Ātmā Sat, Brahma Satyam

Abstract
The two most important terms of Hindu philosophy, Ātmā (आत्मा – Ātman) and
Brahma (ब्रह्म - Brahman) 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 Principal
Upaniṣads including Śvetāśvatara and also in 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 the 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’ (सत्यम ्)
in Chāndogya, Bṛhadāraṇyaka and Taittirīya. Satyam is explained therein to be
that which is supported by ‘Sat’ (सत ्); 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 Sat, Brahma Satyam”.

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

Introduction

Ātmā (आत्मा – Ātman) and Brahma (ब्रह्म - Brahman) 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 highlighted. All this happens due to the
fact that these two terms are not precisely and exhaustively understood. Questions on
their distinctive nature have never been a focus of serious discussions anywhere in the
history of speculative endeavours in India. Even though the Upaniṣads, especially the
principal ones, give definite hints in this regard, successive generations of Vedic
scholars appear to have missed the true imports thereof. They were probably carried
away by the Mahāvākya (Great Declaration) 'Ayaṃ Ātmā Brahma' (अयं आत्मा ब्रह्म) in

1
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 no further questions were ever asked. 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 is still lying
dormant in the scriptural texts.

It is true that the Principal 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 primarily implies that those two things already exist as different
entities. What is that difference which justifies their separate identities? This is the
question that we try to answer here. There must be at least some subtle differences
between Ātmā and Brahma for qualifying to be separate with each other; if, on the other
hand, they are fully synonymous, then the declaration of equality itself is rendered
irrelevant. It is with this premise in mind that we start our enquiry. For the enquiry to be
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;

2. Ātmā is the origin of Brahma (ब्रह्मयोनि);

3. Brahma has two forms;

4. Ātmā Sat (सत ्) and Brahma Satyam (सत्यम ्);

5. The composition of Brahma

1. Brahma is phenomenal expression of Ātmā

2
 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 its true import would be impossible. Both the verses are quoted
below to have a direct reading and understanding.

ओनमत्येतदक्षरनमदं सर्वं, तस्योपव्याख्यािं, भूतं भर्वत ् भवर्वष्यददनत सर्ववमोङ्कार एर्व | यच्चान्यत ्

विकालातीतं तदवप ओङ्कार एर्व | 1 |

(omityetadakṣaramidam sarvaṃ, tasyopavyākhyānaṃ, bhūtaṃ bhavat bhaviṣyaditi

sarvamoṅkāra eva. yaccānyat trikālātītaṃ tadapi oṅkāra eva)

सर्वं ह्येतद् ब्रह्म अयमात्मा ब्रह्म सोഽयमात्मा चतुष्पात ् | 2 |

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

The literal meaning is thus: 1) All that is here is the (immortal) syllable 'Om' (ॐ), its

interpretation; the past, present and future are all 'Om'; whatever exists beyond time is
also 'Om'.
2) All this (i.e. all that is enumerated in the previous verse) is verily Brahma; That Ātmā
is Brahma; that very Ātmā has four modes of expression.

According to verses 2.23.2 and 2.23.3 of Chāndogya Upaniṣad, ‘Om’ is the

ultimate essence of the worlds. If ‘Om’ is the essence of the worlds, then reversely, the
worlds must be the manifestation of ‘Om’. This exactly is what the first verse here
declares through the phrase ‘tasyopavyākhyānaṃ’, which implies “its manifestation or
physical interpretation”. After saying that ‘Om’ is all that is here, the verse quickly adds
this phrase by way of clarification, implying that all that is here is not ‘Om’ as such; it is
but the manifestation of ‘Om’. The split presentation must be for the sake of force in
expression. The said clarification applies to the rest of the verse also, though the phrase
is not repeated again and again.

3
 Contrary to this understanding of ‘upavyākhyānaṃ’, the view of conventional
interpretation is this: the word indicates that what follows it is the explanation of what
precedes it. This interpretation however reduces a profound philosophical revelation into
a superficial utterance. It is awkward to think that the Upaniṣad seeks to explain the
simple and ubiquitous phrase ‘idam sarvam’ in so many words as would constitute a
major portion of the verse. Moreover, it is most unlikely that an Upaniṣad would include
the past, future and transcendent entities within the ambit of the phrase ‘idam sarvam’
which only indicates what exists at present.

Further, the syllable ‘Om’ is Ātmā Himself as explicitly declared in verse 12 of this
very Upaniṣad. Verse 7 herein says that Ātmā is purely immortal and also that all
physical differentiations cease therein (प्रपञ्चोपशमं). Therefore, the phenomenal world

can never be equated squarely to Ātmā. That is why the Upaniṣad adds an immediate
clarification that the world is ‘upavyākhyānaṃ’ of ‘Om’. In this light, the verse can be
explained thus: ‘Ātmā is the origin of all that now exists, that existed in the past and that
will exist in future; Ātmā is the origin of all that is beyond time also. Each of these is its
phenomenal expression’.

Still further, what follows the expression 'its interpretation' (तस्योपव्याख्यािम ्) is

only an expansion of the preceding phrase 'idam sarvam', not an explanation. The
phrase is expanded to cover (i) that which existed in the past, (ii) that which will come
into existence in future and also (iii) that which is beyond time, in addition to that which
exists presently. These are all said to be the physical representation or
‘upavyākhyānaṃ’ of Ātmā.

Again, according to Upaniṣadic teachings, the phenomenal world cannot be

Ātmā per se. Ātmā holds (भूतभृत-bhūtabhṛt-
् Gīta 9.5), illuminates (तस्य भासा सर्ववनमदं

वर्वभानत- tasya bhāsā sarvamidaṃ vibhāti - Kaṭha 5.15) and supports (asminātmani …..

samarpitāḥ - Bṛhadāraṇyaka 2.5.15) the world. It is from Ātmā that all the worlds of all
time emerge and it is into Ātmā that they all merge at the end (Bṛhadāraṇyaka 2.1.20,
Muṇḍaka 2.1.1 to 2.1.9). Bṛhadāraṇyaka 2.1.20 says that as a spider emits its web or as

4
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 2nd verse is the equation, ‘That Ātmā is Brahma’. This should
be naturally so, since, as we have seen, this Universe is a phenomenal expression of
‘OM’ (i.e. 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
highlighted separately and then 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 to Ātmā over Brahma. Some
examples are quoted below for ready reference.

(a) 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

5
than the greatest; He pervades everything here. Then, in 3.14.4 it is said thus:
‘encompassing all actions, all desires, all odours and all tastes, as well as pervading all
over and also without speech and discrimination, there in my inner-most chamber is the
Ātmā; it is Brahma’.

“ सर्ववकमाव सर्ववकामः सर्ववगन्धः सर्ववरसः सर्ववनमदमभ्यात्तोഽर्वाक्यिादर एष म आत्मान्तर्हव दय एतद्ब्ब्रह्म ………

….. ||3.14.4||

(sarvakarmā sarvakāmaḥ sarvagandhaḥ sarvarasaḥ sarvamidamabhyātto vākyanādara

eṣa ma ātmāntarhṛdaya etadbrahma)

Actions, desires and odours are all characteristics of the physical world. When
Ātmā is presented as encompassing all these, it is evident that it refers to Him with the
physical expression. So, the message is very clear; Brahma is Ātmā with physical
expression, not the purely intelligent and effulgent Ātmā.
(b) In 8.3.4 of Chāndogya, Ātmā is at first presented to be within the body and then
the declaration ‘It is Brahma’ is made. Ātmā is described as the serene, fearless,
immortal being in the body; His pure form is supreme effulgence. Here, what is referred
to is obviously the Ātmā pervading the body. So, the purport is that Ātmā holding the
physical body is Brahma.

अथ य एष संप्रसादोഽस्माच्छरीरात ् समुत्थाय परं ज्योनतरुपसंपद्य स्र्वेिरूपेणानभनिष्पद्यत एष आत्मा

एतदमृतमभयं एतद् ब्रह्म ……. ||8.3.4||

(atha ya eṣa saṃprasādo’smāccharīrāt samutthāya paraṃ jyotirupasaṃpadya

svenarūpeṇābhiniṣpadyata eṣa ātmā etadamṛtamabhayaṃ etad brahma……)

(c) 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.

6
“………… यश्चायं अस्यां पृनथव्यां तेजोमयोഽमृतमयः पुरुषः, यश्चायमध्यात्मं शारीरस्तेजोमयोഽमृतमयः

पुरुषः, अयमेर्व योഽयमात्मा इदममृतं इदं ब्रह्म इदं सर्ववम ् ||2.5.1||

(yścāyaṃ asyāṃ pṛthivyāṃ tejomayo’mṛtamayaḥ puruṣaḥ, yaścāyamadhyātmaṃ

śārīrastejomayo’mṛtamayaḥ puruṣaḥ ayameva yo’yamātmā idamamṛtaṃ idaṃ brahma
idaṃ sarvam) –2.5.1.

(d) 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:

‘असन्िेर्व स भर्वनत असद् ब्रह्मेनत र्वेद चेत ् | अस्स्त ब्रह्मेनत चेद्वेद, सन्तमेिम ् ततो वर्वदरु रनत | तस्य
एष एर्व शारीर आत्मा | यः पूर्वस्
व य |’
(asanneva sa bhavati asad brahmeti veda cet; asti brahmeti cedveda santamenam tato
viduriti; tasya eṣa eva śārīra ātmā; yaḥ pūrvasya).
Meaning: ‘He who knows Brahma as Asat (असत ्) becomes Asat only; if one knows

Brahma as existing, then he too is known as existing. To him, this (Brahma) is

embodied Ātmā (śārīra ātmā); same to the former also.’ (Implied is that Brahma is
embodied Ātmā, no matter what one considers it to be).

(e) Further, Bṛhadāraṇyaka says in verses 3.4.1 and 3.4.2 that Ātmā is the true
(direct) and unveiled Brahma (साक्षादपरोक्षाद्ब्ब्रह्म - sākṣādaparokṣādbrahma).

2. Ātmā is the origin of Brahma (ब्रह्मयोनि- brahmayoni)

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 (nutriment means all the objects which are utilized for sustenance and
enjoyment). Here is the verse:
यः सर्ववज्ञ सर्वववर्वद् यस्य ज्ञािमयं तपः तस्मादे तत ् ब्रह्म िाम रूपमन्िम ् च जायते ||1.1.9||

7
(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 Puruṣa who rules in all
beings is Brahmayoni (the origin of Brahma), whereas in Muṇḍaka 3.2.1 & 3.2.4, this
Puruṣa is called Brahmadhāma (the abode of Brahma).
(Note: Puruṣa is Ātmā Himself when He invokes His manifesting power Prakṛti)
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

वर्वदधानत पूर्वम
व ् - brahmāṇaṃ vidadhāti pūrvam). Mantra 3.4 of Śvetāśvatara says that
Ātmā created Brahma (दहरण्यगभं जियामास पूर्वम
व ् - 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 (ब्रह्माक्षरसमुद्भर्वम ् - 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
(सर्ववगतं 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 दह

प्रनतष्ठाहम ् - brahmaṇo hi pratiṣṭhāham). ‘I’ here means Ātmā; not Kṛṣṇa (कृ ष्ण), the person;

for, in 10.20 of Gīta, Lord Kṛṣṇa says that ‘I am Ātmā’ (अहमात्मा – ahamātmā), as a

prelude to telling Arjuna about his manifestations. 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).

8
 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 र्वार्व ब्रह्मणो रूपे मूतं चैर्वामूतं च, मत्यवम ् चामृतम ् च, स्स्थतं 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, etc.

4. Ātmā Sat (सत ्) and Brahma Satyam (सत्यम ्)

What is Sat? Gīta 2.16 defines ‘Sat’ as that which has no state of non-existence
and Asat (असत ्) as that which has no state of existence (िासतो वर्वद्यते भार्वो िाभार्वो वर्वद्यते

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 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 any 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

9
phenomenal world came into being by expansion of Brahma through tapas ( तपस ्);

tapas means incessant willing (by Ātmā vide 1.1.9). Further, Muṇḍaka says in 2.2.11
that this world is Brahma and also 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 र्वा एतस्य

ब्रह्मणो िाम सत्यनमनत - tasya ha vā etasya brahmaṇo nāma satyamiti). Satyam is defined

in 8.3.5 thus: ‘तानि ह र्वा एतानि िीण्यक्षरास्ण सतीयनमनत, तद्यत्सत्तदमृतमथ यवत्त तन्मत्यवमथ यद्यं

तेिोभे यच्छनत’ (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’ (सत्यम ् ह्येर्व

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’ (2.6.1).
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 2.1.1) thus: सत्यं ज्ञािं अिन्तं 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 (सत ्-नचत ्-आिन्द). 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.

10
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 एषोഽस्णमा ऐतदात््यनमदम ् सर्वं तत ् सत्यम ् स आत्मा तत्त्र्वमनस 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 ‘तत्त्र्वमनस’ ‘(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 (अनिर्ववचिीय –

anirvacanīya).

As it is seen that phenomenal world is Satyam, it cannot be a mere illusion (नमथ्य

- mithya). For, Sat is inherent in it. Accordingly, the proposition, ब्रह्म सत्यं जगस्न्मथ्य

(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 सत ्, ब्रह्म सत्यम ् - Ātmā Sat, Brahma Satyam).

11
 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 प्रकृ नतं वर्वद्यात ् मानयिं तु महे श्वरम ् |

तस्यार्वयर्वभूतस्
ै तु व्याप्तं सर्ववनमदं जगत ् || 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 Brahmā) 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

12
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; Puruṣa 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 Kṣetrajña (क्षेिज्ञ) and Kṣetra (क्षेि), 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 Kṣetrajña and Kṣetra.

Puruṣa, with the instrumentality of Prakṛti, produced the first pair of physical
expression in the form of Rayi and Prāṇa (रनय 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 sustained by the energy of Ātmā
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.

13
Conclusion:

The foregoing discussions cumulatively lead us to conclude that Ātmā and

Brahma are not identical; Upaniṣadic assertions assign subtle differences between
them. Ātmā is SAT-CHIT-ĀNANDA while Brahma is Satyam-Jñānaṃ-Anantaṃ. Ātmā is
purely immortal while Brahma is mortal supported by immortal. Ātmā has no body while
Brahma has two forms, perceptible and imperceptible. Ātmā is pure resplendence while
Brahma is veiled by mortal component.

Ātmā invokes its manifesting power, the Prakṛti, periodically and then Ātmā is
known as Puruṣa. Brahma is this combine of Puruṣa-Prakṛti. Its original corpus is the
pair of Rayi and Prāṇa ‘produced’ by Prakṛti and supported by Puruṣa. The universe
evolves by expansion of Brahma and therefore universe cannot be an illusion. Since
Brahma is Satyam, its expanded form also must be Satyam. Therefore, the proposition
‘ब्रह्म सत्यं जगस्न्मथ्य (brahma satyaṃ, jaganmithya)’ is philosophically unfounded. It has

to be replaced by ‘आत्मा सत ्, ब्रह्म सत्यम ् - Ātmā Sat, Brahma Satyam’ which is the

position enjoying complete congruence with the revelations in various Upaniṣads.

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

Karthikeyan. S

14