Bhagavad Gītā Chapter 10, Verse 20: Krishna to Arjuna — Vibhūti-Yoga

Bhāṣyakāra purports

• Śaṅkaraadvaita

  I am the innermost Self (pratyag-ātmā), O Guḍākeśa (conqueror of sleep, one fit for unbroken meditation), dwelling in the heart-cave (āśaya) of all beings — not as an external deity but as the non-dual witness identical with Brahman. Because I alone am the cause (ādi), sustainer (madhya), and dissolution (anta) of all beings, I am the single object worthy of unceasing contemplation; and for those unable to sustain that formless absorption, the vibhūti-forms that follow are secondary supports for the same non-dual awareness.

  divergence: Advaita refuses any real plurality between ātmā and paramātmā; 'dwelling in all beings' is not a locative fact about a personal God but a statement of non-dual identity.

• Rāmānujaviśiṣṭādvaita

  I am the ātmā — the indwelling controller, sustainer, and sovereign (niyantā, śeṣī, ādhāra) — of all beings who constitute My body (śarīra-bhūtānām). As the antaryāmin I reside in their hearts not merely as witness but as the real inner ruler who drives them as machines on the wheel (yantrārūḍhāni māyayā, 18.61). All names — deva, manuṣya, pakṣī, vṛkṣa — ultimately designate Me as their ātmā, and this body-soul relation is the ground on which every vibhūti-statement in the chapter is semantically valid.

  divergence: Rāmānuja preserves real plurality of jīvas as body to Bhagavān's soul; identity is real but asymmetric — the jīva is never the controller, always the controlled.

• Madhvadvaita

  I, the supreme independent Lord Hari, am the ātmā of all — not because I am non-different from them, but because I am their eternal inner controller upon whom they are perpetually dependent (paratantra). The bhūtānām ādi-madhya-anta indicates My absolute sovereignty over the birth, sustenance, and dissolution of every being; the jīva's ātmā-nature is always contingent on and distinct from Me, and any conflation of the two is the root error Vedānta corrects.

  divergence: Dvaita's sharpest divergence: ātmā here cannot mean identity — it means lordship over dependents. The five-fold difference (pañca-bheda) is eternal and real.

• Vallabhaśuddhādvaita

  I am the ātmā — the very essence and inmost reality — of all, including the material world (prākṛta) which is My own aṃśa (portion). The address guḍākeśa signals that this contemplation requires alertness free of all torpor (nirālasyatayā eva cintanīyam). The vigraha here is not abstract: I pervade even inert matter (pṛthivī-ādi) as its indwelling self, and the aṃśa-aṃśi relationship is one of non-difference (abheda) — the world is not illusion but Kṛṣṇa's own radiant extension, to be savored as His līlā.

  divergence: Śuddhādvaita insists the world is real and positive — Brahman's own substance (śuddha = unmixed, not māyic). Kṛṣṇa's ātmātva of matter is not epistemic correction but ontological fullness.

• Śrīdharabhakti

  The Lord first discloses His sovereign (aiśvara) form: I, the Paramātmā endowed with omniscience (sarvajñatva) and all lordly qualities, abide as the inner regulator in the antaḥkaraṇas of all beings. Birth (janma), sustenance (sthiti), and dissolution (saṃhāra) of all creatures are entirely My doing. This verse inaugurates the vibhūti catalog by anchoring every subsequent 'I am the chief among X' in the single fact that I am the universal inner controller — recognition of the vibhūtis is therefore devotional recognition of Me.

  divergence: Śrīdhara maintains personal theism without Rāmānuja's elaborate śarīra-ātmā metaphysics; the relationship is one of governance and devotion, not organic body-soul constitution.

• Madhusūdanaadvaita-bhakti

  Hear first the principal object of contemplation: I am the ātmā — at once the antaryāmin (inner ruler) and the pratyag-ātmā (innermost consciousness, caitanya-ānanda-ghana) — dwelling in the heart-space of all beings. You should meditate on Me as Vāsudeva in this form. The epithet guḍākeśa signals the meditator's conquering of sleep, i.e., the attentive capacity required. For those not yet established in this formless meditation, the vibhūti-forms follow as graduated supports; yet even in those forms I am the consciousness-ground, not a separate personal deity.

  divergence: Madhusūdana holds the tension Śaṅkara dissolves and Rāmānuja resolves differently: non-dual ātmā-consciousness and personal Vāsudeva are the same meditation object, not two stages.