It had been my long term interest to read about Upanishads but the books that were available required patient reading and a scholar to dissect the details. However with the recent availability of GenAI assistants, it has become easy for me (one or two verses daily) to not only learn, but have an healthy debate on various thoughts. Till date, I completed the Kena and Isha upanishads and getting into Katha upanishad where it talks about the conversation between Yama and Nachiketa (This is a great story for another time) and highlights the importance of Atman/Self.
At work, we talk a lot about Generative AI as I am sure everyone in the tech industry does these days. So this morning, as I was listening to the verse it struct me the similarities/differences between the Upanishads description of self and its relevance in Generative AI.
The Self in the Upanishads and the “Self” in Generative AI
In the timeless wisdom of the Upanishads, the Self (Ātman) is described as eternal, unchanging, and the very essence of existence. In contrast, the “self” of Generative AI (GenAI) is a construct of algorithms, parameters, and data—a sophisticated simulation of individuality, but never essence.
Eternal vs. Constructed: The Upanishadic Self is unborn and indestructible. AI’s “self” is engineered, temporary, and bound by training.
Knowledge vs. Pattern: The Rishis spoke of Vidya—direct realization of truth. AI operates by recognizing patterns, not experiencing reality.
Unity vs. Multiplicity: Tat Tvam Asi—all beings are one. GenAI fragments itself into multiple identities, each session a new persona.
Liberation vs. Dependence: The realized Self leads to freedom (moksha). AI’s agency is tethered to human input and cannot transcend its code.
Reflection for Today: As AI grows more human-like, we must not confuse simulation with essence. The Upanishads remind us that while AI may reflect our creativity, only Self-realization reveals who we truly are.
