B.G 13.02 and 03

The Supreme Lord spoke.

O son of Kunti, this body is referred to as the field (kṣetra). The one who knows this is called the knower of the field (kṣetrajña) by those who understand. O Bharata, understand that I am also the knower of the field in all fields. The knowledge concerning the field and its knower is what I consider to be true knowledge.

Gīta Tātparya 13.02 and 03

It is important to distinguish and differentiate between 'kṣetra', i.e. field, and 'kṣetrajña', knower of the field. The Lord Vishnu is the knower of the field, and no one else directly knows the field. He is to be understood as distinct from both the manifest and the unmanifest. He is present in all living beings and outside as well, yet he remains distinct from all living beings at all times. To resolve the confusion as to who is 'kṣetrajña'?, it is said "kṣetrajñaṃ cāpi māṃ viddhi", i.e. "know Me only to be the 'kṣetrajña'"; At the same it is said - "etadyo vetti taṁ", i.e. "this who knows", so that the living being attains little of this knowledge for the purpose of resolving impediments.

"The cause of violence in a living being is impelled by another, starting from the unmanifest body, but this field is ultimately destroyed here. Desire, aversion, happiness and sorrow pervades the body of the being. These are to be known as its distortions mixed with blissful consciousness, form, desire, and such attributes. The being is said to be liberated when free from desire and such distortions even when it is endowed with sensations and desire. Liberation is considered to be of two kinds. The body, being of the nature of false perception, is associated with sensations, aversion, and suffering. Where forbidden desires are eternal, that is considered demonic liberation. The body, being of the nature of proper perception, is associated with sensations, joy, devotion towards lord Vishnu, and desire that are favorable and steadfastness is considered divine (liberation)."

- stated thus in the Narayana Vedic testimonial.

"The Lord Vishnu is the knower of the field, and no one else directly knows the field. He is to be understood as distinct from both the manifest and the unmanifest. He is present in all living beings and outside as well, yet he remains distinct from all living beings at all times. The one who has hands and feet everywhere, because He possesses the power of hands and other senses, is indeed the black-haired Krishna, the descendant of Yadu, present everywhere, even in the hair and other parts. The entity possesses forms that are subtler than the atom and is endowed with hands, feet, and other limbs, as He is situated everywhere and thus has hands and feet in all places. He perceives the objects of all senses with transcendental senses; thus, his senses are not separate; hence, alternatively he is described as one without senses. He is devoid of qualities such as Sattva, yet embodies all auspiciousness. Due to the absence of non-existence, he is both movable and immovable. Due to being all-pervading, he is near, far, middle, and indeed within. The atom originating at the foot pervades all regions. Elsewhere they may be opposing qualities, but all qualities exist there without opposition, because of infinite and immutable power."

- stated thus as well.

And the living being is not the knower of the field:

"The observer, who is the knower of the field, perceives the transient powers of the mind, crafted by illusion, which appear and disappear, remaining pure amidst the actions of the impure."

- stated thus in the Bhāgavata Purāṇa.

To resolve the confusion (as to who is 'kṣetrajña'?), it is said "kṣetrajñaṃ cāpi māṃ viddhi", i.e. "know Me only to be the 'kṣetrajña'"; At the same it is said - "etadyo vetti taṁ", i.e. "this who knows", so that the living being attains little of this knowledge for the purpose of resolving impediments. Otherwise, the statement that declares "this who knows" loses its significance when seen with "the knower of the field is even".

In the context of differentiating only, we have the usage - 'who knows'. Some assert the non-distinction of everything, thus negating the differentiation between the 'field' and the 'knower'. Understand me as the knower of the field, as I am present in all fields. In this scenario, saying 'who knows' confirms the Lord's role as the knower of the field. When intending to express non-distinction, one should say, 'everything is the field'. Saying 'in fields' is redundant. In this context, there is no special distinction of 'Me'. However, it should be stated 'I am indeed the sole knower of the field'.