subtle’—even so the self, though ‘present in all the bodies,’ everywhere, namely, in divinities, men etc., is not contaminated by these bodies by reason of Its extreme subtleness.

As the ‘one sun’ illumines ‘all this world’ by his radiance, so the ‘knower of the body’ illumines the entire Kshetra, i.e., the body, by Its own knowledge, within and without and from head to toe, by conceiving ‘This my body is of this nature.’ This self of the said nature is totally different from the body, because It is the knower of the body. The body is the object of Its knowledge and is therefore different from It, even as the illuminating sun is totally different from the illumined world.

Those who ‘discern thus’ in the described manner the ‘difference’, namely, the difference between the body and the knower of the body with ‘the eye of knowledge’ or discrimination, and also the ‘means of deliverance from manifested Prakrti’—they attain the ‘highest’, namely, the self. They are completely delivered from bondage. Moksha is that by which deliverance is effected. The means of deliverance as already stated consists of qualities beginning with modesty (13.7). They, through the knowledge already imparted concerning the differences between the body and the self, know those differences existing between them. Then learning about modesty etc., which form the means of deliverance from Prakrti that has developed into material elements constituting the body, they have to practise these virtues, and they will thereby be absolutely delivered from bondage and will reach the self marked by infinite knowledge abiding in Its own form. *See page 429 [Being in co-ordinate predication (Samanadhikaranya), Brahman is an inseparable but mutually distinct complex of Prakrti, Jiva and Īshvara. The cosmic mode of body constituted of Prakrti and Purusha is at intervals in alternate states of latency and patency (Pralaya and Srshti or dissolution and manifestation). As the soul of a complex whole, He can be denoted by any of the terms entering into it—Īshvara, Prakrti or Jiva. Brahman is sometimes mentioned in the Shrutis as Asat when everything is in latency in Pralaya, and as Sat when all entities are in manifestations (Srshti). All these expressions denote Him only. He is described in some texts as attributeless. It means only that He is without any undesirable evil qualities. He is on the other hand endowed with countless auspicious attributes. All these contentions are supported by numerous Vedic passages, which are quoted in the commentary.]