Whatever thing, whatever existent, comes to be, arises: of every kind without distinction? No, He says: the moving and the unmoving, that, know, O bull of the Bharatas, is born from the joining of the field and the field-knower. What is this joining of the field and the field-knower that is intended? It is not, like that of a rope with a pot, a particular relation by way of the contact of parts, for that joining is not possible for the field-knower with the field, since, like space, it is partless; nor is it a joining marked as inherence, like that of threads and cloth, since a mutual cause-and-effect relation of field and field-knower is not accepted. The answer: the joining of the field and the field-knower, of the object and the subject, of different natures, is marked as the mutual superimposition of each on the other and of their qualities, and is occasioned by the absence of the discernment of the true natures of field and field-knower, like the joining of a falsely imagined snake or silver with a rope or a piece of mother-of-pearl, occasioned by the absence of the discerning knowledge of them. This joining of field and field-knower, of the nature of superimposition, is marked as false knowledge. He who, by the prior full knowledge of the distinct marks of field and field-knower as scripture has it, having drawn off the field-knower of the character described from the field whose form was shown before, as one draws a reed from muñja-grass, and who, by 'it is not said to be real, nor unreal', sees the thing to be known, with every adjunct-distinction set aside, in the form of Brahman, and who has the settled knowledge that the field, like an elephant made by māyā, like a thing seen in dream, like a city of the gandharvas, though unreal appears as if real: from him, by the contradiction with the right vision described, false knowledge departs; and, the cause of his birth having departed, what was said by 'he who thus knows the Puruṣa and Nature together with the qualities' (Gītā 13.23), that the knower is not born again, is fittingly said. By 'he is not born again' the fruit of the right vision, the absence of birth by way of the cessation of ignorance and the other seeds of transmigration, was told; and the cause of birth, the joining of field and field-knower occasioned by ignorance, was told. So the right vision, the remover of that ignorance, though told, is told again under other words.

Thus, in all beings that are joined one to the other, he who sees the self, set apart from the disparate shapes of god and the rest, abiding here and there toward this and that body, senses, and mind as the supreme Lord, of like form by being the knower, and, when those bodies and the rest perish, not perishing, by being of a nature unfit for destruction, he sees; that is, he sees the self abiding as it truly is. But he who sees the self too, like the disparate shapes of god and the rest, as of disparate shape and joined with birth, destruction, and the rest, he transmigrates forever. This is the import.

This is a brief sub-gloss. For a fuller reading of this verse, see Madhusūdana, Śaṅkara, or Rāmānuja above.

Again Krishna states the own-form of the topic, of the person and the Lord, as joined with the attributes of sameness and the rest, with 'whatever' and so on.