18. The Ruler within of the gods and so on is Brahman on account of the qualities of that Brahman being mentioned.

“Dost thou know the Internal Ruler” and again, “He who inhabits the earth, but is within it, whom the earth does not know, is the Internal Ruler, your own immortal self.”

The Internal Ruler spoken of here is Brahman and not the individual soul endowed with powers, nor the presiding deity, nor anything else, for the characteristics of Brahman are mentioned in the concluding part of the text, wherein the ruler is spoken of as identical with the individual soul and immortal, which can be true only of Brahman. He is also described in this section as being all pervading, since he is inside and the ruler within of everything, namely the earth, the sun, water, fire, sky, ether, the senses, and all else. This too can be true only of Brahman.

19. And neither is the Ruler within that which is talked of in Sāṅkhya Smriti, because attributes contrary to its nature are mentioned.

The Pradhāna is not this Internal Ruler, as the attributes “He is the immortal,” “unseen but seeing, unheard but hearing,” and similar descriptions do not hold true of the non intelligent Pradhāna.

20. Also the individual soul is not the Ruler within, for this is read as different from the Internal Ruler by the followers of both recensions.

Both the Kanwa and Madhyandina readings make it clear that the individual soul is spoken of as distinct from the Internal Ruler, for the ruler is said to dwell even within the self associated with knowledge and individuality.

Yet we should not forget that this difference between the Internal Ruler, the Supreme Lord, and the individual soul is merely the product of nescience. In truth there is only one Self within, for two selves are not possible. Owing to limiting adjuncts, however, the one Self is treated as though it were two.