2.5: Antaryāmy-adhikaraṇam - The antaryāmī

“The antaryāmī residing in the elements and in the hearts of all is the Supreme Lord, because His qualities are described in the passage.

« Vedānta-sūtra: The Govinda-bhāṣya of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa

Topic 5: Antaryāmy-adhikaraṇam - The antaryāmī

The ruler within is the Supreme Personality of Godhead

antaryāmy adhidaivādiṣu tad-dharma-vyapadeśāt, na ca smārtam atad-dharmābhilāpāt, (na) śārīraś cobhaye’pi hi bhedenaivanam adhīyate

“The antaryāmī residing in the elements and in the hearts of all is the Supreme Lord, because His qualities are described in the passage.

The antaryāmī is not pradhāna because the qualities mentioned in the passage can’t be attributed to it. He is also not a yogī, because both recensions of the text indicate the difference.”

Sūtra 1.2.18 - His qualities are described

antaryāmy adhidaivādiṣu tad-dharma-vyapadeśāt

antaryāmī: the ruler within (Paramātmā); adhidaivādiṣu: in all beings and elements; tat: of Him; dharma: the inherent nature; vyapadeśāt: because of the explicit mention in the śruti.

The antaryāmī residing in the elements and in the hearts of all is the Supreme Lord, because His qualities are described in the passage.

Commentary: Sūtras from 1.2.18 to 1.2.24 discuss in more detail the identity of antaryāmī, the ruler within, who is described in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.7.3, which was previously quoted in Baladeva’s commentary for sūtra 1.2.14:

yaḥ pṛthivyām tiṣṭhan pṛthivyā antarāḥ, yam pṛthivī na veda
yasya pṛthivī śarīram, yaḥ pṛthivīm antarāḥ yamayati
eṣa ta ātmāntaryāmy amṛtaḥ

When we properly understand the meaning of the verse, it’s easy to understand that it applies to the Supersoul, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The Antaryāmī, the ruler within, who is present in all material objects and in the heart of all living beings, is the immortal Supersoul, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. He is the Supreme Self.

However, when one tries to interpret the verse based just on the literal meaning, one could be confused about the nature of the antaryāmī. A literal translation would be:

“He who dwells in the Earth, who is within the earth, whom the Earth does not know, whose body the Earth is, and who from within controls the earth, this is the Self, the inner controller, the immortal.”

As you can see, when one reads the verse without knowing the proper philosophical conclusion, the identity of the antaryāmī is not clear. Who is this mysterious ruler residing inside the heart? Would it be pradhāna, the material nature, would it be the immortal jīva inside the body, or would it be Brahman, the Supreme Person?

One could argue that the ruler is pradhāna, the reservoir of subtle material energy. This thesis would have a good deal of logical support, because pradhāna is the immediate cause of all material manifestations, and being the cause, it is woven into the effects. In other words, being the cause of the material elements, pradhāna is present in them, and thus it would not be unreasonable to say that it is the controller within them. Pradhāna is thus in the earth and controls the earth, and thus we could say that the earth is its body. Pradhāna is also present everywhere in the creation, and therefore it can be called ātmā, in the sense of “the great self”. Pradhāna is also eternal, and thus may be called amṛta.

The arguments for the antaryāmī being the jīva would also be compelling, since the jīva is immortal and resides inside the heart. The mentioning of the antaryāmī dwelling in the earth and having earth as his body could then be interpreted as the jīva possessing a body made of material elements.

One could also argue that the antaryāmī is a specific jīva who is a great yogi and has attained the mystical perfections. Using aṇimā, he could become very small and enter everywhere. Using parakāya-praveśa, he could enter into the bodies of others and thus be present in their hearts. Using antardhāna-siddhi, he could become invisible and thus unknown, and using prākāmya, he could become a great ruler and be thus called ātmā, the great self. As a soul, he is also immortal, and therefore the meaning of the words could be directly applied to him without the need of using figurative interpretations.

To these arguments, Vyāsadeva answers: antaryāmī adhidaivādiṣu tad-dharma-vyapadeśāt. The ruler within is the Supreme Lord. Why? Because tad-dharma-vyapadeśāt: the verse describes qualities that can be attributed only to Him.

The verse describes antaryāmī as being situated within the earth and other material elements, but at the same time remaining unknown, being the Supreme Controller, eternal (amṛta), all-knowing, and all-blissful. These qualities can’t be attributed in full to pradhāna (which is just an inert mass of material elements), nor to any ordinary jīva or even a great yogi. In this way, Śrīla Vyāsadeva again teaches us the proper way to interpret verses from the śāstras.

However, the fact that the Lord permeates everything does not indicate He has no personal form. In Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam 2.9.35, it’s described that during the beginning of the creation, the Lord addressed Brahmā as follows:

yathā mahānti bhūtāni, bhūteṣūccāvaceṣv anu
praviṣṭāny apraviṣṭāni, tathā teṣu na teṣv aham

“O Brahmā, please know that the universal elements enter into the cosmos and at the same time do not enter into the cosmos; similarly, I Myself also exist within everything created, and at the same time I am outside of everything.”

Similarly, in the Bhagavad-gītā (9.4-5) Kṛṣṇa says: “By Me, in My unmanifested form, this entire universe is pervaded. All beings are in Me, but I am not in them. And yet everything that is created does not rest in Me. Behold My mystic opulence! Although I am the maintainer of all living entities and although I am everywhere, I am not a part of this cosmic manifestation, for My Self is the very source of creation.”

The Lord is present everywhere in the creation, but at the same time, He has a personal form. He resides everywhere, but at the same time, He is present in His eternal abode. These apparent contradictions are reconciled when we understand that the Lord has a spiritual form that is different in nature from the material forms we have in this world. Material forms are limited by time and space, while the spiritual forms of the Lord exist in the absolute plane and are not subject to these limitations. The word “absolute” in itself implies that there are no limitations to what He can do.

In his purport to SB 2.9.35, Śrīla Prabhupāda mentions: “the Supreme Lord, by His different energies, namely the internal and external, is within everything in the manifested cosmos, and at the same time He is outside of everything, situated in the kingdom of God (Vaikuṇṭhaloka), as described before. This is very nicely stated in the Brahma-samhitā (5.37) as follows: ‘I worship the Personality of Godhead, Govinda, who, by expansion of His internal potency of transcendental existence, knowledge and bliss, enjoys in His own and expanded forms. Simultaneously He enters into every atom of the creation.’”

Sūtra 1.2.19 - The ruler within is not pradhāna

na ca smārtam atad-dharmābhilāpāt

na: not; ca: and; smārtam: what is described in the smṛti; atad: not of it; dharma: the qualities; abhilāpāt: because of description.

The antaryāmī is not pradhāna because the qualities mentioned in the passage can’t be attributed to it.

Commentary: In this and the next sūtra, the main argument of the antaryāmī being the Lord is more thoroughly explained.

The first point emphasized here is that the antaryāmī is not pradhāna, which is described in the smṛti. Why? atad-dharmābhilāpāt: because the qualities described in the passage do not apply to pradhāna. What is the passage referenced here?

Here, Vyāsadeva indicates the whole passage started with text 3.7.3 of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, which continues all the way to text 3.7.24. This whole passage describes the qualities of the antaryāmī, giving us more evidence about Him.

The context of this passage is the philosophical discussions in the third part of the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad. The passage starts with King Janaka of Videha holding a great sacrificial assembly, to which many learned brāhmaṇas and sages are invited. Anxious to hear about spiritual knowledge, he crafted a plan to make the sages debate and thus gain access to the highest knowledge about the absolute truth. For this, he brings one thousand cows, ornamented with gold, and proposes that the wisest sage in the assembly can take them all.

Yājñavalkya immediately steps forward and, before the debate could even start, orders his disciple Sāmaśrava to take all the cows home. With this gesture, he proclaims to be the one in the assembly who possesses the deepest knowledge of the Vedas, and on their conclusion, knowledge about the Supreme Brahman.

His boldness creates an uproar among the sages, who challenge him, one by one, questioning him on different disciplines in the Vedas. For each set of questions, Yājñavalkya reveals the ultimate substance behind all of the different topics: the Supreme Absolute truth. This reveals why Yājñavalkya is so confident at the beginning of the passage, immediately seizing the cows. He knows the Supreme Brahman, and thus all the purports of the Vedas are open to him. Just as Kṛṣṇa explains in the Gītā (2.46): “All purposes served by a small well can at once be served by a great reservoir of water. Similarly, all the purposes of the Vedas can be served to one who knows the purpose behind them.”

In the passage relevant to this sūtra, Yājñavalkya is questioned by Uddālaka Āruṇi about the nature of the antaryāmī, the Lord within. This Uddālaka Āruṇi is the father of Śvetaketu, who is a central figure in the teachings of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, which includes the famous passage “tat tvam asi“. The dialogue thus brings a debate between two Upaniṣadic sages.

Uddālaka had received knowledge on this topic from Kabandha, a gandharva who spoke through the wife of a patron called Patañcala. Confident of this knowledge, he challenges Yājñavalkya in explaining to him the identity and nature of the antaryāmī.

Yājñavalkya then starts a long explanation, starting from text 3.7.3, which we already studied: “He who dwells in the Earth, who is within, whom the Earth does not know, who is the ultimate proprietor of the Earth and the body, and who, residing within, rules the earth is the immortal antaryāmī, the ātmā.”

Each of the verses follows the same structure, describing a particular manifestation, and mentioning that antaryāmī resides within it, knows it, controls it, owns it, and takes it as His body. Each verse confirms that this immortal antaryāmī, who resides inside of each material manifestation, is the ātmā.

In this way, the antaryāmī is described as residing in and being the owner and controller of the earth, water, fire, the antarikṣa, air, heavens, the sun, the directions, the moon and stars, ether, darkness, light, all beings, prāna, speech, eye, ear, mind, skin, jīva (in this case meaning subtle body), and semen.

This brings us to the conclusion of the passage, which is the specific verse meant by Vyāsadeva in the current sūtra (Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad 3.7.24). By giving specific details about the qualities of the antaryāmī, the text leaves no doubts about His identity:

adṛṣṭo draṣṭā aśrutaḥ śrotā amato mantā avijñāto vijñātā
nānyato ‘sti draṣṭā, nānyato ‘sti śrotā
nānyato ‘sti mantā, nānyato ‘sti vijñātā
eṣa te ātmāntaryāmy amṛtaḥ, ito ‘nyat smārtam

“Unseen, He is the seer. Unheard, He is the hearer. Inconceivable, He is the thinker. Unknown, he is the knower. There is no other seer. There is no other hearer. There is no other thinker. There is no other knower. He is the Supreme ātmā, the immortal Antaryāmī. Everything else is dependent on Him.”

As Śrī Baladeva argues, the list of qualities described here, beginning with being the observer of everything, may be attributed only to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

The words “ito ‘nyat smārtam” reveal that anything else that may be described in the scriptures as a seer, thinker, controller, etc., is described as so only in the traditional conceptual or secondary sense, and not in the absolute sense. In other words, all other deities and controllers are subordinate to the Absolute Truth described in the verses. The jīvas, demigods, or even pradhāna possess part of the qualities described, but only in a minute quantity. Only the Supreme Lord possesses these qualities in full, and thus the verses describe Him alone, as concluded by Vyāsadeva.

Sūtra 1.2.20 - No yogī has the mentioned qualities

(na) śārīraś cobhaye’pi hi bhedenaivanam adhīyate

śarīraḥ: the embodied being (the yogi); ca: also; ubhaye: in both the Kāṇva and the Mādhyandina recensions; api: also; hi: indeed; bhedena: by the difference; enam: this; adhīyate: is taught.

He is also not a yogī, because both recensions of the text indicate the difference.

Commentary: In his commentary, Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa explains that the word “na” (not) from the previous sūtra applies to this one as well. In this way, the present sūtra should be read as: (na) śārīraś cobhaye’pi hi bhedenaivanam adhīyate. In other words, the antaryāmī is not some kind of powerful yogi (śarīraḥ), because ubhaye: in both the Kānva and Mādhyandina versions of the Upaniṣad; bhedenaivanam adhīyate: the antaryāmī is described as being different from an ordinary jīva who has achieved mystic powers.

The Kāṇva version mentions: yo vijñānam antaro yamayati (He who controls the knower from within), while the Mādhyandina version gives: ya ātmānam antaro yamayati (He who controls the self from within). In both versions, there is a clear distinction between the ruler (the Supreme Lord) and the ruled (the embodied soul). Both are inside the heart, but there is a clear distinction between them. One is the predominator, the other is predominated.

Śrīla Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa concludes by quoting a few other passages to reinforce this conclusion:

antah-śarīre nihito guhāyām

“The Supreme Personality of Godhead resides in the heart of everyone.”

aja ekaḥ nityaḥ

“The Lord is unborn, eternal, and the One without a second.”

antaḥ-śarīre nihito guhāyām aja eko nityaḥ yasya pṛthivī śarīram yaḥ pṛthivīm antare sañcaran yam pṛthivī na veda

“He who is the One without a second, who is unborn and eternal and who resides within the heart, has the Earth as his body. He spreads everywhere on the Earth, but the Earth does not know him.” (Subāla Upaniṣad 7.1)

Exercise

Now it’s your turn. Can you answer the following arguments using the ideas from this section?

Opponent: “The Bṛhad-āraṇyaka Upaniṣad (3.7.18) describes antaryāmī, a ruler dwelling within the earth and other entities. Some will quickly try to present this ruler as Bhagavān, the Supreme Lord, but we have a more logical explanation.

The antaryāmī is pradhāna (primordial matter). Why? The cause always inheres in its effect. Since the earth and other elements come from pradhāna, it resides within them and rules them. As the substratum of all, pradhāna can be figuratively called ātma (self), because it pervades everything. It is also eternal (amṛta), since it continues through all cycles of creation and destruction. Thus, the words ātma and amṛta in the passage can apply to pradhāna.

Alternatively, antaryāmī can be taken as a great jīva, a yogī endowed with extraordinary powers. The yogī is ātma (a soul), and through yogic siddhis, a perfected soul can enter any place, control material elements, and remain unseen. Such powers justify calling him “the ruler within.” Since a yogī can prolong his life almost indefinitely, he may be described as amṛta, just like historical examples, such as Durvāsā Muni.

Therefore, the ruler within, mentioned in the passage, must be either pradhāna or a powerful yogī.

To claim that a Supreme Lord is ‘within’ earth, water, fire, and so forth is theologically problematic: if God were to reside in impure elements, He would become tainted by their defects. How could He then be considered pure? It is more reasonable to interpret this passage in terms of pradhāna, the material cause, or a yogī, the conscious enjoyer of yogic powers, rather than postulate a separate transcendent controller.

Hence, the antaryāmī of the Upaniṣad should not be taken as the Supreme Personality of Godhead, but rather as either the pradhāna, or a jīva with yogic powers.”

Description: The purvāpakṣa in this section is not a Māyāvādī (who would accept antaryāmī as Brahman, despite the usual arguments about saguṇa Brahman and upādhis), but a combination of Mīmāmsā interpretation and Nyāya reasoning. It raises a common argument against God being present in the material creation, arguing that God can’t be present inside the material creation, because He would become contaminated by being present inside contaminated matter. How can you answer this challenge?

You can also donate using Buy Me a Coffee, PayPal, Wise, Revolut, or bank transfers. There is a separate page with all the links. This helps me enormously to have time to write instead of doing other things to make a living. Thanks!

« Vedānta-sūtra: The Govinda-bhāṣya of Baladeva Vidyābhūṣaṇa