Brahman

• 1. Introduction

  ›

  Brahman sits at the center of one of the oldest philosophical traditions on earth, yet a scholar named Jan Gonda once concluded there is no single word in any modern Western language that can capture what the term means. That admission alone tells you something. Here is a concept so encompassing that it resists translation, rooted in the Vedic Samhitas of the late 2nd millennium BCE, and still debated in living religious communities today. What exactly is Brahman? Is it a god, a force, a principle, or something the human mind is fundamentally unequipped to name? The answers that different schools of Hinduism arrived at split entire philosophical traditions, produced centuries of commentary, and rippled outward into Buddhism, Sikhism, Jainism, and even certain currents of ancient Chinese thought.

• 2. A Word That Grows

  ›

  The Sanskrit root behind Brahman means "to swell, expand, grow, enlarge." That etymology is not incidental. Gavin Flood has traced how the concept itself expanded in exactly that way, beginning as "the power immanent in the sound, words, verses and formulas of Vedas" and slowly broadening to mean "the deeper foundation of all phenomena," the "essence of the self," and ultimately the deeper "truth of a person beyond apparent difference." Barbara Holdrege identified four major themes the Vedas use to discuss Brahman: as the Word or sacred verse (which she calls Sabdabrahman), as Knowledge embodied in a Creator Principle, as Creation itself, and as a Corpus of traditions. Hananya Goodman adds that the Vedas conceptualize Brahman as the Cosmic Principles underlying all that exists. Jan Gonda's careful reading of those early hymns led him to conclude that even the most ancient verses suggest the power-of-sacred-sound meaning was never the only meaning. The concept was plural-natured from the start, and it multiplied from there.

• 3. What the Upanishads Said

  ›

  The Chandogya Upanishad, one of the oldest Upanishadic texts, carries what scholars call the Shandilya doctrine, a passage that makes an audacious claim: "This whole universe is Brahman. In tranquility, let one worship It, as Tajjalan." The word Tajjalan condenses three Sanskrit movements - that from which the cosmos came forth, that into which it will be dissolved, and that in which it breathes. The same Chandogya Upanishad holds one of the mahavakyas, the "Great Sayings," that would echo across centuries: "sarvam khalvidam brahma" - "All this is Brahman." Another of those Great Sayings, from Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10, declares "aham brahmasmi" - "I am Brahman." A passage in Katha Upanishad 1.2.18 pushes further still: "Brahman is neither born, neither dies. It has not sprung from anything and nothing springs from it. It is birthless, eternal, ever lasting and ancient. It is not killed when body is killed." Philosopher Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan summarized the Upanishadic teaching as the claim that Brahman is "the ultimate essence underlying material phenomena," knowable not through the senses but through the cultivation of self-knowledge, which the tradition calls atma jnana. Paul Deussen noted that teachings very similar to these on Brahman reappeared in the work of the 3rd-century CE Neoplatonic Roman philosopher Plotinus, in his Enneades 5.1.2.

• 4. Reality, Illusion, and the Self

  ›

  Maya is the Sanskrit word for the perceived, changing world - and it is not the same thing as Brahman. Archibald Gough described Maya as "the indifferent aggregate of all the possibilities of emanatory or derived existences, pre-existing with Brahman," the way a future tree pre-exists in the seed. Maya is unconscious and born in time; Atman-Brahman, in contrast, is described as eternal, unchanging, invisible principle and resplendent consciousness. Then there is Atman itself, the individual Self, which stands in a relationship to Brahman that became the central dispute of Indian philosophy. Barbara Holdrege summarizes the non-dual position: Atman-Brahman is a pure being (sat), consciousness (cit), and full of bliss (ananda), formless, distinctionless, nonchanging and unbounded. Scholars including Michael Myers have noted that the concept of ananda - bliss - carries axiological importance for Brahman as a kind of universal inner harmony. Shaw observed that a statement such as "I am Brahman" means "I am related to everything," and this relational premise grounds Hindu theories of compassion: each individual's welfare depends on others, including other beings and nature at large. Nirguna Brahman - Brahman without attributes, formless and infinite - and Saguna Brahman - Brahman with form and attributes, the kind worshipped as a personal deity - were both recognized across the tradition. In Advaita Vedanta, the saguna form is treated as a useful symbol for those still on the spiritual path, set aside once the nirguna reality is fully realized.

• 5. The Schools Divide

  ›

  Adi Shankara, the proponent of Advaita Vedanta, argued that the knowledge of Brahman that scripture provides cannot be obtained by any other means besides self-inquiry. In Shankara's framework, the universe does not simply come from Brahman - it is Brahman. Consciousness is not a property Brahman happens to possess; it is Brahman's very nature. Ramanuja, the philosopher behind Vishishtadvaita, took a different path. In his commentary on Brahma Sutras 1.1.1, Ramanuja defined Brahman as the "highest person," free from all imperfections and in possession of innumerable auspicious qualities of unsurpassable excellence. For Ramanuja, Brahman must be God, specifically Narayana, and moksha or liberation is obtained only through the grace of the highest Person who is pleased by worshippers' meditation. Madhvacharya's Dvaita Vedanta went further still, insisting that the individual Self is permanently distinct from Brahman and dependent on it, arguing that any concept of shared existence between Brahman and finite beings is incompatible with Brahman's transcendent perfection. Madhva placed particular importance on what he called vishesha - the unique individuality of each entity. The Acintya Bheda Abheda tradition holds that the Absolute Truth is realized in stages: first as impersonal Brahman through jnana, then as personal Brahman, then as Paramatma through yoga, and finally as Bhagavan through bhakti.

• 6. Bhakti, Buddhism, and Beyond

  ›

  The Bhakti movement built its theosophy around the Nirguna and Saguna distinction. Jeaneane Fowler notes that the two concepts underwent more profound development through Shankara's Advaita, Ramanuja's Vishishtadvaita, and Madhvacharya's Dvaita. Two 12th-century treatises mattered especially: the Sandilya Bhakti Sutra, which resonates with Nirguna-bhakti, and the Narada Bhakti Sutra, which leans toward Saguna-bhakti. David Lorenzen found the Nirguni tradition baffling to outside scholars, because it demands heartfelt devotion to a God without attributes and without any definable personality - yet the volume of Nirguni bhakti literature is enormous. Buddhism took a sharply different position. According to Damien Keown, the Buddha said he could find no evidence for the existence of either the personal Self or its cosmic counterpart, Brahman. The early Buddhists attacked the concept of Brahma as a way of polemically attacking the Upanishadic Brahman, yet the same texts called metta - loving-kindness and compassion - the state of union with Brahma. According to Martin Wiltshire, the term "Brahma loka" appearing in the Buddhist canon instead of "Svarga loka" likely reflects an attempt to emphasize the truth-power and knowledge focus of the Upanishadic Brahman concept. L. S. Vasil'ev argued that syncretic Taoists used Brahman in their worship as a substitute for Tao, and Victor Mair proposed that the Tao Te Ching was written partly in reaction to Indian philosophy, with its author viewing Brahman and Tao as the same reality.

• 7. Sikhism, Jainism, and Persistent Questions

  ›

  The Sikh scripture Guru Granth Sahib opens with twelve words known as the Mul Mantar, and the first two words - Ik Onkar - have been translated three ways by scholars: "There is one god," "This being is one," and "One reality is." Eleanor Nesbitt records that ambiguity without resolving it, and the ambiguity itself reflects how deeply the Brahman-derived idea of the ultimate One resists definitive language. In Gauri, which is part of the Guru Granth Sahib, Brahman is declared as "One without a second." In Jainism, the terrain is more contested. Bissett holds that Jainism accepts Atman but rejects Brahman as ultimate cosmic principle. Goswami argues that Jain literature has an undercurrent of monist thought where the Self who gains knowledge of the Highest Reality becomes identical to it. Jaini takes a third position: Jainism neither accepts nor rejects ultimate Reality but instead adopts the doctrine called Anekantavada, the view that reality is irreducibly complex and no single human description can represent Absolute Truth. That the tradition Jainism most resists - the claim of a single ultimate principle - is precisely the claim Brahman makes, points to the enduring philosophical pressure the concept exerts. Shankara's commentaries on the Brahma Sutras and his Vivekachudamani remain the most sustained Advaita elaborations of Brahman as the central teleological issue, and those texts continue to anchor debate in Indian philosophy today.