Commentary on the Bhagavadgita

by Swami Krishnananda

Tulya-ninda-stutih (12.19): The same thing is again repeated. Ninda and stuti mean the same thing to him. “You are a worst of fellows” – okay, all right. “Nobody likes you in the whole world” – that is also good, fine. He takes both of them as prasad. Tulya-ninda-stutir mauni: talking not, saying nothing. Santushto yena kenachit: Whatever comes, he is satisfied with it. Aniketah: having no abode of his own. He stays here and there, anywhere; any place is equally good for him. He does not have an attachment to any particular land and property. He has no particular homestead, no location, and feels that all is well at any place. Sthira-matir: He is still not agitated and is established in understanding. Such a devotee is the beloved of God.

Whoever listens to this advice is also dear to God. Whoever devotedly hears this glory of the devotee of God is also a devotee of God. Ye tu dharmyamrtam idam yathoktam paryupasate, sraddhadhana mat-parama bhakas te’tiva me priyah (12.20): “I consider all of them as very, very, dear to Me who devotedly, intently, with concentration, listen to these glories of the great masters of the spirit – which is like nectar for the ears – full of faith and intent on Me only. I consider them as most dear to Me” – ativa me priyah. With these words, we conclude the Twelfth Chapter of the Bhagavadgita.

From the Thirteenth Chapter onwards, a new perspective is placed before us. A kind of unity of purpose was there, seen in the first six chapters. It is said that a certain kind of unity of purpose is seen in the Seventh to the Twelfth Chapter. Now the last six chapters, from the Thirteenth onwards, have a different purpose altogether.

There is an emphasis on the discipline of the individual in the first six chapters. In the next six chapters – from the Seventh to the Eleventh particularly, and even the Twelfth – there is a special emphasis on the glory of God, the nature of creation, and the majesty of the devotees of God. These are the subjects of the middle six chapters. Now we have traversed both these – the individual, and the cosmic. In the first six chapters we have the individual, and in the next six chapters we have the cosmic. Now a more detailed touching-up of essentials that are already stated briefly in the earlier chapters is taken up for discussion in the coming chapters.

There is a belief among commentators of the Gita that the great Upanishadic statement tat tvam asi has something to do with this threefold classification of the chapters of the Gita. The individual is tvam – ‘thou’. This ‘thou’, or individual, is taken up for an intensified form of study in the first six chapters. Tat means ‘That’ – the Supreme. The nature of ‘That’ is taken up for study in the next six chapters. Asi means ‘art’; ‘That thou art’. The unification of the ‘thou’ and the ‘That’, the methodology of attaining the unity between the individual and the Universal, in all its detail, is supposed to be delineated in the coming chapters, from the Thirteenth onwards.

Sri Krishna Himself starts speaking, without any question from Arjuna. Idam sariram kaunteya kshetram ity abhidiyate (13.1): “This body, this particular tabernacle, this physical embodiment of the human being, is technically called kshetra or the field where some activity takes place. A field is an area where something happens.

While this body, which is physical in nature, is a field of operation, there must be somebody who carries on this operation in the field. The field is the body; but the knower of this body is the operator behind it. This body is, no doubt, the vehicle of action; but there is somebody who is conscious that there is a body which is to be used for the purpose of some activity. This body is an instrument of action in this world, but this body cannot act by itself. It is inert, constituted of the five inert elements – earth, water, fire, air and ether. Inert instruments cannot act by themselves. Even a car cannot move unless there is a driver. So is the case with this body. Unless there is prana and an intelligence that drives the prana in respect of the bodily limbs, there can be no activity.

So while this body may be called kshetra or field, the one who knows this field is conscious of it, and operates through it – lives in it, indwells it, and handles it in a different manner – such a principle is called kshetrajna. Jna means knower, and kshetra is, of course, field, so kshetrajna means ‘the knower of the field’. Hence, this body is the kshetra, the field, and the one who knows this field is kshetrajna.

Consciousness and matter constitute the subject of this chapter. The so-called field – this body or anything that is material – is an unconscious presentation that is usually called matter. That which knows matter is consciousness. Throughout the history of philosophy, there has been a lot of controversy on the theme as to what  the relationship between consciousness and matter is, and this controversy has not subsided even today. How do we connect consciousness with matter?

The knower of the field knows the field. Consciousness has no characteristic of matter, and matter does not have the characteristic of consciousness. Consciousness does not move, whereas matter is always in a state of flux and agitation. Therefore, they are dissimilar in their character. Objectivity is the character of the body and matter, whereas subjectivity is the nature of consciousness. They are totally opposed to each other. So how can that which is pure subject come in contact with that which is pure object? How would we solve this great issue of what the relationship between two terrible contraries is? They cannot have any kind of connection. Yet they seem to be working together in some way for the purpose of effecting some aim, which seems to be the very process of evolution.

The Sankhya doctrine gives a very humorous analogy to explain how consciousness, which is intelligent, works together with matter, which is unintelligent. Consciousness has eyes but no legs. It cannot move. It is universal existence. Therefore, it can see because it is intelligence, but it does not move because it has no legs. Prakriti has legs; it can move. But it has no eyes; it cannot see. It has no consciousness. Now, suppose there are two persons going on a journey: one who can see but cannot walk, and another who can walk but cannot see. They make an arrangement between themselves. The blind person who can walk, carries on his shoulder the legless person who can see. So the carried person sees and directs the path, and the legged one moves. This is how consciousness and matter work together, says Sankhya in a humorous analogy. But that analogy does not explain matters, because the two persons are independent of each other. The seeing person and the legged person are not one person. Therefore, consciousness and matter cannot become one unit. Unless there is a blend of the two, it may be difficult to explain perception of any kind. This subject has been taken up in the Vedanta sastra as an improvement on the dualistic doctrine of the Sankhya, which carries on its philosophy with its eyed-one and legged-one combination.

Kshetrajnah iti tad-viddhi (13.1): “Arjuna, I am the knower of the field.” The Lord says, “I am the Pure Consciousness that knows all things and operates these material forces; and I am not merely in one body. When I refer to the body, you may be thinking of some particular body – this body or that body – and there is a consciousness in each body. That may be so – that consciousness is inherently present in every body, within each person – but that is not the point.” Sarva-kshetreshu bharata: “I am present as the kshetrajna, or the knower of the field, in all the fields. That is, all individuals whatsoever – right from Brahma, the creator, down to the atom – are indwelt by Me, and I know all things as the Omniscient Knower.”

In a sense, it means that the kshetra is the entire physical universe. The whole of creation can be considered as the kshetra or the field of action, and Omniscient Intelligence that is operating in terms of this material manifestation is kshetrajna. Therefore, the question of the relationship between God and creation, consciousness and matter, kshetrajna and kshetra, purusha and prakriti – all mean finally one and the same thing.

Kshetrajnam chapi mam viddhi sarva-kshetreshu bharata, kshetra-kshetrajnayor jnanam yat taj jnanam matam mama (13.2): “This is real knowledge. I consider this to be supreme and real knowledge.” What is that knowledge? It is the knowledge of kshetra and kshetrajna. If we can know the actual relationship between God and the world, soul and body, consciousness and matter, knower and the known – if this can be clear to us – we have known everything. This knowledge is the highest knowledge. 

Tat kshetram yac ca yadrk cha yad vikari yatas cha yat, sa cha yo yat prabhavas cha tat samasena me srunu (13.3): “I shall now briefly tell you what this kshetra is – this field that is being referred to. Its nature, its characteristics, its modifications, from where it originates, how it exists, and what its powers are – all these I shall tell you just now.”

Rishibhih (13.4): “This knowledge about which I am speaking has been sung in all its glory in the Upanishads, the Vedas, and the Brahmasutras by great rishis with their logical arguments. Vasishtha gloriously describes this in all varieties of arguments in the Yoga Vasishtha. Rishis also sing of this knowledge in the Upanishads and the Vedas, and the Brahma Sutras are filled with logical pros and cons establishing the nature of this knowledge.”