In this chapter Shuka Maharishi says to Parikshit:
श्रीमद्भागवतपुराणम्/स्कन्धः १२/अध्यायः ५
https://sa.wikisource.org/s/tsx
त्वं तु राजन् मरिष्येति पशुबुद्धिमिमां जहि ।
न जातः प्रागभूतोऽद्य देहवत्त्वं न नङ्क्ष्यसि ॥ २ ॥
‘Let go of the ignorance of ‘I will die’. You have no birth even.’
मृत्यवो नोपधक्ष्यन्ति मृत्यूनां मृत्युमीश्वरम् ॥ १० ॥
अहं ब्रह्म परं धाम ब्रह्माहं परमं पदम् ।
एवं समीक्ष्य चात्मानम् आत्मन्याधाय निष्कले ॥ ११ ॥
दशन्तं तक्षकं पादे लेलिहानं विषाननैः ।
न द्रक्ष्यसि शरीरं च विश्वं च पृथगात्मनः ॥ १२ ॥
No death can touch Ishvara who is the death of all deaths. ‘I am that Supreme Brahman, I am that Supreme state of Brahman’, for the one thus realizing the Atman there is no fear of death.
From this we know: ‘Brahman who is death to all kinds of death’ is our true nature. This is what the Shuka Maharshi says here. Even in the second chapter of the Bhagavad Gita, Arjuna is instructed in this way.
Therefore, Jiva-Brahma abheda, identity, is clearly mentioned by Veda Vyasa in Mahabharata as well without any doubt. Arjuna would not be comforted by saying ‘the Supreme Lord is immortal.’ Because he was saddened by the death (destruction) of Bhishma, etc. This shows that the description of the Atman in the 2nd chapter of the Gita is about the individual’s true nature and not about Ishwara.
But Sri Madhvacharya has said that this awareness of ‘I am that Brahman’ (Brahmaaham) preached by the Veda Vyasa leads to the hell called Andham Tamas (in the commentary to the Chhandogya Upanishad 6th chapter):
असुराः स्तब्धतां याता ब्रह्माहमिति मानिनः । असत्यं जगदित्याहुः सिद्धोऽहं बलवानिति ॥ अनीश्वरं जगच्चाहुरप्रतिष्ठं तथैव च । चेतनैकत्वविषयान् वेदानाहुश्च सर्वशः ॥ कुतर्कपरमा नित्यं न सहन्ते गुणान् हरेः । शास्त्रतत्त्वमविज्ञाय ब्रूयुर्देवेषु चैकताम् ॥ यान्ति चैव तमो घोरं परमात्मविनिन्दकाः ।
[Those demons who claim ‘I am Brahman’, ‘the world is unreal,’ etc., these traducers of the Lord, will attain to the dark horrible hell.]
From this it is obvious that Veda Vyasa’s teaching is not agreeable to Madhvacharya. While Veda Vyasa says that the knowledge of ‘I am Brahman’ leads to salvation, Madhvacarya says that this very knowledge leads to hell.
Even in the Harivayu Stuti (a composition of Trivikrama Pandita of the Madhwa school) the above doctrine of Veda Vyasa, ‘Brahmaaham’ is condemned:
तद्दुत्प्रेक्षानुसारात्कतिपय कुनरैरादृतोऽन्यैविर्सृष्टो |
ब्रह्माहं निगुर्णोऽहं वितथमिदमिति ह्येष पाषण्डवादः |
तद्युक्त्याभासजालप्रसरविषतरूद्दाहदक्षप्रमाण-
ज्वालामालाधरोऽग्निः पवन विजयते तेऽवतारस्तृतीयः ||३०||
(Those who claim ‘I am Brahman, Nirguna’ are heretics.)
Sri Vadiraja Tirtha’s (of the Madhva school) Kannada Laghu Vayu hymn also censures this doctrine acceptable to Veda Vyasa:
https://madhwafestivals.com/tag/laghu-vayu-sthuthi/
ಕೇಳೆಂದು ಮಾಯಿವಾದೀ ಸಕಲಸುರವನು ಮಂದಿಗಳ್ಯಜ್ಞನಲ್ಲಾ
ಜಿಜ್ಞಾಸ್ಯ ಬ್ರಹ್ಮನಾರಾಯಣ ಸಕಲಜಗತ್ಪರಿಮಿತಿಯನ್ನು ಬಲ್ಲ |
ನೀನರಿಯೋ ನಿನ್ನ ನಾರಿ ಹಗಲು ಇರಳಲಿ ಜಾರವಾಮಾಡುವೋದು
ಬ್ರಹ್ಮಾಹಂ ನಿರ್ಗುಣೆಂದೋ ವಿತಥ ವಚನವು ಹ್ಯಾಂಗ ನೀಆಡವೋದು ||೫||
(The above verse censures the Advaitin in the most uncouth language)
That verse from the Bhagavatam is also found in the Garuda Purana:
अहं ब्रह्म परं धाम
ब्रह्माहं परमं पदम् |
एवं समीक्ष्य चात्मानं
आत्मन्याधाय निष्ककले || 1.49. 107
‘Aham Brahmasmi’ in the Devi Bhagavatam:
http://satsangdhara.net/devi/devi03-12.htm
In this chapter Veda Vyasa says:
पञ्चभूतात्मको देहो मम किञ्चात्र दुःखदम् ॥ ७४ ॥
पतत्वद्य यथाकामं मुक्तोऽहं निर्गुणोऽव्ययः ।
नाशात्मकानि तत्त्वानि तत्र का परिदेवना ॥ ७५ ॥
ब्रह्मैवाहं न संसारी सदा मुक्तः सनातनः ।
Only in Advaita ‘Brahmaaham’ (‘I am Brahman) not a reprehensible, heretical understanding. And this sentence makes sense; no complex interpretation is required.
Here one can decide whether Madhva condemned Veda Vyasa or Veda Vyasa refuted Madhva’s position. The followers of Madhva believe that both of them are together in Badarikashram.
Om
