The purpose of this essay is to describe the role of Atman/Brahman and how they are related to one another in the Upanishads and then later re-appropriated in the Bhagavad Gita through the teaching of Krishna to Arjuna. Chapter ten in the Patterns of Religion textbook describe Hinduism as a religion of “many layers” on page 308. This analogy is further described on page 304 by likening Hinduism to a maze. “There is not a single straight line, but everything is connected.” The word Brahman is used in different context throughout the text. It is mentioned during the era of Vedism, when the Aryan migrants introduced the term for the pinnacle of the hierarchy in the caste system. An interesting note here is that rulers are placed below the Brahmans in the caste hierarchy. Later in Upanishads, Brahman is defined as “the One, which existed before the gods.” The Upanishads term atman as a distinguished self that is rebirthed throughout the journey through reincarnation. While reading the texts, I keep attempting to collaborate the information into theories that I am familiar with. The closest I am able to reach towards understanding is to liken atman to the soul, and the Atman/Brahman relationship to the path towards enlightenment and self-discovery. In the Bhagavad Gita, Lord Krishna altered the relationship of Atman/Brahman from what was traditionally taught and established. Krishna taught that there is a path to moksha for everyone regardless of birth, caste, or gender. He urged people to not relinquish social responsibility, bot to instead wage battle with the desire within themselves to achieve release. The conflicts within Krishna’s teachings to Arjuna were that the path to Brahman was now achieved by offerings to Krishna instead of the lifelong journey of self-reflection to become one with Brahman. Krishna also convinces Arjuna not to abandon his social responsibility as a warrior and seek enlightenment as a monk. “A man cannot escape the force of actions by abstaining from actions; he does not attain success just by renunciation.” (pg 348.4) He encourages that moksha can still be achieved while in any caste position and even while committing acts of violence if one is detached. “Actions imprison the world unless it is done as sacrifice; freed from attachment, Arjuna, perform action as sacrifice!” (pg 348.9) This act of detaching oneself seems to contradict the Hindu principle of knowing oneself. In conclusion, the relationship between Atman/Brahman as described in Upanishads appears to me to be the journey of the search for enlightenment by delving into oneself and retreating from the outside world and social concerns. The original concept is what I picture when I think of Buddhist or Hindu monks. Quiet, reflective, self-assured, and self-centered. The Bhagavad Gita and the teachings of Krishna alters the concept of moksha by stating that release is achievable for everyone, regardless of caste, birth, or gender. Another difference is that moksha can be reached by fulfilling social obligations with detachment instead of separating yourself from them. With so much of this religion being passed down orally, and the texts being written much later, I wonder how much us accurate to the original ideas and tenants of the faith. In seems that the changes in the teachings of the Bhagavad Gita are more socially acceptable for modern day society. The exclusion of a person’s caste gives hope to everyone, and the instructions toward social obligations keep society running. If much of this was finally written down to assist with social control, these changes seem like they would be positive alterations towards that goal.