Ātmā and Brahma – Are They Identical?

Abstract

The two most important terms of Hindu philosophy, Ātmā (आत्मा) and Brahma (ब्रह्म) are generally used in identical senses. Does it mean that they are truly identical? If not, how far are they different? This article tries to find an answer to these questions, on the basis of revelations in Major Upaniṣads and Gīta. The declaration 'Ayam Ātmā Brahma' in Māṇḍūkya and the corresponding references in Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Chāndogya indicate that subtle differences exist between the two. On a close examination of the declaration and references, it can be seen that Brahma is merely the phenomenal expression of Ātmā. Further, Muṇḍaka, Śvetāśvatara and Gīta say that Brahma originated from Ātmā. According to Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Taittirīya, Brahma has two forms, mortal and immortal. In contrast, Ātmā is totally immortal. Because of the two forms, Brahma is called ‘Satyam’ (सत्यम्) in Chāndogya, Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Taittirīya. Satyam is explained therein to be that which is being supported by ‘Sat’ (सत्); it is not Sat per se. Against this, Ātmā is simply Sat. Thus, it is evident that Ātmā and Brahma are not truly identical.

***************************************************************************

Ātmā (आत्मा) and Brahma (ब्रह्म) are the two most important terms of Hindu philosophy. They are mostly used in identical senses in philosophical treatises and discussions; even the slightest possibility of their having some difference between each other is never indicated. Does it mean that they are truly identical? If not, how far are they different? These questions have never been a focus of serious discussions anywhere in the history of speculative endeavours. Even though the Upaniṣads, specifically the major ones, give definitive hints in this regard, successive generations of Vedic scholars appear to have missed their true imports. They were probably carried away by the Mahāvākya (Great Declaration) 'Ayam Ātmā Brahma' (अयम् आत्मा ब्रह्म) in Māṇḍūkya Upaniṣad (verse 2) and by corresponding references in different other Upaniṣads. They took the Mahāvākya and related references as a declaration of synonymity and therefore such questions as are asked above apparently never occurred to them. As a result, in all philosophical initiatives these two terms have been routinely presumed to be identical. Gradually this presumption got so established that it drained off all chances of even envisaging or entertaining a different possibility. In literary works like the epics also, no differential treatment between the two is seen anywhere. But, truth never dies down; it waits for ever to be unravelled by the indomitable spirit of enquiry in man. Now therefore, let us make an attempt to arrive at the truth of this issue, which, if any, is still lying dormant in the scriptural texts. 

It is true that the major Upaniṣads, primarily Māṇḍūkya, assert Brahma to be Ātmā. The question pertinent to our enquiry is whether this assertion implies complete synonymity. When a philosophical text renowned for its rational deductions affirms that one thing is another, it implies two things. The first one is that those two things are already in existence as different entities. It also implies that there are some subtle differences between the two; the equality assigned must be limited by such subtle differences. If the equality was unqualified, then, there would not be separate existence for the two, thus rendering the declaration of equality itself irrelevant. It is with this premise in mind that we start our enquiry. In order that the enquiry is precise and systematic, we have chosen, in consideration of relevant available materials, the following topics for detailed deliberation.

1.       Brahma is phenomenal expression of Ātmā

In view of the subtle differences presumed in our premise, we may start our enquiry with a search for references, if any, in the scriptural depths of Upaniṣads, corroborating them. The most direct expression of the equality of Ātmā and Brahma is contained in verse 2 of Māndukya Upaniṣad. To analyse the contents of this verse, it has to be considered in conjunction with the previous one (verse 1), without which a proper assessment of the true import would be impossible. Both the verses are therefore quoted below to have a direct reading and understanding.

ओमित्येतदक्षरमिदं सर्वं, तस्योपव्याख्यानं, भूतं भवत् भविष्यदिति सर्वमोङ्कार एव | यच्चान्यत् त्रिकालातीतं तदपि ओङ्कार एव | 1 |

(omityetadakṣaramidam sarvaṃ, tasyopavyākhyānaṃ, bhūtaṃ bhavat bhaviṣyaditi sarvamoṅkāra eva. yaccānyat trikālātītaṃ tadapi oṅkāra eva)

सर्वं ह्येतद् ब्रह्म अयमात्मा ब्रह्म सोഽयमात्मा चतुष्पात् | 2 |

(sarvaṃ hyetad brahma ayaṃ ātmā brahma so'yamātmā catuṣpāt.)

The literal meaning is thus: 1) All that is here is the letter 'OM' (ॐ), its interpretation; the past, present and future are all 'OM'; whatever exists beyond time is also 'OM'.

2) All this (ie. all that is enumerated in the previous verse) is verily Brahma; Brahma is that Ātmā; that very Ātmā has four modes of expression.

The first verse can be further explained as: ‘Everything that is here is the interpretation (ie. phenomenal expression) of OM’. The expression 'its interpretation' (तस्योपव्याख्यानम्) is traditionally taken to mean that what follows it is the explanation of what precedes it in the verse. But this is inadmissible on various counts. First, what follows is only an add-on to the preceding phrase 'idam sarvam', not an explanation; with the word ‘idam’ which indicates the presently existing things, that which existed in the past, that which will come into existence in future and also that which is beyond time are all included. Moreover, the phrase ‘idam sarvam’ can indicate things which exist currently only; it cannot include the things that existed in the past or will exist in future. It is therefore most unlikely that the Upaniṣad uses the expression ‘its interpretation’ to indicate that whatever follows it is an explanation of whatever precedes It is therefore quite reasonable to presume that the said expression is used in the verse to qualify the word ‘OM’.

Then there may arise a doubt why the expression ‘its interpretation’ is not repeated in the two parts of the verse, which follow that expression; for, without such repetition, the newly attempted meaning to the expression would be unreasonable. This doubt does not stand in view of the inclusion of the word ‘भवत्’ (bhavat) in the second part of the verse starting with ‘bhūtaṃ’. The word ‘bhavat’ has the same implication as ‘idam sarvam’ of the first part and therefore, whatever is applicable to ‘idam sarvam’ therein is to be taken as applicable to ‘bhavat’ also. As a result, the phrase ‘its interpretation’ applies to the next part and cumulatively to the last part also.

Secondly, if the intention of ‘its interpretation’ was to denote explanation of the whole of the first part, then at the end of the explanation, the word 'iti (इति)' would have been supplied. That is the usual practice in Upaniṣads and other texts, which is absent here.

Thirdly, this Upaniṣad itself teaches that ‘OM’ is Ātmā. According to Upaniṣadic teachings, the phenomenal world cannot be Ātmā per se. Ātmā holds (भूतभृत् – Gīta 9.5), illuminates (तस्य भासा सर्वमिदं विभाति - Kaṭha 5.15) and supports (Bṛhadāraṇyaka 2.5.15) the world. It is from Ātmā that the entire existence of all time and beyond, emerges and also merges with at the end (Bṛhadāraṇyaka 2.1.20, Muṇḍaka 2.1.1 to 2.1.9). Bṛhadāraṇyaka 2.1.20 says that just as a spider emits its web or as tiny sparks fly off in all directions from a fire, so from this Ātmā all the lives, all worlds, all gods and all beings emanate. The worlds and beings are not mere transformations of Ātmā. That is why the phenomenal world cannot be Ātmā per se.

Therefore, the correct meaning of the first verse must be that the universe is only a phenomenal expression of ‘OM’.

Now in the case of the second verse, its first part says that ‘all this is Brahma’. Here the words ‘all this’ indicate ‘the entire phenomenal expression mentioned in verse 1’. So the implication of this part is that the entire phenomenal expression mentioned in verse 1 is Brahma. Is this assertion in consistency with the philosophical deductions contained in Upaniṣads? Absolutely; we will see the details in the discussions that follow.

The next part of the 2^nd verse is the equation, ‘Brahma is that Ātmā’. This should be naturally so, since, as we have seen, this Universe is a phenomenal expression of ‘OM’ (ie. Ātmā) and also since, as per the first part, the very same phenomenal expression is Brahma. The equation, therefore, holds good; Brahma cannot be anything other than Ātmā. But there exists a subtle difference also; Ātmā is that which gives off the phenomenal expression and Brahma is what is thus expressed. This is the position obtainable from the first two verses of Māndukya Upaniṣad.

The same idea and the same pattern of presentation are followed in other Upaniṣads also, wherever the phrase equating Ātmā and Brahma is presented. In all such cases, the pervasiveness, omniscience, effulgence, immortality, etc. of Ātmā are described in detail first and then only the equation with Brahma is stated. The descriptions of omniscience and effulgence are not seen attributed directly to Brahma. These facts clearly indicate that the Upaniṣads assign precedence of Ātmā over Brahma. Some examples are quoted below for ready reference.

1.       Chāndogya (छान्दोग्य) Upaniṣad says in 3.14.1 that this Universe is Brahma. In 3.14.2 and 3.14.3 it continues to say that Ātmā is intelligent and effulgent; He is the cause of all, but not affected by anything; He is smaller than the smallest and greater than the greatest; He pervades everything here. Then, in 3.14.4 it is said thus: ‘encompassing all actions, all desires, all odours, all tastes and pervading all over without speech and discrimination, there in my inner-most chamber is the Ātmā; it is Brahma’.

“सर्वकर्मा सर्वकामः सर्वगन्धः सर्वरसः सर्वमिदमभ्यात्तोഽवाक्यनादर एष म आत्मान्तर्हृदय एतद्ब्रह्म ……… ….. ||3.14.4||

(sarvakarmā sarvakāmaḥ sarvagandhaḥ sarvarasaḥ sarvamidamabhyātto vākyanādara eṣa ma ātmāntarhṛdaya etadbrahma)

Actions, desires, odours are all characteristics of the physical world. When Ātmā is presented as existing with all these, it is evident that it refers to Him with the physical expression. So, the message is very clear; Ātmā with physical expression is Brahma, not the purely intelligent and effulgent Ātmā, described in the preceding verses.

2.   In 8.3.4 of Chāndogya it is stated that Ātmā is the serene, fearless, immortal being in the body and His pure form is supreme effulgence. The declaration ‘It is Brahma’ comes after that. Here what is referred to is obviously the Ātmā pervading the body. So, the purport is that Ātmā pervading in the body is Brahma.

अथ य एष संप्रसादो स्माच्छरीरात् समुत्थाय परं ज्योतिरुपसंपद्य स्वेनरूपेणाभिनिष्पद्यत एष आत्मा ………… एतद् ब्रह्म ……. ||8.3.4||

(atha ya eṣa saṃprasādo smāccharīrāt samutthāya paraṃ jyotirupasaṃpadya svenarūpeṇābhiniṣpadyata eṣa ātmā ……… etad brahma)

3.       Bṛhadāraṇyaka (बृहदारण्यक) Upaniṣad declares in 2.5.1 to 2.5.14 that the effulgent, immortal Being within earth, water, fire, ether, air, sun, moon, lightning, etc. is the immortal Ātmā. The equating phrase ‘it is Brahma’ follows that. The implication is that Ātmā as expressed in earth, water, fire, ether, air, etc. is Brahma. The relevant portion of verse 2.5.1 is extracted below. Verse 2.5.1 relates to earth; verses 2.5.2 to 2.5.14 deal with water, fire, ether, etc. in a similar way.

“………… यश्चायं अस्यां पृथिव्यां तेजोमयोഽमृतमयः पुरुषः, यश्चायमध्यात्मं शारीरस्तेजोमयोഽमृतमयः पुरुषः, अयमेव योഽयमात्मा इदममृतं इदं ब्रह्म इदं सर्वम् ||2.5.1||

(yścāyaṃ asyāṃ pṛthivyāṃ tejomayo’mṛtamayaḥ puruṣaḥ, yaścāyamadhyātmaṃ śārīrastejomayo’mṛtamayaḥ puruṣaḥ ayameva yo’yamātmā idamamṛtaṃ idaṃ brahma idaṃ sarvam) –2.5.1.

4.       Moreover, in the opening part of Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.6 it is clearly stated that Brahma is the embodied Ātmā (शारीर आत्मा - śārīra ātmā). This part is quoted below for ready reference:

‘असन्नेव स भवति असद् ब्रह्मेति वेद चेत् | अस्ति ब्रह्मेति चेद्वेद सन्तमेनम् ततो विदुरिति | तस्य एष एव शारीर आत्मा | यः पूर्वस्य |’

(asanneva sa bhavati asad brahmeti veda cet; asti brahmeti cedveda santamenam tato viduriti; tasya eṣa eva; yaḥ pūrvasya).

Meaning: ‘He who knows Brahma as Asat (असत्) becomes Asat only; he who knows Brahma as Sat (सत्) becomes Sat. To him, this is embodied Ātmā (śārīra ātmā); same to the former also.’

2.     Ātmā is the origin of Brahma (ब्रह्मयोनि)

In various mantras/verses the Upaniṣads declare that Brahma originated from Ātmā. Muṇḍaka (मुण्डक) Upaniṣad (1.1.9) says that the One Who is omniscient and Who glows with knowledge is the origin of Brahma and also of the names, forms and nutriment (all the objects which are utilized for sustenance and enjoyment).  Here is the verse:

यः सर्वज्ञ सर्वविद् यस्य ज्ञानमयं तपः तस्मादेतत् ब्रह्म नाम रूपमन्नम् च जायते  ||1.1.9||

(yaḥ sarvajña sarvavid yasya jñānamayaṃ tapaḥ tasmādetat brahma nāma rūpamannam ca jāyate) – 1.1.9.

Muṇḍaka 3.1.3 contains an open indication that the ruling Puruṣa is Brahmayoni (the origin of Brahma), whereas in Muṇḍaka 3.2.1 & 3.2.4, this Puruṣa is called Brahmadhāma (the abode of Brahma).

Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad also holds that Ātmā is Brahmayoni (5.6). In 6.18 of the same Upaniṣad, it is declared that Ātmā projected Brahma in the ancient past (ब्रह्माणं विदधाति पूर्वम् - brahmāṇaṃ vidadhāti pūrvam). Mantra 3.4 of Śvetāśvatara says that Ātmā created Brahma (हिरण्यगर्भं जनयामास पूर्वम् - Hiraṇyagarbhaṃ janayāmāsa pūrvam; Hiraṇyagarbhaṃ means soul invested with subtle body, ie. Brahma).

Verse 3.15 of Bhagavad Gīta says that Brahma was brought into being by the Imperishable (ब्रह्माक्षरसमुद्भवम् - brahmākṣarasamudbhavam). The Imperishable is definitely Ātmā. Incidentally, Brahma here is interpreted as ‘Vedas’ by the Ācārya(s) and scholars; but this interpretation does not suit the context. For, what follows this statement (brahmākṣarasamudbhavam) is an expression meaning that Brahma is omnipresent (सर्वगतं ब्रह्म - sarvagataṃ brahma), which does not go well with the adduced interpretation, ‘Vedas’. This defective interpretation must be because they have ignored the subtle differences between Ātmā and Brahma that we have seen here and, therefore, could not precisely cognise the real intent of ‘brahmākṣarasamudbhavam’.

  Gīta again says in verse 14.27 that ‘I am the abode of Brahma’ (ब्रह्मणो हि प्रतिष्ठाहम् - brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham). ‘I’ here means Ātmā; not Kṛṣṇa (कृष्ण), the person; for, in 10.20 of Gīta, Lord Kṛṣṇa says that ‘I am Ātmā’ (अहमात्मा – ahamātmā). Finally, giving advices on the different stages of self-realization, Kṛṣṇa says that an aspirant, before realising Ātmā identifies himself with Brahma, first (becomes ‘ब्रह्मभूत’) and then only he realizes Ātmā through supreme devotion (verses 18.49 to 18.55).

3.     Brahma has two forms

Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad reveals in verse 2.3.1 that Brahma has two forms namely gross and subtle, mortal and immortal, etc. The verse is as follows:

‘द्वे वाव ब्रह्मणो रूपे मूर्तं चैवामूर्तं च, मर्त्यम् चामृतम् च, स्थितं च यच्च, सच्च त्यच्च |’

(dve vāva brahmaṇo rūpe mūrtaṃ caivāmūrtaṃ ca, martyam cāmṛtam ca, sthitaṃ ca yacca, sacca tyacca).

Meaning: ‘Two are the forms of Brahma, gross and subtle, mortal and immortal, static and vibrant, perceptible and imperceptible).

Taittirīya Upaniṣad 2.6 also speaks in the same way about the two forms of Brahma.

In contrast to Brahma thus having two forms, Ātmā is without form (अरूप - arūpa) and without body (अशरीर, अकाय – aśarīra, akāya) as declared in Kaṭha Upaniṣad 3.15 & 2.22 and in īśa Upaniṣad 8.

4.     Ātmā Sat (सत्) and  Brahma Satyam (सत्यम्)

What is Sat? Gīta 2.16 defines ‘Sat’ as that which has no state of non-existence and Asat (असत्) as that which has no state of existence (नासतो विद्यते भावो नाभावो विद्यते सतः - nāsato vidyate bhāvo nābhāvo vidyate sataḥ). The English translation of ‘Sat’ as ‘real’ and ‘Asat’ as ‘unreal’ is quite inadequate to convey the full philosophical significance assigned to these words by the ancient Hindu thought. Real and Unreal are only ambiguous terms, not properly defined to ward off multiple interpretation and understanding. They miss the factor of eternality that is intrinsic to Sat and Asat. Sat is there for all time, whereas Asat is not there for all time. Ātmā is the only Sat. Some popular examples for Asat are ‘son of a barren woman’, ‘castle in the air’, ‘teeth of a crow’, etc. These may be sufficient for us to conceive the idea of Asat; but the difficulty is that these are things that we do not deal with in life. We can quote any number of such examples. But they will remain to be contrived examples only. At present we are concerned with the contrast between phenomenal world and Ātmā.

Is the phenomenal world Sat or is it Asat? We have already seen that Brahma represents the phenomenal expression of Ātmā. Muṇḍaka Upaniṣad 1.1.8 says that the phenomenal world came into being by expansion of Brahma through tapas (तपस्); tapas means incessant willing (by Ātmā vide 1.1.9). Further, Muṇḍaka says in 2.2.11 that this world is Brahma and that Brahma fills everywhere and extends to all directions. So, if Brahma is Sat, then its expansion, the phenomenal world, also must be Sat; or else Asat. Let us see.

Chāndogya 8.3.4 declares that name of Brahma is Satyam (तस्य ह वा एतस्य ब्रह्मणो नाम सत्यमिति - tasya ha vā etasya brahmaṇo nāma satyamiti). In 8.3.5 is given what Satyam is; ‘तानि ह वा एतानि त्रीण्यक्षराणि सतीयमिति, तद्यत्सत्तदमृतमथ यत्ति तन्मर्त्यमथ यद्यं तेनोभे यच्छति’ (tāni ha vā etāni trīṇyakṣarāṇi satīyamiti tad yat sat tadamṛtam atha yat ti tanmartyam atha yad yaṃ tenobhe yacchati). The meaning is that Satyam consists of three letters, ‘sa – ti – yam’; ‘sa’ represents the immortal, ‘ti’ represents the mortal and ‘yam’ binds these two together. So, the affirmation ‘Brahma is Satyam’ means that Brahma consists of two parts, one is immortal and the other mortal, which fact coincides with what we have seen above in detail.    

 Bṛhadāraṇyaka also asserts (in 5.4.1) that ‘Brahma verily is Satyam’ (सत्यम् ह्येव ब्रह्म – satyam hyeva Brahma). Following this assertion, the word ‘Satyam’ is explained in 5.5.1, which is similar to the version of Chāndogya.

Taittirīya Upaniṣad in its turn declares that ‘whatever here is Satyam’ (2.6). How everything has become ‘Satyam’ is also explained in this chapter (Anuvāka). ‘Having brought forth everything here, He (Ātmā) entered them all. On His entering everything became (both) perceptible and imperceptible, defined and undefined, support and supported, intelligent and unintelligent, true and untrue; thus everything became Satyam’.

Again, Taittirīya defines Brahma (in 2.1) thus: सत्यं ज्ञानं अनन्तं ब्रह्म (satyaṃ jñānaṃ anantaṃ brahma). This means that Brahma is Satyam, Knowledge and Infinity. In contrast to this, it is well known that Ātmā is Sat-Chit-Ānanda (सत्-चित्-आनन्द). Sat is purely immortal whereas Satyam is ‘mortal illuminated by the immortal’, as we have seen above. In other words, Satyam is mortal in which the immortal is immanent. Similarly, Chit is pure consciousness whereas Knowledge is its manifestation and Ānanda is pure Bliss whereas Anantam is infinity which produces joy (Chāndogya 7.23.1).

In Chāndogya 6.8.7 we find as follows:

स य एषोഽणिमा ऐतदात्म्यमिदम् सर्वं तत् सत्यम् स आत्मा तत्त्वमसि श्वेतकेतो …|

(sa ya eṣo’ṇimā aitadātmyamidam sarvaṃ tat satyam sa ātmā tattvamasi śvetaketo.)

Meaning: ‘He (that Great Being mentioned in the previous verse) is the subtleness (subtle essence) which inheres in all that is here; that (all that is here) is Satyam, He (the Great Being) is Ātmā; you are that (Satyam), Oh, Śvetaketu.

          This sentence is seen repeated in verses 6.9.4, 6.10.3, 6.11.3, 6.12.3, 6.13.3, 6.14.3 and 6.15.3. It is the very phrase ‘तत्त्वमसि’ ‘(tattvamasi)’ appearing here, that is designated as one of the four Mahāvākya(s) in the Upaniṣads. Rather than the Mahāvākya, what is relevant in this context is the way in which the Upaniṣad distinguishes between Sat (Ātmā) and Satyam (ie. Brahma).

Thus it is settled that Brahma is Satyam. Since Brahma is Satyam, the phenomenal world also is Satyam only. Satyam is neither Sat nor Asat; but it carries both, as already explained. In Satyam we see the wonderful sight of Sat supporting and projecting Asat. This is said to be an inexplicable phenomenon (अनिर्वचनीय – anirvacanīya). As it is seen that phenomenal world is Satyam, it cannot be a mere illusion (मिथ्य - mithya). For, Sat is inherent in it. Accordingly, the proposition, ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्य (brahma satyaṃ, jaganmithya) does not hold good. Actually, the contrast must be between Ātmā and Brahma declaring that “Ātmā is Sat and Brahma is Satyam” (आत्मा सत्, ब्रह्म सत्यम् - Ātmā sat, Brahma satyam).

5.     The composition of Brahma

Now that we have settled the question of distinction between Ātmā and Brahma, let us move on to figure out what Brahma should consist of, for the purpose of conformity with this revealed distinction. We have seen that Brahma has two parts, one immortal and the other mortal. We have also seen that Brahma originated from Ātmā; as such both these parts should have descended to it from Ātmā only. But we know that Ātmā is immortal; then whence and how does this mortal part come?

This question leads us to the concept of Prakṛti. In Gīta verse (9.7) it is stated that Ātmā unleashes all beings from His Prakṛti and it is to that Prakṛti the beings merge at the end. This idea is also reiterated in many other verses of Gīta (4.6, 7.6, 9.8, and 9.10). Śvetāśvatara Upaniṣad says in 4.10 that Prakṛti is the magical power and the Great Lord is the magician; all beings inhabiting this universe are His body-members.

मायां तु प्रकृतिं विद्यात् मायिनं तु महेश्वरम् |

तस्यावयवभूतैस्तु व्याप्तं सर्वमिदं जगत् || 4.10 ||

(māyāṃ tu prakṛtiṃ vidyāt māyinaṃ tu maheśvaram

tasyāvayavabhūtaistu vyāptaṃ sarvamidaṃ jagat).

 So, Prakṛti is the tool of Ātmā to express physically. It is because of this (Prakṛti being instrumental in physical expression), that Gīta qualifies it, in the verses mentioned above, as the emerging and merging centre of all beings. Now, having a tool or instrument at hand, does not imply its wielding all the time. Ātmā follows the same rule with reference to Prakṛti. He invokes Prakṛti only periodically, but with utmost regularity, and then, after a while, revokes it. This whole process is marked by appearance and disappearance respectively of all physical expressions. It is this process that is mentioned in Gīta 8.18, 9.8 & 9.10. Verse 8.18 says that in the beginning of each day (of God Brahma) everything gets manifested and at the end of the day gets dissolved. Verses 9.8 and 9.10 explain that Ātmā causes beings to emanate from Prakṛti again and again. (Incidentally, the process of withdrawal of physical expressions is described, in a symbolic manner, in Bṛhadāraṇyaka 1.2.1. It is stated that in the beginning there was nothing. Death in the form of all-devouring hunger concealed everything, meaning that whatever existed till then was voraciously sucked in by a tremendous unquenchable force, precipitating a state of nothingness. This process resembles what we now know as the activity of Black Holes.)  

   With the Prakṛti invoked, Ātmā is known as Puruṣa; Ātmā and Prakṛti together form a pair constituting the initial opposites to initiate the churning process to manifest the universe. This pair is also known as (क्षेत्रज्ञ) and Kṣetra (क्षेत्र), respectively (vide Gīta chapter 13). The invoking of Prakṛti by Puruṣa is depicted in Bṛhadāraṇyaka 1.4.3 in a mystical manner. It says thus: ‘(as a prelude to ‘creation’) He (Ātmā) became as big as a man embracing a woman; He parted this into two, thus becoming husband and wife. So everything here consists in two separated halves, with the woman filling the space. They join together for giving rise to beings’. This idea is plainly stated in Gīta 13.26. It says that all beings come into existence by the union of Kṣetra and Kṣetrajña.

Puruṣa, with the instrumentality of Prakṛti, produced the first pair of physical expression in the form of Rayi and Prāṇa (रयि and प्राण, vide 1.4 of Praśna Upaniṣad). Rayi is the physical energy and Prāṇa is the energy of life. Quite obviously, neither of these is self-existent, but is supported by the ultimate, eternal power of Ātmā. Praśna 1.14 says that Prajāpati (Puruṣa) was the nutriment which provided the energy for all beings to come into existence. That means His energy supported all the physical expressions. Thus the pair of Rayi and Prāṇa has both mortal and immortal aspects. It was from this pair, that the entire universe evolved. The Rayi-Prāṇa pair is the undifferentiated original corpus; from which, through differentiation into names and forms, all beings and the whole universe came into existence. Therefore, judging by the characteristics adduced to Brahma in Upaniṣads as well as Gīta, (which we have seen above), it is quite reasonable to infer that this pair constitutes Brahma. This is the fundamental constitution of Brahma. This undergoes expansion, resulting in the evolution of phenomenal world (Muṇḍaka 1.1.8). In that state Brahma encompasses the entire evolved world. Thus Brahma has two states, the former one being subtle and the latter gross. In both these states, Ātmā is the energy that sustains Brahma.

The foregoing discussions cumulatively lead us to conclude that Ātmā and Brahma are not identical; Upaniṣadic assertions assign subtle differences between them. Similarly, we have found that the proposition ‘ब्रह्म सत्यं जगन्मिथ्य (brahma satyaṃ, jaganmithya)’ is philosophically unfounded. It has to be replaced by ‘आत्मा सत्, ब्रह्म सत्यम् - Ātmā sat, Brahma satyam’ which is the position commanding complete congruence with the revelations in the Upaniṣads.

====================================================