1

The status of ‘antaryāmī’ in Advaita

The concept of ‘antaryāmī’ is widely prevalent in the scriptures. In the prasthānatraya too one can find

references to this entity. There is a famous section in the Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad called ‘anataryāmi-

brāhmaṇam.’ There is also the word ‘antaryāmī’ occurring in the Māṇḍūkya upaniṣad 6th mantra. A

comprehensive study is undertaken here to determine the true status of this entity in Advaita.

The Bṛhadāraṇyakopaniṣad reference is found, for example, in 3.7.3:

यः पृथिव्यां थठन्पृपृथिव्य तृठयं यां पृथिन े नयस य य पृथिन रय यां यः पृथिन तृठयं यतयेयय ठ मेतयृठयययमृयतृठः ३

[3· He who inhabits the earth but is within it, whom the earth does not know, whose body
is the earth, and who controls the earth from within, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal
self.]
The bhāṣyam for the above mantra is:

यः पृथिव्यां थठन्पृभनथठ, संऽृठयययत । सनयः पृथिव्यां थठन्पठ थठ सनयत्र प्रसङ्गं तय भूदसथठ थनथरेथि — पृथिव्य तृठयः तभ्यृठयः ।

ठत्रैठे ययठ्, पृथिन सयनठैन तृठयययत थठ — तठ मह — यतृठयययथतणां पृथिन सयनठयथप े नयस — तय्यृयः कथिद्वठयठ इथठ । य य

पृथिन रय यत् — य य च पृथिव्यन रय यत्, ेयृयठ् — पृथिन सयनठययय यच्छय यत्, ठसयन रय यां य य ; रय यग्रहणां च उपलक्षणयियत्

; कयणां च पृथिव्यः ठ य ; नकतयप्रयक्ां थह कयययं कयणां च पृथिन सयनठयययः ; ठठ् त य नकतययभयनयठ् तृठयययथतणं थेेयतक्ेनयठ्,

पययियकठयव्ठय नभयनेनयठ् पय य येकयययं कयणां च — ठसयनय य, े नठः ; ठसयह — य य पृथिन रय यथतथठ । सयनठयकयययकयण य

ईश्वयसयथक्षतयत्रसयथिध्यये थह थेयतये प्रनृथिथेनृि ययठयत् ; य ईसृग श्वयं ेययययणयख्यः, पृथिनीं पृथिन सयनठयत्, यतयथठ

थेयतयथठ नव्यपययय , तृठयः तभ्यृठयथ ठन्पे्, ए ठ मेतय, ठय ठन, तत च सनयभूठयेयां च इेयकपलक्षणयियतयठठ्, तृठयययत य ेनयय

पृिः, ततृठः सनयसांसययधतयनर्जयठ इेययठठ्

Translation by Swami Mādhavānanda:

//He who inhabits the earth .... is the Internal Ruler. Now all people inhabit the earth; so there may be a
presumption that the reference is to anyone of them. To preclude this, the text specifies Him by saying,
'Who is within the earth.' One may think that the deity identified with the earth is the Internal Ruler; hence
the text says, 'Whom even the deity identified with the earth does not know as a distinct entity dwelling
within her.' Whose body is the earth itself and none other- whose body is the same as that of the deity of
the earth. The 'body' implies other things as well; i.e. the organs of this deity are also those of the Internal
Ruler. The body and organs of the deity of the earth are the result of her own past actions ; they are the
body and organs of the Internal Ruler as well, for He has no past actions, being ever-free. Since He is by
nature given to doing things for others, the body and organs of the latter serve as His: He has no body
and organs of His own. This is expressed as follows: 'Whose body is the earth.' The body and organs of
 2

the deity of the earth are by default made to work or stop work by the mere presence of the Lord as
witness. Such an Iśvara, called ‘Nārāyaṇa’, who controls the deity of the earth, i.e. directs her to her
particular work, from within, is the Internal Ruler about whom you have asked, your own immortal self, as
also mine and that of all beings. 'Your' implies 'others' as well. 'Immortal,' that is to say, devoid of all
relative attributes.//

Here, Shankara teaches that this antaryāmi is not an active doer of anything to execute the ‘controlling’
function; rather he is a passive witness, who is appearing to ‘control’ by his mere presence. This is
because, the Nirguṇa Brahman of Advaita is niṣkriyam. This mantra is a mahāvākya mantra since it
instructs the aspirant: You are That. So, the aspirant gains the experience/realization: I am Nārāyaṇa, the
antaryāmi, the Pure Witness Consciousness. Shankara has specified that this ‘witness’ consciousness is
the true self of the jīva in the preamble to the Brahmasūtra bhāṣya:

एनतहांप्रेयथयेतरय नप्रचययसयथक्षथण प्रेयगयेतृयध्य य ठां च प्रेयगयेतयेां सनयसयथक्षणां ठथद्वपययययणयृठःकयणयदसष्नध्य यथठ ।

//Thus one superimposes the ‘I’-thought on the All-Witness that is the innermost self and that self that is
the All-witness in the mind, etc. //

Here Shankara confirms that the Witness self is the true self of every individual. This is the Pure
Consciousness and never the saguṇa Brahman. Thus the ‘nārāyaṇa’ that Shankara calls ‘Iśvara’ who is
the antaryāmi as a mere witness is by no means a saguṇa Brahman. What other reason is there to hold
so? In Advaita, the entity that is spoken of in any juncture is to be decided whether saguṇa or nirguṇa
Brahman based on whether the juncture is one teaching upāsana, meditation, or realization, knowledge.
When this test is applied to the above Bṛ.up. bhāṣyam, we easily see that the Nārāyaṇa, taught as the
‘mahāvākya’, ‘You are That’, is the nirguṇa Brahman. In Advaita the realization-knowledge for liberation is
the nirguṇa Brahman alone and never saguṇa Brahman.

What does ‘antaryāmī’ mean in Advaita?

As per the Bṛ.up. mantra cited above:
// The body and organs of the deity of the earth are regularly made to work or stop work by the mere
presence of the Lord as witness. Such an Iśvara, called Narayana, who controls the deity of the earth, i.e.
directs her to her particular work, from within, is the Internal Ruler about whom you have asked, your own
immortal self, as also mine and that of all beings. 'Your' implies 'others' as well. 'Immortal,' that is to say,
devoid of all relative attributes.//
The crux of the above explanation is: ‘antaryāmī’ is that Consciousness that lends power to the body and
organs (of the jīva) to engage in any work, prescribed or prohibited. We see this ‘function’ explained in
every other upaniṣad, the Kenopaniṣad being the most significant one. Apart from this ‘function’, there is
 3

nothing else that the antaryāmī does. Even this ‘function’ is not any active participation on the part of the
antaryāmi but a mere passive presence. This idea, unique to Advaita, is alien and reprehensible to non-
advaitic schools that are theistic in nature. For them the proposal that the antaryāmi Brahman is a non-
doer is anathema. That is the reason why those who want the Advaitic ‘early’ Achārya Shankara to be
branded a ‘vaiṣṇava’ hold this Bṛ.up.Bhāṣya reference to ‘nārāyaṇa’ as a desperate proof of Shankara’s
‘vaiṣṇavatva’!! That the bhāṣya never even remotely subscribes to such bigoted views is what is laid bare
above.

Apart from the above-cited Bṛ Up. manatra/bhāṣya, we have another crucial evidence to show that the
antaryāmi is none other than one’s true self, verily nirguṇa Brahman, in the Brahmasūtra bhāṣya:

‘ए ठ मेतयृठयययमृयतृठः’ इथठ चयेतेनयतृठेनय तकख्यय पयतयेते उपपद्ययठय । BSB 1.2.18 [‘This is your Self, the antaryāmi,
immortal’ – thus too, the epithet of being the self and being immortal are absolute ones that apply to the
Supreme Self alone.] Shankara is citing the above Bṛ.up. mantra here, in the BSB, as well.
In the BSB 1.2.18: यद्यप्ययसृिेनयदसव्पसयरः प्रधये य समृभनथठ, ठियथप े द्रिृ ेनयदसव्पसयरः समृभनथठ, प्रधये ययचयठेेनये
ठैयभ्यकपगतयठ् । ‘तसृिं द्रियश्रकठः श्रंठयतठं तृठयथनज्ञयठं थनज्ञयठय’ (बृ. उ. ३-७-२३) इथठ थह नयक्यरय इह भनथठ । [………the
epithet of being the witness (draṣṭā) taught in the Bṛ.up 3.7.23 (again antaryāmi brāhmaṇa) will be
applicable to the sentient upaniṣadic self alone (and not the inert pradhāna of the Sānkhyas).] Here too
we see Shankara invoking the ‘witness’ reason to conclude that the antaryāmi is nirguṇa Brahman alone.

In the BSB 1.2.20: ठ तयच्छयय ययसृय ईश्वयंऽृठयययत थठ थस्धमत् । किां पकेयय कथ तृसयहय द्ववौ द्रियययनकपपद्ययठय —
यिययत श्वयंऽृठयययत , यिययथतठयः रयय यः? कय पकेरयहयेकपपथिः ? ‘ेयृयंऽठंऽथ ठ द्रिय’ इेययदसश्रकथठनचेां थनरुध्ययठ । तत्र थह
प्रकृ ठयसृठयययथतणंऽृयां द्रिययां श्रंठययां तृठययां थनज्ञयठययां चयेतयेां प्रथठ ध
य थठ । [Therefore it is certain that Īśvara, the one
different/distinct from the jīva, is the antaryāmī. How then can there be two ‘witnesses’ in one body – one
Īśvara the antaryāmī and the jīva who is also the seer? What is the problem here? The śruti itself teaches:
the seer is none other than the Supreme. It is negating anyone other than the supreme consciousness,
the antaryāmi, to be the seer, hearer, thinker, knower, self.]

Here too, Shankara invokes the antaryāmī-self-witness argument to settle the issue. This entity is the
nirguṇa Brahman, which is the self of the jīva. One can note the word ‘Īśvara’ used by Shankara here too,
just as in the Bṛ.up. bhāṣya where he used the word ‘nārāyaṇa’ along with the word ‘Iśvara’ and taught
that entity to be the self of the jīva, through that mahāvākya of the upaniṣad itself.

There is yet another instance: the Kenopaniṣat 1.2:

श्रंत्र य श्रंत्रां तेसं तें यद्वयचं ह नयचां स उ प्रयण य प्रयणः ।

चक्षक िक्षकयथठतकच्य ध ययः प्रयेयय तयल्लंकयसतृठय भनथृठ २
 4

Bhāṣyam:

रृणक यठ् ेनां पृच्छथस, तेमदसकयणजयठ य कं सयनः नथन यां प्रथठ प्रययथयठय किां नय प्रयययठ थठ । श्रंत्र य श्रंत्रां रृणंेयेयेथय ठ श्रंत्रत्,
रब्स य श्रनणां प्रथठ कयणां रब्सयथभव्ञ्जकां श्रंत्रथतथृद्रयत्, ठ य श्रंत्रां सः य ेनयय पृिः ‘चक्षकःश्रंत्रां क उ सयनं यकेथ्’ (कय . उ. १-१)इथठ
।....[Who is the impeller of the mind, etc. organs, to act in their fields and how does he impel? He is the
‘Ear’ of the ear, ..

श्रंत्रयद्ययन सनय ययेतभूठां चयठेथतथठ प्रथस्धमत् ; ठदसह थेनेययठय । तथ ठ दकतथप थनद्वद्बकथ्धमगमृयां सनययृठयठतां कू ट ितजतजयततृठतभयां
श्रंत्रयसययथप श्रंत्रयदस ठेसयतर्थययथेथतित् इथठ प्रथठनचेां रब्सयियिंपपद्यठ एन । ठिय तेसः तृठःकयण य तेः । े ह्यृठःकयणत्
तृठयय ण चैठृयज्यंथठ ं स थधतठां नथन यसङ्कल्पयध्यनसयययदससतियं ययठ् । ठ तयृतेसंऽथप ते इथठ । इह बकथ्धमतेस एकककृ ेय
थेसेरं तेस इथठ । यद्वयचं ह नयचत् ; यच्छब्सं य तयसिे श्रंत्रयदसथभः सनवः समृबध्यठय — य तयच्रंत्र य श्रंत्रत्, य तयृतेसं ते
इेययनत् ।
[It is well known that the ear, etc. alone are the sentient self of all – such an erroneous thinking is
dispelled here. There is an entity that is recognized/perceived by the Knowers, that is the innermost
immutable birthless, devoid of old age, deathless, fearless, that is the Ear, etc. of even the ear, etc. which
lends power to the ear, etc. It is the Mind of the mind.

प्रिक ः पृि ययिय य ज्ञयठकथतिेनयठ् श्रंत्रयसयः श्रंत्रयदसलक्षणां यिं्ां ब्रह्म ‘ज्ञयेनय’ इेयध्ययथियठय ; ततृठय भनथृठ इथठ फलश्रकठयि ।
ज्ञयेयद्ध्यतृठेनां प्रयप्ययठय । ज्ञयेनय तथठतकच्य इथठ सयतर्थयययठ् श्रंत्रयदसकयणकलयपतकथज्िेनय — श्रंत्रयसवौ ह्ययेतभयनां कृ ेनय, ठसकपयथधः
से्, ठसयेतेय जययठय थियठय सांसयथठ च । तठः श्रंत्रयसयः श्रंत्रयदसलक्षणां ब्रह्मयेतयथठ थनदसेनय, तथठतकच्य श्रंत्रयद्ययेतभयनां परयेयज्य —
यय श्रंत्रयद्ययेतभयनां परयेयजथृठ, ठय ध ययः ध तृठः ।

The aspirant ‘knows’ this Ear of the ear, etc. and thereby becomes liberated. This fruit is stated in the
veda. By knowledge alone indeed one attains immortality. Before knowing this, one identified with the ear,
etc. organs and was subject to death and birth. Now, knowing that He himself is Brahman, the Ear of the
ear, etc. gives up the false identification with the ear etc.

In the above bhāṣya quotes it is clear that the ‘impeller’, antaryāmi, is Brahman, which is none other than
the Self of the jīva-aspirant. That shows that the terms ‘īśvara and nārāyaṇa’ of the Bṛ.up. bhāṣya 3.7.3 is
none other than nirguṇa brahman.

Here is yet another instance, from the Bṛ.up. itself, where the impelling entity is none other than nirguṇa
Brahman:
Br.up. 3.4.1:

ति हैेतक ठियक्रययणः पप्रच्छ ययज्ञनल्क्ययथठ हंनयच येसयक्षयसपयंक्षयद्ब्रह्म य मेतय सनययृठय ठां तय व्यचक्ष्नयेयय ठ मेतय
सनययृठयः कठतं ययज्ञनल्क्य सनययृठयं यः प्रयणये प्रयथणथठ स ठ मेतय सनययृठयं यंऽपयेयेयपये थठ स ठ मेतय सनययृठयं यं व्येय े
व्ये थठ स ठ मेतय सनययृठयं य उसयेयेंसयथेथठ स ठ मेतय सनययृठय ए ठ मेतय सनययृठयः १

I. Then Uṣasta, the son of Cakra, asked him. 'Yajñavalkya,' said he, ‘Explain to me the Brahman that is
immediate and direct-the self that is within all.' 1 This is your self that is within all.' 1 Which is within all,
 5

Yājñavalkya?' 'That which breathes through the Prāṇa is your self that is within all. That which moves
downwards through the Apāna is your self that is within all. That which pervades through the Vyāna is
your self that is within all. That which goes out through the Udana is your self that is within all. This is your
self that is within all.'

Bhāṣyam:

ति ह एेां प्रकृ ठां ययज्ञनल्क्यत्, उ ठं ेयतठः, चक्र ययपेयां चयक्रययणः, पप्रच्छ । यठ् ब्रह्म सयक्षयठ् तव्नथहठां कय ेथचठ् द्रिक ः

तपयंक्षयठ् — तगवौ णत् — े श्रंत्रब्रह्मयदसनठ् — ककां ठठ् ? य मेतय — मेतरब्सये प्रेयगयेतंच्यठय, ठत्र मेतरब्स य प्रथस्धमेनयठ् ;

सनय ययभ्यृठयः सनययृठयः ; यद्यःरब्सयभ्ययां प्रथस्धम मेतय ब्रह्मयथठ — ठत् मेतयेत्, तय तह्यत्, व्यचक्ष्नयथठ — थन पिां रृङ्गय गृह ेनय

यिय गयां सरययथठ ठिय मचक्ष्न, संऽयथतेययनां किय नयेयियः । एनतक्ः प्रेययह ययज्ञनल्क्यः — ए ः ठय ठन मेतय सनययृठयः

सनय ययभ्यृठयः ; सनयथनरय णंपलक्षणयियं सनययृठयग्रहणत् ; यठ् सयक्षयठ् तव्नथहठत् तपयंक्षयठ् तगवौ णत् ब्रह्म बृहितत् मेतय सनय य

सनय ययभ्यृठयः, एठैगकयणैः सत ठैयकय्ः ए ः, कंऽसवौ ठनयेतय ? यंऽयां कयययकयणसङ्घयठः ठन सः ययेयेतेय मेतनये् स ए ठन मेतय

— ठन कयययकयणसङ्घयठ ययेयियः । ठत्र थपण्डः, ठ ययभ्यृठयय थलङ्गयेतय कयणसङ्घयठः, ठृठ यं यि सथृसह्यतयेः — ठय क कठतं

तत मेतय सनययृठयः ेनयय थननथक्षठ इेयक्य इठय मह — यः प्रयणये तकखेयथसकयसञ्चयरयणय प्रयथणथठ प्रयणचयियां कयंथठ, यये प्रयणः

प्रण यठ इेयियः — सः ठय ठन कयययकयणसङ्घयठ य मेतय थनज्ञयेतयः ; सतयेतृयठ् ; यंऽपयेयेयपये थठ यं व्येये व्ये ठ थठ —

छयृससां सैर्घययत् । सनययः कयययकयणसङ्घयठगठयः प्रयणेयदसचयिय सयरुयृत्र ययन यये दक्रयृठय — े थह चयठेयनसेथधथन्पठ य सयरुयृत्र ययन

प्रयणेयदसचयिय थनद्यृठय ; ठ तयठ् थनज्ञयेतययेयथधथन्पठां थनलक्षणये सयरुयृत्रनठ् प्रयणेयदसचयियां प्रथठपद्यठय — ठ तयठ् संऽथ ठ

कयययकयणसङ्घयठथनलक्षणः, यियियथठ

Translation by Swami Mādhavānanda:

//Then Uṣasta, the son of Cakra. asked him, Yājñavalkya, who has already been introduced. The
Brahman that is immediate, not obstructed from the seer or subject by anything, and direct, not used in
a figurative sense, like the ear and so forth, which are considered to be Brahman. What is that? The self
that is within all. The word 'self' refers to the inner (individual) self, that being the accepted meaning of
the term. The words 'Yat' and 'Yaḥ’ indicate that the self familiar to all is identical with Brahman.
Explain that self to me, tell about it clearly, as one shows a cow by taking hold of its horns, as much as
to say, ~This is it.' Thus addressed, Yajñavalkya replied, 'This is your self that is within all.' The
qualification 'that is within all' is suggestive of all qualifications whatsoever. That which is 'immediate' or
unobstructed and 'direct' or used in its primary sense, and which is 'Brahman' or the vastest, the self of all
and within all - all these specifications refer to the self. 'What is this self of yours?' 'That by which your
body and organs are ensouled is your self, i.e. the self of the body and organs.' 'There is first the body ;
 6

within it is the subtle body consisting of the organs ; and the third is that whose existence is being
doubted. Which of these do you mean as my self that is within all?' Thus spoken to, Yājñavalkya said,
'That which breathes (lit. does the function of the Prāṇa through the Prāṇa which operates in the mouth
and nose, in other words, "which makes the Prāṇa breathe" (Ke.I. 9), is your self, i.e. the individual self of
the body and organs.' The rest is similar in meaning. That which moves downwards through the Apāna,
Which pervades through the Vyāna- the long in the two verbs is a Vedic licence - by which the body and
organs are made to breathe and do other functions, like a wooden puppet. Unless they are operated by
an intelligent principle, they cannot do any function such as breathing, as is the case with the wooden
puppet. Therefore it is by being operated by the individual self, which is distinct from them, that they
breathe and do other functions, as does the puppet. Hence that principle distinct from the body and
organs exists which makes them function.//

The above is also a statement of nirguṇa Brahman, where Shankara even cites the Kenopaniṣat. This is
the ‘function’ of the antaryāmi, to enable the organs to function.

The Mundakopanishat 3.1.2: anyam īśam….

सतयेय नृक्षय पकरु ं थेतग्नंऽे रयय रंचथठ तकह्यतयेः ।

जकिां यसय पश्येयृयत रत य तथहतयेथतथठ न ठरंकः २

[In the same body-tree the jīva-bird, is bewildered, deluded and miserable owing to its incapacities. When
it comes to meditate and behold the Īśvara-bird, it realizes itself to be exalted and is freed of misery.]

The mantra itself uses the word ‘Iśa’ (Īśvara) as the ‘object’ of realization by the jīva. Surely such ‘īśvara’
is no saguṇa Brahman.

यसय यथ तृकयलय पश्यथठ ध्यययतयेः तृयां नृक्षंपयथधलक्षणयथद्वलक्षणत् ईरत्

तसांसयरयणतरेयययथपपयसयरंकतंहजययतृेय्नठ ठत रां सनय य जगठंऽयतहत मृययेतय सनय य सतः सनयभूठ िं

ेयठयंऽथनद्ययजथेठंपयथधपरयथच्छिं तयययेतयथठ तथहतयेां थनभूतठां च जगद्रूपत यैन तत पयतयश्वय य इथठ यसैनां द्रिय, ठसय न ठरंकः

भनथठ सनय तयच्छंकसयगययथद्वप्रतकच्यठय, कृ ठकृ ेयं भनठ ेयियः

[When the jīva, engaged in nididhyāsanam, beholds the ‘other’, ‘Iśa’, (that is distinct from the body-

upādhi entity) that transcends samsāra, hunger, thirst, old age, death, etc. he (the jīva) realizes himself as

‘I am this (Īśa) that is the self of the entire creation, one, equal, with all, everything, the one residing in
 7

every being. I am not anyone (different from That (Īśa)) that is identified with the limiting upādhis created

by ignorance, false entity. This vibhūti, mahimā, splendor, of ‘being of the form of the world’ is mine alone,

that am the Parameśvara.’ When such a realization arises, he, the jīva, is freed of all misery and becomes

liberated. ]

We can see here that Shankara uses the terms ‘Īśa’ and ‘Parameśvara’ to identify the jīva who realizes

his true self. Surely, this is not a context of upāsana and the terms ‘Īśa’ and ‘Parameśvara’ are therefore

not any reference to a saguṇa Brahman. This context is ‘jñānam’, realization, for liberation, here and now.

The Bṛ.up. antaryāmī context where too Shankara has used the terms ‘Īśvara and Nārāyaṇa’ as

adjectives for the antaryāmī that is ‘controlling’ by its ‘mere’ presence as the witness, is also the one

exactly similar to the above Muṇḍaka instance where the mahāvākya instruction/realization is present.

Only those who have long exposure to the study of the Advaita śāstra under a competent Āchārya can

know and realize that there are two such contexts across the bhāṣya: upāsanā and jñāna, and clearly tell

the one from the other. Others who have no such exposure but have to depend on mere translations and

dictionaries to ‘study’ the Shānkara Bhāṣyas can never come to such an understanding as the above.

They cannot think beyond a saguṇa entity, with form and location, whenever they encounter terms like

‘Viṣṇu, Nārāyaṇa, Vāsudeva, etc.’ in the Bhāṣya.

Here is another instance from the Bhagavadgītā:

BG 18.61: ईश्वयः सनयभूठयेयां and bhāṣya dāruyantra:

ईश्वयः सनयभूठयेयां हृद्दयरयऽजकये थठन्पथठ ।
भ्रयतयृसनयभूठयथे यृत्रयरूढयथे तयययय ६१

Shankara’s commentary:
।।18.61।। -- ईश्वयः ईरेर लः ेययययणः सनयभठ
ू येयां सनयप्रयथणेयां हृद्दयरय हृसयसयरयतजके
य रकक्लयृठययेत नभयनः थनरक्धमयृठःकयणः --
तहि कृ ष्णतहयजकयेां च (ऋ. सां. 6।9।1) इथठ सरयेयठ् -- थठन्पथठ थ ितठां लभठय। ठय क सः किां थठन्पठ थठ? मह -- भ्रयतये् भ्रतणां
कययये् सनयभठ
ू यथे यृत्रयरूढयथे यृत्रयथण मरूढयथे तथधथन्पठयथे इन -- इथठ इनरब्सः तत्र द्रिव्ः -- यिय सयरुकृ ठपकरु यस थे
यृत्रयरूढयथे। तयययय च्छद्मेय भ्रयतये् थठन्पथठ इथठ सांबृधः।।
Translation:
 8

18.61 Arjuna, O Arjuna-one whose self is naturally white (pure), i.e. one possessing a pure internal organ.
This follows from the Vedic text, 'The day is dark and the day is arjuna (white) (Rg. 6.9.1). Isvarah, the
Lord , Narayana the Ruler; tisthati, resides, remains seated; hrd-deśe, in the region of the heart; sarva-
bhūtānām, of all creatures, of all living beings. How does He reside? In answer the Lord says:
bhramayan, revolving; mayaya, through Maya, through delusion; sarva-bhutani, all the creatures; as
though yantra-arudhani, mounted on a machine-like man' etc., made of wood, mounted on a machine.
The word iva (as though) has to be thus understood here. Bhrāmayan, revolving, is to be connected with
tisthati, resides (conveying the idea, 'resides’ while revolving').

One can notice here that Shankara uses the terms ‘Īśvara’ ‘nārāyaṇa’ to denote that entity which
‘revolves’ the jīvas by remaining unseen inside. And the jīvas are likened to puppets, icons made of wood.
This example Shankara uses in the above cited Bṛ.up. antaryāmi mantra too, even as he uses the words
‘Īśvara’ ‘nārāyaṇa’ there as well. So, this BG verse, too, like the Bṛ.up. mantra on antaryāmi, is not any
upāsana instance but clearly one for realization of that ‘revolver’ nārāyaṇa, as oneself.

Āntaryāmī in Māṇḍūkya upaniṣat: 6th mantra:

ए सनेश्वय ए सनयज्ञ ए ंऽृठयययमृयय यंथेः सनय य प्रभनयप्यययवौ थह भूठयेयत् ६

He (the jīva-consciousness, in the deep sleep state, that was described in the previous mantra) is the

Lord-of-all, omniscient, the inner-controller, and the source of all creation and dissolution of all beings.

भयष्यत्

ए ः थह नरूपयन िः सनेश्वयः सयथधसैथनक य भयसजयठ य सनय य ईश्वयः ईथरठय ; ेैठ तयज्जयेयृठयभूठंऽृयय यथतन,‘प्रयणबृधेां थह

संमृय तेः’ (छय. उ. ६-८-२) इथठ श्रकठयः । तयतयन थह सनय य सनयभयसयन िं ज्ञयठयथठ ए ः सनयज्ञः । तठ एन ए ः तृठयययत ,

तृठयेकप्रथनश्य सने यां भूठयेयां यतथयठय थेयृठयप्ययय एन । तठ एन यिं्ां सभयसां जगेप्रसूयठ इथठ ए ः यंथेः सनय य । यठ एनत् ,

प्रभनियप्यययि प्रभनयप्यययवौ थह भूठयेयतय एन

Here as well, the antaryāmī is taught as non-different from the jīva, and the one that controls all from

inside. The gloss by Ānandagiri too brings out this fact. However, here the antaryāmi is listed along with

other epithets such as ‘sarvajña, sarveśvara, abode of origin and dissolution of all.’ It is this combination

that marks the māṇḍūkya instance of ‘antaryāmi’ from the Bṛ.up. 3.7.3. In the former it is not singled out to

be taught as a mahāvākya whereas in the latter it is. That makes the difference.
 9

In any case, the ‘controlling’ epithet of antaryāmi too is not any real. What is to be understood by that?

It is to be realized that Brahman (antaryāmī) is only the substratum on which the superimposition of the

activity of the organs, mind, etc. happen. That is what Shankara conveys by the words: ‘mere presence,

witness’.

To conclude:

 The antaryāmī in Advaita is Pure Consciousness and not any personal god.

 Its ‘function’ is to enable the body and organs to function.

 Its ‘contribution’ is mere sentience, chaitanyam. Even this is not volitional on its part.

 It does this by merely being present, as a witness consciousness

 It is non-different from the jīva-consciousness

 There are no two consciousnesses in the body. This is the argument that clinches the fact that

the antaryāmī is none other than the jīva’s true nature and not any entity different from the true

nature of the jīva. This is what Shankara has achieved in the ‘antaryāmi brāhmaṇam’ of the

Bṛ.upaniṣad and the corresponding ‘antaryāmyadhikaraṇam’ of the Brahmasūtra.

 One Consciousness alone appears as the controlling power and the controlled organs

 The one that is controlled does not know that anyone other than themselves is controlling

 The controller remains unseen

 The example of puppet is apt, drawn from the BG 18.61 verse ‘yantrārūḍha’(mounted on a

wooden contrivance).

 Realizing that one is truly the ‘controller’ and not the one identified with the controlled inert

organs constitutes liberating knowledge

 It is to enable the jīva secure this knowledge that the concept of ‘antaryāmī’ is introduced,

adhyāropa, by the scripture.

 Actually there is no real control since Brahman is niṣkriya

 This is because there are no organs like mind to Brahman, to resolve ‘let me control these’

and execute that resolution through any of Its organs like hand, etc.
 10

 The terms ‘Iśvara’ and ‘nārāyaṇa’ refer to this niṣkriya, bodiless, organs-less, Consciousness

 The experience of the Advaitic jñāni is expressed sometimes as ‘aham nārāyaṇa’, for

example, in the Vivekachūḍamaṇi. Those who think this work may not be that of

Shankaracharya need not worry, for this expression can be directly, explicitly, derived from

Shankara’s bhāṣya, cited above, for the antaryāmi brāhmaṇa of the Bṛ.upaniṣat where

Shankara has named that niṣkriya Brahman, that is a mere witness, by its mere presence,

enables, empowers, the body-mind complex of every jīva, as ‘nārāyaṇa.’ And to top it, has

taught ‘you are that antaryāmī nārāyaṇa.’ Thus ‘nārāyaṇo’ham’ like ‘vāsudevo’ham’ of the

BGB, is an expression of the nirguṇa jñānam realization of the jīva.

 The mānḍūkya mantra containing ‘antaryāmī’ is a depiction of Brahman with other upādhis as

well and hence is not a mahāvākya mantra

 The Bṛ.up.3.7.3 is the depiction of Brahman as ‘antaryāmī’ without other upādhis and hence is

an explicit teaching of the mahāvākya: ए ठ मेतय तृठयययमृयतृठः [‘this antaryāmi is your immortal

self’]

 The Kenopaniṣad and the BG 18.61 with the bhāṣya help in understanding this concept

 Shankara in fact cites the Kenopaniṣat in the Br.up. bhāṣya more than once

With these points for contemplation, on the basis of the śruti, smṛti, sūtra and their bhāṣyas

and yukti one can appreciate that the antaryāmi, called by the epithets ‘īśvara, nārāyaṇa’ along

with the other adjectives ‘mere presence, witness’, is nirguṇa Brahman, the self of the jiva-

aspirant. In advaita the realization of the identity is never with the saguna Brahman.

Om Tat Sat