Madhu Kanda. Adhyaya 1, Brahmana 4. In the beginning, the Self: I am Brahman
New to these pages?
Each mantra is given four ways: the Sanskrit in its Devanagari script, the same sounds in Roman letters, an English translation set in our own voice, and then the line once more in plain words, for a first and unhurried reading.
Not every passage is opened to the same depth. A few central mantras carry the full cross-school commentary, where the schools are set side by side. The rest are kept here whole and faithful, set in their place but not expounded, so the book stays entire and nothing is dropped for being thought minor.
Where the schools read a line differently, the difference is kept open. None is crowned and none is corrected. Each is met on its own terms, and where they contradict, the contradiction is left standing for you to sit with.
I am Brahman
In the beginning this was Brahman. It knew only itself, as "I am Brahman." Therefore it became all. And whoever among the gods awoke to this, he too became that; and so with the seers, and so with men. Seeing this, the seer Vamadeva declared, "I was Manu and I was the sun." Even now, whoever knows thus, "I am Brahman," becomes all this. The very gods cannot prevail to prevent it, for he becomes their own Self. But whoever worships another deity, thinking "He is one and I am another," does not know. He is like an animal to the gods. As many animals serve a man, so does each man serve the gods. Even when a single animal is taken away it gives pain; how much more when many are. Therefore it does not please the gods that men should know this.
In the beginning all this was Brahman, and it knew itself simply as "I am Brahman" (aham brahmasmi), and because of that it became everything. Whichever of the gods, the seers, or men woke up to this realization became Brahman in just the same way. So the seer Vamadeva, on seeing it, could say, "I was Manu, I was the sun." Even today, anyone who knows "I am Brahman" becomes all this, and not even the gods can stop him, because he has become their very Self. But the one who worships some other deity as separate, thinking "that god is one thing and I am another," does not truly know; he is like a sacrificial animal to the gods. Just as many beasts serve one man, each person serves the gods, and just as losing even one animal pains its owner, the gods are displeased that human beings should come to this liberating knowledge (because it ends their service).
ahaṃ brahmāsmi
I am Brahman. The great saying of the Brhadaranyaka: the Self, knowing itself, is Brahman, the whole. The schools read it as identity, as the indwelling Lord, or as inseparable union.
brahman
the lasting reality. The one lasting reality, apart from which all else is passing.
mahāvākya
the great saying. A sentence of Vedanta, such as That thou art, that declares the oneness of the Self and Brahman.
Where the schools meet, and where they part
Brahman was first, and the whole world arises from it; whoever truly knows this is no longer bound, but comes to share in the fullness the text calls becoming all.
The saying is liberating knowledge, not mere information; it is said equally of gods, of seers, and of men, and no power, not even the gods, can withhold its fruit from the one who truly knows.
"I am Brahman" is the recognition of strict non-difference. Brahman did not become all by gaining anything; it was all from the first, and ignorance alone had laid over it the notion of not being Brahman, and with that the notion of not being all. When the Self knows itself, both notions fall away together, as the silver seen in nacre vanishes when the shell is seen truly, and the one Self stands as what it always was. The knower becomes the very Self of the gods, so they cannot obstruct him, for none obstructs his own Self.
Madhva will not let a unity-statement override the standing difference of soul and Lord. By his settled rule, words of oneness are read as independence, indwelling, togetherness, or likeness, never as bare sameness. So "I am Brahman" is the awakened soul knowing the supreme Lord as its own inmost Self and ground, the one on whom it utterly depends; the "I" that is Brahman in its fullness is that indwelling Lord, and the soul that knows Him becomes all by His grace and as His dependent, abiding distinct, never His equal.
Brahman is the highest Self, the inner controller (antaryamin) seated within all, and the individual soul is real and eternal but exists as the body or mode of Brahman, held inseparably (aprthak-siddhi). So "I am Brahman" is true as the soul speaking of the Self of its self, the Lord who indwells and sustains it, not as an erasure of the two. The soul becomes all in communion with the One who is the All, its knowledge expanded to its full reach; the likeness it attains is real, but identity of essence is not.
When the Self knows "I am Brahman" and becomes all, is this the recognition that there is only the one reality and no second self at all, or is it the dependent soul knowing the Lord as its inmost ground and coming to share His fullness while abiding distinct? The mantra says the words; the schools divide on what they confess, and we keep the division open.
On Sankara's reading, how did Brahman become all?
- By creating the world out of itself as a potter shapes clay
- By acquiring lordship over the gods through long austerity
- By knowing its own self as "I am Brahman," so the ignorance that hid its fullness fell away
- By being worshipped by the gods until it grew complete
Show the answer
What is the live disagreement the schools leave standing at this mantra?
- Whether liberation is possible for human beings
- Whether the verse is genuinely part of the Upanisad
- Whether "I am Brahman" confesses identity with the one reality, or the dependent soul knowing the Lord who indwells it
- Whether the gods exist at all
Show the answer
I am Brahman
In the beginning, the text says, there was only the Self, and it was Brahman. It knew nothing standing over against it, and so it knew only itself: I am Brahman. And because of that knowing, it became all this. Not by making something new, not by reaching out and acquiring, but by knowing what it was. The sentence that follows is the one the tradition has carried for three thousand years as a great saying, aham brahmasmi, I am Brahman.
Sankara hears in it the plainest non-difference. Brahman was the all from the first; what kept it from appearing so was only a notion laid over it by ignorance, the notion of not being Brahman, and with that the notion of not being all. Know the Self truly and both notions lift at once, the way the silver you thought you saw is simply gone when you see the shell for what it is. Nothing was added. The seer Vamadeva, knowing this, could say, I was Manu, I was the sun. And the gods, who would rather keep men bound and serviceable, like a man keeping his cattle, cannot stop the one who knows, because in knowing he has become their very Self, and no one obstructs his own Self.
To Madhva the saying joins the two without melting them. A statement of oneness, by his rule, can mean indwelling, or dependence, or likeness, but not bare sameness. So "I am Brahman" is the awakened soul knowing the Lord as its own innermost Self, the ground it utterly leans on; it becomes all by His grace and as His own, and it abides, still itself, never His equal. Ramanuja's school hears something near to this: Brahman is the inner controller seated within, and the soul is real, held inseparably as His body and mode, so the soul may truly say "I am Brahman" as one names the Self of its self, and come into the fullness of the All in communion, without the two ever becoming one essence.
So the divide is not over the grandeur of the saying but over what it finally confesses. Is the "I" that is Brahman the sole reality with no second self anywhere, the divided self waking to find it was never apart? Or is it the dependent soul, real and abiding, coming to know the Lord on whom it rests and to share His fullness while remaining distinct? The mantra says aham brahmasmi and stops there. We hand the two words on as they stand, and we do not say for you who it is that speaks them.
Whether "I am Brahman" confesses the one reality with no second self, or the dependent soul knowing the Lord who indwells it and abiding distinct in His fullness, the mantra does not decide.
When you say "I am," what is it that is speaking: the one reality with no other, or a self held and sustained by another?
In the commentaries
This is the central mahavakya of the brahmana, and Sankara reads it as strict non-difference. Brahman was all this at the very first, and it became all not by adding anything but simply by knowing its own self as "I am Brahman." Ignorance had superimposed on it the notion of not being Brahman, and with that the notion of not being all; when the true knowledge dawns, both notions fall away together, as the silver wrongly seen in nacre vanishes when the shell is seen as it is, and the Self stands revealed as what it always was, the all. The same knowledge, he insists, liberates whoever attains it, god or seer or man, for it dissolves the very duality of worshipper and worshipped. So Vamadeva, knowing this, saw "I was Manu, I was the sun." And though the gods regard men as their cattle, wishing them to stay bound and serviceable, and so do not wish a man to know this, they are powerless to prevent his becoming all, for in knowing it he becomes the very Self of the gods, and one does not obstruct one's own Self.