In several manuscripts, this stanza is not found. But in some others, it is met with as a doubt expressed by Arjuna.

PRAKRITI AND PURUSHA — In the Sankhyan Philosophy in India, the Acharyas have used these two technical terms to indicate the inert-equipments (Prakriti) and the vital sentient-Truth (Purusha) that sets the entire assemblage of matter in action. In short, Prakriti is matter and Purusha is the Spirit. The Spirit, in Itself, has no expression except when It plays through matter. When Purusha weds Prakriti, the experiences of good and bad are in legion born. Electricity, in itself, cannot manifest as light. But when it weds the bulb, it is manifested as light.

THE FIELD AND THE KNOWER-OF-THE-FIELD — We have already explained these two terms in our introduction to this chapter. The “KNOWER-OF-THE-FIELD” is the status of the Knowing-Principle when It is functioning in the “FIELD-OF-THE-KNOWN.” Bereft of the field-of-objects, the “Knower” himself becomes nothing but “Pure Knowledge,” without the functions of knowing attached to It.

THE MECHANISM AND THE OBJECTS-OF KNOWLEDGE — Conditioned knowledge-bits, meaning, knowledge-of-things, are the constant experiences of all living creatures in life. Naturally, an investigation into the “mechanism of knowing” and its manipulations and the “true object to be known” will be helpful to all seekers.

LISTEN, HOW THE LORD ANSWERS ALL THESE QUESTIONS CATEGORICALLY:

Inclusion of this sloka, spoken by Arjuna, brings the total number of slokas in the Bhagavadgita to 701. Many versions of the Bhagavadgita, including the current commentary by Dr. S Sankaranarayan, do not include this sloka./p>p>13.2 The Lord specifies the body as the object referred to by the pronoun idam (this). O son of Kunti, (this body) abhidhiyate, is referred to; ksetram iti, as the field-because it is protected (tra) against injury (ksata), or because it perishes (ksi), wastes away (ksar), or because the results of actions get fulfilled in the body as in a field (ksetra). The word iti is used in the sense of ‘as’. They-who?-tadvidah, who are versed in this, who know the ‘field’ and the ‘knower of the field’; ahuh, call; tam, him, the knower; yah, who; vetti etat, is concious of, knows, it, the body, the field-makes it, from head to foot, an abject of his knowledge; makes it an object of perception as a separate entity, through knowledg which is spontaneous or is acquired through instruction; ksetrajna iti, as the knower of the field. As before, the word iti is used in the sense of ‘as’. They call him as the knower of the field. Is it that the field and the knower of the field thus mentioned are to be understood through this much knowledge only? The answer is, no.