tm and Brahma Are They Identical?

Abstract
The two most important terms of Hindu philosophy, tm () and Brahma
() 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 Upaniads and Gta. The
declaration 'Ayam tm Brahma' in Mkya and the corresponding
references in Bhadrayaka and Chndogya 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
tm. Further, Muaka, vetvatara and Gta say that Brahma originated from
tm. According to Bhadrayaka and Taittirya, Brahma has two forms, mortal
and immortal. In contrast, tm is totally immortal. Because of the two forms,
Brahma is called Satyam ( ) in Chndogya, Bhadrayaka and Taittirya.
Satyam is explained therein to be that which is being supported by Sat ( ); it
is not Sat per se. Against this, tm is simply Sat. Thus, it is evident that tm
and Brahma are not truly identical.

***************************************************************************
tm () and Brahma () 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. 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 Upaniads,
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 Mahvkya (Great Declaration) 'Ayam tm Brahma' ( ) in

Mkya Upaniad (verse 2) and by corresponding references in different other
Upaniads. They took the Mahvkya 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 Upaniads, primarily Mkya, assert Brahma to be
tm. 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 possibilities. 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 and 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 tm;

2. tm is the origin of Brahma ();
3. Brahma has two forms;
4. tm Sat ( ) and Brahma Satyam ( );

5. The composition of Brahma

1. Brahma is phenomenal expression of tm
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 Upaniads,
corroborating them. The most direct expression of the equality of tm and Brahma is
contained in verse 2 of Mndukya Upaniad. 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.
, ,
|
| 1 |

(omityetadakaramidam sarva, tasyopavykhyna, bhta bhavat bhaviyaditi

sarvamokra eva. yaccnyat trikltta tadapi okra eva)
| 2 |

(sarva hyetad brahma aya tm brahma so'yamtm catupt.)

The literal meaning is thus: 1) All that is here is the letter 'OM' (), 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; Brahma is
that tm; that very tm has four modes of expression.

The first verse can be further explained as: Everything that is here is the
interpretation (i.e. phenomenal expression) of OM. The expression 'its interpretation'
( ) 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 Upaniad 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 (bhavat) in the second
part of the verse starting with bhta. 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 ()' would have
been supplied. That is the usual practice in Upaniads and other texts, which is absent
here.
Thirdly, this Upaniad itself teaches that OM is tm. According to Upaniadic
teachings, the phenomenal world cannot be tm per se. tm holds (

Gta
9.5), illuminates ( - Kaha 5.15) and supports (Bhadrayaka
2.5.15) the world. It is from tm that the entire existence of all time and beyond,
emerges and also merges with at the end (Bhadrayaka 2.1.20, Muaka 2.1.1 to
2.1.9). Bhadrayaka 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 tm all the lives, all worlds, all gods and
all beings emanate. The worlds and beings are not mere transformations of tm. That
is why the phenomenal world cannot be tm 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 Upaniads? Absolutely; we will see the details in the discussions that
follow.

The next part of the 2nd verse is the equation, Brahma is that tm. This should
be naturally so, since, as we have seen, this Universe is a phenomenal expression of
OM (i.e. tm) 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 tm. But there exists a subtle difference also; tm 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 Mndukya Upaniad.
The same idea and the same pattern of presentation are followed in other
Upaniads also, wherever the phrase equating tm and Brahma is presented. In all
such cases, the pervasiveness, omniscience, effulgence, immortality, etc. of tm 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 Upaniads assign precedence of tm over
Brahma. Some examples are quoted below for ready reference.
(a) Chndogya () Upaniad says in 3.14.1 that this Universe is Brahma. In
3.14.2 and 3.14.3 it continues to say that tm 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 tm; it is
Brahma.


.. ||3.14.4||

(sarvakarm sarvakma sarvagandha sarvarasa sarvamidamabhytto vkyandara

ea ma tmntarhdaya etadbrahma)
Actions, desires and odours are all characteristics of the physical world. When
tm 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; tm with physical expression is
Brahma, not the purely intelligent and effulgent tm, described in the preceding
verses.
(b) In 8.3.4 of Chndogya it is stated that tm 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 tm pervading the
body. So, the purport is that tm pervading in the body is Brahma.

. ||8.3.4||

(atha ya ea saprasdosmccharrt samutthya para jyotirupasapadya

svenarpebhinipadyata ea tm etad brahma)
(c) Bhadrayaka ( ) Upaniad 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 tm. The equating phrase it is Brahma follows that. The implication is
that tm 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.

,

,
||2.5.1||

(ycya asy pthivy tejomayomtamaya purua, yacyamadhytma

rrastejomayomtamaya purua ayameva yoyamtm idamamta ida brahma
ida sarvam) 2.5.1.
(d) Moreover, in the opening part of Taittirya Upaniad 2.6 it is clearly stated that
Brahma is the embodied tm ( - rra tm). This part is quoted below for
ready reference:
| |
|
|

(asanneva sa bhavati asad brahmeti veda cet; asti brahmeti cedveda santamenam tato
viduriti; tasya ea eva; ya prvasya).
Meaning: He who knows Brahma as Asat ( ) becomes Asat only; he who knows
Brahma as Sat ( ) becomes Sat. To him, this is embodied tm (rra tm); same to
the former also.

2. tm is the origin of Brahma ()

In various mantras/verses the Upaniads declare that Brahma originated from
tm. Muaka ( ) Upaniad (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:
||1.1.9||
(ya sarvaja sarvavid yasya jnamaya tapa tasmdetat brahma nma
rpamannam ca jyate) 1.1.9.

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

vetvatara Upaniad also holds that tm is Brahmayoni (5.6). In 6.18 of the

same Upaniad, it is declared that tm projected Brahma in the ancient past (

- brahma vidadhti prvam). Mantra 3.4 of

vetvatara says that

tm created Brahma (
- Hirayagarbha janaymsa prvam;

Hirayagarbha means soul invested with subtle body, ie. Brahma).
Verse 3.15 of Bhagavad Gta says that Brahma was brought into being by the
Imperishable (
- brahmkarasamudbhavam). The Imperishable is definitely
tm. Incidentally, Brahma here is interpreted as Vedas by the crya(s) and scholars;
but this interpretation does not suit the context. For, what follows this statement
(brahmkarasamudbhavam) is an expression meaning that Brahma is omnipresent
( -

sarvagata brahma), which does not go well with the adduced

interpretation, Vedas. This defective interpretation must be because they have ignored
the subtle differences between tm and Brahma that we have seen here and,
therefore, could not precisely cognise the real intent of brahmkarasamudbhavam.
Gta again says in verse 14.27 that I am the abode of Brahma (
- brahmao hi pratihham). I here means tm; not Ka (), the

person; for, in 10.20 of Gta, Lord Ka says that I am tm ( ahamtm).

Finally, giving advices on the different stages of self-realization, Ka says that an

aspirant, before realising tm identifies himself with Brahma, first (becomes

)
and then only he realizes tm through supreme devotion (verses 18.49 to 18.55).

3. Brahma has two forms

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


,
, , |

(dve vva brahmao rpe mrta caivmrta ca, martyam cmtam ca, sthita ca
yacca, sacca tyacca).
Meaning: Two are the forms of Brahma, gross and subtle, mortal and immortal, static
and vibrant, perceptible and imperceptible).
Taittirya Upaniad 2.6 also speaks in the same way about the two forms of Brahma.
In contrast to Brahma thus having two forms, tm is without form ( - arpa)
and without body (, aarra, akya) as declared in Kaha Upaniad 3.15 &
2.22 and in a Upaniad 8.

4. tm Sat ( ) and Brahma Satyam ( )

What is Sat? Gta 2.16 defines Sat as that which has no state of non-existence
and Asat ( ) as that which has no state of existence (
- nsato vidyate bhvo nbhvo vidyate sata). 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. tm 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 tm.
Is the phenomenal world Sat or is it Asat? We have already seen that Brahma
represents the phenomenal expression of tm. Muaka Upaniad 1.1.8 says that the
phenomenal world came into being by expansion of Brahma through tapas ( ); tapas
means incessant willing (by tm vide 1.1.9). Further, Muaka 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.
Chndogya 8.3.4 declares that name of Brahma is Satyam (
- tasya ha v etasya brahmao nma satyamiti). In 8.3.5 is given

what Satyam is; ,

(tni ha v etni tryakari satyamiti tad yat sat tadamtam atha

yat ti tanmartyam atha yad ya 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.
Bhadrayaka also asserts (in 5.4.1) that Brahma verily is Satyam (
satyam hyeva Brahma). Following this assertion, the word Satyam is explained

in 5.5.1, which is similar to the version of Chndogya.

Taittirya Upaniad in its turn declares that whatever here is Satyam (2.6). How
everything has become Satyam is also explained in this chapter (Anuvka). Having
brought forth everything here, He (tm) 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, Taittirya defines Brahma (in 2.1) thus: (satya
jna ananta brahma). This means that Brahma is Satyam, Knowledge and Infinity.
In contrast to this, it is well known that tm is Sat-Chit-nanda ( - -). 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
nanda is pure Bliss whereas Anantam is infinity which produces joy (Chndogya
7.23.1).
In Chndogya 6.8.7 we find as follows:
|

(sa ya eoim aitadtmyamidam sarva tat satyam sa tm tattvamasi vetaketo.)

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 tm; you are that (Satyam), Oh, vetaketu.
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 (tattvamasi) appearing here, that is
designated as one of the four Mahvkya(s) in the Upaniads. Rather than the
Mahvkya, what is relevant in this context is the way in which the Upaniad
distinguishes between Sat (tm) 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 (
anirvacanya). As it is seen that phenomenal world is Satyam, it cannot be a mere
illusion ( - mithya). For, Sat is inherent in it. Accordingly, the proposition,
(brahma satya, jaganmithya) does not hold good. Actually, the contrast must

be between tm and Brahma declaring that tm is Sat and Brahma is Satyam

( , - tm sat, Brahma satyam).

5. The composition of Brahma

Now that we have settled the question of distinction between tm 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 tm;

as such both these parts should have descended to it from tm only. But we know that
tm is immortal; then whence and how does this mortal part come?
This question leads us to the concept of Prakti. In Gta verse (9.7) it is stated
that tm unleashes all beings from His Prakti and it is to that Prakti the beings merge
at the end. This idea is also reiterated in many other verses of Gta (4.6, 7.6, 9.8, and
9.10). vetvatara Upaniad says in 4.10 that Prakti is the magical power and the
Great Lord is the magician; all beings inhabiting this universe are His body-members.
|

|| 4.10 ||

(my tu prakti vidyt myina tu mahevaram

tasyvayavabhtaistu vypta sarvamida jagat).
So, Prakti is the tool of tm to express physically. It is because of this (Prakti
being instrumental in physical expression), that Gta 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. tm follows the same rule
with reference to Prakti. He invokes Prakti 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 Gta 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 tm causes beings to emanate from Prakti again
and again. (Incidentally, the process of withdrawal of physical expressions is described,
in a symbolic manner, in Bhadrayaka 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 Prakti invoked, tm is known as Purua; tm and Prakti together
form a pair constituting the initial opposites to initiate the churning process to manifest
the universe. This pair is also known as () and Ketra (), respectively (vide Gta
chapter 13). The invoking of Prakti by Purua is depicted in Bhadrayaka 1.4.3 in a
mystical manner. It says thus: (as a prelude to creation) He (tm) 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 Gta 13.26. It
says that all beings come into existence by the union of Ketra and Ketraja.
Purua, with the instrumentality of Prakti, produced the first pair of physical
expression in the form of Rayi and Pra ( and , vide 1.4 of Prana Upaniad).
Rayi is the physical energy and Pra is the energy of life. Quite obviously, neither of
these is self-existent, but is supported by the ultimate, eternal power of tm. Prana
1.14 says that Prajpati (Purua) 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 Pra has both mortal and immortal aspects. It
was from this pair, that the entire universe evolved. The Rayi-Pra 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 Upaniads as well as Gta, (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 (Muaka 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, tm is the energy that sustains Brahma.
The foregoing discussions cumulatively lead us to conclude that tm and
Brahma are not identical; Upaniadic assertions assign subtle differences between
them. Similarly, we have found that the proposition (brahma
satya, jaganmithya) is philosophically unfounded. It has to be replaced by ,
- tm sat, Brahma satyam which is the position commanding complete

congruence with the revelations in the Upaniads.

====================================================
Prepared by S. Karthikeyan.
E-mail: karthiksreedhar@gmail.com
Institutional affiliation: NIL
Mailing address:

S. KARTHIKEYAN,
KARTHIKA,
MOONNAMKARA EAST,
CHERTHALA TOWN, PIN: 688524
ALAPPUZHA DISTRICT, KERALA STATE.