Brahman or Atman - What is the Difference
5. Brāhman and Ātman
The two words, without grasping whose implications it is not possible to understand the Upaniṣads, are “Brāhman” and “ātman.” They are the two pillars on which rests nearly the whole edifice of Indian philosophy.
There has been some difference of opinion among scholars regarding the way the two words came to bear their present connotations.
The word “Brāhman” probably meant at first "prayer" or "speech” from the root bṛih, "to burst forth" or “to grow."
Gradually it came to signify the ground of the universe or the source of all existence, that which has burst forth into the universe, or that from which the universe has grown.
The other word “ātman” probably meant "breath" and then came to be the expression for the soul or self of a living being, especially of man.
And the remarkable discovery which the ancient seers made was that the two are one and the same; the ātman is Brāhman. This doctrine of unity is the greatest contribution which the Upaniṣads have made to the thought of the world.
In many places in the Upaniṣads, the two terms, "Brāhman" and “ātman” are used in apposition, and are regarded as synonyms.
The Chāndogya frames the central question in philosophy thus:
"What is ātman? What is Brāhman?"
In certain contexts where the inquiry is into the source of the universe, the expression “ātman” is employed, and in certain others where the topic of investigation is the true self of man the term “Brāhman” is used.
In the teaching which Aśvapati Kaikeya gave to the six Brāhmins, the spirit of the universe is described as the Vaiśvānara-ātman. Bhrigu enquires into the nature of the self through an analysis of the sheaths that cover it; but the term of reference in this analysis is Brāhman.
Thus to the Upaniṣadic thinker Brāhman and ātman came to mean the same reality, within and without.
Through an enquiry into the source of the universe and through a quest after the true self, he discovered that it is the one non-dual reality that appears as the manifold world and as the plurality of individuals.
The same question is asked in the Upaniṣads about the ground of the universe as about the true nature of the self.
The line of advance too is similar in the two cases, viz. a progress from the grosser expressions of the real to the subtler. We will illustrate this by citing a few leading examples from the Upaniṣads.
In the philosophical contest that was held at the court of King Janaka, Gārgī, a woman-sage, questioned Yājñyavalkya about the support of all things. The precise form in which the question is put is: "On what is all this woven, warp and woof?"
In a series of answers, Yājñyavalkya leads the enquirer to higher and higher worlds; and lastly, when the lady asks him, on what is space woven, warp and woof, he replies that it is the Imperishable (a-kṣara) which is the support of space.
Another questioner, Uddālaka, enquired about the inner controller of all things.
In a set of beautiful passages, Yājñyavalkya explained that the principle that lies behind all things, cosmic as well as individual, the principle which these things do not know but which controls them from within, is the inner ruler; and this ruler, said Yājñyavalkya, addressing Uddālaka, is your own immortal self.
"He who dwelling in all things, yet is other than all things, whom all things do not know, whose body all things are, who controls all things from within—He is your self, the inner ruler, immortal. "
Bhrigu approaches his father Varuṇa with the request for instruction about the nature of Brāhman.
Varuṇa gives his son a formula which is indicative of the general nature of reality, and asks him to discover for himself the truth through austere enquiry (tapas.)
“That, verily, whence these beings are born, that by which when born they live, that into which on departing they enter—that be desirous of knowing. That is Brāhman.”
Bhrigu makes of this formula the base of his operations and enters upon the quest after the real:
The first discovery that he makes is that food (anna, i.e. matter) is essential for existence. But soon he realizes that food is only the outer shell of what animates it, viz. life (prāṇa).
Even this knowledge does not satisfy him; for upon further enquiry he finds that mind (manas) is the substratum of life.
Subsequent analysis reveals to Bhrigu that mind too is a product and cannot answer to the definition of Brāhman given by his father.
He now thinks that intellectual awareness (vijñāna) is the final reality. Just as materialism, vitalism and mentalism were found wanting on closer scrutiny, intellectualism too is seen to be inadequate.
And at last, Bhrigu arrives at the final truth that bliss (ānanda) is Brāhman.
In this delight which is the Absolute there is no distinction of the enjoyer and the object enjoyed. In the infinite there is no division.
The Indra- Vairocana myth related in the Chāndogya is also illustrative of the fact that both competence and persistent enquiry are required for understanding the nature of the self.
The method of enquiry into the states of experience, waking, dream and sleep, is one of the frequent ways adopted in the Upaniṣads for arriving at knowledge of the real self.
The most concise and systematic statement of this method is to be found in the Māṇḍūkya -Upaniṣad, which is said to contain the essence of the entire Vedanta (sarva-vedānta-sāriṣṭha).
The Upaniṣad begins by identifying the mystic sound Aum with all-that- which-is. Aum is all this—what was, what is and what will be.
It is also what is beyond the three divisions of time, viz. the unmanifest ground of the manifest universe. All this is Brāhman, of which Aum is the sound- symbol. The self is Brāhman.
Then, our text goes on to show how, corresponding to the three modes (mātrās) of Aum (a, u, m) and the fourth mode-less (a-mātra) part, there are the three forms in which the self appears in the states of waking, dream and sleep respectively, and the fourth which is the natural state of the self, the unchanging and unconditioned turīya.
In the state of waking, the self consorts with the objects of sense which are external, and its enjoyments are gross.
In dreams it reveals in a world of images, and its experience is subtle. In sleep there are no desires, nor dreams; the self becomes one, without the distinction of seer and seen object; it remains then as a mass of sentience, as bliss enjoying bliss.
The self of the three states is designated respectively as vaiśvānara, taijasa and prājña.
The fourth (caturtha or turīya), which is the real self is beyond the changing modes of existence. It is not caught in the triple stream of waking, dream and sleep, though it is the underlying substratum of these states.
It is invisible; it is not the content of empirical usage; it cannot be grasped; it does not have identifying marks; it is unthinkable and un-namable; it is the one self which is the essence of consciousness; it is that into which the universe gets resolved; it is tranquil bliss which is non-dual.
Thus does the Māṇḍūkya teach the real nature of the self.
The ultimate reality according to the Upaniṣads is not the subject as over against the objects; it is that which underlies both subject and object.
This truth could be realized only when the apparent distinction between cosmic and the individual forms of the self is broken.
As an aid to this realization, it is taught that there is non-difference between the individual and cosmic forms of the self at each level of experience.
It is from this point of view that in the Māṇḍūkya the self in the state of sleep (prājña) is characterized as the lord of all (sarveśvara).
In the Chāndogya, the Person seen in the eye is identified with the one observed in the sun, and the mind and space are identified as Brāhman.
In the dialogue between Bālāki and Ajātaśatru in the Brihadāraṇyaka which is repeated in the Kauṣītaka, there is first an objective approach to the problem of reality:
Bālāki refers to the Person in things like the sun and the moon as Brāhman. Ajātaśatru shows in each case that there is a deeper principle behind the cosmic phenomena. These are the adhidaiva forms of the real.
Then the discussion turns to the adhyātma forms like one’s shadow, echo, body and eye. And finally, Ajātaśatru gives a description of the cosmic soul from which come forth all worlds, all gods, all beings.
The Identity-doctrine which is the central theme of the Upaniṣads is also illustrated in the teaching of Uddālaka to his son Śvetaketu.
Here Uddālaka identifies the sat which is the ground of all existence and the source of all being with the self of Śvetaketu:
“That which is the finest essence—this whole world has that as its soul. That is reality. That is the ātman. That thou art, O Śvetaketu!”
This declaration of non-difference is repeated nine times, thereby indicating that it constitutes the central teaching of Uddālaka.
It must be noted, however, that it is not the individual soul that is stated here to be the ground of all being. The philosophy of the Upaniṣads is not a variety of subjective idealism. It is true that the individual soul is non-different from the universal spirit. But it is the universal spirit that explains the whole world and the individual souls as individuals.
The non-dual Brāhman-ātman is conceived of in two forms in the Upaniṣads: (1) as the all-inclusive ground of the universe and (2) as the reality of which the universe is but an appearance.
The former is the cosmic view (sa-prapañca) of the Absolute, while the latter is the acosmic view (niṣ-prapañca). It is the difference between these two views that made possible the divergence later on between the theistic and absolutistic Schools of Vedanta.
We shall illustrate the two standpoints by citing a few texts from the Upaniṣads.
The cosmic view of reality may be discerned in the following passages:
“He who consists of mind, whose body is life, whose form is light, whose conception is truth, whose soul is f space, containing all works, all desires, all odours and all tastes, encompassing the whole world, the speechless and the calm
—this soul of mine within the heart is smaller than a grain of rice, or a barley-corn, or a mustard-seed, or a grain of millet, or the kernel of a grain of millet; this soul of mine within the heart is greater than the earth, greater than the mid-region, greater than heaven, greater than all these worlds.”
“The self, indeed, is below. The self is above. The self is to the west. The self is to the east. The self is to the south. The self is to the north. The self, indeed, is this whole world.”
“It is Brāhma; it is Indra; it is Prajāpati; it is all these gods; and these five great elements, namely earth, air, ether, water, fire; these things and those which are mingled of the fine, as it were;
seeds of one sort or another; those born from eggs, those born from wombs, those born from sweat, and those born from sprouts; horses, cattle, men, elephants; whatever creature there is here—whether moving or flying, and what is stationary.“
As typical of the texts that teach the acosmic view, the following may be considered:
“This is imperishable, O Gārgī, which the wise men adore —not gross, not subtle, not short, not long, not red, not adhesive, without shadow, without darkness, without air, without space, without attachment, without taste, without smell, without eyes, without ears, without speech, without mind, without light, without breath, without mouth, without measure, and without either inside or outside. Not that does anything eat; nor that does eat anything,”
“Devoid of sound, of touch, of form, without decay, and likewise devoid of taste, eternal, and devoid of odour, beginningless, endless, superior to the Great (mahat) and firm; realizing that, one is released from the jaws of death.”
The implication of the negative description of the Absolute is not that Brāhman is a blank or non-being; the meaning is that it cannot be delimited by the categories known to human thought. It is “not this, not this” (neti neti).
Such statements, however, should be construed along with other texts which speak of Brāhman as reality (sat), intelligence (cit) and bliss (ānanda).
It is true, no doubt, that these expressions are not to be understood in their ordinary sense. But they represent the highest concepts the mind of man has been able to evolve to indicate the nature of the supreme spirit.
The Brihadāraṇyaka describes Brāhman as “the Real of the real” (satyasya satyam); and splitting the word satyam into three syllables, sa ti and yam, the Upaniṣad says that the first syllable and the third mean truth, while the second syllable signifies untruth, and that the whole world implies the enclosure of untruth on both sides by truth.
That the self is consciousness(caitanya) is declared in several texts.
One of the modes in which this is taught is to say that the self is the light of all lights, that it is self-luminous:
“Not there does the sun shine, nor the moon and the stars;
nor do these lightnings shine, much less this fire.
After Him, as He shines, does everything shine;
by His lustre is the whole world illumined.”
Brāhman is not only unconditioned existence and self-luminous intelligence, but also unexcellable bliss(ānanda).
In the Brihadāraṇyaka and the Taittirīya a calculus of bliss is given, taking the highest human bliss as the unit measure.
According to the former Upaniṣad, the bliss that is Brāhman is a billion times that of the human bliss; and according to the latter, it is a hundred trillion times superior to the highest bliss of man.
The implication of such teaching is that Brāhman- bliss is unlimited and measureless.
The Chāndogya describes Brāhman as the Infinite (bhūman) which alone is bliss (sukham)r and declares that there is no bliss in the small (alpa).
In later Vedāntic literature, Brāhman is referred to as sat-cid-ānanda, a formula coined out of the texts such as the ones we have considered.
The Brihadāraṇyaka defines Brāhman as consciousness and bliss (vijñānam ānandam Brāhma). The Taittirīya says, “Brāhman is reality, consciousness and infinitude” (satyam jñānam anantam Brahma).