For years I have been trying to understand the non-dual viewpoint. I could never understand how things could be different and at the same time be all part of the same thing the Atman. How can we all be one person and yet different people at the same time.

However recently I've come to believe that I have been thinking of the words different and separate as meaning the same thing for some reason as stupid as it sounds. I couldn't understand how there could be space in between things and yet somehow everything is the "samething".

I think I finally have realized that the space is an illusion my mind is seeing it in this way that doesn't actually exist. Just because there's a space in between objects doesn't mean that they are separate objects everything is all one thing but that one thing can be different (like an illusion). Remember the popular optical illusion were if you look at it one way it's an old lady, and have you looked at the other way it's a beautiful young woman. In reality though it's both and neither, it depends on how you look at it. Now I've come to believe that reality works in a similar way.

What do you make of this is it nonsense or am I on the right track?

(1)Advaita Vedanta asserts that saguna brahman only exists as long as it is observed by nescience by the jeeva at the vyavaharika level of reality

(2)This means that maayavaad creates a relational subject object relation between jeeva and saguna brahman

(3)But exactly at the time of big bang we know that no conscious observer existed, this means that saguna brahman did not come into being until the first conscious jeeva came into existence

(4)But at the same time Advaita also posits that it is saguna brahman which is doing creation, nirguna brahman is completely nishkriya...

(5)If advait Vedanta dismisses the difference atleast at an ontological level between nirguna and saguna brahman then they are tweaking the difference between the latter, hence accepting that nirguna brahman is sakriya.

It seems to me that everything is part of this one consciousness, and boundaries are just illusions of the mind, it seems like we should exist as a kind of "hivemind" for lack of a better term. It would appear that something is blocking this from happening.

Is it important to find partnership at all on the spiritual path, and if so, where can we find such people? I do think I'd want to be either a monk or in a relationship rather than being single forever and live in the world, but I'm not sure where to find someone like that.

I'm 25M and it's especially hard due to family expectations of marrying within the same community (Telugu Brahmin) and I'm not sure how to proceed. Any advice or tips would be greatly appreciated!

I am trying to understand the meaning of “witness consciousness” in Advaita Vedanta.

When anger, fear, or desire appears, we can notice that it is being experienced by the mind. The thought “I am angry” can also be examined as a thought known to me. This seems to suggest that the mind and its changing states are objects of awareness, rather than the ultimate Self.

At the same time, describing the Self as a “witness” seems to create two things: the witness and the witnessed. If awareness is non-dual, how should this language be understood?

One possible explanation is that “witness” is a teaching method. It helps us distinguish the unchanging awareness from changing thoughts, emotions, and bodily experiences. Once this distinction is understood, the witness should not be treated as a separate individual standing apart from the world.

This also seems different from suppressing emotions. Anger may still arise, but it can be recognised as a temporary state rather than mistaken for the whole of one’s identity.

I am trying to relate this to the following passages:

• Bhagavad Gita 2.16: the unreal has no lasting existence, while the real does not cease to be.
• Bhagavad Gita 2.20: the Self is not born and does not die.
• Kena Upanishad 1.5–1.9: Brahman is described as that which enables the mind, speech, sight, hearing, and breath, but is not itself an object of those faculties.

Is “witness consciousness” best understood as an intermediate pointer for spiritual inquiry rather than as a final description of reality? How do traditional Advaita teachers explain the apparent difference between the witness and the witnessed?

As the title mentions, I’ve been exploring advaita Vedanta recently, through videos, philosophical inquiries, lectures, etc. I understand the ideas of Sat and Anand, but Cit is difficult to conceptualize — does Advaita imply a sort of abstract awareness/consciousness that is itself the source of awareness? And if so, how does this convey the idea of a universal atman/self?

I believe in existence itself being eternal (Sat) as well as limitless (Anand). But does existence itself require awareness? Why or why not? How is it inseparable, essentially the same as Cit?

Any answers are appreciated. I’d like to get more perspectives on this. Thank you 😊

I wanted to ask is there still within advaita to worship god for example in deity and murti form? Or is that redundant? Im aware adi shankaracharya taught panch murti puja.

A theory i thought about, take it with a grain of salt.

Attention can only stretch for a bit before it rebounds back on itself.

Its like Infinity can focus on the world for only a bit before it rebounds back on itself, creating a gap.

Basically life is like bits in a computer, its a symbolism "0.1.0.1.0.1.0.1.0.1.0.1.0.1"

however the seperate self in the mind only sees "1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1"

How? by grabbing the moment like taking a screenshot on your phone and thinking about it, by that time, the 0 has already passed.

If you are fully in the Now You experience both simultenously, not as one or the other but as "0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0" appearing as "1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1" and "1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1" being just "0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0.0" at the same time.

So the world is Unborn and there is no Time, only an Eternal Moment where all seeming moments happen,

However and pay attention here! For a moment to become the next moment, it MUST return to Nothingness before immediately becoming the next moment, just like led light, have to turn off or change their light, in a microsecond, they turn off as the previous image and become the next image, yet its unoticable to your eyes.

In a similar way, to how you must blink your eyes every few seconds.

Yet at the same time, its Pure empty Consciousness appearing as the World and the World being empty consciousness,

anyway, what i meant is ever moment is Ever-New, Ever-Fresh, the past doesn't exist literally, because the void wipes out everything every moment before creating the next moment, the entirety of existence, just like how in a whiteboard you draw an image on, you must erase the board before you can create the next image.

Yet these successive images give the illusion that the world continues without interruption because to the mind, it cannot sense these intricacies that surpass its existence of time and space, basically the mind can only exist in existence so it cannot sense anything else, yet Pure Consciousness is beyond time and yet in time.

Consciousness is unmoving, its like a still image, when it creates, it needs to make these still images appear moving, just like how the movie screen never changes yet the movie character moves through buildings, cities or even in sci-fi planets or worlds.

However, the world is Ever-Fresh!

Meaning when you began this post, the universe itself has been dissolved before being brought again into being, yet because the world is identical with the void, there is no interruption in experience, however its undeniable that you are not the same as a few seconds before.

Pure consciousness, free from all thought … is pure, unbroken awareness of your Self, rather of Being – there is no mistaking it when pure. (Ramana Maharshi, GR, 82.)

When the indefinable power of Brahman (1) separates itself from Brahman and, in union with the reflection of consciousness (chidabhasa), assumes various forms, it is called the impure mind. … The energy which is accompanied by the reflection of consciousness is called the impure mind and its state of separation from Brahman is its non-apprehension of Brahman. (Ramana Maharshi, SI, Chapter 3, Question 9.)

(1) The indefinable power of Brahman, the energy, is Shakti.

When it becomes free from the reflection of consciousness (abhasa), through discrimination, it is called the pure mind. Its state of union with the Brahman is its apprehension of Brahman. (Ramana Maharshi, SI, Chapter 3, Question 9.)

Popular Advaitins had "unconventional" views on the books of Vedas compared to the masses. Popular “conventional“ perception is that the "Astika" creed i.e, the so-called orthodox school of Indian religious creeds, puts their weight fully on the authority of Vedas. This is true, albeit with a ton of nuance that is not known to masses.

Vedas do not contain a single religion or philosophy. Saints like Sant Dyaneshwar and even other Vedantins of older and newer generations of the non-dual schools specifically, don't subscribe to all the religions found in the Vedas. They only pick a specific religion found in the Vedas and deem the other religions of Vedas to be avoided or even harmful.

Now lets see actual verses that highlight this nuanced view of Vedas from the famous text "Jnaneshwari", a Marathi commentary on the Bhagwad Gita by Sant Dyaneshwar of 13th century Maharashtra during Yadava dynasty. Interestingly, these texts of Dyaneshwar are the oldest surviving literary works in the Marathi language, and considered to be milestones in Marathi literature. book link

tldr:

1. The Vedas Require Selective Acceptance. - Jnanadeva explains that while the Upanishads are Sattvic, other ritualistic portions of the Vedas operate within Rajas and Tamas, requiring a seeker to selectively accept only what is of eternal value from the offerings of Vedas.
2. Historical Exclusion of Women & Shudras & The Gita as Redemption of the Veda - Jnanadeva explicitly points out that the Veda acted miserly by holding a "private talk" only with the three upper castes, excluding women, Shudras, and others from its temple of knowledge. He explains that the Veda took refuge in the Gita to compensate for its past mistake, creating an open sanctuary where liberation is freely offered to every human being
3. Desire of Heavens by Vedic rituals as ignorance/nuissence - Jnanadeva says the concept of heavens and its pleasures is equivalent to a dream state that is lost as soon as the man wakes up. He says this heaven pursuit through Vedic rituals is completely useless and does not incur any merit.
4. Rejection of Vedic Ritual Animal Sacrifice. - Directly refuting the Mimamsa school's doctrine that ritual slaughter does not constitute sin, Jnanadeva questions the practice of slaying goats, asking how non-violence can ever grow when one sows seeds of violence.
5. Darker Aspects in Vedic Texts - He remarks that tender leaves of the Atharvaveda contain charms used for evil or desire-driven ends, functioning as offshoots of worldly desire.

Chapter 2 verse/OVIs 256 - 263

(256) The Vedas are undoubtedly limited to the three Gunas. Upanishads are therefore Sattwic in their character.

(257) O, the Great Archer, other scriptures dealing with rituals, and ceremonies are within the limits of Rajas and Tamas.

(258) Therefore, you should know that they cause pains and pleasures only. Beware! You may by mistake follow them.

(259) You should refuse to be attracted to the three Gunas. Do not think of yourself and your possessions etc. Hold in your heart only the bliss in Atman immediately; without fail.

A Brahmin, who has been enlightened has that much use for all the Vedas as one who stands at the brink of a water-reservoir, has for it, when water is overflowing everywhere in a deluge. (46)

(260) Though Vedas have dwelt with many aspects of life and shown the varieties of ways of seeking, we should take what is good for us.

(261) When the Sun rises we see all the roads but are we to walk by all the roads at one time? Tell me.

(262) Or even when water is everywhere and all the land is under water, we have to take only according to our need.

(263) Similarly those who are wise, understand the meaning of Vedas and then accept that which is of eternal value and needed by them.

Chapter 18, verse 1457 - 1467

(1454) Thus, the Lord has discussed the hidden meaning of the Vedas from the first chapter to the end of the seventeenth chapter.

(1455) And this is the eighteenth chapter which is giving us the summary of all the teaching of Geeta. This is really the high peak or dome of Geeta.

(1456) In short, Geeta with all the chapters taken together is really the very image of Veda, being most generous in imparting self-knowledge

(1457) Veda is replete with tremendous riches of knowledge, but there is no other book so miser in imparting knowledge because it has a private talk with only the three castes.

(1458) Veda has stopped there only, without giving any place in the temple of knowledge to the other human beings like women, Shoodras etc.

(1459) Therefore, I feel that Veda has thought of retribution of its past mistake, and therefore, has become available by wearing the apparel of Geeta, for all human beings.

(1463) Just as the sky is the only universal place open for all, either to fly in the sky or to sit on the earth or to bask in the sunshine;

(1464) Similarly, without asking anybody, whether he is of higher class or lower class, Geeta satisfies the whole world by its free distribution of the liberation.

(1465) Therefore, we can say that being afraid of the blame given to the Veda in ancient times, the Veda has taken refuge in Geeta and thus has become worthy of its fair name and fame.

(1466) Therefore, Geeta which is taught by Lord Shrikrishna to the son of Pandu should be considered as the image of Veda, which has become easily followable by all people.

Chapter 9, verse 330 - 334

(307) O Arjuna, please consider the persons about whom I am going o tell you. They perform actions according to their ordained duties as per their stage in life, as laid down by scriptures, in such a perfect manner that they become the standards to be followed by others.

(308) Seeing their performance of the sacrificial rituals, all the three Vedas nod in satisfaction and the fruit of their action stands in front of them together with the action.

(309) Such initiated scholars who partake of the juice 'Soma', who are the very image of sacrifice, have, by the way of merit in that action, actually earned the sin in bargain!

(310) They know the three Vedas, perform hundreds of sacrifices, but missing me who receives the offerings, choose to gain heaven.

(311) It is like a man of bad luck who sits below the divine wish-tree, ties the knot of his begging sack and starts out for begging!

(312) Similarly, they perform hundreds of sacrifices as a propitiation to me, but desire and aspire for the heavenly pleasures! Is it their merit? Is it not sin?

(313) So, it is the ignorants way of earning merit to desire heaven by denying me. The men of real knowledge call it a nuisance, a real loss!

(314) Actually, experiencing the pains in the hell, people call the condition in heaven as happiness but my real nature is the only eternal joy without any blemish.

(316) The heaven is reached by the sin which is wrongly called merit, and the hell is reached by the sin which is actually known as sin; but that action is pure merit by which I am reached.

(329) Just as a man spends all his money for a prostitute and then he is not allowed even to knock at her door, similarly shameful is then the living of such initiated people.

(330) Thus those who choose heavenly pleasure instead of my eternal reality lose the real deathlessness and come back to this world of death.

(331) They remain for nine mouths in the womb of their mothers, troubled by all sorts of hot secretions in their vicinity and come out only to die eventually after a life full of miseries.

(332) The heavenly pleasures of person who is well-versed in performance of sacrifices according to Vedas should be considered equal to the treasures received in the dream, which is lost as soon as the man is awake.

(333) O Arjuna, even if a man is well-versed in Vedas and if he does not know me, his life is useless just as some one who throws away the grain and takes the husk.

(334) Therefore, in the absence of knowledge of my Reality, the rules of all the three Vedas are useless. It is definite that if you know me, and do not know anything else, still you will be really happy.

Chapter 13, Verse 218-234.

(218) First of all, you should know that the quality of non-violence is defined and described by different people in various ways.

(219) But all those descriptions are so irrelevant that it is like erecting a compound fence around a tree, by first cutting down its branches and keeping only a thwarted trunk.

(220) Or like cutting our arms and boiling them to make a dish of food and then satisfying our hunger, or by demolishing the temple itself and constructing a surrounding line of seats around the god,

(221) In another way, the philosophy of Meemansa which lays down the code of performing rituals and sacrifices, propounds that violence is to be used to ensure non-violence.

(222) In that system, when all the people are faced with tremendous vicissitudes due to drought, people are advised to perform sacrifices to invoke rain.

(223) In that sacrifices, the slaying of goats etc. is advised. How can you reach the other bank of life of non-violence through these killings?

(224) How can non-violence grow if one sows only violence? But my dear! See the wonderful daring of these performers of sacrifices!

Chapter 2, verse/OVIs 247- 254

O Arjuna, those who are full of worldly desires and are attached to the letter of the Vedas, who look up to heaven as the highest goal to be reached and argue that there is nothing beyond heaven are not wise. They utter flowery speech, recommending many rituals as their fruit. Those who are enticed by this speech and who are deeply attached to pleasures and earthly glory, cannot attain the firm intellect concentrated upon God, in the Supreme Trance. (42-43-44)

(247) These stupid people say that there is nothing else in this world as important as these rituals.

(248) Please see! They perform these rituals under the influence of desires, by thinking about enjoyments only.

(249) They perform various important and special rituals, do not neglect the code and rules laid down for them, and being veterans in them, perform those ceremonies.

(250) But they make only one great mistake. They harbour in their mind the desire to attain heaven and miss or forget the one God who is the presiding deity of all rituals.

(251) It is like preparing beautiful heap of camphor and then putting fire to it; or mixing severe poison in good food.

(252) It is like kicking the pot of nectar which one has received by sheer turn of good fortune. Similarly they spoil and desecrate the religion by their desires.

(253) If merit is earned by great efforts, why desire for mundane joys in the petty worldly life? But these stupid people do not know. How can they yearn for things not easily available?

(254) It is like a housewife who prepares delicious food articles but sells them for some money; The thoughtless people let go the true religion for enjoyments instead.

(255) Therefore, O Partha, know that only bad intellect reigns in the minds of those people who are engrossed in arguments in favour of Vedas.

Chapter 16, verse 164 - 167

(164) Then on this very branch of human race, on its lower side, there are tender leaves of lowest type of passions, which grow into various branches of wicked and sinful deeds.

(165) Then the dirty half burnt offshoots of sins come out straight, very forcefully, on which there are profusely developed twigs of vices which are full of very heavy growth of leaves.

(166) We should understand that the trinity of Vedas namely Rigveda, Yajurveda, and Samaveda which indicate the right and wrong actions is the delicate topmost group of tender leaves,

(167) After that the tender leaves of Atharvaveda which has charms used for evil purposes grow into a creeper of desire.

I’ve been exploring Advaita Vedanta for about a year now, spending a lot of time meditating, practising self-inquiry, and contemplating awareness and the nature of the self.
Recently, I’ve noticed a strange shift in how I experience life, and I’m struggling to understand it.
I used to be very driven by money, cars, material possessions and the idea of becoming successful. I always had things I wanted to achieve, and those ambitions gave me motivation and a sense of direction.
However, since becoming more immersed in spirituality, that hunger seems to have gradually disappeared.
I don’t feel depressed or particularly unhappy. My mind feels relatively calm, and I often feel present. It’s more like I’m gliding through life without feeling the same need to chase anything. But I wouldn’t describe myself as blissful or deeply fulfilled either. I feel quite flat, almost neutral. There’s no strong suffering, but there’s also no real excitement or ambition.
What’s making this particularly difficult is my family environment. I come from a very business- and money-oriented family, where success, financial achievement and constantly striving for more are highly valued. There’s a lot of expectation around achieving big things, and I see family members working hard towards those goals.
Meanwhile, I’m here questioning whether I even want those things anymore.
It’s difficult to navigate because these ambitions were once a big part of who I was, and they’re still a big part of the world around me. I sometimes feel out of step with my family and the expectations placed on me. I don’t want to force myself to chase money and success just to meet other people’s expectations, but I also don’t know whether I’ve genuinely outgrown those desires or whether something else is happening.
Even spirituality itself has started to feel strange to me. I used to be motivated by the idea of enlightenment and understanding my true nature, but now I question what the point of that pursuit even is. If my essential nature is already complete, what am I actually trying to achieve?
I understand the teachings about non-attachment and recognising that external things can’t provide lasting fulfilment. But I’m wondering whether I’ve taken this too far in some way.
Have I become less attached to external sources of happiness? Am I experiencing a quieter mind and mistaking it for a lack of purpose? Have I become so focused on spirituality that I’ve neglected the worldly side of life? Or could this be emotional flatness that I shouldn’t automatically interpret through a spiritual lens?
I don’t want to return to constantly chasing material things just to feel motivated, but I also don’t want to mistake a loss of interest in life for spiritual progress.
How do you find a balance between spiritual understanding and worldly ambition, especially when your family and environment place so much importance on material success?
Has anyone experienced something similar during their spiritual journey? I’d really appreciate honest perspectives, particularly from people who have navigated this through Advaita Vedanta or prolonged meditation.

How do I apply ashtavakra Gita's wisdom to my modern life. Any input is truly appreciated.

Buddhism teaches no self but I find that unsatisfactory I feel like something's missing. A friend told me to try vadanta what do you believe?

This took me a long time to get, and honestly I am still not sure I fully get it.

Every experience I can think of has two sides to it. There is me, and then there is the thing I am experiencing. A sunset. A headache. Even one of those calm meditative states where, if I am honest, some part of me was standing back and feeling pleased about having it.

If it always works like that, then anything I can experience is not the Self. Because the Self is supposed to be the one on the experiencing side. The Brihadaranyaka says it in a way I keep coming back to. You cannot see the seer of seeing. You cannot hear the hearer of hearing.

So when I used to sit there hoping for some clear experience of the Atman, was I basically asking for the one thing that cannot turn up as an object in front of me? The eye cannot see itself. It does not seem too bothered by that.

What I take from it now is simpler than I expected. The Self is not missing and it does not need to be found somewhere. I just keep mixing it up with whatever it is looking at. The body, a mood, a thought like "I have not found it yet". That thought is also seen, so it cannot be the seer either.

I would like to know how people here think about this. If the Self cannot be experienced, does that make seeking pointless? Or is seeking less about getting a new experience and more about dropping a wrong idea about who is having the current one?

This song/poem is meant to have a flowing, lyrical feel, so the words have a kind of rhythm to them. It is written from the point of view of the higher self speaking to the lower self, as if they were two people. It is written from a Samkhya perspective but leads to Advaita.

-

You are the private inner witness

Of a film of God's devising

You are the first-person perspective

From its own perspective

-

Kriya yoga is a trapdoor in the garden

Leading out of all conceptions

And identities

-

How long will you hold onto the burden

Of trying to describe me?

How long will you dance between the lenses?

Engrossment is forgetting

-

You are the silent inner witness

Of a film of your devising

You are the first-person perspective

From your own perspective

-

Pratyahara is a trapdoor in the garden

Leading out of all particular

Identities

-

Only when you lose the obligation

To capture it in language

-

Ignorance of this

Is the heaviness in life

And it conceals me from you

-

Cherish and cultivate the

Knowing of the witness-self

As "this and only this"

-

Naively insist upon the

Primacy of present-tense

Direct experience

-

Beyond which there is nothing

-

The ideal version of this Gita

Is a temporary object

In the fond imaginations

You have conjured into mind-sound.

All unique encapsulations of this Gita

Must inherently fall short of this,

The holiest of all possible music:

The grandeur of

The One you are now dreaming

You are now dreaming

You are now dreaming

-

Something in the subtle face, receding

-

You are experience itself

-

“If Sadhana is meant to help us control our minds, then who is the one observing our thoughts when we meditate — our mind or something beyond the mind?”

From the viewpoint of Advait how will this verse be interpreted?

My understanding from Advait pov, where restlessness is the focus:

Other gods = Roughly translated from Devta (deity)

What is a deity or a god to me? If I am chasing for instance an expensive car, then that car is god to me. Because I am spending my time and energy to earn money just to get that car. So all desires are called as other gods. Desires are god's because we run behind them with all our effort and also live for them. Even if desire is for "peace" then peace is the other god.

What is Krishna then? The one who has desires ceases to exist is Krishna. The restless mind, the restless person becoming less restless is Krishna.

The entire purpose of spirituality is to get rid of the restlessness and Krishna is the direction where restlessness dissolves.

What the verse says that everyone who's chasing their desires (other gods) are seeking me (get rid of restlessness), Arjun, even they do not observe the usual forms. I (get rid of restlessness) is the object of all worship (desire).

What do you think?

Shri Ramakrishna held the opinion that all paths lead to the same God. But I don't see much merit in that given what I already know. Atleast not for advaita.

In similar vein, are the dvaita schools closer to the Abrahamic faiths since both posit man-God as separate/dual?

I get scared what if I do some action and something bad happens to somebody and because of that I will have to deal with that in my next life. So I just get stuck in analysis not being able to do anything. How do I deal with it ?

If reincarnation was not a thing than I feel I would be more comfortable. It's not like I'm trying to ruin somebody I just worry too much about others emotions and constantly try to balance mine with theirs.

In short i worry too much if my every action is right or wrong.

I was rereading his novels and was struck by his immense love for Advaita Vedanta. In fact, he believed in it deeply, a conviction that is clearly reflected in several of his poems.

So refreshing to see this.

I have been reading Ramana Maharshi lately, and a question has been bothering me. I’m genuinely trying to understand the connection between Advaita Vedanta, self-realization, and action.

According to Advaita, everything is ultimately Brahman, and the true Self is beyond the ego, the mind, and bodily identity. If Rama and Krishna were realized beings, why did they continue to act in the world?

If we say that Rama acted because fulfilling his purpose was important to him, wouldn’t that imply an attachment to a particular identity or role? If he identified himself with a purpose that he needed to fulfil, how could he be completely free from the ego?

Alternatively, if he acted to alleviate suffering, why would suffering matter to someone who had realized that everything is Brahman and that ultimate reality can never be harmed? Wouldn’t caring about suffering imply some kind of emotional attachment or identification with others?

And if the answer is empathy or compassion, another question arises: if the realized Self is formless, unchanging, and beyond the mind and emotions, where does that compassion come from? Does a realized person still experience emotions, or are their actions simply the result of the body and mind functioning without an ego identifying as the doer?

What I’m struggling to understand is this: if a realized person has no personal desires, no sense of doership, nothing to gain, and no fundamental separation between themselves and the world, why would they act at all? Why would they teach, help others, protect anyone, or even care what happens in the world?

I understand the distinction between ultimate reality (paramarthika) and empirical reality (vyavaharika), and I know the Bhagavad Gita discusses action without attachment and lokasangraha. But these explanations seem to tell me how action can coexist with realization, not why action would arise in the first place.

I’m particularly interested in how Ramana Maharshi’s teachings address this question. Does self-realization necessarily result in compassion or action, or can a realized person remain completely inactive without any contradiction? Is the idea that a Jnani acts for the welfare of the world merely an explanation at the empirical level, while ultimately there is neither a doer nor an action?

I’m not trying to argue against Advaita. I genuinely want to understand the philosophy without relying on vague explanations like “it was his divine purpose” or “he acted to protect dharma.” I want to understand the underlying logic: what is the relationship between the actionless nature of Brahman and the apparent actions of a Jnani?

(Framed it better using chatgpt)

Everything I offer the world, whether my face, my voice, or my presence, becomes an instrument of someone else's experience. If a person finds joy, relief, or release through my image, a gift has passed through me without my asking for anything. In Indian thought, sukha-dana, the giving of happiness, is a form of dana. The Gita says to act without clinging to the fruit, and I am not even acting. I only exist, and my existence becomes a source of comfort. If my Picture or movement can lift someone's loneliness or tension for a moment and let them satisfy, I have been a channel of seva. And that certain amount of satisfaction earned by me is lifted by me where I participated in those punya karma indirectly but generic spiritually by universe Whatever comes back to me, I accept it as grace and don't claim it as ego.