The story

In the beginning, the Brihadaranyaka says, this was Brahman alone, knowing itself only as "I am Brahman" — aham brahmasmi. From that knowing it became all. And whoever among gods or sages or human beings awakens to the same — "I am Brahman" — becomes this All. The line is startling precisely because it is offered not as blasphemy but as the highest realization a person can reach.

Everything turns on what kind of knowing is meant. It is not the ego puffing itself up, the small "I" of name and history laying claim to divinity — that "I" is exactly what Yajnavalkya strips away elsewhere with "neti, neti," not this, not this. The "I" that is Brahman is what remains when every "this" has been set aside: the bare awareness in which the ego itself appears.

So the two great teachings of this Upanishad are not opposites but a single movement. "Neti, neti" clears away everything the Self is not. "Aham brahmasmi" names what is left when the clearing is done. The text adds a sober note: even the gods cannot prevent the one who knows this, for he has become their very Self — there is no longer an outside from which to stop him.

Figures and teachings in this dialogue

• Yajnavalkya
• Teaching: Aham Brahmasmi
• Teaching: Neti, Neti

Questions to explore

• What kind of knowing is meant by 'I am Brahman' — and what is it not?
• How is 'I am Brahman' different from the ego claiming to be God?