Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this verse.

Salutations to the Giver of true knowledge. In the preceding discussion the distinctions of jñāna, jñeya, kṣetra and kṣetrajña were succinctly set out and shown by enumeration in this chapter.

"Kshetrajna" — the knower of the field.

That which is subject to modification (yad vikāri) — by whatever modification it is modified. And that which from which something proceeds and is set in motion (yat śca yat yat yato yāti pravartate) — he who is the originator. And that by which the field functions (yatś ca yad iti asmāt pravartate kṣetram iti vacanaṃ) — this denotes the field; and 'sa ca ya' indicates mere essential nature.

The Brahma-sūtras are concerned with the embodied (sharīrakam).

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this sloka.

Desires and similar states are vikāras (modifications).

And that — its modes and effects — to state these the means of knowledge are named: for example, 'amānitva' etc. Knowing smallness of the self yet displaying greatness is pride (dambha). Even when one knows his own smallness, exhibiting it as greatness is boasting (mahatmya-bhāvanam). 'Darśana' is a term for vision. 'Ārjava' is the absence of opposition among mind, speech, body, and action.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this sloka.

Sakti is attachment (sneha). The same (sneha) when excessively mature is called 'abhishvāṅga' (excessive clinging). Thus: 'snehaḥ saktiḥ sa eva atipakvo abhishvāṅgaḥ' is an expression.

"Mayi" — 'in Me'.

'Darśana' for the knowledge of truth (tattvajñāna), and 'śāstra-darśana' for direct (aprokṣa) knowledge.

It is declared: 'He is supreme Brahman' (param brahma etis ca yaḥ). The influence of another (anyat prabhāvaḥ) — as stated in 13.4 — is here negated; hence it is taught that the body is not the beginning (deha-varjitam), i.e., non-originated. Otherwise it would be said to be beginningless (anādī) as well.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this sloka.

All the sense-organs and the qualities shine forth — hence the phrase “manifestation of the qualities of all the sense-organs.” This was stated earlier with the sense that the organs are free from (the self) and so on.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this śloka.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this śloka.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this śloka.

The means of knowledge is first said to be the inner manifestation of modifications (vīkāra-antarbhāva). Because of their multiplicity they are means; because of their smallness and lack of independent utility they are effects.

When it says “and whatever,” it abbreviates a discussion of prakṛti, its modifications and the puruṣa. The guṇas are sattva and the others. The modifications are distinct: due to their minuteness they perish; they are the effects. The threefold categories—kārya, kāraṇa, guṇa—are mentioned because of the slight origination of living beings, as found in the Mādhucchandas branch.

The effect is the body. By nomenclature the body is called the effect. The cause is the sense-organs; enjoyment is experience. The experiencer experiences because he is of the nature of citta (consciousness). Prakṛti is inert and therefore undergoes transformation. In the relation of cause and effect the cause is known as prakṛti. With regard to being the enjoyer of pleasure and pain, the puruṣa is superior to prakṛti, as taught in the Bhāgavata.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this śloka.

When it says “and whatever” [13.4]—it means the inner witness. The term denoting assent (anumantā) is explanatory. The puruṣa is declared to be the experiencer of pleasure and pain — this is the jīva. Puruṣa and prakṛti are to be declared together as jīva and īśvara. Elsewhere there is no opposition to the mahattattva. Indeed mahattattva denotes preeminence. The Śaukara-ayana tradition says: in the unspoken eminent principle there is greatness of all words and all reasons. For Viṣṇu, the infinite supreme, even that (mahat) is subordinate — here there is no doubt. Hence the statement that contradicts this is to be reconciled by reasoning from starting-points. It is neither an authoritative statement of the poets nor a proper reasoning, for speculation without understanding is invalid. Thus the claim that the Upaniṣadic greatness is an appearance leads to the established view that the mahattattva has an inner significance. It is said: the inner meaning and the greatness of mahat are in sattva, indeed there is oneness, for both are infinite; the name ‘śyāmā’ and others are due to designation. The view which imagines only the puruṣa is due to ignorance; not that the revelation (śabda) itself is illusory. Many persons fail to perceive (and so remain in ignorance); therefore even scriptural passages may be misapplied — yet that must not be asserted. Wherefore statements that seem contradictory have been composed (e.g., accounts of many puruṣas versus one). The story of Prajāpati and the others is narrated in that sense. The Bhagavata says that the one puruṣa is exalted and that many puruṣas are narrated as if arising from one womb, for the sake of describing the world and its qualities in the teaching of liberation. The Lord’s words are not to be treated as dreamlike falsity; nor do we accept the view that a single jīva is like a dream-projection. The contrary views have also been stated as alternatives. It is said: this is not a dream, nor is this the case that separation is unreal. There is no fault here: the unity of jīva and īśvara is not declared; the aim is the contemplation of the jīva’s union with īśvara. Is that not without a basis? Thus one should not oppose the reality of the reflected image. The Śākhā of Mādhucchandas teaches that unity too is by reflection — the jīva is indeed a reflection of Viṣṇu, say the sages. In the practice of ahamgraha (identification of the ego), the promised fruit is established in the Agniśravas tradition: the practitioner who takes ahamgraha attains the desired result through habituation; there is no doubt. That “I-ness” (tad-īya aham) is called the cognition of the ahamgraha, as in Vāmana: by the power of that (tad-vaśatva) one says ‘I am’ as if by one’s dependents — not as self-existing. It is a reflective cognition: ‘I am’ and ‘he is a dependent’ — such is the experience. In the same branch it is said: ‘The supreme person is to be worshipped by the reflective cognition “I am” and “he is the servant” ’; the reflective cognition is of the same kind.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this śloka.

By Sāṅkhya and the Vedāntic statements one knows the nature of the Lord as taught in scripture. Even for karmīs: hearing, knowing, meditating — thus vision arises. Having known and meditated, the śrāvakas (listeners) also see. Likewise the Sāṅkhyas meditate. The Gauḍapāda tradition says: one who has acted and then heard, known and meditated, perceives; the śrāvaka who thus knows and meditates also sees the knowable. Otherwise such vision could not arise. This is a means also for those who are weak, to give them a preliminary view.

By Sāṅkhya and the Vedāntic statements one knows the nature of the Lord as taught in scripture. Even for karmīs: hearing, knowing, meditating — thus vision arises. Having known and meditated, the śrāvakas (listeners) also see. Likewise the Sāṅkhyas meditate. The Gauḍapāda tradition says: one who has acted and then heard, known and meditated, perceives; the śrāvaka who thus knows and meditates also sees the knowable. Otherwise such vision could not arise. This method is also provided as a means for those who are unable (to proceed otherwise).

Again, the form of prakṛti and of the Lord of living beings (puruṣeśvara), characterized by sameness and endowed with the quality of dharma — this is stated up to the words yāvat iti and so on.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this śloka.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this śloka.

He who perceives the Self (ātman) as both the agent and the experiencer — he truly perceives.

One who is established in one place and in the one Vishnu. That same Vishnu alone is meant by expansion (vistāra) of Vishnu.

It is not said, “and it is subject to decay,” but rather, “it is not subject to decay” — hence, on account of beginninglessness (anāditva). Usually the term vyaya (decay) is used of what is qualitative and perishable. The preceding words give the sense: it is not caused (na karoti) — not by ordinary worldly activity. Therefore it is said, “like prajña” (wise) and so on.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this śloka.

Sri Madhvacharya did not comment on this śloka.

From the beings and from prakṛti — the means to liberation is humility and so forth (amānitva, etc.). [Cf. 13.8]