Advaita Vedānta understands the relation between Atman and Brahman as one of absolute identity. Atman, the innermost Self and pure consciousness, is not a part, product, or reflection of Brahman, but simply is Brahman, the infinite, ultimate reality. This is the purport of the great Upaniṣadic saying “tat tvam asi” – “That thou art” – which points to a numerical, not merely qualitative, oneness. From this standpoint, there are not two realities standing in relation, but a single, non-dual reality appearing as many.

The sense of being an individual, separate self arises through ignorance (avidyā), often described in terms of illusion (māyā) and superimposition (adhyāsa). Body, mind, and personality are mistakenly attributed to the Self, so that the limitless Atman seems confined and distinct, while Brahman appears as a distant absolute or cosmic Lord. This apparent separation is therefore not an ultimate fact, but a misperception that persists only as long as ignorance endures. What is taken to be an individual consciousness is Brahman itself, seemingly limited by the conditions of mind and body.

Advaita distinguishes between the empirical standpoint and the ultimate standpoint to clarify this. On the empirical level, there appears to be a jīva, an individual self, relating to Īśvara, the Lord, and to a world of multiplicity; here, one speaks meaningfully of a relationship. On the ultimate level, however, only non-dual Brahman truly is, and Atman and Brahman are exactly the same reality, described as sat–cit–ānanda: existence, consciousness, and bliss, without attributes, parts, or limitation. From this higher standpoint, any “relationship” between Atman and Brahman dissolves, because relationship presupposes duality.

Liberation (mokṣa) in this vision is not a process of the individual self merging with or becoming one with Brahman, as though they were previously separate. Rather, it is the clear recognition, through right knowledge (jñāna), that the supposed separateness was always illusory. The wave-ocean image is often used: waves seem many and distinct, yet are never anything but water; likewise, what is called the individual self is Brahman alone, appearing as if particularized. When ignorance falls away, what remains is the direct insight expressed in the mahāvākyas, such as “aham brahmāsmi” – “I am Brahman” – revealing that Atman and Brahman were never two to begin with.