Brahma jñāna is often presented as a profound spiritual conclusion: everything is Brahman, the Self is Brahman, and there is nothing apart from Brahman.
But can we arrive at this understanding through simple observation and reasoning?
Let's try.
Every form requires a substance
Look at a clay pot.
We call it a pot because of its particular shape and configuration. But what is actually there?
Clay.
The pot cannot exist without clay. Remove the clay, and there is no pot left.
The same applies to a clay bowl.
The bowl is different from the pot as a form. Its shape and configuration are different. But what is actually there?
Again, clay.
So we can distinguish between:
Form — the particular configuration
Substance — what the form actually is
The pot is not something separate from clay. It is clay appearing as a pot.
The bowl is not something separate from clay. It is clay appearing as a bowl.
The forms are different, but their substance is the same.
Can the fundamental substance itself be a form?
If we continue looking for the substance of a form, we may discover that what we initially considered a substance can itself be another form.
A physical object can be reduced to molecules.
Molecules can be reduced to atoms.
Atoms can be investigated in terms of more fundamental structures.
So we can continue asking:
What is this actually made of?
Eventually, if there is a fundamental substance, it cannot itself be another form.
Otherwise, we would simply continue the search for its substance.
Therefore, the fundamental substance must be:
-
formless
-
unchanging
If it had a form, it would not be fundamental.
If it changed, whatever it changed into would be another form.
So the fundamental substance must remain unchanged while forms change.
Can there be two fundamental substances?
Suppose there are two fundamental substances.
Call them Substance A and Substance B.
What makes A different from B?
If A has a different shape, size, location, boundary, or any other characteristic, then it has a form.
But the fundamental substance is formless.
If A changes while B does not, then A is not unchanging.
But the fundamental substance is unchanging.
And if there is absolutely nothing that makes A different from B, then there is no actual basis for calling them two.
Therefore, a formless and unchanging fundamental substance cannot be multiplied into two fundamentally different substances.
There can be many forms.
There cannot be two fundamental substances.
One substance, many forms
Now we have something important.
Every form requires a substance.
The fundamental substance cannot itself be a form.
And there cannot be two fundamentally different substances.
Therefore:
There is one fundamental substance appearing as many forms.
The pot is clay.
The bowl is clay.
The statue is clay.
The forms differ, but what they actually are is the same.
The clay does not become something other than clay when it appears as a pot.
It is simply clay appearing in the form of a pot.
Likewise, if there is one fundamental substance underlying all forms, then every form is that substance appearing in a particular configuration.
The form is not separate from the substance
This point is easy to miss.
The substance is not something hidden behind the form.
The entire pot is clay.
There is not some small amount of clay inside the pot while the rest is “pot.”
The pot itself is clay.
The form is the substance appearing in a particular configuration.
Therefore, searching for the substance somewhere behind the forms is unnecessary.
The substance is already present as the forms themselves.
What about experience?
Now bring this investigation into direct experience.
Experiences are constantly changing.
Thoughts change.
Sensations change.
Perceptions change.
Emotions change.
The body changes.
The world around us changes.
If these are forms, then they cannot exist independently of their underlying substance.
Whatever the substance is, it must be present through all these changing forms.
We do not need to know its particular form because, by definition, it has no form.
We only need to recognize its relationship to what appears:
The changing forms are not separate from their substance.
What is the experiencer?
We can now revisit the experiencer.
The experiencer is not being defined here as something that actively watches experiences like a person watching a movie.
Instead:
The experiencer is the unchanging substance in whose presence changing experiences occur.
If experiences are changing forms, and all forms are configurations of the same fundamental substance, then the experiencer is not something separate from that substance.
The experiencer is that substance.
There is not one substance producing experiences and another entity called the experiencer standing apart from it.
There is one fundamental reality.
And what am I?
Now comes the decisive step.
This isn't merely:
“There is one substance underlying everything.”
The question is:
What is the essence of this form I call “I”?
This body changes.
Thoughts change.
Feelings change.
Perceptions change.
The personality changes.
All of these are forms.
But the fundamental substance of a form is not separate from the form.
So if all forms are configurations of the one fundamental substance, then this form called “I” is also a configuration of that same substance.
Therefore:
The substance that is the essence of all forms is also the essence of this form called “I.”
There is no second substance called “my essence.”
There is only the one.
Nothing needs to be found behind the form
This changes the nature of the search completely.
We might imagine that Brahman is somewhere behind the world, hidden behind experience, waiting to be discovered.
But if the substance is the essence of the form, then there is nowhere else to look.
The clay does not hide behind the pot.
The pot itself is clay.
Likewise, the fundamental reality does not need to be found somewhere behind experience.
The forms themselves are its appearance.
The question is therefore not:
“Where is Brahman?”
It is:
“What is this that is actually present as every form?”
And once the distinction between substance and form is clearly seen, the apparent multiplicity becomes easier to understand.
Many forms.
One substance.
One without a second
The conclusion is simple:
There is one fundamental substance.
It is formless.
It is unchanging.
It is the essence of every form.
Every form is that substance appearing in a particular configuration.
Therefore, there are many forms, but there are not many fundamental realities.
There is no second substance.
And this form called “I” is not an exception.
The same substance that is the essence of every form is the essence of this form as well.
So the realization is not merely:
“Everything has the same substance.”
It is:
“The one substance is my essence.”
There is nothing separate to find.
Nothing behind the forms needs to be reached.
The substance is already present as the form itself.
And when this is directly known, without doubt, the search for what one essentially is comes to an end.
One substance.
Many forms.
No second.