Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 13, Verse 4: Krishna to Arjuna — Kṣetra-Kṣetrajña-Vibhāga-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  The true nature of field and knower has been sung in many ways by the ṛṣi (seers), Vasiṣṭha and others, and separately, with discrimination, by the many kinds of chandas (Vedic meters), the Ṛk and the rest. It has been sung too by the brahma-sūtra-pada: 'brahma-sūtra' are the sentences that point to Brahman, and 'pada' are those by which it is reached and known, such as 'let one meditate on it as the self alone'; reasoned, and settled, producing conviction without doubt.

  divergence: Śaṅkara (his 13.5) does not take 'brahma-sūtra' as the aphorisms of Bādarāyaṇa: he reads it as Upaniṣad sentences that indicate Brahman (example Bṛhadāraṇyaka 1.4.7), with 'pada' meaning that by which Brahman is known. This sidesteps the chronological problem of the Gītā citing the Brahma-sūtra, and places Madhva and Rāmānuja on the opposite side.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  This true nature of field and knower has been sung in many ways by ṛṣi (seers) such as Parāśara, who teaches that the self is pure, imperishable, beyond prakṛti, and asks 'is the head you, is the belly you? Ask, who am I', and the Mahābhārata adds that senses, mind and both field and knower are Vāsudeva-ātmaka (having Vāsudeva as their self). The four Veda sing them apart: the Taittirīya names the body made of food, then within it the knower made of understanding, and within the knower the ānandamaya (self made of bliss), the supreme self as the knower's inner self. And the śārīraka-sūtra, reasoned and conclusive, settle the field in 'na viyad aśruteḥ', the knower in 'nātmā aśruteḥ' and 'jño 'ta eva', and the knower's being impelled by the Lord in 'parāt tu tac chruteḥ': hear it now from me briefly and clearly.

  divergence: Rāmānuja (his 13.4) names Parāśara (Viṣṇu Purāṇa 2.13), not Vasiṣṭha, as the ṛṣi, and maps the Taittirīya sheaths onto three terms: body (field), vijñānamaya (knower), ānandamaya (the Lord as the knower's inner self). He takes 'brahma-sūtra-pada' as Bādarāyaṇa's śārīraka-sūtra and cites specific sūtras from 2.3 for field, knower and the knower's dependence on the Lord, so the verse is read as a citation of his own system's proof-texts.

• Madhva · Jayatīrthadvaita

  This has been sung in many ways by the ṛṣi (seers), separately by the varied chandas (Vedic hymns), and also by the words of the brahma-sūtra, reasoned and settled. Here brahma-sūtra means the śārīraka (the sūtra text known by that name), the conventional sense of the word, and not any sentence whatever that points to Brahman, since sentences of that kind are already covered by the seers and the hymns, and naming them again would make the verse say nothing.

  divergence: Read with Jayatīrtha's Prameyadīpikā on Madhva's bhāṣya (their 13.5): Madhva glosses one word: brahma-sūtra means the śārīraka. Jayatīrtha supplies the argument behind that gloss. An opponent, marked in the edition as Śaṅkara, takes brahma-sūtra as 'sentences that indicate Brahman'; Jayatīrtha answers that the words of the ṛṣi (seers) and the chandas (Vedic hymns) are already sentences of that kind, so on that reading the earlier phrases 'by the seers' and the rest would be pointless, and Madhva therefore takes the word in its rūḍhi (conventional sense) as the name of a particular text. This is a textual and interpretive point, not a doctrinal expansion, and neither commentator says anything further on the seers, the hymns, hetumat (reasoned) or viniścita (settled). The contrast is direct: the Advaita rendering takes brahma-sūtra as the Brahman-indicating Upaniṣad sentences, the Bhakti and Advaita-bhakti renderings give that reading first and the sūtra text only as an alternative, while Dvaita, with Viśiṣṭādvaita and Śuddhādvaita, fixes it on the sūtra text and gives a reason for refusing the general sense.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  The form of the knower has been sung in many ways, because a meaning scattered across many teachings cannot be gathered up by any single one: by the chandas (Vedic hymns) it is taught as the object of meditation and fixing of mind, as the Vairāja cosmic form, as the deities worshipped in various sacrifices; and separately by the brahma-sūtra-pada composed by Vyāsa, which string together the essence of the Veda's meaning and are therefore settled, rich in reasons, each hetu (reason) a proving text such as 'tat tu samanvayāt'. All of this I have sung in many ways, and now I gather its essence, its fruit, and tell it to you.

  divergence: Vallabha (his 13.5) makes the topic specifically the knower's form, takes the brahma-sūtra as Vyāsa's own, with 'tat tu samanvayāt' (1.1.4) as the model reason, and closes with the Lord himself as the one who has sung all of it and now gives its essence. He assigns meditation and the Vairāja form to the chandas, where Śrīdhara assigns them to the ṛṣi in yoga texts.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  By ṛṣi such as Vasiṣṭha in the yoga texts it is set out many ways as an object of meditation and concentration in the Vairāja form; by the many Veda on daily, occasional and desire-driven rites as the various deities to be worshipped; by brahma-sūtra, sentences such as 'from which these beings are born' that point to Brahman by its marks, and by pada, sentences such as 'Brahman is truth, knowledge, the infinite' that reach Brahman in its own nature. These are hetumat (backed by reasons), as 'how could being come from non-being?' and 'who would breathe, if this bliss were not in space?', and viniścita (settled), because their opening and close agree; what they say at length, hard to gather, I will tell you briefly. Or else brahma-sūtra means the sūtra beginning 'athāto brahma-jijñāsā', with reasons such as 'īkṣater nāśabdam'.

  divergence: Śrīdhara (his 13.5) splits the compound: 'sūtra' are indirect definitions of Brahman by its relation to the world (taṭastha-lakṣaṇa) and 'pada' are definitions of its own nature (svarūpa-lakṣaṇa), and 'settled' means consistent from opening to close. He gives the Bādarāyaṇa reading only as an alternative, so he leans toward Śaṅkara but keeps both.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  To win the listener over by praise: it has been sung many ways by ṛṣi such as Vasiṣṭha in the yoga texts as the object of fixing and meditating, which shows it is taught by the dharma-śāstra (law and ethics); by the chandas, the mantra and brāhmaṇa on daily, occasional and desired rites, separately and with discrimination, which shows it is taught by the karma-kāṇḍa (ritual portion); and by brahma-sūtra and pada, the Upaniṣad sentences pointing to Brahman by its marks and by its nature, backed by reasons such as 'how could being come from non-being?' and settled by the agreement of opening and close, which shows it is taught by the jñāna-kāṇḍa (knowledge portion). What all these have said at great length I will tell you in brief. Or take it as one compound: the sūtra of vidyā, such as 'let one meditate on it as the self', and the sūtra of avidyā, such as 'he does not know, he is like a beast'.

  divergence: Madhusūdana (his 13.5) builds on Śrīdhara but adds a structural claim of his own: the three phrases map onto the three divisions of scripture (dharma-śāstra, karma-kāṇḍa, jñāna-kāṇḍa), so the field-knower truth is the teaching of the whole Veda. His alternative reading pairs texts that teach knowledge with texts that describe ignorance. He does not take up the Bādarāyaṇa reading at all.