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?’ vijn[=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).