Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 13, Verse 16: Krishna to Arjuna — Kṣetra-Kṣetrajña-Vibhāga-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  It is undivided, one in every body like space, and yet stands among beings as if divided, because it is apprehended only in bodies. This knowable is bhūtabhartṛ (bearer of beings) at the time of their continuance, grasiṣṇu (devourer) at pralaya (dissolution), and prabhaviṣṇu (generator) at their origin, just as the rope and the like are to the snake and the like falsely imagined on them.

  divergence: Śaṅkara: one like space, apparent division from bodies; the three cosmic functions hold only as a rope 'produces, holds and withdraws' an imagined snake. Creation is not a real transformation.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  The self-substance present in gods, men and all beings is undivided, being uniformly of the form of veditṛ (knower), yet to the unwise it stands as if divided in the forms 'this is a god, this a man'; though it is thought of as 'I am a god, I am a man' in co-reference with the body, as knower it can be known as other than the body. It is the bhartṛ (supporter) of the elements gathered as the body, and so other than what it supports; it is grasiṣṇu (consumer) of food and other elemental things, and so other than what it consumes; and prabhaviṣṇu, the cause of the arising of what it consumes as it changes into new forms. Since eating, growth and support are not seen in a dead body, it is settled that the aggregate of elements, the kṣetra (field), is not the cause of consuming, generating and supporting.

  divergence: Rāmānuja reads the triad bodily, not cosmically: the self bears the body, eats food, and causes food's transformation into tissue, and the corpse proves the field is not the agent. 'Undivided' means each self has the same knower-form (not one self in all); division is the unwise taking the body-type as the self. Opposite of Madhusūdana's single kṣetrajña.

• Madhvadvaita

  [No Madhva bhāṣya for this verse.] Mūla only: Undivided among beings, it stands as if divided; that knowable is the bearer of beings, the devourer and the generator.

  divergence: ABSENT: the supplied Madhva text for this verse (his source_verse 13.17) reads only 'Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this sloka.' No Dvaita bhāṣya exists to anchor a rendering; the English is the mūla only, not a Dvaita reading. Jayatīrtha's Prameyadīpikā is also silent on this verse.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  Lest it be thought to exist in pieces: among its anantamūrti (infinite forms) there is no difference one from another, and it stands as if divided only by its will to manifest just so much; as protector it bears beings, as destroyer it devours, and as Prajāpati it brings forth. As the Nibandha says, by His sheer will the jīva (souls) were created as portions of Brahman, going forth at creation like sparks from fire, inert things from His sat (being) portion and the antaryāmin (inner controller) from His ānanda (bliss) portion. So there is no difference of kind in their essence, only a difference in name, spoken of as inert, conscious and inner controller.

  divergence: Vallabha's division is willed (icchā), not apparent or adjunct-caused: one Brahman manifests as protector, destroyer and Prajāpati, and as three kinds of aṃśa (portions) via the Tattvadīpa-nibandha: sat in matter, cit in souls, ānanda in the inner controller. Difference is nominal, not essential, and nothing is mithyā.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  In beings, moving and unmoving, it is undivided, one with them as their cause, and yet as effect it stands as if divided, as foam and the rest born of the ocean are not other than the ocean; this is the nature to be known, described before. It is their bhartṛ (nourisher) at the time of continuance, grasiṣṇu (devourer) at dissolution, and prabhaviṣṇu at creation, coming forth in the form of many effects.

  divergence: Śrīdhara again uses cause-effect: undivided as cause, divided as effect, foam and ocean. Prabhaviṣṇu is 'arising as many effects', a real becoming, softer than Śaṅkara's rope-snake.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  To refute those who hold a different self in each body: it is undivided among all beings, one alone, not different body by body, all-pervading like space; yet because it appears identified with bodies it stands as if divided, the difference being due to adjuncts and unreal, like divisions seen in space. Lest one say, 'let the kṣetrajña (knower of the field) be one and all-pervading, but Brahman, the cause of the world, is something else', the verse says: it bears all beings at their continuance, devours them at dissolution and generates them at origin, as a rope does the snake imagined by māyā (illusory power). Therefore the Brahman that causes the world's continuance, dissolution and origin is itself the one kṣetrajña, to be known in every body, and nothing other.

  divergence: Madhusūdana turns the verse into two polemics: against plurality of selves (directly opposing Rāmānuja's many selves) and against separating the kṣetrajña from the world-cause, concluding identity of the two. Sharper than Śaṅkara's statement of the same ground.