Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 13, Verse 32: Krishna to Arjuna — Kṣetra-Kṣetrajña-Vibhāga-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  As ākāśa (space), though all-pervading, is not touched, not joined to anything, because of its subtlety, so the ātman (Self), present everywhere in the body, is not touched.

  divergence: Śaṅkara (source 13.33) only glosses: sarvagata = vyāpin (pervasive), saukṣmya = sūkṣma-bhāva (subtleness), na upalipyate = na saṃbadhyate (is not connected). He repeats 'sarvatra avasthito dehe' without further gloss and adds no argument here; the rendering stays at his gloss.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  As ākāśa (space), though present in everything and joined with all things, is not tainted by the natures of those things because it is subtle, so the ātman (self), because it is subtler still, though dwelling in every kind of body, divine, human and the rest, is not tainted by the natures of each of those bodies.

  divergence: Rāmānuja (source 13.32) answers the question he left open at 13.31: the self is 'always joined' to the body's natures yet unbound. He reads sarvatra as 'in every kind of body (deva, manuṣya and so on)', not as the self being all-pervading, and makes the self atisūkṣma (subtler than space). The taint denied is specifically deha-svabhāva (the body's own natures).

• Madhvadvaita

  [No Madhva bhāṣya for this verse.] Mūla only: as all-pervading space, by its subtlety, is not stained, so the ātman (self), situated everywhere in the body, is not stained.

  divergence: ABSENT. The supplied panel for Madhva at source 13.33 reads 'Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this sloka.' The English above is a plain rendering of the mūla with no Dvaita gloss added; any Dvaita reading of who the ātman is here, or of how 'everywhere' is to be taken, would be invented. Jayatīrtha's Prameyadīpikā is also silent on this verse.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  One may ask: granted that, being without guṇa (qualities of matter), it does not act, how is it untouched by the bodily natures always joined with it? He answers with an example: as space pervades every support and is not stained, so the jīva (individual self) too, by its subtlety, that is, its atomic size, is not stained; and its pervading of every support is to be understood through its pervasive quality of consciousness, as with sandal-paste, whose fragrance fills the whole body from one spot.

  divergence: Vallabha (source 13.33) breaks sharply with the Advaita readings: saukṣmya = aṇutva (atomic smallness), and the self is not literally pervasive; it pervades the body only by its quality of consciousness, the Brahmasūtra sandal-paste example. His opening objection repeats Rāmānuja's 13.31 question nearly word for word.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  He gives the example: as space, present everywhere, even in mud and the like, is not soiled by mud and the like because it is subtle, that is, unattached, so the ātman (self), dwelling in every body, high, middling or low, is not soiled, meaning it is not joined with the merits and faults of the body.

  divergence: Śrīdhara (source 13.33) reads saukṣmya as asaṅgatva (non-attachment), a quality of relation rather than of size, and gives sarvatra a moral-social sense: in high, middling or low bodies alike. This fits his sama-darśana framing at 13.31; Rāmānuja's 'every kind of body' is close but without the ranking.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  He gives the example for the statement that, though in the body, the Self is not tainted by its action because it is by nature unattached: just as space, though all-pervading, is not soiled by mud and the like, because of its saukṣmya (subtlety), meaning its nature of non-attachment. The rest is clear.

  divergence: Madhusūdana (source 13.33) is brief and says 'spaṣṭam itarat' (the rest is clear). Like Śrīdhara he reads saukṣmya as asaṅga-svabhāva, and frames the verse as the example for 13.31's 'na lipyate'. No devotional element; the rendering does not supply one.