Chapter 13 · Verse 3·Spoken by Arjuna
क्षेत्रज्ञं चापि मां विद्धि सर्वक्षेत्रेषु भारत। क्षेत्रक्षेत्रज्ञयोर्ज्ञानं यत्तज्ज्ञानं मतं मम
kṣhetra-jñaṁ chāpi māṁ viddhi sarva-kṣhetreṣhu bhārata kṣhetra-kṣhetrajñayor jñānaṁ yat taj jñānaṁ mataṁ mama
Know me also as the knower of the field, in every field. In my view, the knowledge of the field and the knower of the field is true knowledge.
Word by Word
Saved for this reading session
Three movements · tap a label to switch
Sanskrit recitation by Swami Brahmānanda
Audio from the Gītā Supersite, IIT Kanpur
Synthesis · a glossed leaf
machine-assisted draft, pending review
Convergence
rishna tells Arjuna to know the kshetra-jna, the knower of the field, in every field as himself. The 'field' (kshetra) is the body together with its whole equipment, and the 'knower of the field' (kshetra-jna) is the conscious self that is aware of that body. Krishna says this one knower, present in every body from the highest being down to the smallest creature, is to be recognized as none other than himself, the supreme Lord. The commentators stress that this same single knower stands in countless bodies; the bodies differ, but the knower they declare to be one and the same divine reality.
Braided from 15 commentators
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati Sūri · Rāmānujācārya · Vedānta Deśika · Vallabhācārya · Śrī Puruṣottama · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Śrīla Viśvanātha · Śrīla Baladeva · Sant Jñāneśvar · Swami Sivananda · Swami Ramsukhdas
The second line gives the verse's definition of true knowledge: the knowledge of the field and the field-knower, that and that alone, is what Krishna calls real knowledge. The knower of the field is not the body and is not touched by what happens to the body. Pleasure and pain, doing and enjoying, birth and death belong to the field; they do not belong to the knower in its own nature. So the saving knowledge is the discernment that clearly separates the changing field from the changeless knower. Several commentators add that this is why such knowledge liberates: it dissolves the false identification of the self with the body.
Braided from 8 commentators
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati Sūri · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Swami Sivananda · Swami Ramsukhdas · Vallabhācārya
Krishna marks this knowledge with the words 'in my view' (matam mama) deliberately, to set it above all other learning. The point of that phrase is to draw a sharp line: knowledge of field and field-knower is the only knowledge worthy of the name, because it is the cause of liberation, while every other kind of erudition, however vast, is mere ignorance or cleverness because it only binds. Many languages, arts, scriptures and sciences may be mastered and still leave one bound; the one knowledge that severs the self's false bond with the body and ends the round of birth and death is the knowledge Krishna owns as his.
Braided from 7 commentators
Śaṅkarācārya · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Dhanapati Sūri · Śrīdhara Svāmī · Swami Ramsukhdas · Vallabhācārya · Śrī Puruṣottama
The commentators who develop the verse explain why suffering does not really stain the self, using the same images: the self is like the man mistaken for a post, like clear space soiled only in appearance, like the salt-marsh that mirage-water cannot turn to mud, and like the eye whose defect of sight (timira) lies in the instrument and not in the seer. Ignorance, doubt, pleasure and pain, virtue and vice belong to the instrument, the mind and senses; they are superimposed on the knower by ignorance but never become its real qualities. The proof offered is that they can be removed: were they the self's own nature, like heat in fire, no liberation would ever be possible, yet realized sages have been free of them.
Śaṅkarācārya · Swami Sivananda · Śrī Ānandagiri
Divergence
Advaita Vedānta
These commentators read the verse as a flat declaration of non-difference: the knower of the field, with all the limiting adjuncts of the various bodies set aside, is the one supreme Lord, the non-dual Brahman, and there is no second self distinct from him. The whole apparent round of birth, agency and enjoyment is fastened on the knower only by ignorance (avidya), not in supreme truth. The strongest of these sources answers the obvious objection, that if the Lord alone is the knower then either the Lord transmigrates or there is no transmigration at all, by appealing to the difference between knowledge and ignorance: transmigration is real only within ignorance, like mistaking a rope for a snake, and a thing real in the highest sense is untouched by a fault that ignorance merely imagines on it. True knowledge, on this reading, is knowing both field and field-knower together precisely so that the field is sublated and the knower is reached as the one substrate; knowing the bare featureless self without sublating the manifold, or denying any substrate, is incomplete. The reasoning is grounded in shruti texts contrasting the path of knowledge with the path of ignorance and their opposite fruits.
Śaṅkarācārya · Śrī Ānandagiri · Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Dhanapati Sūri
Viśiṣṭādvaita
On this reading the verse names the Lord as the inner ruler (antaryamin) seated within every field, yet it does not erase the distinction between the individual knower and the Lord. The little word 'too' (cha api) is read as marking the Lord as a further knower of the field, distinct from but indwelling each individual jiva-knower; 'in all fields' covers both the bodies of jivas, where the jiva is the proximate knower and the Lord is the inner ruler, and the whole cosmic field, where the Lord alone rules. The identity-reading is rejected at length on several grounds: the very framing as a knowledge of two presupposes a distinction; bodily pleasure and pain belong to the embodied knower, not to the Lord, who would otherwise inherit them; the scriptures naming the perishable, the imperishable and the supreme third person presuppose a permanent distinction; attributing ignorance to the jiva would, on the identity-view, attribute ignorance to the Lord; and the very fact that the jiva must be taught, as Arjuna is now being taught, shows the jiva was ignorant in a way the Lord cannot be. So the right knowledge is the two-fold knowing of the individual field-knower pair and of the Lord as the inner ruler nested within it.
Rāmānujācārya · Vedānta Deśika
Śuddhādvaita
These commentators read the verse through the lens of grace (pushti) and divine play. The Lord himself is the field-knower in every field; the jiva who is taken to be the knower is so only because he is the Lord's own portion (amsha) and of the Lord's own form. One source stresses that the verse does not say the jiva becomes the Lord by his own effort; rather, the awakened jiva is recognized as the Lord's portion who has come into his nature, and the title 'the wise one' applies to him by the manifestation of the Lord's own qualities. The other source frames it as the Lord, in the form of his portion, set in every field for the sake of tasting rasa, for the sake of divine play. The contrary view, that the body arises from karma and the knowing of it belongs to the jiva as an independent field-knower, is rejected as inadmissible. The bhakta is thereby asked to read every field, his own body first, as the standing-place of the Lord.
Vallabhācārya · Śrī Puruṣottama
Bhakti
This reading fuses devotion, knowledge and the great saying 'that thou art' (tat tvam asi). The samsarin, the very jiva caught in the round of birth, is here shown his true non-samsaric form: the field-knower who in truth runs through all fields is to be known as none other than the Lord, for it is the conscious portion (chid-amsha) pointed at by 'that thou art' that has been called of the Lord's own form. To know the field-knower is to know Vasudeva, the Lord seated in every field. The knowledge born of the very distinctness of field and field-knower is alone held to be real knowledge because it causes liberation; everything else is vain scholarship that only binds, as the old verse says that true learning is the learning that frees and every other knowledge is mere craftsman's skill.
Śrīdhara Svāmī
Modern
One modern commentator argues the oneness of the knower from common experience: if there were a separate individual self in each body, all should feel the same sensation at once, yet when one person suffers another rejoices; the bodies, minds and apparent individual souls differ, but the knower in all the fields is one, identical in essence with the supreme Self, while pleasure and pain remain functions of the mind ascribed to the self only through ignorance. The other modern commentator presses the same identity through grammar and instrument-analysis: the 'I am' (the kshetra) and its knower (the kshetra-jna) are already distinguished in plain self-experience, and even the subtlest inner faculty, the I-sense (ahamkara), is itself an object seen by a further self-luminous seer; that seer is the field-knower, to be known as the Lord's own nature. The command 'know' (viddhi) orders a reversal: as one now wrongly takes oneself to be in the body and the body to be one's own, one is to take oneself to be in the Lord and the Lord to be one's own, exchanging the imagined oneness with the body for the oneness that truly holds between the self and the Lord.
Swami Sivananda · Swami Ramsukhdas
A Seeker Asks
If the suffering self in each body is really the one Lord, why does my pain feel so personally mine, and is it actually erased or only reframed?
The pain is real where it sits, but it sits in the field, not in you the knower. Pleasure and pain, doing and enjoying, are functions of the body and mind; they are laid on the knower only through ignorance, the way a defect of the eye makes the seer seem to see wrongly while the seer himself is untouched. So the verse is not denying that the pain occurs; it is relocating it, telling you that what genuinely suffers is the instrument, while the one who is aware of the suffering stands clear of it like space that dirt cannot stain or a salt-marsh that mirage-water cannot wet.
Śaṅkarācārya · Swami Sivananda · Śrī Ānandagiri · Swami Ramsukhdas
The reason it feels so personally yours is exactly the error the verse is built to correct: you have identified the knower with the body, so the body's pain reports itself as 'mine.' The proof that this is removable, and not your true nature, is that liberated sages have been free of it; were suffering an essential property of the self, like heat in fire, no one could ever shed it. The remedy is the knowledge the verse defines: clearly discerning the field from the field-knower until the false bond with the body loosens.
Swami Sivananda · Swami Ramsukhdas · Śaṅkarācārya
Whether the pain is then 'erased' or 'reframed' is exactly where the schools part, so the honest answer holds both. On the non-dual reading the personal suffering is finally seen to be unreal, imagined by ignorance on a self that was never bound, so it is dissolved rather than merely reinterpreted. On the indwelling-Lord reading the embodied knower's experience is real and remains the embodied self's own, never the Lord's, so what changes is that you come to know the Lord seated within you as your inner ruler rather than ceasing to be a distinct experiencer. Both agree that the felt ownership of pain rests on mistaking the body for the self, and both agree that the cure is the knowledge of field and field-knower.
Madhusūdana Sarasvatī · Śrī Nīlakaṇṭha · Vedānta Deśika · Rāmānujācārya
Contemplation
Take the verse as a direct instruction you can act on, not just a doctrine to admire. Right now you take yourself to be in the body and the body to be your own; that is the habit the word 'know' (viddhi) is told to reverse. So practice the exchange: as naturally as you assume 'I am this body, this body is mine,' begin to assume 'I am in the Lord, the Lord is my own.' Watch how even your sense of 'I' (the ahamkara) is something you can notice and observe, which means it is not the final you; the one who is aware even of that I-sense, the self-luminous seer, is what you really are. And let the phrase 'in my view' guide your priorities: the languages, skills and lore you can accumulate are useful for ordinary life but cannot free you, while the one knowledge that loosens the self's knot with the body and ends the round of birth and death is the knowledge worth seeking above all.
Sit with this · Swami Ramsukhdas
Pull up a chair.
You have come to sit with this verse. When you are ready to hear the translators and the commentators in full, tap a name in The seating.