Most striking are the contradictions in the Brihad [=A]ranyaka: "In the beginning there was only nothing; this (world) was covered with death, that is hunger;[21] he desired," etc. (1. 2. 1). "In the beginning there was only ego (_[=a]tm[=a])." [=A]tm[=a]_ articulated "I am," and (finding himself lonely and unhappy) divided himself into male and female,[22] whence arose men, etc. (1. 4. 1). Again: "In the beginning there was only _brahma_; this (neuter) knew _[=a]tm[=a] ... brahma_ was the one and only ... it created" (1. 4. 10-11); followed immediately by "he created" (12). And after this, in 17, one is brought back to "in the beginning there was only _[=a]tm[=a]_; he desired 'let me have a wife.'"
In 2. 3. 1 ff. the explicitness of the differences in _brahma_ makes the account of unusual value. It appears that there are two forms of _brahma_, one is mortal, with form; the other is immortal, without form. Whatever is other than air and the space between (heaven and earth) is mortal and with form. This is being, its essence is in the sun. On the other hand, the essence of the immortal is the person in the circle (of the sun). In man's body breath and ether are the immortal, the essence of which is the person in the eye. There is a visible and invisible _brahma ([=a]tm[=a])_; the real _brahma_ is incomprehensible and is described only by negations (3. 4. 1; 9. 26). The highest is the Imperishable (_neuter_), but this sees, hears, and knows. It is in this that ether (as above) is woven (3. 8. 11). After death the wise man goes to the world of the gods (1. 5. 16); he becomes the _[=a]tm[=a]_ of all beings, just like that deity (1. 5. 20); he becomes identical ('how can one know the knower?' _vijñ[=a]tar_) in 2. 4. 12-13; and according to 3. 2. 13, the doctrine of _sams[=a]ra_ is extolled ("they talked of _karma_, extolled _karma_ secretly"), as something too secret to be divulged easily, even to priests.
That different views are recognized is evident from _Taitt_. 2. 6: "If one knows _brahma_ as _asat_ he becomes only _asat_ (non-existence); if he knows that '_brahma_ is' (_i.e._, a _sad brahma_), people know him as thence existing." Personal _[=a]tm[=a]_ is here insisted on ("He wished 'may I be many'"); and from _[=a]tm[=a]_, the conscious _brahma_, in highest heaven, came the ether (2. 1, 6). Yet, immediately afterwards: "In the beginning was the non-existent; thence arose the existent; and That made for himself an ego (spirit, conscious life, _[=a]tm[=a]; tad [=a]tm[=a]nain svayam akuruta_, 2. 7). In man _brahma_ is the sun-_brahma_. Here too one finds the _brahma[n.]a[h.] parimaras_ (3. 10. 4 = K[=a]ush[=i]t. 2. 12, _d[=a]iva_), or extinction of gods in _brahma_. But what that _brahma_ is, except that it is bliss, and that man after death reaches 'the bliss-making _[=a]tm[=a],_' it is impossible to say (3. 6; 2. 8). Especially as the departed soul 'eats and sits down singing' in heaven (3. 10. 5).