Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 13, Verse 22: Krishna to Arjuna — Kṣetra-Kṣetrajña-Vibhāga-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  The term 'upadrastr' (witness-seer) designates the paramAtman as pure awareness that observes without modification — the term 'anumanta' (permitter) names its apparent sanction of prAkrtic activity through the error of tAdAtmya (identification), not through genuine agency. Shankara reads 'bhoktA' (experiencer) as applying only to the jIva caught in avidyA (ignorance) that mistakes itself for prAkrtic modes; the 'para puruSa' of this verse is in fact asanga (unattached) and merely illuminates the appearance of enjoyment. 'MaheshvAra' and 'paramAtman' are appellations pointing to the same non-dual Brahman, valid as upAya (pedagogical pointer) but ultimately dissolved when jnAna arises.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  Ramanuja reads 'upadrastr' and 'anumanta' as naming Ishvara's real superintendence of the body: the para puruSa, residing within the body (asmin dehe), inspires, surveys, and sanctions the body's activity as inner controller — not a passive witness but the active regulator. 'BhartA bhoktA' are taken as the Lord truly nourishing the body and truly receiving the results of its activity as the shesin (whole) to whom the sheSa (body-soul-complex) belongs; this is not metaphorical but real cosmic lordship over deha, indriya, and manas. Ramanuja explicitly notes that 'paramAtman' here means the inner self of finite selves — the jIva becomes 'maheshvara of the body alone' only because of beginningless prAkrtic association, whereas the ParamAtman is maheshvara universally and without limit.

• Madhvadvaita

  *Upadraṣṭā* (the supreme witness), *anumantā* (the sanctioner), *bhartā* (the sustainer), *bhoktā* (the true enjoyer), *maheśvaraḥ* (the great Lord), *paramātmā* (the Supreme Self) — these six epithets name one *puruṣa paraḥ* (the transcendent Person) dwelling in this body, and that Person is Hari alone, the *svatantra* (independently real, self-sufficient) ground of all. Each epithet marks an exclusive divine function. As *upadraṣṭā* Hari witnesses the field not from within *prakṛti*'s transformations but from absolute sovereign distance; as *anumantā* he sanctions every modification of the *jīva*'s experience — the *jīva* does not witness or sanction by any inherent capacity but solely by Hari's permission. As *bhartā* he bears and upholds the entire field; as *bhoktā* the ultimate enjoyment belongs to him, not jointly to *jīva* and Īśvara on equal terms. The *jīva* is *paratantra* (eternally dependent) throughout: it undergoes experience precisely as Hari wills, and no more. The title *paramātmā* seals the *pañca-bheda* (the five-fold real distinction): this *puruṣa paraḥ* is categorically other than every *jīva*, other than *kṣetra* in all its forms, and the distinction is not softened by co-residence in the body. That *upadraṣṭānumantā ca bhartā bhoktā maheśvaraḥ* are all predicated of a single *paraḥ puruṣa* — not distributed across levels of *taratamya* (graded ontological hierarchy) — confirms that sovereignty is undivided and belongs to Hari without remainder. The *jīva* dwelling in the same *deha* (body) is a *paratantra* co-resident whose apparent witnessing is borrowed light, never an independent *bheda*-dissolving identity with this *puruṣa paraḥ*.

  divergence: No Madhva or Jayatīrtha bhāṣya survives for this verse; the reading is projected directly from *pañca-bheda* and *svatantra*/*paratantra* siddhānta as applied to the six epithets of the mūla.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  Vallabha's bhAShya on this verse treats the jIva's 'bhoga' (enjoyment) as arising solely from its prAkrtic contact — the jIva, stationed in kShetra, enjoys (bhunkte) the modes (guNa) through the very instruments that are prAkrtic transformations; it is not, like the antaryAmin, asanga (unattached). The cause (kAraNam) of birth in good (deva-Adi) and bad (pashu-Adi) wombs is guNa-sanga (attachment to modes) — Vallabha cites BhAgavata 3.26.67 to frame this as 'kartRtva' (agency) being falsely attributed to the puruSa by mistaken identification. In the PuShTi-mArga reading, liberation from this samsAra-bandha comes only through Ishvara's prasAda (grace), not through the jIva's autonomous effort — the sakShin (witness) aspect of paramAtman is affirmed precisely to show the jIva's own witnessing is derived and contingent.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  Sridhara focuses the verse on the apparent paradox: how can a puruSa who is vikAra-rahita (free from modification) and janma-rahita (birthless) be called a bhoktA (experiencer)? His answer is tAdAtmya — the puruSa stationed in the kShetra identifies itself with the body-complex and thereby 'enjoys' the pleasures and pains that prAkrtic action generates. The cause of birth in diverse wombs — sat-yoni (divine) and asat-yoni (animal and lower) — is guNa-sanga, specifically the contact with the indriya (senses) that serve as instruments of merit and demerit. Sridhara's reading holds the bhakta's attention on the liberating implication: recognizing the witness-nature of paramAtman breaks the false identification that drives samsAra.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  Madhusudana frames the entire verse as answering why the puruSa, despite its non-dual nature, appears as an experiencer of sukha-duhkha (pleasure-pain): prAkrti is mAyA, and the puruSa, by mistakenly identifying with it (tAdAtmya-upagata), becomes the apparent bhoktA of the modes. He carefully maps the three kinds of yogis: sat-yoni (devas, sattva-dominant, enjoying iShTa-phala), asat-yoni (animals, tamas-dominant, experiencing aniShTa-phala), and sat-asat-yoni (humans like brAhmaNas, rAjasa-mixed). The mUla-kAraNa (root cause) is either prAkrti-tAdAtmyAbhimAna (the conceit of identity with nature) or, alternately, kAma (desire) for sense-objects — he cites BRihadAraNyaka 4.4.5 to show how desire shapes destiny. The synthesis point: even this description serves the bhakta, since recognizing 'paramAtman' as the unentangled witness inflames the desire to merge in bhakti rather than remain caught in guNa-sanga.