I am God


#81

Very interesting thread. I see that even I have had some contribution. This is strange because … I did that back in time. And as I read what I have written, it feels like reading what was written by a stranger.

Now if I could maintain this detached view of myself in my everyday actions, I could be much more knowledgable and unbiased towards myself.

And also, it feels like what I have been saying was really not my words, but I was but a tool, a transmitter, an oracle if you like. Really the notions, and ideas what has been displayed, has been and will be alive, but me, the naked monkey, the transmitter will perish.

I would not bother about myself, if I knew that I am always myself, meaning that my consciusness is continuous. But it is not. I do have to sleep. And when I sleep, it is if I am not existing. Because that is total darknes. But that is still untrue, because if it would be darknes, there still would be me to witness the darkness.

So basically because I do have to sleep, my existence is not continuous. Apparently. But somehow, I do remember myself from the other day. This is strange. Yet, this still gives little hope because there are limits to that memory. Yes, I can remebre who I was the other day. But I can hardly remember who I was decades ago, and I clearly cannot remember anything from being a few weeks old.

Basicly, the one thing I love the most in this world, I don’t know nothing about. So, tell me. How can I extend or defeat these natural boundaries ?
Will yoga, or other spiritual exercises, or life, or some crysis, or Christ, help me get rid of these ? The unconsciusness while sleeping ? That would be a first step, than I would attack the limits of my earthy existence, namely, being born, and dying.


#82

Perhaps with the skillful techniques and comprehensive methodologies of the yogic sciences awareness can be elevated to operate in the (waking/conscious/gross), (dreaming/unconscious/subtle) and (deep sleep/subconscious/casual) besides how else does one expect to move beyond the mind to the (consciousness/absolute/fourth).Smirk!


#83

Time & space ( Maya ). Beyond past, future, the Waking state, the Dreaming state and the Deep Sleep state. In the fourth state of the Bindu state, the experience of the heart of pure Consciousness. This point represents Absolute consciousness, the focal point of spiritual practice. The nectar of the moment. No words can define The bliss to another (brain) xcept realisation, with pure Desire.


#84

To know Surya (the Sun) one needs to travel to it. Standing where one is, not ready to move or change, it is senseless to evaluate Surya with a 6-inch scale.

The basic statement of the thread itself has problems. Word is a symbolic representation of meaning that changes from person to person. In that light,

prevailing views in world spirituality today

(?I am God? is a fundamental assertion of Advaita ? not a prevailing view; moreover, calling it a ?view? displays lack of understanding of the difference between a realized truth (beyond the constraints of thinking) vs held view (a product of subjective thinking)

self is god

(words become deceptive when multiple meanings are possible. Only a materialistic perception would expect ?God? to be an invisible person; while a spiritual realization of God is of a palpable principle that permeates all life. The other problem is ?self? that is ordinarily locked up in the gross physical and over the spiritual journey, metamorphose into Self, the spiritual. At that stage, in the realization of oneness with the divine principle, it is ?I am God?. Unless one has traveled that far, changed and realized, ?I am God? are senseless empty words.)

In Advaita we are to realise our identity with god

(If there is still realization, there is duality. Some spiritual perspective is needed even to refer to words like Advaita. When one crosses even the separateness of the ?realization? from the ?realized?, then ?I am God? is simply a truth.)

we are the infinite, absolute and whole

(sometimes such words are overused and loose their weight, especially if the knowledge is limited to words.)

when I do this I feel very powerful

(naturally. In our sub-conscience God is still a superman.)

a part of me kicks in that thinks

(In spiritual realms, one should beware of thinking, especially that is the only and the most revered tool)

very wrong by declaring

(I am God is what it is, a state. Declaring is a human action)

I should be humble and instead say

(same here, a human action)


#85

[QUOTE=Surya Deva;33003]Some logical arguments for why there cannot be a god distinct from the self:
[/quote]
Jnana you want? Let me give a shot at it.

  1. If there a separate god who created the world what did he create the world out of if there was nothing in existence? The only logic that makes sense that god created or projected the world out of himself. In which case the whole is made out of god. Including us.

The terms of this argument are: GOD, WORLD. These need definitions. You have given none, but you are operating with the terms losely, as they are commonly used. Commonly, in most religions, God is percieved as the creator. Now, first, why would the world have to be created ? Why it could not have been there all the time ? We arrive to something called TIME. We cannot exclude time as a term from this argument. Creation means, that something came into being what did not exist before. Before means that there is time. Now, if there is a God, he must not be restricted by time. Because if he is restricted, meaning he has a timely existence, he is not God, or rather time is stronger then God, meaning that he rules God. In fact, the ancient greek indeed saw time as a god, and they called him Kronos, or later, the romans called him Saturn. But I digress. This means, God must be timeless, greater than Kronos, this means, there is no before and after for God. He simply is, exists, not continuously, but timelessly. This leads us to the thought of causes and results. Thomas of Aquinas reasoned that God is the cause of everything, the archcause of everything. This can easily be percieved as creation, and the world as a result. But time belongs to the world we know. I have shown that time cannot be the cause of God, but rather it is an effect, or a result of a world existing in space. Without time, there is no space. Because without time, you cannot arrive from one point to another. Only if you have infinite speed. You see, time, speed, space are all related. God is not here and there, because he is not in space. He is beyond space. I have talked about infinite speed. We can talk also about infinite time, or infinite distances. But the moment we apply infinity to a term like this, it has lost it’s purpose. Infinite speed is not speed any longer, infinite time is not time any longer, infinite distance is not a distance any longer. Infinite means endless. It also means without a beginnig, because if it had a beginning that would already be an end from another point of view. But if there is no space there are no points of view. Infinity or endlessnes, or being without a beginning, thes are terms what only can describe something not of this world. Thus they could define God, but to that extent, God is not in this world as in a place or on a time, but he is still it’s cause. Thus, you cannot say God is in the rock you touch. Of course God is the ultimate cause by what the rock exists. But the rock is not God, and God is not in the rock, at least not the way that he is inhabiting it. While touching the rock, lifting it, throwing it, breaking it, you do not affect God at all. Thus, if we seek God, we must not seek him in a rock. This makes sense. If you want to talk to a man, you won’t talk to his jacket, but you will try to meet the person. As far as the rock is not God, but a result of his existence, our physical body is not God either, but a result, a creation. In stating that we are created by God you do not diferentiate at all between our various aspects. Generally, everything what is created, and exists in time and space must be a result of him, but this does not mean the results equal the cause. The results can, and clearly are less than the cause as they are limited to time and space. All these I said to show how the ordinary concepts of our mind are inprisoned by the world of the senses we percieve as our world. You did not mention what world do you talk about. The outer world ? Or the inner world ? For the sake of the argument it does not matter apparently, but it still does. Based on your reply, you were using the world in the usual sense, meaning the outer world. The inner world has it’s own rules and limits, but it is far less limited than the outer one. Otherwise there would be no room for so many erroneus thoughts, like the ones we have. :slight_smile:

  1. If god is infinite and omnipresent than can be no place where god is not. If there is something that is not god then god is not infinite and omnipresent. The only logic that make sense is that god is everywhere including within us.

God is not in space, thus, it does not make sense talking about him being here or there. He is beyond space, he is it’s cause, but not subjected to spatial limitations.

  1. If god is an all benevolent, all forgiving and pure love then there should be no evil and suffering in the world. If god has given us free will to choose our destiny then we are the architects of our destiny and god plays no role in the world. Therefore the only logic that makes sense here is that we are our own gods.

The term benevolent is a result of a dualist thinking what percieves some things as good, and others as bad. This is the nature of an egoist mind, what naturally perceives things what please him as good, and unpleasant things as bad. This is the instinct of an animal, or the deliberate will of the selfish man. Saying that that good or bad are rules what even God must obey, is saying that both good and bad are absolutes and above God. But nothing is above God by definition, or if it is, than those things are in fact God, and God is only their puppet. But if we accept this, than there is no one God, but two gods, the Good, and the Bad. But this is in conflict with the idea of God being the soul cause of creation. One of them must be the cause of the other, and if that’s tha case, let’s say Good is the cause of Bad, than Bad loses any meaning as Bad cannot come from Good directly. If Good is good, than it cannot cause bad. Unless, the cause is affected by a third, what changes the good result in bad. So duality does not stand, as it either is disolved by itself, or, it supposes the existence of a third. But that thrid if it was able to change good to bad, it must be greater than either good, or bad, thus that third is really God, and we arrived back where we started.

  1. If god is perfect and we are imperfect then we should not know what perfect is because it is not our quality. However, this is not true, we have natural ideals for perfect and are always being driven by the quest for perfection, immortality, power. The only logic to explain this god is only a potential within us that we can realise.

What is perfect ? Above we have seen that perfection only means unalteredness by anything. God must be perfect. But His results need not be perfect. A perfect thing might create less than perfect things, this makes sense. How ? By withdrawing his perfection. The less than perfect thing created might retain the link, the memory of perfection what has withdrawn from it, but memory supposes time. This proves that less than perfect things are able to exist in a less than perfect world as a result of perfection. Simply, creation might be radial, creating individual, separate things in time and space. The cause is above all this, and perfect, but the separate individual things are there to play with each other obeying the many rules of the created world, or nature. That we have ideas of perfection, proves nothing because all our ideas of perfection are linked to perfection of something. And our idea of Perfect, as God, is an abstract one, one without meaning to us, one without any drawing power for us.

  1. If god and us are so absolutely different in that we are imperfect and finite and he is infinite and perfect then there cannot be any contact between us. There will always be an infinite gap between us and we will never be able to reach him. In that god cannot be known, however we do know god. The only logic to explain this there is not an infinite gap between us and we are one with god.

We do not know God, at least we are not aware of God, most of the time. He knows us, as the cause of the worlds and the laws what govern our being. Like our digestion, soul processes. (not necessarily in a direct way) In fact, what we really control is very little, and we are mostly unconscious in our many activities.
If there is a gap between God and us, this does not mean that gap must be infinite. We are created beings and we have limits. If the gap between us and God is larger than that the extent of our limits God might seem inexistent or unreachable, while in reality, He might not be, to use a spatial example. Those limits might be extended, and than, the gap might be reduced if not totally, but to provide a glimpse on the path towards him.
We might be in God, and not be aware of it, because the limits of our awareness. God might be creating us any moment, our creation must not be finished.

  1. The knowledge of god comes from humans. In other words god is within the psychology of the human. There is no empirical proof for god. If there was then we could find god in the world. Therefore we have no reason to believe god is outside of us but must be within us at the core of our own being. Therefore by realising self we realise god.

The knowledge of a theoretical God comes from the speculating intellect of humans. This God is abstract, and really nothing can be said about Him rather what he is not. There is empirical proof of God, that of rare people who have aquired the ability to experience God. Indeed the kingdom of heaven is within us, meaning that the hidden, undeveloped faculty of realising God lies in one’s inner being. Mind you, the faculty to get in touch with God lies in our soul, and not God. Indeed, the formulation of God being in us, is a mistake. The most we can state is that we are in God, as God is of a higher hieararchy, he is the king of the hill of all hierachies.

  1. It is clear that the world obeys scientific laws and everything within the world can be explained by principles of nature(physical, mental, spiritual) Therefore there is no role for god to play it can all be explained by nature. In other words god is nature. As we are within nature then it means we too are god.

Not clear at all. Life is unexplained. If scientists would know what life is, they could create life, but they cannot. All they can do is to alter it, usually with abysmal results. Even the material world is unexplained. We do not know what matter is, and how it is built up. We know something about it, but ultimately, there is not even theory of physics what could explain all natural interactions in single unified theory.
If we deatch ourself from the ruling materialist world-view, among the undreground esoteric ones, the best explanation I know to this date is Steiner’s antroposophy; given it’s author’s scientific background, we can trust that his work explaining the eastern wisdom based theopsophy, togheter with being based on genuine seership, is sound from prejudice and wishful thinking. But you need no faith in his authority; an unbiased study of his main books, perhaps starting with Occult Science, or Philosophy of Freedom, for the utmost hardcore jnani wannabe, will convince. If one is able to study them, that is.

Finally, the ultimate reduction is to get rid of the word god because it is identical with the word “self” So rather than saying we are one with god. We should say that “self is god” or “I am god” I think Neitzche was onto something when he said that god is dead and we should all become our own gods. In fact, it seems this seems to be the message within some interpretations of Christianity itself.

God is not identical with self, and even if He would be, self still needs to be explained. What is the self, how it came to be and so on. Switching a name for another does not exonerate us from the need for explanation.
Nietzsche was a tried and sick man, especially at the time he wrote anti-christian works. The saying God is dead is from Thus spoke Zarathustra. This is yet an earlier work and it has much merit, and Rudolf Steiner wrote an essay about him called Friedrich Nietzsche fighter for freedom. His work must be understood in this context. Of course, it is eliberating to get rid of the punishing God figure, this does not change the fact that God is just, and true. And justice and truth demands that people need to learn about themeslves. And all evil and bad things you talked about, are not there because of the will of God, but they are there because of the will of men. God has given free will to his children. His justice relies in karma, and his wisdom is greater than that of the phariesee who often demand immediate action or punishment.
The ego is tricky. Only through self surrender we becme ready to embrace something more than we are, only through humility and self denial, we are able to imagine someone greater than ourselves, and only this way we will find the strenght to grow up to that higher being. In this context any self encouragment, self satisfaction, any self glorification is harmful. You have said earlier that you are not inclined towards karma or bhakti yoga. But what we are inclined comes most of the time from the ego, and other times from Karma. Your above arguments do not show the roots of an ability in jnana. But if you indeed want to do jnana, you must try harder.


#86

Actually I wanted to say that you DO show some ability in jnana. Sorry for the typos, grammar and so on, it’s getting late here.

Respect and peace


#87

Hubert, I?ll bet your efforts in jnana would be appreciated here also:
http://www.stevepavlina.com/forums/spirituality-consciousness-awareness/


#88

Well said, Hubert. Jnana, devoid of arrogance, is always so beautiful. I am tempted to extend on one of your thoughts. The apparent contradiction needs to be meditated upon to realize that it is not.

…the hidden, undeveloped faculty of realising God lies in one’s inner being. Mind you, the faculty to get in touch with God lies in our soul, and not God. Indeed, the formulation of God being in us, is a mistake. The most we can state is that we are in God, as God is of a higher hieararchy, he is the king of the hill of all hierachies.

The undeveloped faculty is unfortunately the very mind whose mischief is to be undone. Why any spiritual realization becomes a daunting task is because the mind has to first realize this and then create a course of its own dissolution. Once that is out of the way one realizes how we come from God and return to it.

That God is in us is as much real as we are in God. God is that everpresent, infinite subtle phenomenon from which eveything gross (and grosser) emerges. When awareness is stationed in the gross the whole perception is inverted and God appears to be in us. When awareness returns to become pure consciosness we realize being part of God. The truth is, there is only “that”, labels create all the confusion.

Obviously, the spiritual journey is a circuitous route, we go round and round. Jnana is the longest route, as compared to Karma, the action or Bhakti, the love. But, Jnana delivers, in today’s world. Your post is a testimony.


#89

Who said you had to believe in “God” to appreciate Yoga and meditation?


#90

[QUOTE=techfree;66482]Who said you had to believe in “God” to appreciate Yoga and meditation?[/QUOTE]

Yes to appreciate the union from which one was never really separated to begin with, ironic. Remember you must first define ?God? I think it?s being used here in a terms approximating ?absolute? not a specific religious intent.


#91

[QUOTE=Suhas Tambe;66480]Obviously, the spiritual journey is a circuitous route, we go round and round. Jnana is the longest route, as compared to Karma, the action or Bhakti, the love. But, Jnana delivers, in today’s world. Your post is a testimony.[/QUOTE]

Since we are in the world of words here (Yoga Forums) Jnana lends itself to discussion whereas Karma and Bhakti are more about experiencing. Interesting you picked Janana as the longest route, no matter the disposition all will have to be experienced at some level, different paths leading the same place, beautiful

“devoid of arrogance” sometimes a slap in the face is more effective and compassionate.


#92

The terms of this argument are: GOD, WORLD. These need definitions. You have given none, but you are operating with the terms losely, as they are commonly used. Commonly, in most religions, God is percieved as the creator.

Indeed, I am refuting only the common defintion i.e., a creator god(Jehova, Allah etc). I am arguing against the fact that a creator god can exist, because god being outside of time and space(hence cause and effect) cannot have a beginning as a creator. Anything that has a beginning as a creator is definable by time, like the potter becomes a potter when he creates the pot. It is absurd to say the potter is eternal, because we can pinpoint the creation of the pot and hence when the potter created the pot. You say:

Now, first, why would the world have to be created ? Why it could not have been there all the time ? We arrive to something called TIME. We cannot exclude time as a term from this argument.

Exactly, this is my objection against a creator god. This world cannot have a beginning, because if it has a beginning, then we are forced to ask what was before the beginning and thus land in an absurdity. If we say that it is endless, then we have yet another problem(infinite regression), how can something be endless when it has an end point in time(today) Therefore we must conclude that there has in fact been no creation.

Creation means, that something came into being what did not exist before. Before means that there is time.

Here we have yet another problem: something coming out of nothing. Nothing can only produce nothing, it cannot produce something. If I have a bag which only contains red balls, I cannot pull out a blue ball from it. I can only produce a blue ball, if it contained a blue ball. I cannot grow an apple seed and in the end get an orange tree out of it, because the orange tree is not potential in the apple seed, the apple seed can only give apple tree because that is only what it is efficient for. Therefore the effect is nothing more than a manifestation of a cause. If there is an effect, there has to be a cause for it. Therefore, this world of time and space that we perceive, has a cause from which it issues forth, in which it is potential.

Now, this cause cannot be a creator god because a creator god cannot be identical with the substance of creation, it has to be a material substance. Like the cause of the pot is not the potter, it is the clay.

Thus, you cannot say God is in the rock you touch. Of course God is the ultimate cause by what the rock exists. But the rock is not God, and God is not in the rock, at least not the way that he is inhabiting it.

If we are still working with the absurd notion of a creator god then it is impossible for god to be inside the rock or be the rock. If, however we are working with the ontological god of Vedanta - Brahman - which simply means the ultimate substance of reality, then we can say that the rock is god, but the rock is not god. In the same way a pot is clay, but the clay is not the pot. This entire reality is projected from god, but the projection is not god.

It sounds like we might be holding onto the same god concept from your post, in which case there is no dispute between us. Although I want to respond to these parts of your post:

What is perfect ? Above we have seen that perfection only means unalteredness by anything. God must be perfect. But His results need not be perfect. A perfect thing might create less than perfect things, this makes sense. How ? By withdrawing his perfection. The less than perfect thing created might retain the link, the memory of perfection what has withdrawn from it, but memory supposes time. This proves that less than perfect things are able to exist in a less than perfect world as a result of perfection.

I have problem with your reasoning that a perfect creator will create a less than perfect creation. If I was a perfect painter, and I created a less than perfect painting, then I cannot be a perfect painter. I must be a less than perfect painter. If I sometimes create perfect paintings and sometimes creator imperfect paintings, then I cannot be a purely perfect painter. In fact no creation can ever be perfect, because it is always originally just a representation of an idea. Ideals only exist in the realm of ideals, but when they are manifest in our empirical/real world, they become imperfect. Like the perfect circle only exists in mathematics, but not in real world. Therefore even a creator god, even if he desires to, could never create a perfect world. Thus he is limited by logic.

We do not know God, at least we are not aware of God, most of the time. He knows us, as the cause of the worlds and the laws what govern our being. Like our digestion, soul processes. (not necessarily in a direct way) In fact, what we really control is very little, and we are mostly unconscious in our many activities.
If there is a gap between God and us, this does not mean that gap must be infinite. We are created beings and we have limits. If the gap between us and God is larger than that the extent of our limits God might seem inexistent or unreachable, while in reality, He might not be, to use a spatial example. Those limits might be extended, and than, the gap might be reduced if not totally, but to provide a glimpse on the path towards him.
We might be in God, and not be aware of it, because the limits of our awareness. God might be creating us any moment, our creation must not be finished.

We know the concept of god, and that is enough. That is to say we know of a concept of an infinite, eternal, perfect power, though we find ourselves in this real world to be finite, temporal and imperfect beings. Therefore how can such a concept even arise in us? There can exist no kind of spatial gap between us and god, because that would mean god is within space, which means the gap between us and god can be abridged. Thus god is limited by space.

Brahman admits of no such absurdities. Brahman is spaceless and timeless. This means Brahman is not within space, but rather space is inside Brahman. Like space is not inside the pot, but the pot is inside the space. It is this space of Brahman from which comes the concept of god, and this concept comes to us, because we are that Brahman. Therefore there is no gap between us and god. The self is god, just like every point in space is space.

The knowledge of a theoretical God comes from the speculating intellect of humans. This God is abstract, and really nothing can be said about Him rather what he is not. There is empirical proof of God, that of rare people who have aquired the ability to experience God. Indeed the kingdom of heaven is within us, meaning that the hidden, undeveloped faculty of realising God lies in one’s inner being. Mind you, the faculty to get in touch with God lies in our soul, and not God. Indeed, the formulation of God being in us, is a mistake. The most we can state is that we are in God, as God is of a higher hieararchy, he is the king of the hill of all hierachies.

The knowledge of the pure concept of god comes from humans indirectly through the concepts of god. As the concepts of god presuppose a pure concept. The Brahman of Vedanta is a pure concept; god as beingness, existence, self - ontological god.

Not clear at all. Life is unexplained. If scientists would know what life is, they could create life, but they cannot. All they can do is to alter it, usually with abysmal results. Even the material world is unexplained. We do not know what matter is, and how it is built up. We know something about it, but ultimately, there is not even theory of physics what could explain all natural interactions in single unified theory.

It is not clear to us how everything working on a fundamental level, but many things are clear to us at the empirical level. If this was not true, this thing called a computer with which you are communicating to me with, would not a reality. It is based on our understanding of quantum mechanics that this computer is working. We know for a fact that nature works on the basis of laws i.e., there is a logic to how everything is working. We do not have to go far into quantum physics to note this, one can see it with their own eyes by observing nature and seeing how everything is taking place according to patterns(like the waxing and waning of the moon, rising and setting of the apparent sun) If I bring oxygen and hydrogen together in a specific way I will always get water. There is no contradiction of this.

Laws prove that there is no such thing as a will of god controlling everything. It can be explained by nature. God doesn’t in fact do anything. It’s all done by nature.

God is not identical with self, and even if He would be, self still needs to be explained. What is the self, how it came to be and so on. Switching a name for another does not exonerate us from the need for explanation.

Now, I need to make it clear I am talking about the ontological god Brahman and not the creator god such as Jehova. God is not just the self, god is everything. Just as pots, plates and idols made out of clay are all clay. We are yet just another thing in this world(a human thing) and like everything else we are made out of the same substance. More accurately put, we are projections of god like everything else. Just as the mulitude of images seen on a cinema screen are all being projected by the same projector, likewise this entire creation is being projected out of god. Therefore not only must we say the self is god, but verily everything is god.


#93

My teacher used to say,let us first find the God within to say you are mine!
As days of practice moves to ripen this fruit, we are unconsciously feeling the wellness of love to, I am yours! and again as time fly by, I am You! and then into Silence!


#94

For this, we should understand what Aham Brahmasmi means in Advaita Sub-school of Indian Philosophy. What Hinduism means in saying "I AM GOD". Let us have look into this.

Aham denotes the word “I”. Brahman is the supreme reality of existence. Asmi equals to “am”. Hence the meaning of this Mahavakya is I am Brahman. The word Brahman has more than one meaning. One meaning indicates a person belongs to the caste of the Brahmin community. Another meaning of the word Brahman indicates the deity of creation who is one of the three deities of creation, sustenance, and dissolution of the universe. Yet another meaning of the word connotes the ultimate reality of existence.
Taittiriya Upanishad defines Brahman as:
That from whence these beings are born, that by which, when born, they live, that into which they enter at their death, try to know that; That is Brahman.

It is better understood as ‘I am the ultimate reality of the existence’. It should be understood as a statement of experience. The statement has come out from experience and it should be realized only through experience, not by lecture, explanation or guidance.

The first and the earliest reference to this Mahavakya is found in Brihadaranyaka Upanishad 1.4.10. It reads:-

This self was indeed Brahman in the beginning. It knew itself only as “I am Brahman.” Therefore it became all. And whoever among the gods had this enlightenment, also became That Brahman. It is the same with the seers (rishis), the same with men. The seer Vamadeva, having realized this self as That, came to know: “I was Manu and the sun.” And to this day, whoever in a like manner knows the self as “I am Brahman,” becomes all this universe. Even the gods cannot prevent his becoming this, for he has become their Self.
–The translation of Adi Sankara’s Commentary by Madhavananda.
Aham Brahmasmi in Advaita Philosophy
Basic tenets of Advaita Philosophy
Advaita means non-duality. It is one of the philosophies of Vedanta which describes the oneness of the reality of the existence: Brahman that is eternal, formless and beyond delusion.
According to Advaita philosophy, only Brahman is real, the world is a delusion. Atman is Brahman only. This is the core concept of Advaita Vedanta.
“Brahma Satyam, Jagan Mithya, Jivo Brahmaiva Na Parah,
Anena Vedyam Sacchatstram iti Vedanta dindimah.”
“Brahman is real. The world is a delusion. Atman is nothing but Brahman.
It is the perfect philosophy as declared by the Vedanta.”
–Brahma Jnanavali Mala, Adi Sankara.
Advaita in Vedas and Upanishads
The first line of this verse is the quote from Niralamba Upanishad. Rig Veda declares Ekam Sat, Truth is one.
They called him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni and he is the heavenly bird of beautiful wings. The truth is one. The sages call it by many names and describe it in many ways, hence they call it Agni, Yama and Matraisvan.

– Rig Veda 1.164.46

Advaita and three planes of existence
Advaita Philosophy states that there are three planes of existence. They are
Paramarthika Satta – the plane of absolute existence or transcendental existence.
Vyavaharika Satta – the plane of worldly existence.
Pratibhasika Satta – the plane of illusory existence.
How Aham Brahmasmi explains Advaita Philosophy?
Except for the plane of transcendental existence, the other two planes are the outcomes of Maya or delusion. If ignorance or Avidya is cleared, these two planes of existence cease to exist and the absolute existence prevails. I am the body, I am the mind, or I am Atman (except when the oneness of Atman is realized) are the functions of delusion. I am the pure consciousness or I am indeed Brahman is the reality.
The conceptual understanding that I am Brahman does not serve the purpose. The realization happens only in the complete absence of Maya. That is why it is often reminded not to be understood as Upadesa Vakya.
The techniques like “Who am I?” and “Neti, Neti” (not this, not this) are misunderstood as the techniques of reasoning. Surely they are the techniques of realization. The seeker should meditate and realize by rejecting as ” I am not this, I am not this”. When the snares of Maya have been cut-off completely, he realizes the oneness of reality. Inference and testimony could not lead to the plane of transcendence or absolute reality, because they are in the lower planes.
In Vivekachudamani, Adi Sankara provides the steps for realization. By merely repeating the words “I am the emperor”, one cannot become an emperor. To become an emperor, the enemies should be destroyed. Likewise by merely repeating the words “I am Brahman”, the oneness of Brahman is not realized. He should destroy the illusion and avidya by discriminating the real and unreal. The first step is the complete detachment from impermanent things. Then one should follow calmness, self-control, perseverance, and renunciation of selfish activities. Then he should learn and follow what he has studied. As the last step, he should go for a long-lasting constant meditation on truth. In this very life, he will realize.
Like three levels of existence, Vedanta postulates three states of existence. Jagrat, Svapna, and Susupti. They are the states of waking, dreaming and deep-sleep respectively. Yet another state is Turiya meaning the fourth one. The fourth one is not a state beyond the three states. The experiences of the other states are reflected there. The experiences like I have had good sleep, It was a bad dream and the like, are happening in that state. Hence it is the sub-stratum of the three states and is present in all three states. It is the witness part. It is the subjective reality. It is the state of pure consciousness. The pure consciousness is Atman.

Hence Self has four aspects. Vaisvanara, Taijasa, Prajna, and Turya. Vaisvanara is the experiencer of gross objects. Taijasa is the experiencer of subtle objects. Prajna is the experiencer of causal objects. Turya is the absolute experiencer, the Supreme Atman.
In Advaita, Aham Brahmasmi is Jiva-Brahma-Ikya-Anubhava. Simply put, it is the experience of the oneness of Atman and Brahman.
For more details visit Classic Yoga