Are We Really All One?

What Vedānta Actually Teaches About the Self, God & Ultimate Reality

If you've spent enough time around modern yoga or spirituality, you've probably heard some version of this teaching: We are all one. 

You may have heard that separation is an illusion. That Ātman is Brahman. That you are not separate from God. That underneath the appearance of multiplicity, there is only one ultimate reality. And that you are God or Goddess.

These are beautiful teachings. They are also not the only teachings found within the traditions of yoga and Vedānta.

This surprises many yoga students when they begin to study beyond the surface, beyond what mainstreams presents, beyond the catch phrases and buzz words you find on IG and TikTok.... 

Somewhere along the way, particularly in modern presentations of Indian philosophy, non-duality became almost synonymous with Vedānta itself. But Vedānta contains a much richer philosophical conversation. Some Vedāntic traditions teach that the individual self and ultimate reality are, at the deepest level, one.

Others teach that we are inseparable from the Divine, but never completely identical with it. Others maintain that the soul and God remain eternally distinct. And still others teach something wonderfully paradoxical: We are both different and not different from the Divine.

So which one is right? Before we rush toward an answer, perhaps there is a more interesting place to begin. >>>>> What were these traditions actually trying to understand?

First: What Is Vedānta?

The word Vedānta comes from two Sanskrit words:

Veda — knowledge, or the Vedas
Anta — end, culmination, or conclusion

Vedānta can therefore be understood as “the culmination of the Vedas.”

It refers especially to philosophical traditions grounded in the Upaniṣads, along with the Bhagavad Gītā and the Brahma Sūtras. Together, these three textual foundations are often called the Prasthāna-trayī, or the “three points of departure” for Vedāntic inquiry.

But here is where things become fascinating.

These texts contain profound teachings about Brahman, Ātman, liberation, consciousness, devotion, action, and ultimate reality. They do not always appear to say these things in exactly the same way. One passage seems to proclaim unity. Another speaks of the individual soul. Another describes a personal Lord. Another emphasizes devotion and surrender. Another seems to transcend every category altogether. And so generations of philosophers asked: How do we understand all of this together?

Different teachers answered that question differently. And from those interpretations emerged multiple schools of Vedānta.

The Question Beneath All the Schools

We could spend years studying Vedānta, and people do.

But for the beginning student, much of the conversation can be organized around one central question:

What is the relationship between Ātman and Brahman?

Ātman refers to the deepest Self : the spiritual self beyond our temporary identities (our human self and all its personalities and traits).

Brahman refers to ultimate reality: the infinite energy or source of existence. Sometimes referred to as Consciousness 

So what is their relationship? Are they actually the same? Is the individual part of Brahman? Does individuality ultimately disappear? Does it remain? And if we speak of God as a personal Divine Being, what is our relationship to that Being?

This is where the schools begin to diverge. Not necessarily because one cared about truth and the others didn't. But because they interpreted revelation, reason, experience, and scripture differently.

Let's enter the conversation.  As Patanjali says, Atha Yoganusasanam - now the teachings of yoga begin….

Advaita Vedānta — Non-Dualism

Advaita literally means “not two.”

Although Advaita Vedanta has earlier roots, its most influential classical systematizer was Ādi Śaṅkarācārya, traditionally dated to the eighth century CE.

At the heart of Advaita is a radical claim: Ātman and Brahman are ultimately not different.

The deepest truth of who you are is not the personality. Not the body. Not the story you've accumulated about yourself. Not even the individual mind. Not even the individual Consciousness 

Advaita Vedanta teaches that at the deepest level, the True Self is Brahman—limitless, unchanging consciousness.

Then why do we experience ourselves as separate? Advaita points toward avidyā, ignorance or misapprehension. We identify ourselves with what is limited and changing and fail to recognize our true nature.

The world of multiplicity is often discussed through the concept of māyā. This is sometimes translated to casually as “illusion,” as though Advaita simply claims that nothing around us exists.The teaching is subtler than that. 

The world we experience is real at the level of ordinary experience, but it does not possess independent, ultimate reality apart from Brahman. A classic analogy is mistaking a rope for a snake in dim light. The experience of the snake feels very real. Your heart races. Your body reacts. But when light reveals the rope, you realize that your interpretation of what you were seeing was mistaken.

Liberation, in Advaita, involves this kind of awakening: recognizing what has always been true.

You do not become Brahman. You awaken to the truth that your deepest Self was never separate from Brahman in the first place.

What Might Advaita Mean in Everyday Life?

Advaita asks us to question the identities we cling to.

Who am I beneath my accomplishments? Who am I beneath my failures? Who am I beneath the labels I've been given? Who am I beneath the roles I play?

This doesn't mean those identities have no meaning. It means they may not be the deepest truth about us. And perhaps that is why non-dual teachings have been so transformative for so many seekers.

They whisper: You are more than the small story you have mistaken for yourself. But Advaita is only one answer to the Vedāntic question.

Viśiṣṭādvaita : Qualified Non-Dualism

Several centuries after Śaṅkara, the great theologian and philosopher Rāmānuja articulated another powerful understanding of Vedānta.

His tradition became known as Viśiṣṭādvaita : often translated as “qualified non-dualism.”

Rāmānuja also affirmed that reality is ultimately one. But he understood that unity differently.

Individual souls and the universe are real. Their distinctiveness is not simply something to be transcended as ignorance (avidya). Instead, they exist in an inseparable relationship with Brahman, understood personally as Nārāyaṇa.

One traditional way of understanding this relationship is through the analogy of body and soul. Just as a body exists in intimate dependence upon the soul, the universe and individual beings exist within and depend upon Brahman.

There is unity. But there is also meaningful distinction. You belong completely to the Divine. You exist within the Divine. You depend upon the Divine. But you are not simply erased into an undifferentiated absolute. This creates enormous space for bhakti—devotion. Because relationship matters.

There is a lover. And a Beloved. There is surrender. Grace. Service. Longing. Communion.

Liberation is not merely discovering an abstract metaphysical truth. It is entering fully into loving relationship with the Divine.

What Might Viśiṣṭādvaita Mean in Everyday Life?

There is something beautiful in the idea that belonging does not require sameness. We can be profoundly interconnected without becoming indistinguishable. Think about a healthy community. Its unity doesn't require everyone to have the same personality, gifts, beliefs, or role. The beauty of the whole may actually depend upon the uniqueness of its parts.

Viśiṣṭādvaita gives us a spiritual vision in which individuality and unity do not have to be enemies, or opposites. Perhaps we don't have to disappear in order to belong.

Dvaita : Dualism

Then comes another extraordinary voice in the conversation. The thirteenth-century philosopher Madhvācārya taught a school known as Dvaita Vedānta.

Dvaita means dualism or distinction.

Madhva rejected the idea that the individual soul and Brahman are ultimately identical. For Dvaita, God and the individual soul are eternally distinct realities.

Brahman is understood personally as Viṣṇu, the supreme independent reality. Individual souls are real. The world is real. Difference is real. And liberation does not mean discovering that we were God all along.

It means realizing our true relationship with God. That distinction allows devotion to remain eternally meaningful. The soul loves God. Serves God. Knows God. Receives grace from God. But does not become identical with God.

Where Advaita emphasizes identity, Dvaita emphasizes relationship. And this distinction profoundly shapes spiritual practice.

What Might Dvaita Mean in Everyday Life?

Dvaita reminds us that love often depends upon relationship. There is an I and a Thou. A giver and receiver. A lover and Beloved.

For some practitioners, the highest spiritual experience is not: “I am That.” It is: “I am Yours.”

Those statements may sound similar to someone outside these traditions. Philosophically, they are profoundly different. And both have inspired centuries of extraordinary spiritual practice.

Bhedābheda : Difference and Non-Difference

Now the conversation becomes even more interesting. What if the relationship between the individual and Brahman cannot be reduced neatly to either:

Same or Different?

Several Vedāntic traditions developed teachings broadly described as Bhedābheda.

Bheda means difference. Abheda means non-difference. Together: difference and non-difference.

These traditions argue, in different ways, that the individual soul is both distinct from Brahman and inseparable from Brahman.

A frequently used kind of analogy is the relationship between the sun and its rays. A ray of sunlight is not independent of the sun. It shares the sun's luminous nature. And yet we can still meaningfully distinguish the ray from the sun itself. Unity and distinction coexist. Rather than forcing reality into one side of the paradox, Bhedābheda asks us to hold both.

Acintya Bhedābheda : Inconceivable Difference and Non-Difference

Within the Gauḍīya Vaiṣṇava tradition associated with Śrī Caitanya Mahāprabhu, this paradox is expressed through the teaching of Acintya Bhedābheda.

Acintya means something like inconceivable or beyond the complete grasp of ordinary thought. The individual soul is simultaneously one with and different from the Divine. Not fifty percent one and fifty percent different. Not one today and different tomorrow.

Simultaneously both.

And ultimately, the precise nature of that relationship exceeds the mind's ability to reduce it to a tidy intellectual formula. This is important. Because philosophy can sometimes tempt us into believing that reality must fit inside the categories our minds create for it.

Acintya Bhedābheda leaves room for mystery. There are truths we can encounter, participate in, and love, even when we cannot completely contain them intellectually.

For the Gauḍīya tradition, that mystery becomes profoundly relational through bhakti, particularly devotion to Rādhā and Kṛṣṇa. The goal is not simply to solve the metaphysical puzzle. The goal is a loving relationship with the Divine.

So…Which One Does Yoga Teach?

This is where many students get tangled. They encounter one philosophy and assume:

“This is what yoga believes.”

But as we explored in our previous Dharma Foundations article, there has never been only one Indian philosophical worldview. And there isn't only one Vedānta.

Advaita says: Ultimately, not two.

Viśiṣṭādvaita says: One reality, richly differentiated.

Dvaita says: God and the soul are eternally distinct.

Bhedābheda traditions say: Different and non-different.

Acintya Bhedābheda adds: And the fullness of that paradox ultimately exceeds our intellectual comprehension.

These aren't merely different translations of the same sentence. They represent genuine philosophical disagreements. And I think we honor these traditions more deeply when we allow them to disagree.

Personalism and Impersonalism

There is another distinction that can help modern students make sense of these teachings.

Sometimes you'll hear people speak about personal and impersonal understandings of ultimate reality.

Is the Absolute ultimately impersonal consciousness?

Or is ultimate reality also—or primarily—personal?

Can the Divine be loved? Can the Divine love us? Can there be an eternal relationship?

Different Vedāntic traditions answer these questions differently. But we should be careful not to turn “personal” and “impersonal” into overly simplistic boxes.

Vedāntic thinkers developed sophisticated understandings of Brahman, Īśvara, Consciousness, personhood, manifestation, and transcendence. Still, this distinction helps explain why two sincere yoga practitioners might have very different spiritual experiences.

One may sit in meditation and seek the silence beyond individuality. Another may sing the names of Kṛṣṇa with tears streaming down their face. One experiences spiritual practice as awakening to non-separation. Another experiences it as falling more deeply in love with God.

Neither experience should automatically be assumed to represent the entirety of yoga philosophy.

Philosophy Changes Practice

This is where philosophy stops being merely academic. Because what we believe about reality changes how we practice. 

If liberation means awakening to your identity with Brahman, your practice may emphasize self-inquiry, discernment, meditation, and knowledge.

If liberation means loving communion with a personal Divine, your practice may emphasize bhakti, prayer, mantra, surrender, worship, and service.

If you believe individuality ultimately dissolves, spiritual freedom may look one way. If you believe individuality remains eternally meaningful, freedom may look very different.

Our philosophy quietly shapes our practice. Which is why understanding these distinctions matters.

You Don't Have to Rush to Choose

When students first encounter these schools, there can be an impulse to ask:

“Okay…so which one am I?” Advaita? Dvaita? Something in between?

I don't think you need to rush. Study. Practice. Ask questions. Notice what resonates. Notice what challenges you. Read, study or learn the texts (with a teacher is helpful and often nexessary).

Learn from qualified teachers within the traditions themselves. Allow your understanding to deepen. The sages who developed these systems spent lifetimes contemplating these questions. We don't have to solve them during one yoga teacher training, one conversation, one podcadt episode, or from a few blog articles.

There is humility in allowing a question to remain alive.

The Difference Between Understanding and Knowing

There is also a point where philosophy reaches its limit. We can study Sanskrit terms. Read commentaries. Compare metaphysical systems. Learn who taught what. And all of that matters.

But the traditions themselves ultimately ask something more of us. Practice.

What happens when the philosophy leaves the page? Can non-duality change how you treat the person you dislike? Can devotion soften your heart? Can the recognition of interdependence make you more compassionate? Can belief in a personal Divine deepen surrender? Can self-inquiry loosen the identities that keep you small? Can philosophy actually transform the way you live?

Because knowing about Brahman is not necessarily the same as knowing Brahman. Knowing the definition of bhakti is not the same as loving. Knowing what liberation means is not the same as being free.

Eventually, the teachings must become lived.

Perhaps the Question Is More Intimate Than We Think

Advaita. Viśiṣṭādvaita. Dvaita. Bhedābheda. Acintya Bhedābheda.

At first, these can sound like complicated Sanskrit vocabulary we need to memorize.

But beneath them is a question that is extraordinarily intimate:

What is my relationship to the Divine?

Am I trying to remember that there has never been separation? Am I learning that I belong completely to something infinitely greater than myself? Am I cultivating a relationship with a Divine Being whom I love? Am I discovering that unity and individuality somehow coexist? Am I becoming comfortable with the possibility that some mysteries cannot be completely resolved by the intellect? Perhaps this is why these conversations have endured for centuries.

They aren't only asking us what we believe. They are asking us how we understand ourselves in relationship to the deepest reality there is.

A Closing Reflection

One of the great gifts of studying Vedānta is discovering that profound spiritual seekers have looked toward the same mystery and described what they found in remarkably different ways.

Some saw absolute unity. Some saw unity with distinction. Some saw eternal relationship. Some saw simultaneous difference and non-difference.

And rather than flattening those differences into: “It's all basically the same thing,” perhaps we can do something more respectful.

We can listen. We can study. We can allow each tradition to speak in its own voice. 

We can recognize genuine disagreement without requiring disagreement to become division.

And we can remain curious.

Because perhaps spiritual maturity isn't having the fastest answer to life's biggest questions.

Perhaps it is developing the humility, devotion, and discernment to stay in conversation with them.

Journal Reflection

When I hear the phrase “we are all one,” what do I actually believe it means?

Do I experience the Divine primarily as consciousness, presence, person, relationship, mystery, or something else entirely?

Does the idea of being one with the Divine resonate differently in me than the idea of being in relationship with the Divine?

What happens inside me when a spiritual teaching contradicts something I already believe?

Can I allow two traditions to genuinely disagree without immediately needing to decide that one must have nothing to teach me, or that one nust be wrong ig the other is “right”?

And finally:

What if the purpose of studying these philosophies isn't simply to decide which one is right—but to allow their questions to deepen my own relationship with Truth?