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.


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


13.5 Gitam, It has been sung of, spoken of; bahudha, in various ways; rsibhih, by the Rsis, by Vasistha and others; sung prthak, separately; vividhaih, by the different kinds of; chandobhih, Vedic texts-chandas mean the Rg-veda etc; by them; ca, and; besides, hetumadbhih, by the rational; and viniscitaih, by the convincing, i.e. by those which are productive of certain knowledge-not by those which are in an ambiguous form; brahma-sutra-padaih eva, sentences themselves which are indicative of and lead to Brahman. Brahma-sutras are the sentences indicative of Brahman. They are called padani since Brahman is reached, known, through them. By them indeed has been sung the true nature of the field and the Knower of the field (-this is understood). The Self is verily known through such sentences as, 'The Self alone is to be meditated upon' (Br. 1.4.7), which are indicative of and lead to Brahman.
To Arjuna who had become interested as a result of the eulogy, the Lord says:


13.6 Mahabhutani, the great elements: Those elements which are great owing to their pervasion of all midifications, and which are subtle. As for the gross elements, they will be spoken of by the word indriya-gocarah, objects of the senses.
Ahankarah, egoism, which is the source of the great elements and consists of the idea of 'I'. Buddhih, intellect, the source of egoism and consisting of the faculty of judgement; ca, and; its cause, the avyaktam eva, Unmanifest itself, the Undifferentiated, the power of God spoken of in, 'Maya of Mine৷৷.difficult to cross' (7.14). The word eva (itself) is used for singling out Prakrti (Nature). The Prakrti divided eightfold [The undifferentiated (avyakta), mahat, egoism and the five uncompunded subtle elements] is this much alone. The word ca (and) is used for joining the various categories.
The dasa, ten; indriyani, organs : The five, organs ear etc., which are called sense-organs since they produce perception, and the (other) five organs-organ of speech, hands, etc.-which are called motor-organs since they accomplish actions. They are ten. Ekam ca, and the one-which is that?-the mind, the eleventh, possessed of the power of thinking etc. (see fn. on p. 173). Ca, and; the panca, five; indriya-gacarah, objects of the senses-such objects as sound etc. The followers of the Sankhya call these which are such the twenty-four categories.
Thereafter, the Lord now says that even those alities which the Vaisesikas speak of as the attributes of the sould are certainly the attributes of the field, but not of the Knower of the field:


13.7 Iccha, desire: Having experienced again an object of that kind which had given him the feeling of pleasure earlier, a man wants to have it under the idea that it is a source of pleasure. That is this desire which is an attribute of the internal organ, and is the 'field' since it is an object of knowledge.
So also dvesah, repulsion: Having experienced again an object of that kind which he had earlier felt as a cause of sorrow, he hates it. That is this repulsion, and it is surely the 'field' since it is an object of knowledge. Similarly, sukham, happiness- which is favourable, tranil, having the ality of sattva-is the 'field' since it is an object of knowledge. Duhkham, sorrow-which is by nature adverse-, that, too, is the 'field' since it is a knowable.
Sanghatah is the aggregate, the combination, of body and organs. Cetana, sentience, is a state of the internal organ, manifest in that aggregate like fire in a heated lump of iron, and pervaded by an essence in the form of a semblance of Consciousness of the Self. That too is the 'field' because it is an object of knowledge. Dhrtih, fortitude, by which are sustained the body and organs when they get exhausted-that too is the 'field' becuase it is an object of knowledge. Desire etc. have been selected as suggestive of all the alities of the internal organ.
The Lord concludes what has been said: Etat, this; ksetram, field; savikaram, together with its modifications beginning from mahat (buddhi); has been samasena, briefly; udahrtam, spoken of. That 'field' which was referred to as, 'This body is called the field' (1), and is constituted by the aggregate of the constituents of the field has been explained in its different forms beginning from the great elements etc. ending with fortitude.
The Knower of the field whose alities are going to be described, and by realizing which Knower of the field along with His majesty Immortality follows-of Him, togehter with His attributes, the Lord Himself will narrate in the verse, 'I shall speak of that which is to be known' (12). But, for the present, the Lord enjoins the group of disciplines characterized as humility etc. which lead one to the knowledge of That (Knower of the field)-that group of humility etc. which are referred to by the word Knowledge since they lead to Knowledge, and owing to the existence of which one becomes appropriately competent for the realization of that Knowable, and being endued with which a monk is said to be steadfast in Knowledge:


13.8 Amanitvam, humility-the ality of a vain person is manitvam, boasting about oneself; the absence of that is amanitvam. Adambhitvam, unpretentiousness- proclaming one's own virtues is dambhitvam; the absence of that is adambhitvam. Ahimsa, non-injury, absence of cruely towards creatures; ksantih, for-bearance, remaining undisturbed when offened by others; arjavam, sincerity, uprightness, absence of crookedness; acarya-upasanam, service of the teacher, attending on the teacher who instructs in the disciplines for Liberation, through acts of service etc.; saucam, cleanliness-washing away the dirt from the body with earth and water, and internally, removing the 'dirt' of the mind such as attachment etc. by thinking of their opposites; sthairyam, steadiness, perseverance in the path to Liberation alone; atma-vinigrahah, control of the aggregate of body and organs which is referred to by the word 'self', but which is inimical to the Self; restricting only to the right path that (aggregate) which naturally strays away in all directions.
Further,


13.9 Vairagyam, non-attachment, the attitude of dispassion; indriya-arthesu, with regard to objects of the senses, viz sound etc., with regard to seen or unseen objects of enjoyment; eva ca, and also; anahankarah, absence of egotism, absence of pride; janma-mrtyu-jara-vyadhi-duhkha-dosa-anudarsanam, seeing the evil in birth, death, old age, diseases and miseries-seeing the evil in each one of them from 'birth' to 'miseries'. The evil in birth consists in lying in the womb and coming out of it; seeing, i.e. thinking, of it. Similarly, thinking of the evil in death; so also, seeing in old age the evil in the form of deprivation of intelligence, strength and vigour, and becoming an object of contempt. In the same way, thinking of the evil in diseases like headtache etc.; so also with regard to miseries arising from causes physical, natural and supernatural.
Or, duhkha-dosa may mean the miseries themselves which are evil. Seeing, as before, that (evil in the form of miseries) in birth etc.-birth is miserable, death is miserable, old age is miserable, diseases are miserable. Birth etc. are miserable because they cause misery; not that they are miseries in themselves. [Birth etc. are perceivable events, and as such are not miseries in themselves.] Thus, when one thinks of the evil in the form of miseries in birth etc. dispassion arises with regard to the pleasures in the body, organs and objects. From that follows the tendency of the organs towards the indwelling Self for the realization of the Self. The seeing of the evil in the form of misery in birth etc. is called Knowledge because it thus becomes a cuase of the rise of Knowledge.
Moreover,


13.10 Asaktih, non-attachment-attachment means merely the kind for things arising from association; the absence of that is asaktih; and anabhisvangah, absence of fondness-abhisvangah, is in fact a special kind of attachment consisting of the idea of self-identification; as for instance, thinking 'I myself am happy,' or, 'I am sorrowful,' when somody else is happy or unhappy, and thinking 'I live', or, 'I shall die,' when some- body else lives or dies-With regard to what? In answer the Lord says: putra-dara-grhadisu, with regard to sons, wives, homes, etc. From the use of 'etc.' (it is understood that this fondness is) even with regard to others who are liked very much-retinue of sevants and so on. And since both these (absence of attachment and fondness) lead to Knowledge, therefore they are called Knowledge.
And nityam, constant; sama-cittatvam, eanimity of mind, mental eipoise;-with regard to what?-ista-anista-upapattisu, the attainment of the desirable and the undesirable; mental eipoise with regard to them, always, without exception. One does not become happy on the attainment of the desirable, nor does he become angry on the attainment of the undesirable. And that constant eanimity of mind which is of this kind is Knowledge
Further,


13.11 Ca, and; avyabhicarini, unwavering-not having any tendency to deviate; bhaktih, devotion; mayi, to Me, to God; ananya-yogena, with single-minded concentration, with undivided concentration-ananyayogah is the decisive, unswerving conviction of this kind: 'There is none superior to Lord Vasudeva, and hence He alone is our Goal'; adoration with that. That too is Knowledge.
Vivikta-desa-sevitvam, inclination to repair into a clean place-a place (desa) naturally free (vivikta) or made free from impurity etc. and snakes, tigers, etc.; or, place made solitary (vivikta) by being situated in a forest, on a bank of a river, or in a temple; one who is inclined to seek such a place is vivikta-desa-sevi, and the abstract form of that is vivikta-desa-sevitvam. Since the mind becomes calm in places that are indeed pure (or solitary), therefore meditation on the Self etc. occurs in pure (or solitary) places. Hence the inclination to retire into clean (or solitary) places is called Knowledge.
Aratih, lack of delight, not being happy; jana-samadi, in crowd of people-an assemblage, a multitude of people without culture, lacking in purity and immodest-, (but) not (so) in a gathering of pure and modest persons since that is conducive to Knowledge. Hence, lack of delight in an assembly of common people is Knowledge since it leads to Knowledge.
Besides,


13.12 Adhyatma-jnana-nityatvam, steadfastness in the knowledge of the Self: adhyatma-jnanam is the knowledge of the Self, etc.; constant dwelling in that is nityatvam.
Tattva-jnanartha-darsanam, contemplating on the Goal of the knowledge of Reality: Tattva-jnanam is that (realization of Truth) which arises from the fruition of application to the disciplines like humility etc. which are the means to knowledge. Its Goal (artha) is Liberation, the cessation of mundane existence. Contemplation (darsana) on that is tattva-jnana-artha-darsanam. For, when one engages in contemplation on the result of the knowledge of Reality, one gets the urge to undertake the disciplines which are its means.
Etat, this-those that have been stated from 'humility' etc. to 'contemplation on the Goal of the knowledge of Reality'; proktam, is spoken of; iti, as; jnanam, Knowledge, because they are meant to lead one to Knowledge. Ajnanam, ignorance; is yat, that which is; anyatha, other; atah, than this-what has been stated above.
Contrarily, arrogance, pretentiousness, cruelty, revenge, insincerity, etc. are to be known as ignorance so that, since they are the cause of the origination of worldly existence, they can be avoided.
To the estion as to what is to be known through the aforesaid Knowledge, the Lord says, 'I shall speak of that which is to be known,' etc.
Objection: Do not humility etc. constitute yama and niyama [See fn. on p. 239.-Tr.]? The Knowable is not known through them. For humility etc. are not seen to determine the nature of anything. Moreover, everywhere it is observed that whatever knowledge reveals its own object, that itself ascertains the nature of that object of knowledge (the knowable). Indeed, nothing else is known through a knowledge concerning some other object. As for instance, fire is not known through the knowledge of a pot.
Reply: This is not a defect, for we have said that they are called 'Knowledge' because they lead one to Knowledge, and because they are auxiliary causes of Knowledge.


13.13 Pravaksyami, I shall speak of, fully describe just as it is; tat, that; yat, which; is jenyam, to be known. In order to interest the hearer through inducement, the Lord speaks of what its result is: Jnatva, by realizing; yat, which Knowable; asnute, one attains; amrtam, Immortality, i.e.; he does not die again. Anadimat, without beginning-one having a beginning (adi) is adimat; one not having a beginning is anadimat. What is that? The param, supreme, unsurpassable; brahma, Brahman, which is under discussion as the Knowable.
Here, some split up the phrase anadimatparam as anadi and matparam because, if the word anadimat is taken as a Bahuvrihi compound, ['That which has no (a), beginning (adi) is anadi.' Matup is used to denote possession. Since the idea of possession is a already implied in anadi, therefore matup, if added after it, becomes redundant.] then the suffix mat (matup) becomes redundant, which is undesirable. And they show a distintive meaning: (Brahman is anadi, beginningless, and is) matparam, that of which I am the supreme (para) power called Vasudeva. Trully, the redundance could be avoided in this way if that meanig were possible. But that meaning is not possible, because what is intended is to make Brahman known only through a negation of all attributes by saying, 'It is called neither being nor non-being.' It is contradictory to show a possession of a distinctive power and to negate attributes. Therefore, although matup and a bahuvrihi compound convey the same meaning of 'possession', its (matup's) use is for completing the verse. [The Commentator accepts anadimat as a nan-tatpurusa compund. If, however, the Bahuvrihi is insisted on, then the mat after anadi should be taken as completing the number of syllables needed for versification. So, nat need not be compounded with param.]
Having aroused an interest through inducement by saying, 'The Knowable which has Immortality as its result is beeing spoken of by Me,' the Lord says: Tat, that Knowable; ucyate, is called; na sat, neither being; nor is it called asat, non-being.
Objection: After strongly girding up the loins and declaring with a loud voice, 'I shall speak of the Knowable,' is it not incongruous to say, 'That is called neither being nor non-being'?
Reply: No. What has been said is surely consistent.
Objection: How?
Reply: For in all the Upanisads, the Knowable, i.e. Brahman, has been indicated only by negation of all attributes-'Not this, not this' (Br. 4.4.22), 'Not gross, not subtle' (op. cit. 3.3.8), etc.; but not as 'That is this', for It is beyond speech.
Objection: Is it not that a thing which cannot be expressed by the word 'being' does not exist? Like-wise, if the Knowable cannot be expressed by the word 'being', It does not exist. And it is contradictory to say, 'It is the Knowable', and 'It cannot be expressed by the word "being".'
Counter-objection: As to that, no that It does not exist, because It is not the object of the idea, 'It is non-being.'
Objection: Do not all cognitions verily involve the idea of being or non-being? This being so, the Knowable should either be an object of a cognition involving the idea of existence, or it should be an object of a cognition involving the idea of non-existence.
Reply: No, because, by virtue of Its being super-sensuous, It is not an object of cognition involving either, of the two ideas. Indeed, any object perceivable by the senses, such as pot etc., can be either an object of cognition involving the idea of existence, or it can be an object of cognition involving the idea of non-existence. But this Knowable, being supersensuous and known from the scriptures, which are the sole means of (Its) knowledge, is not, like pot etc., an object of cognition involving either of the two ideas. Therefore It is called neither being nor non-being.
As for your objection that it is contradictory to say, 'It is the Knowable, but it is neither called being nor non-being,'-it is not contradictory; for the Upanisad says, 'That (Brahman) is surely different from the known and, again, It is above the unknown' (Ke. 1.4).
Objection: May it not be that even the Upanisad is contradictory in its meaning? May it not be (contradictory) as it is when, after beginning with the topic of a shed for a sacrifice, [Cf. 'Pracinavamsam karoti, he constructs (i.e. shall construct) (the sacrificial shed) with its supporting beam turned east-ward' (Tai, Sam.; also see Sanskrit-English Dictionary, Monier Williams).-Tr.] it is said, 'Who indeed knows whether there exists anything in the other world or not!' (Tai. Sam. 6.1.1)?
Reply: No, since the Upanisad speaking of something that is different from the known and the unknown is meant for establishing an entity that must be realized. [The Upanisadic text is not to be rejected on the ground that it is paradoxical, for it is meant to present Brahman as indentical with one's own inmost Self.] But, '৷৷.whether there exists anything in the other world,' etc. is merely an arthavada [See note on p. 40. Here, the passage, '৷৷.whether there exists৷৷.,' etc. is to be interpreted as an arthavada emphasizing, the need of raising a shed, irrespective of any other consideration.-Tr.] connected with an injunction.
From reason who it follows that Brahman cannot be expressed by such words as being, non-being, etc. For, every word used for expressing an object, when heard by listeners, makes them understand its meaning through the comprehension of its significance with the help of genus, action, ality and relation; not in any other way, because that is not a matter of experience. To illustrate this: a cow, or a horse, etc. (is comprehended) through genus; cooking or reading, through action; white or black, through ality; a rich person or an owner of cows, through relation. But Brahman does not belong to any genus. Hence it is not expressible by words like 'being' etc.; neither is It possessed of any alitity with the help of which It could be expressed through alifying words, for It is free from alities; nor can It be expressed by a word implying action, It being free from actions-which accords with the Upanisadic text, 'Partless, actionless, calm' (Sv. 6.19). Nor has It any relation, since It is one, non-dual, not an object of the senses, and It is the Self.
Therefore it is logical that It cannot be expressed by any word. And this follows from such Upanisadic texts as, 'From which, words trun back' (Tai. 2.4.1), etc.
Therefore it is logical that It cannot be expressed by any word. And this follows from such Upanisadic texts as, 'From which, words turn back' (Tai. 2.4.1), etc.
Since the Knowable (Brahman) is not an object of the word or thought of 'being', there arises the apprehension of Its nonexistence. Hence, for dispelling that apprehension by establishing Its existence with the help of the adjuncts in the form of the organs of all creatures, the Lord says:


13.14 Tat, That-the Knowable; sarvatah-pani-padam, which has hands and feet everywhere-.
The existence of the Knower of the field is revealed through th adjuncts in the form of the organs of all creatures. And the Knower of the field is spoken of as such because of the limiting adjuncts of the field. The field, too, is diversely differentiated as hands, feet, etc. All diversity in the Knower of the field, caused by the differences in the adjunct-the field-, is certainly unreal. Hence, by denying it, the nature of the Knowable has been stated, in, 'That is called neither being nor non-being.' Although the unreal form is caused by the limiting adjuncts, still, for the comprehension of Its existence it is said, '(It) has hands and feet everywhere, etc., by assuming this as a ality of the Knowable. Thus, as is well known, there is saying of the people versed in tradition, 'The Transcendental is described with the help of superimposition and its refutation'. Everywhere the hands, feet, etc., which are perceived as limbs of all bodies, perform, their duties due to the presence of the power of the Knowable (Brahman). Thus the grounds for the inference of the existence of the Knowable are metaphorically spoken of as belonging to the Knowable. The others have to be explained similarly.
That Knowable has hands and feet everwhere. That which has eyes, heads, and mouths everywhere is sarvatoksi-siro-mukham. That which has ears every-where is sarvatah-srutimat: sruti means the organs of hearing; that which has it is sruti-mat. Tisthati, It exists, remains established; loke, in the multititude of creatures; avrtya, by pervading; sarvam, them all.
With this purpose is view, that as a result of the superimposition of the organs like hands, feet, etc., which are adjuncts, there may not be the misconception that the Knowable is possessed of them (adjuncts), the (next) verse is begun:


13.15 Sarvendriya-guna-abhasam, shining through the functions of all the organs: By the use of the words all the organs are understood ears etc., known as the sense-organs and motor-organs, as also the internal organs-the intellect and the mind, for they are eally the limiting adjuncts of the Knowable. Besides, the organs of hearing etc. become the limiting adjuncts from the very fact of the internal organ becoming so. Hence, the Knowable gets expressed through determination, thinking, hearing, speaking, etc. that are the functions of all the organs, internal and external, which are the limiting adjuncts. In this way, It is manifest through the functions of all the organs. The idea is that, that Knowable appears to be as though active owing to the functions of all the organs, as it is said in the Upanisadic text, 'It thinks, as it were, and shakes, as it were' (Br. 4.3.7).
For that reason, again, is It not perceived as being actually active? In answer the Lord says: It is sarva-indriya-varitam, devoid of all the organs, i.e. bereft of all the instruments of action. Hence the Knowable is not active through the functioning of the instruments of action. As for the Upanisadic verse, 'Without hands and feet He moves swiftly and grasps; without eyes He sees, without ears He hears' (Sv. 3.19), etc.-that is meant for showing that that Knowable has the power of adapting Itself to the functions of all the organs which are Its limiting adjuncts; but it is not meant to show that It really has such activity as moving fast etc. The meaning of that verse is like that of the Vedic text, 'The blind one discoverd a gem' (Tai, Ar. 1.11). [This is an artha-veda (see note on p.530), which is not to be taken literally but interpreted in accordance with the context.]
Since the Knowable is devoid of all the instruments of actions, therefore It is asaktam, unattached, devoid of all associations. Although It is of this kind, yet it is ca eva, also verily; the sarva-bhrt, supporter of all. Indeed, everything has existence as its basis, because the idea of 'existence' is present everywhere. Verily, even mirage etc. do not occur without some basis. Therefore, It is sarva-bhrt, the supporter of all-It upholds everything.
There can be this other organs as well for the realization of the existence of the Knowable: Nirgunam, without ality-the alities are sattva, rajas and tamas; that Knowable is free from them; and yet It is the guna-bhoktr, perceiver of alities; i.e., that Knowable is the enjoyer and experiencer of the alities, sattva, rajas and tamas, which, assuming the forms of sound etc., transform them-selves into happiness, sorrow, delusion, etc.
Further,


13.16 Existing, bahih, outside- the word bahih is used with reference to the body including the skin, which is misconceived through ignorance to be the Self, and which is itself taken as the boundary. Similarly, the word antah, inside, is used with reference to the indwelling Self, making the body itself as the boundary. When 'outside' and 'inside' are used, there may arise the contingency of the nonexistence of That in the middle. Hence this is said: acaram caram eva ca, moving as well as not moving-even that which appears as the body, moving or not moving, is nothing but the Knowable, in the same way as the appearance of a snake on a rope (is nothing but the rope).
In all empirical things, moving as also non-moving, be the Knowable, why should It not be known by all as such? In answer it is said: It is true that It shines through everything; still it is subtle like space. Therefore, although It is the Knowable, tat, It; is avijneyam, incomprehensible to the ignorant people; suksmatvat, due to Its intrinsic subtleness. But to the enlightened It is ever known from the valid means of knowledge such as (the texts), 'All this is verily the Self' (Ch. 7.25.2), 'Brahman alone is all this' (Nr. Ut.7), etc. It is durastham, far away, since, to the unenlightened, It is unattainable even in millions of years. And tat, That; is antike, near, since It is the Self of the enlightened.


13.17 And further, tat, that; jneyam, Knowable; though avibhaktam, undivided, remaining the same in all beings like space; iva sthitam, appears to be existing; as vibhaktam, divided; bhutesu, in all beings, because It is perceived as existing in the bodies themselves. And just as a rope etc. are with regard to a snake etc. That are falsely imagined, similarly that Knowable is bhutabhartr, the sustainer of all beings, sinced It sustains all during the period of their existence; grasisnu, the devourer, at the time of dissolution; and prabhavisnu, the originator, at the time of creation.
Further, it the Knowable is not perceived though existing everywhere, then It is darkness? Not! What then?


13.18 Tat, that Knowable; is the jyotih, Light; api, even; jyotisam, of the lights-of the sun etc. For the lights like the sun etc. shine because they are enkindled by the light of consciousness of the Self, as is known from Upanisadic texts like, 'Illumined by whose light the sun shines' (Tai. Br. 3.12.9.7), 'By Its light all this shines variously' (Sv. 6.14), and from the Smrti also, as here (in the Gita) itself: 'That light in the sun৷৷.' (15.12), etc.
It is ucyate, spoken of as; param, beyond, untouched by; tamasah, darkness; ignorance. For cheering up anyone who may become disheartened by thinking that Knowledge etc. is difficult to attain, the Lord says: It is jnanam, Knowledge-humility etc. (verse 7, etc.); jneyam, the Knowable, which has been spoken of in, 'I shall speak of that which is to be known' (12); and jnana-gamyam, the Known. The Knowable itself is referred to as jnanagamyam, when after being known, It becomes the result of Knowledge. But when It is an object to be known, It is called jneyam. All these three which are such, visthitam, specially exist; hrdi, in the hearts, in the intellects; sarvasya, of all, of all creatures.
For these three are, indeed, perceived there.
This verse is begun for concluding the topic under discussion:


13.19 Iti, thus; uktam, has been spoken-commencing from 'I shall speak of that which is to be known' (12) and ending with 'It is spoken of as beyond darkness' (17); samasatah, in brief; the ksetram, field -beginning with the 'great elements' and ending with 'for titude' (5,6); tatha, as also; jnanam, Knowledge-beginning from 'humility' (7) and ending with 'contemplation on the Goal of the knowledge of Reality' (11); and the jneyam, Knowable.
All this has been stated by way of summarizing the purport of the Vedas and the Gita. Who is fit for this true knowledge? The answer is: madbhaktah, My devotee, who attributes the fact of being the Self of all to Me who am God, Vasudeva, the Omniscient, the supreme Teacher, (and) whose conviction has been saturated with the idea that whatever he sees, hears or touches, all that verily is Lord Vasudeva. Vijnaya, by understanding; etat, this, the aforesaid true knowledge; he upa-padyate, becomes alified; mad-bhavaya, for My State (bhava) -the State of being the supreme Self; for that State of Mine. He attains Liberation.
There in the Seventh Chapter have been presented the two aspects [Cf. 15.16-18.] of God, viz the higher and the lower, characterized as the field and the Knower of the field. And it has also been said, '(Understand thus) that all things have these as their source' (7.6). The explanation as to how creatures have the two aspects, the field and the Knower of the field, as their source is now being stated:


13.20 Viddhi, know; ubhau, both; prakrtim Nature; and also the purusam, individual soul;-these two; Nature and the soul. the aspects of God-to be api, verily; anadi, without beginning. Those two that have no beginning (adi), are anadi. Since the godhood of God is eternal, therefore it is logical that even His aspects also should have eternality. For God's god-hood consists verily in having the two aspects. Those two aspects through which God becomes the cause of creation, continuance and dissolution of the Universe, and which are beginningless, are the sources of mundane existence.
Some interpret the phrase anadi in the tatpurusa [Tatpurusa: Name of a class of compounds in which the first member determines the sense of the other members, or in which the last member is defined or alified by the first, without losing its original independence.-V.S.A.] sense of na adi, not primeval (not cause). (According to them) thery indeed is established the causality of God. Again, if Nature and soul themselves be eternal, the mundane existence would surely be their creation, and the causality of the mundane existence would not be God's.
That is wrong because, there being nothing to rule over before the emergence of Nature and soul, there will arise the contingency of God ceasing to be God! And if the mundane state be uncaused [Uncaused, i.e. not caused by Nature and soul, but by God independently of those two aspects.] there arises the contingency of the absence of Liberation, [If God were. Himself the sole cause of mundane existence, independently of His two aspects, then it would be endless because there would be nothing to prevent liberated souls from being put under bondage again.] the scriptures becoming useless, and the absence of bondage and freedom. On the other hand, all these become justifiable if God and the two aspects be eternal.
How?
Viddhi, know; the vikaran, modifications that will be spoken of-the intellect etc., the body and the organs; ca eva, as also; gunan, the alities (sattva etc.)-manifest in the form of the mental states of happiness, sorrow and attachment; as prakriti-sambhavan, born of Nature. Nature, Maya, is the power of God, which is the cause of the modifications and which consists of the three alities. Those modifications and alities, which have that Nature as their source,-know those modifications and alities as 'born of Nature', as transformations of Nature.
Which again, are those modifications and alities born of Nature?


13.21 Karya-karana-kartrtve, with regard to the source of body and organs: Karya is the body, and karana are the thirteen [Five sense organs, five motor organs, mind, intellect and ego.] organs existing in it. Here, by the word karya are understood the aforesaid elements that produce the body as also the objects which are modifications born of Nature. And since the alities-which are born of Nature and manifest themselves as happiness, sorrow and delusion-are dependent on the organs, (therefore) they are implied by the word karana, organs. The kartrtvam, (lit) agentship, with regard to these body and organs consists in being the source of the body and organs. With regard to this source of the body and organs, prakrtih, Nature; ucyate, is said to be; the hetuh, cause, in the sense of being the originator. Thus, by virtue of being the source of body and organs, Nature is the cause of mundane existence.
Even if the reading be karya-karana-kartrtva, karya (effect, modification) will mean anything that is the transformation of something; and karana (cause) will be that which becomes transformed. So the meaning of the compund will be: 'with regard to the source of the effect and the cause'.
Or, karya means the sixteen [The eleven organs (five sensory, five motor, and mind) and the five objects (sound etc.).] modificaitons, and karana means the seven [Mahat, egoism, and the five subtle elements.] transformations of Nature. They themselves are called effect and cuase. So far as the agentship with regard to these is concerned Nature is said to be the cause, because of the same reason of being their originator.
As to how the soul can be the cause of mundane existence is being stated: Purusah, the soul, the empirical being, the knower of the field-all these are synonymous; is the hetuh, cause; bhoktrtve, so far as enjoyership, the fact of being the perceiver; sukha-duhkhanam, of happiness and sorrow-which are objects of experience, is concerned.
How, again, is it asserted with respect to Nature and soul that, they are the causes of mundane existence by virtue of this fact of their (respectively) being the source of body and organs, and the perceiver of happiness and sorrow?
As to this the answer is being stated: How can there be any mundane existence if there be no modification of Nature in the form of body and organs, happiness and sorrow, and cause and effect, and there be no soul, the conscious being, to experience them? On the other hand, there can be mundane existence when there is a contact, in the form of ignorance, between Nature-modified in the form of body and organs, and cause and effect as an object of experience and the soul opposed to it as the experiencer. Therefore it was reasonable to have said that, Nature and soul become the cause of mundane existence by (respectively) becoming the originators of the body and organs, and the perceiver of happiness and sorrow.
What again is this that is called worldly existence? Worldly existence consists in the experience of happiness and sorrow; and the state of mundane existence of the soul consists in its being the experiencer of happiness and sorrow.
It has been asserted that the state of mundane existence of the soul consists in its being the experiencer of happiness and sorrow. How does it come about? This is being answered:


13.22 Hi, since; purusah, the soul, the experiencer; is prakrtisthah, seated in Nature, which is characterized as ignorance and gets transformed into body and organs, i.e., (since the soul) has become identified with Nature; therefore, bhunkte, [Bhunkte, lit. enjoys, here means 'experiences'.-Tr.] it enjoys, i.e. experiences; gunan, the alities-manifest as happiness, sorrow and delusion; prakrtijan, born of Nature, thinking thus, 'I am happy, sorrowful, deluded, learned.' Even though ignorance continues as a cause, still the main cause of worldly existence, of birth, is the contact, the self-identification, with the alities-happiness,sorrow, and delusion-when they are experienced, as is affirmed by the Upanisadic text, 'What it desires, it resolves' (Br. 4.4.5) [See Sankaracarya's Comm. on this.-Tr.].
That very fact is stated here: Gunasangah, contact with the alities; is karanam, the cause; asya, of its, the soul's, the experiencer's; sad-asad-yoni-janmasu, births in good and evil wombs. Self-identification with the alities is the cause of the experience of births in good and evil wombs. Or the meaning is, 'Self-identification with the alities is the cause or its worldly existence through birth in good and evil wombs,' where the words 'of worldly existence' have to be supplied. The good wombs are he wombs of gods and others; evil wombs are the wombs of gods and others; evil wombs are the wombs of beasts etc. From the force of the context it is to be understood that there is no contradiction in including even human wombs among 'good and evil wombs'.
It amounts to saying that ignorance-called 'being seated in Nature'-and the contact with. i.e. the desire for, the alities are the causes of worldly existence. And this is said so that they can be avoided. And in the scripture Gita it is a well-known fact that knowledge and dispassion, accompanied with renunciation, are the causes of removing this (ignorance and self-identification with the alities). That knowledge about the field and the Knower of the field, too, has been presented earlier. This has also been said in, '৷৷.by realizing which one attains Immortality' (12), etc., through the process of refutation of elements alien (to the Self) and superimposition of alities belonging to others (that are not the Self). [Verse 12 deals with the refutation of alien elements, and vere 13 with the superimposition of alities belonging to others.]
A direct presentation is again being made of that (knowledge) itself:


13.23 He who is the upadrasta, Witness, who while staying nearby does not Himself become involved: As when the priests and the performer of a sacrifice remain engaged in duties connected with the sacrifice, there is another (called Brahma) remaining nearby who is unengaged, is versed in the science of sacrifices and witnesses the merit or demerit of the activities of the priest and the performer of the sacrifice, similarly, He who is not engaged in the activities of and is different from the body and organs, who has characteristics other than theirs, and is the proximate (upa) observer (drasta) of the body and organs engaged in their duties, is the upa-drasta.
Or: The observers are the body, eyes, mind, intellect and the soul. Of them the body is the external observer. Proceeding inwards from that (body), the Self is the inmost as also the proximate observer, compared with which there is no other higher and inner observer. The Self, because of being the most proximate observer, is the upadrasta. Or, It is the upadrasta since, like the non-looker of a sarifice, It witness everything.
And He is the anu-manta, Permitter: Anumananam, approval, means satisfaction with those performers (viz body and organs) as also their perfomances. The agent of that (approval) is the anumanta. Or, He is the anumanta since, even though Himself not engaged in the activities of the body and organs, He appears to be favourably disposed towards and engaged in them. Or, He is the anumanta because, when the body and organs are engaged in their own functions, He remains as a witness and never dissuades them.
It is the bharta, Sustainer: Bharanam means the continuance in their own state of the body, organs, mind and intellect, which reflect consciousness and have become aggregated owing to the need of serving the purpose [Viz enjoyment, or Liberation.-Tr.] of some other entity, viz the conscious Self. And that (continuance) is verily due to the consciousness that is the Self. In this sense the Self is said to be the Sustainer.
It is the bhokta, Experiencer: As heat is by fire, similarly, the experiences of the intellect-in the form of happiness, sorrow and delusion in relation to all objects-, when born as though permeated by the consciousness that is the Self, are manifested differently by the Self which is of the nature of eternal Consciousness. In this sense the Self is said to be the Experiencer.
He is maheswarah, the great God, because, as the Self of all and independent, He is the great Ruler.
He is paramatma, the transcendental Self, because He is the Self which has the characteristics of being the supreme Witness etc. of (all) those-beginning from the body and ending with the intellect-which are imagined through ignorance to be the indwelling Self. He is api ca, also; uktah, spoken of, referred to, in the Upanisads; iti, as, with the words; 'He is the indwelling One, the paramatma, the transcendental Self.' [Ast reads atah in place of antah. So the translation of the sentence will be: Therefore He is also referred to as the transcendental Self in the Upanisads.-Tr.] Where is He? The parah, suprem; purusah, Person, who is higher than the Unmanifest and who will be spoken of in, 'But different is the supreme Person who is spoken of as the transcendental Self' (15.17); is asmin, in this; dehe, body.
What has been presented in, '৷৷.also understand Me to be the Knower of the field' (2), has been explained and conclude.


13.24 Sah yah, he who; vetti, knows, in the manner described; the purusam, Person, that Self possessed of the characteristics stated above, as 'I myself (am That)'; and knows prakrtim, Nature as described above, which is characterized as ignorance; to have been eradicated by Knowledge, saha, along with; gunaih, the alities which are its modifications; na abhijayate, will not be born; bhuyah, again-after the fall of this body of the man of realization, he does not become born again for (taking) another body, i.e. he does not take up another body; sarvatha api, in whatever way; vartamanah, he may live. From the word api it is understood that, it goes without saying that one who is firm in his own duty is not rorn.
Objection: Though it has been said that there is absence of rirth after the dawn of Knowledge, still is not illogical that actions done (in the present life) before the rise of Knowledge and those done subseently, as also those done in the many past lives, should be destroyed without yielding their results? Hence there should be three births! For destruction of acired merit is not logical, to the same extent as actions that have produced the present birth and are yielding their proper results (cannot be destroyed). Besides, it is not understood that actions have distinctions [Since all actions arise from ignorance, they are on the same level so far so they are opposed to Knowledge; i.e., there can be no such distinction among actions as 'those which have started yielding results' and 'those that have not'.]. Therefore, the actions of the three kinds, without exception, will produce three births or they all collectively will produce one birth. Otherwise, if the acired merits become destroyed, it will lead to loss of faith everywhere as well as to the purposelessness of scriptures. Therefore it has been illogical to say, 'he will not be born again.'
Reply: No, for the burning away of all the actions of the man of knowledge has been stated in hundreds of Upanisadic texts such as:
'And all one's actions become dissipated' (Mu. 2.2.8);
'Anyone who knows (that supreme) Brahman, becomes Brahman' (op. cit. 3.2.9);
'For him the delay is for so long only (as he does not become freed)' (Ch. 6.14.2);
'As the fibres at the tip of a blade of reed (become completely burnt৷৷.,' so) all actions 'get completely burnt' (op. cit. 5.24.3).
Here too the burning of all actions has been stated in, 'as a blazing fire reduces pieces of wood to ashes,৷৷.'etc. (4.37), and He will also say so (later) [See 18.66: 'I shall free you from all sins,' etc.-Tr.].
This accords with reason also. Verily, actions, which arise from the seed of evils [Klesas, evils-see note under 8.19-Tr.] like ignorance and desires, germinate the sprout of rirth. Here also it has been said by the Lord in various places that actions which are associated with egoism and desire for results bear fruits, not the others. And there is also the verse: 'As seeds burnt by fire do not germinate, so also the Self does not acire another body due to evils that have been burnt by Knowledge (cf. Mbh. Va. 199. 107).
Objection: It may be granted for the present that actions performed after the rise of Knowledge are burnt by Knowledge, since they coexist with Knowledge. But the burning away of actions done in this life prior to the rise of Knowledge and those done in the many past lives is not reasonable.
Reply: No, because of the alification, 'all actions' (4.37).
Objection: May it not be that 'all actions' means those that are undertaken after Illumination?
Reply: No, for there is no reason for the restriction (of the meaning). On the other hand, as for the statement, 'just as actions that have produced the present birth and are already active in producing their results do not get dissipated even after Illumination, similarly it is not reasonable that actions which have not commenced producing their results should get dissipated,'-that is wrong.
Objection: Why?
Reply: Since they have already begun producing results, like an arrow that has been shot: As an arrow, freed earlier from a bow for hitting a target, even after piercing through the target comes to a stop only after falling down as a result of the dissipation of its initial momentum, similarly, actions that produced the (present) body verily continue, even after fulfilling the purpose of maintaining the body, to exist as before until the dissipation of their inherent tendencies. But, as that very arrow, when it has not acired the momentum, needed for action, when it has not been shot even though fixed on the bow, can be withdrawn, similarly, actions which have not begun yielding their results may be rendered unproductive by Knowledge, even while existing in their receptacle. [The internal organ bearing the reflection of Consciousness.] Hence, it is established that , it has been reasonable to state that on the fall of the present body of an enlightened person, 'He is not born again.'
Here are being presented these meditation etc. which are the alternative means for the realization of the Self:


13.25 Dhyanena, through meditation: Meditation means contemplation (on the Self) after withdrawing into the mind with concentration the organs of hearing etc. from the objects like sound etc., and then withdrawing the mind into the indwelling conscious Self. Thus, from the citation of such illustrations as, 'the crane meditates, as it were, 'the earth meditates, as it were; the mountains meditate, as it were' (Ch. 7.6.1), it follows that meditation is a constant and uninterrupted current of thought like a line of pouring oil. Through that meditation, kecit, some yogis; pasyanti, realize; the indwelling conscious atmanam, Self; atmani, in (their) intellect; atmana, with the help of the internal organ that has been purified by meditation.
Anye, others; sankhyena yogena, through Sankhya-yoga: Sankhya means thinking, 'These alities, viz sattva, rajas and tamas, are objects of my perception; I am the Self, distinct from them, a witness of their functions, eternal and different from the alities.' This Sankhya is Yoga. [By Sankhya is meant that knowledge which arises from the foregoing reflection. This knowledge is itself called Yoga (concentration of mind) inasmuch as it is similar to Yoga in leading to the realization of the Self.] Through that they realize the Self with the help of the internal organ. This is how it is to be construed.
And anye, others; karma-yogena, through Karma-yoga-action itself being the Yoga: Action performed with the idea of dedication to God is figuratively called Yoga since it leads to Yoga. (others realize) with the help of that (action), through purification of the mind and rise of Knowledge. [The best among the yogis are competent for meditation (dhyana); the modiocre for reflection (Sankhya); and the lowest for Karma-yoga.]


13.26 Anye tu, others again; ajanantah, who do not know the Self as described above; evam, thus, even in one of these alternative ways; upasate, take to thinking, take to reflection, being imbued with faith; srutva, after hearing; anyhyah, from others, from the teachers, having been told, 'Think only of this.' Te api ca, they, too; sruti-parayanah, who are devoted to hearing, to whom hearing is the supreme course, the best discipline for starting on the path to Liberation, i.e., those who, themselves lacking in discrimination, accept only others' advice as most authoritative; eva, certainly; ati-taranti, overcome; mrtyum, death, i.e. the mundane existence which is fraught with death.
The implication is; It goes without saying that those discriminating people who are idenpendent in the application of the valid means of knowledge, cross over death.
That the knowledge of the identity of the Knower of the field and God leads to Liberation has been stated in, '৷৷.by realizing which one attains Immortality' (12). For what reason is it so? To point out that reason the (next) verse is begun:


13.27 Bharatarsabha, O scion of the Bharata dynasty; yavat kincit, whatever; sattvam, object;-as to whether they are without exception the Lord says-sthavara-jangamam, moving or non-moving; sanjayate, comes into being; viddhi, know; tat, that; as originating ksetra-ksetrajna-samyogat, from the association of the field and the Knower of the field.
Objection: What, again, is meant by this 'association of the field and the Knower of the field'? Since the Knower of the field is partless like space, therefore Its conjunction with the field cannot be a kind of relationship like coming together of a rope and a pot through the contact of their parts. Nor can it be an intimate and inseparable relation as between a thread and a cloth, since it is not admitted that the field and the Knower of the field are mutually related by way of being cause and effect.
Reply: The answer is: The association of the field and the Knower of the field-which are the object and the subject, respectively, and are of different natures-is in the form of superimposition of each on the other an also of their alities, as a conseence of the absence of discrimination between the real natures of the field and the Knower of the field. This is like the association of a rope, nacre, etc. with the superimposed snake, silver, etc. owing to the absence of discrimination between them. This association of the field and the Knower of the field in the form of superimposition is described as false knowledge. After having known the distinction between and the characteristics of the field and the Knower of the field according to the scriptures, and having separated, like a stalk from the Munjagrass, the above-described Knower of the field from the field whose characteristics have been shown earlier, he who realizes the Knowable (i.e. the Knower of the field)-which, in accordance with 'That is neither called being nor non-being' (12), is devoid of all distinctions created by adjuncts- as identical with Brahman; and he who has the firm realization that the field is surely unreal like an elephant created by magic, a thing seen in a dream, an imaginary city seen in the sky, etc., and it appears as though real-for him false knowledge becomes eradicated, since it is opposed to the right knowledge described above.
Since the cause of his rirth has been eliminated. therefore what was said in, 'He who knows thus the Person and Nature along with the alities৷৷.', that the man of realization is not born again (23), has been a reasonable statement.
In 'He৷৷.will not be born again' (23) has been stated the result of right knowledge, which is the absence of birth owing to the destruction of ignorance etc., the seeds of worldly existence. The cause of birth, viz the association of the field and the Knower of the field brought about by ignorance, has also been stated. Hence, although right knowledge, which is the remover of that ignorance, has been spoken of, still it is being stated over again in other words:


13.28 Sah, he; pasyati, sees; yah, who; pasyati, sees;-whom?-parameswaram, the supreme Lord-the Lord who is supreme as compared with the body, organs, mind, intellect, the Unmanifest and the individual soul; as tisthantam, existing, having His presence; samam, eally, without distinction;-where?-sarvesu, in all; bhutesu, beings, all living things from Brahma to the non-moving;-he who sees Him existing eally in all living things. The Lord specifies them by the word vinasyatsu, among the perishable; and He also specifies Him, the supreme Lord, by the word avinasyantam, the Imperishable. This is meant for showing the absolute difference between the living things and God.
How?
For, all the modifications [See note 3 on p.38.-Tr.] of an existing thing have as their root that modification of an existing thing described as birth. All other modifications of existing things that follow birth end with destruction. After destruction there is no modification of an existing thing, because the object itself becomes nonexistent. Indeed, alities can exist so long as the thing alified exists. Therefore, by the reiteration of the absence of the last modification of an existing thing, all its preceding modifications become negated along with their effects. Hence it is established that the supreme Lord is very greatly different from all beings, and is also Unconditioned [Free from all modifications that things are subject to.] and One.
He sees who thus sees the supreme Lord as described.
Objection: Is it not that all poeple see? What is the need of specification?
Reply: True, they see; but they see contrarily! Hence the Lord specifies, 'He alone sees'. As in comparison with one who, suffering from the (eye) disease called Timira, sees many moons, the person who sees one moon is distingusihed by saying, 'He alone sees,' similarly, here as well, the man who sees the one undivided Self as described above is distinguished from those who contrarily see many and differentiated selves, by saying 'He alone sees'. Others, though seeing, do not see because they see contrarily like the person who sees many moons. This is the meaning.
The obove-described true knowledge has to be praised by stating its result. Hence the verse begins:


13.29 Hi, since; pasyan, by seeing, by realizing; samam, eally; isvaram, God, i.e., (by realizing Him) as described in the immediately preceding verse; who is samavasthitam, present alike; sarvatra, everywhere, in all beings;-what follows from seeing eally?-he na, does not; hinasti, injure; his own atmanam, Self; atmana, by the Self, by his own Self; tatah, therefore, as a result of that non-injuring; yati, he attains; the param, supreme; gatim, Goal, called Liberation.
Objection: Is it not that no creature whatsoever injures himself by himself? Why do you refer to an irrelevant thing by saying, 'He does not injure৷৷.,which is like saying, 'Fire should neither be lit on the earth nor in the sky,' etc.?
Reply: This defect does not arise, because it is logical with reference to an unenlightened person's ignoring the Self. For, all unillumined people ignore the very wellknown Self which is manifest and directly perceptible, and regard the non-Self as the Self. By performing righteous and unrighteous acts they destroy even that self which has been accepted, and adopt another new self. And destroying even that, they take up another. Similarly, destroying even that, they adopt another. In this way they destroy the self that had been accepted successively. Thus, all unillumined persons are destroyers of the Self. But that which is the Self in reality, even that remains as though destroyed for ever by ignorance, because of the absence of any benefit from Its presence. So, all unenlightened persons are, verily, destroyers of the Self.
On the contrary, the other person who has realized the Self as described does not injure in either way [i.e. either through superimposition or through non-super-imposition.] the Self by his own Self. Therefore he attains the supreme Goal, i.e., the result stated above comes to him.
Lest it be doubted that what was said in, 'seeing eally God who is present in all beings, he does not injure the Self by the Self, is improper with regard to the selves which are diverse according to the differences created by the variety in their own alities and actions, the Lord says:


13.30 And yah, he who; pasyati, sees, realizes; karmani, actions, those performed through speech, mind and body; as kriyamanani, being done, being accomplished; sarvasah, in various ways; prakrtya, by Nature-Nature is God's Maya consisting of the three alities, as is said in the Upanisadic text, 'However, know Maya as Nature' (Sv. 4.10); by that Nature; eva, itself-not by the other [Not by the Pradhana of the Sankhyas, known otherwise as prakrti.] which transforms itself in the form of cause and effects such as Mahat etc.; tatha, and also; atmanam, the Self, the Knower of the field; as akartaram, the non-agent, devoid of all adjuncts; sah, he; pasyati, sees-he is the one who has realized the supreme Reality. This is the idea. What is implied is that there is no valid proof about differences in the Non-agent who is devoid of alities and is unconditioned like space.
The Lord elaborates again in other words that very true knowledge:


13.31 Yada, when, at the time when; anupasyati, one realizes-having reflected in accordance with the instructions of the scriptures and the teachers, one realizes as a matter of one's own direct experience that 'All this is but the Self' (Ch. 7.25.2); that bhuta-prthak-bhavam, the state of diversity of living things; is ekastham, rooted in the One, existing in the one Self; and their vistaram, manifestation, origination; tatah, eva, is also from That-when he realizes that origination in such diverse ways as, 'the vital force is from the Self, hope is from the Self, memory [Smara, memory; see Sankaracarya's Comm. on Ch. 7.13.1.-Tr.] is from the Self, space is from the Self, fire is from the Self, water is from the Self, coming into being and withdrawal are owing to the Self, food is from the Self' (op. cit. 7.26.1); tada, then, at that time; brahma sampadyate, one becomes identified with Brahman Itself. This is the import.
If the same Self be the Self in all the bodies, then there arises the possiblity of Its association with their defects. Hence this is said:


13.32 Anadivat, being without beginning: Adih means cause; that which has no cause is anadih. That which has a cause undergoes loss of its own characteristics. But this One, being causeless, has no parts. This being so, It does not suffer loss.
So also, nirgunatvat, being without alities: indeed, It si only something possessing alities that perishes owing to the losss of its alities. But this One, being without alities, does not perish. Hence, ayam, this; paramatma, supreme Self; is avyayah, immutable. It suffers no depletion. Therefore It is immutable. Since this is so, therefore, api, although; sarira-sthah, existing in the body-since the perception of the Self occurs in the bodies, It is said to be 'existing in the body'; even then, It na, does not; karoti, act. From the very fact that It does not act, It na, is not; lipyate, affected by the result of any action. For, one who is an agent of action becomes affected by its result. But this One is not an agent. Hence It is not affected by any result. This is the meaning.
Objection: Who is it, again, that acts in the body and becomes affected? On the one hand, if there be some embodied being other than the supreme Self who acts and becomes affected, then it has been improper to say in, 'And also understand Me to be the Knower of the field,' etc., that the Knower of the field and God are one. Again, if there be no embodied being who is different from God, then it has to be stated who is it that acts and gets affected. Or it has to be asserted that the supreme One does not exist. [If the supreme One also acts like us, then He is no God.]
Thus, since the Upanisadic philosophy as stated by the Lord is in every way difficult to understand and difficult to explain, it has therefore been abandoned by the Vaisesikas, the Sankhyas, the Jainas and the Buddhists.
Reply: As to that, the following refutation has been stated by the Lord Himself in, 'But it is Nature that acts' (5.14). Indeed, Nature, which is nothing but ignorance, acts and becomes affected. In this way empirical dealing becomes possible; but in reality it does not occur in the one supreme Self.
It has been accordingly shown by the Lord in various places that there is no duty to be performed by those who adhere to this philosophy of discriminating knowledge of the supreme Reality, who are steadfast in Knowledge, who have spurned actions arising out of ignorance, and who are mendicants belonging to the highest Order of monks.
The Lord cites an illustration to show like what It does not act and is not affected:


13.33 Yatha, as; sarva-gatam, the all-pervading; akasam, space;-though pervasive, still, na upalipyate, is not defiled, does not come into contact; saukmyat, because of its subtlety; tatha, similarly; atma, the Self; avasthitah, present, sarvatra, everywhere; dehe, in the body; na, is not; upalipyate, defiled.
Further,


13.34 Yatha, as; ekam, the one; ravih, sun; prakasayati, illumines; imam, this; krtsnam, whole; lokam, world tatha, similarly;-who?-ksetri, the Knower of the field, i.e. the supreme Self, though one; prakasayati, illumines; krtsnam, the whole; ksetram, field, from the 'great elements' to 'fortitude' (cf. 5-6).
Here the illustration of the sun serves to highlight two aspects of the Self, viz that, like the sun, the Self is one in all the fields, and that It remains unaffected.
This verse is meant for summarizing the idea of the whole of this chapter:


13.35 Ye, those who; viduh, know; evam, thus, in the manner described above; jnana-caksusa, through the eye of wisdom-the eye is the realization in the form of the knowledge of the Self, which arises from following the instructions of the scriptures and teachers; through that eye of wisdom; antaram, the distinction, the particular mutual distinction; ksetra-ksetrajnayoh, beween the field and the Knower of the field as they have been explained; and bhuta-prakrti-moksam, the annihilation of the Matrix of beings-the Matrix of beings is that which is described as ignorance and is called the Unmanifest; (those who know) the annihilation (moksanam) of that Matrix of beings; te, they; yanti, reach, go to; param, the Supreme, to Brahman, the Reality which is the suprme Goal. The idea is that they do not take up a body again.


14.1 The word param should be connected with the remote word jnanam.
Pravaksyami, I shall speak; bhuyah, again-even though spoken of more than once in all the preceding chapters; of the param, supreme-it is supreme because it is concerned with the supreme Reality;-which is that?-jnanam, Knowledge; uttamam, the best-since it has the best result; jnananam, of all knowledges-. 'Of all knowledges' does not mean 'of humility' etc. (13.7-11). What then? It means 'among knowledges of all knowable things like sacrifice etc.' They do not lead to Liberation, but this (Knowledge) leads to Liberation. Hence the Lord praises it with the words 'supreme' and 'best', so as to arouse interest in the intellect of the listener.
Yat jnatva, by realizing which, by attaining which Knowledge; sarve, all; munayah, the contemplatives, the monks [But not those who espoused monasticsim as a formality in in the fourth stage of life.] gatah, reached, attained; itah, from here-when this bondage of the body had ceased; param, the highest; siddhim, Perfection, called Liberation.
And the Lord shows the infallibility of this Perfection:


14.2 Agatah, those who attain; mama sadharmyam, identity with Me the supreme God, unity with My real nature-sadharmyam, however, does not mean similarity of attributes, for, in the scripture Gita, distinction between the Knower of the field and God is not admitted; and this statement of the result is by way of eulogy-; upasritya, by resorting to i.e. by following; idam, this; jnanam, Knowledge as described, i.e., by following the means to Knowledge; na, are not; upajayante, born, produced; api, even; sarge, during creation; nor do they vyathanti, suffer pain, i.e. they do not perish; pralaye, during dissolution, when even Brahma perishes.
The Lord says that association of this kind between the field and the Knower of the field is the origin of all beings:


14.3 Mama, My own Maya, i.e. Prakrti consisting of the three alities, which belongs to Me; is the yonih, womb [Here Ast. adds 'karanam, cause' (-off all the creatures).-Tr.] for all the creatures. Since it (Prakrti) is great (mahat) as compared with all its effects, and it is the sustainer (brahma) [Prakrti is brahma since it permeates all of its own products.-A.G.] of all its own transformations, therefore the womb itself is alified as mahat brahma. Tasmin, in that, in the womb which is the great-sustainer; aham, I, God, possessed of the power in the form of the two aspects, viz the field and the Knower of the field; dadhami, place, deposit; garbham, the seed-the seed of the birth of Hiranayagarbha, te seed which is the cause of the birth of all things-; i.e., I bring the field into association with the Knower of the field who conforms to the nature of the limiting adjuncts, viz ignorance, desire and activity.
Tatah, from that, from that deposition of the seed; O scion of the Bharata dynasty, bhavati, occurs; sambhavah, the birth, origination; sarva-bhutanam, of all things, following the birth of Hiranyagarbha.


14.4 O son of Kunti, yah, whatever; murtayah, forms-that have their parts and limbs integrated, which is characteristic of the formation of bodies; sambhavanti, are born; sarva-yonisu, from all wombs-from the wombs of gods, manes, humans, cattle, beasts, etc.; tasam, of them, of those forms; mahat brahma, the great-sustainer, which exists as all the (various) forms; is the yonih, womb, source. Aham, I, God; am the pita, father; bija-pradah, who desposits the seed, the agent of impregnation.
(Now) is being stated which are the alities and how they bind:


14.5 O mighty-armed one-who are possessed of hands which are great and mighty, and extend upto the knees, gunah, the alities are named sattva, rajas and tamas. And they, prakrti-sambhavah, born of Nature, born of Maya which belongs to God; nibadhnanti, bind, as it were; the avyayam, immutable-the immutability has been spoken of in the verse, 'Being without beginning৷৷.,' etc. (13.31); dehinam, embodied being; dehe, to the body.
The word guna is a technical term, and is not a ality like colour etc. which inhere in some substance. Nor is it meant here that ality and substance are different. Therefore they are ever dependent on the Knower of the field, just as alities are dependent (on some substance). Being of the nature of ignorance, they bind the Knower of the field, as it were. They come into being, making That (Knower) their sustainer. In this sense it is said that they bind.
Objection; Was it not said that the embodied one does not become defiled (see 13.31-2)? So, why as it contrarily said here that 'they bind'?
Reply: We have rutted this objection by using the word iva (as it were) in 'they bind, as it were'.


14.6 Tatra, among them, among sattva etc.;-the characteristics of sattva itself is being stated first-sattva, nirmalatvat, being pure like a crystal stone;is prakasakam, an illuminator; and anamayam, harmless. Anagha, O sinless one; badhnati, it binds. How? Sukhasangena, through attachment to happiness. Bringing about the association of happiness, which is the object, with the Self, which is the subject, in the form of the idea, 'I am happy', is certainly an unreal contact with happiness. This as such is nescience, for the ality of an object cannot belong to a subject. And it has been said by the Lord that all the alities, from 'desire' to 'fortitude' (see 13.6), are, indeed, of the field, which is the object. Therefore, it is certainly through nescience, which is an attribute [In reality, though nescience has no connection with the Self, yet, since there is none other with which it can become associated and since it has no independence, therefore the Commentator imagines it as an attribute of the Self.] of the Self and has the characteristics of non-discrimination between object and subject, that sattva apparently brings about the association with happiness, which is not the Self. It makes (the Self) attached, as it were; [Here Ast. adds 'asangam saktam iva, (makes) the Unattached attached, as it were'.-Tr.] makes one not possessed of happiness as though possessed of it!
Similarly, it binds also jnana-sangena, through attachment to knowledge. [Jnana, derived in the sense of 'that through which one knows,' means an instrument of knowledge, and not Consciousness.
(S.: Knowledge arising from the study of the import of various scriptures; or, jnanam, means the scriptures, through which the supreme God is known and which leads to devotional practices, but not to steadfastness in (the absolute) Brahman.] Because of its concomitance with happiness, knowledge here is an attribute of the internal organ, the field, but not of the Self. Were it an attribute [If knowledge were a natural attribute of the Self, then there can be no estion of the latter again becoming bound through association with the former.] of the Self, there could be no contact (between it and the Self), and 'bondage' would become illogical. Association with knowledge etc. should be understood in the same sense as with happiness.


14.7 Viddhi, know; rajas to be ragatmakam, of the nature of passion (-raga is derived in the sense of that which colours-), having the property of colouring, like the ochre pigment etc.; trsna-asanga-samud-bhavam, born of hankering and attachment-hankering is the longing for things not acired; attachment is the clining-of the nature of fondness-of the mind to things in possession. O son of Kunti, tat, that, that rajas; nibadhnati, binds; dehinam, the embodied one; karma-sangena, through attachment to actions. Deep involvement in actions related to seen or unseen objects is karmasangah. Rajas binds through that.