Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 13, Verse 3: Krishna to Arjuna — Kṣetra-Kṣetrajña-Vibhāga-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  That field, the one pointed out as 'this body': what it is, what it is like in its own properties, what transformations it has, and from what cause what effect arises in it; and he, the knower already named, who he is and what his prabhāva (powers) are, powers that are upādhi-kṛta (produced by limiting adjuncts). Hear that true nature of field and knower from my words in brief, and having heard, hold it firm.

  divergence: Śaṅkara (his 13.4) glosses tersely, but one gloss carries doctrine: the knower's prabhāva are 'upādhi-kṛtāḥ śaktayaḥ', powers made by adjuncts, not belonging to the self as such. 'Yataś ca yat' is read as cause and effect (from what, what effect arises). He adds that the next verse praises the teaching to rouse the hearer's interest.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  What that field is as a dravya (substance), of what things it is the āśraya (substrate), what its modifications are, from what cause it arose and for what purpose (prayojana) it arose, and what its own nature is; and he, the kṣetrajña, what his nature is and what his powers are. Hear all of that from me in brief.

  divergence: Rāmānuja (his 13.3) treats the field as a real substance (dravya) that supports other things and reads 'yataḥ' as both cause and purpose, so the field exists for an end. The knower's prabhāva are simply his powers, with no hint that they are adjunct-made, against Śaṅkara.

• Madhvadvaita

  Hear from me in brief what the field is, what it is like, with what transformation it is joined, and from whom it is set going; and who he is, the pravartaka (one who sets it in motion), and what his power is. 'Yataś ca yat' means 'that from which the field proceeds'; 'sa ca yaḥ' names only his svarūpa (own nature).

  divergence: TERSE but distinctive. Madhva (his 13.4) reads 'yataś ca yat' not as cause-and-effect but as the source from which the field is driven, and identifies 'sa' as the pravartaka, the mover. This makes the second half of the verse about whoever impels the field, not simply about a knower who observes it. Whether that mover is Hari or the jīva the gloss does not say; Dvaita doctrine elsewhere would point to Hari, but that is not stated in this text and is not supplied in the rendering.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  Promising to unfold all this, the Lord says: what substance that field is, of what things it is the support, what modifications are in it, for what end it was brought forth, and what its nature is; and he, the knower, what his form and what his power. Hear all of it from me, in brief!

  divergence: THIN in originality. Vallabha (his 13.4) follows Rāmānuja almost word for word (dravya, āśraya, vikāra, svabhāva). His one change is 'yadartham udbhāvitam', 'for what purpose it was brought forth', which treats the field as something produced for an end by an agent; he fills that in at 13.6 (by my will, for devotion to me), but it is not stated here.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  Though by 'field' I mean the whole of prakṛti (nature) with its twenty-four divisions, the failure to discriminate shows most plainly where it has become a body and is taken as 'I'; so I said 'this body is the field', and now I unfold it: what the field is, by nature inert and an object of seeing, what it is like, bearing desire and the rest, joined with which modifications such as the senses, arising from the union of prakṛti and puruṣa, divided into moving and unmoving kinds. And he, the knower, who he is in himself and with what prabhāva (powers) he is endowed through the yoga of acintya-aiśvarya (inconceivable lordship): hear all of it from me briefly.

  divergence: Śrīdhara (his 13.4) explains why the field was first called 'this body' (the 'I' confusion is sharpest there) and reads the field's origin as the union of prakṛti and puruṣa. Decisively, he takes the knower's prabhāva as real powers of inconceivable lordship, the opposite of Śaṅkara and Madhusūdana, for whom they are adjunct-made.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  That field already called 'this body', the class of inert things: what it is in itself, inert, seen and bounded; what it is like, bearing desire and the rest; joined to which modifications such as the senses; and from what cause what effect arises, or, it arises from the union of prakṛti and puruṣa, divided into moving and unmoving kinds; and the 'ca' set down without rule means take everything together. And he, the knower, who he is in himself, svaprakāśa-caitanya-ānanda (self-luminous consciousness and bliss), and what his prabhāva are, powers made by upādhi (adjuncts): hear this true nature of field and knower, with all its qualifications, from my words in brief, and having heard, hold it fast.

  divergence: Madhusūdana (his 13.4) fuses the two prior readings: the field description follows Śrīdhara nearly verbatim, while on the knower's powers he sides with Śaṅkara (upādhi-kṛta), not Śrīdhara (acintya-aiśvarya). He adds a grammatical note that the irregular 'ca' signals a total enumeration and defines the knower as consciousness-bliss.