Einstein and Vedic Perspectives on Life, Death, and Consciousness

Please follow and like us:

How Einstein’s Scientific Reflections on Consciousness, Death, and Unity Echo the Eternal Wisdom of the Vedas

Albert Einstein is best known as a physicist, but he also shared profound thoughts about life, death, and the human mind. Interestingly, some of his insights echo ideas from the ancient Vedic tradition of India. The Vedic worldview – expressed in philosophies like Vedanta, Samkhya, and Yoga – deals deeply with the nature of consciousness, the individual self, what happens after death, and the unity of all existence. In this article, we undertake a comparative analysis of Einstein’s documented views (drawn only from his verified statements and letters) alongside core Vedic teachings. We will focus on key themes: the nature of consciousness, the experience of individuality, whether the self dissolves or continues after death, and the notion of unity with a greater cosmic whole. Despite coming from vastly different traditions, Einstein’s naturalistic yet “cosmic” perspective and the Vedic spiritual philosophies surprisingly converge on a vision of an underlying unity – even as they differ on important details.

Einstein’s Views on Consciousness and the Self

Einstein had a deeply cosmic outlook on human existence, although he approached it as a scientist and a self-described “religious non-believer.” One of his most famous reflections is that the feeling of being a separate individual is actually an optical illusion of the mind. In a 1950 letter of condolence, Einstein wrote:

“A human being is part of the whole, called by us ‘Universe,’ a part limited in time and space. He experiences himself, his thoughts and feelings as something separated from the rest – a kind of optical delusion of his consciousness. The striving to free oneself from this delusion is the one issue of true religion. Not to nourish the delusion but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind.”

In these words, Einstein identifies the sense of individuality as a mental delusion or prison. We normally feel cut off from the rest of the universe, confined to our personal interests and affections. But Einstein suggests this separateness is not ultimate reality – it is a distortion created by consciousness itself. Furthermore, he argues that the “one issue of true religion” is to overcome this illusion of separateness. In his view, true spirituality means recognizing our intrinsic connection to the whole cosmos and expanding our compassion beyond our ego’s confines. We see here a strikingly holistic conception of consciousness: the individual mind is inherently linked to a larger universal reality, and ethical goodness (like compassion) arises from understanding this oneness.

It’s important to note that Einstein arrived at this perspective through a naturalistic, scientific lens rather than mystical practice. He often spoke of a “cosmic religious feeling” – a sense of awe and unity with the rational order of nature – which for him was the highest form of religiosity, free of dogma or superstition. As one analysis explains, Einstein’s “cosmic religion” recognized “a miraculous order which manifests itself in all of nature”, and it left him with “nothing but awe when I observe the universe.” In essence, Einstein saw the universe as a single significant whole and felt that “the individual feels the vanity of human desires and the nobility and marvelous order” of the cosmos in this state. This scientific spirituality reinforced his conviction that our usual sense of being a separate self is a narrow illusion – an illusion to be transcended by widening one’s perspective and empathy.

Einstein on Death and the Continuation of Self

While Einstein believed in the deep interconnectedness of all life, he did not believe in a personal soul or an afterlife. His view of death was grounded in scientific rationality: when the body dies, the conscious personality does not somehow live on. In his essay “The World as I See It,” Einstein famously wrote:

“Neither can I nor would I want to conceive of an individual that survives his physical death; let feeble souls, from fear or absurd egoism, cherish such thoughts. I am satisfied with the mystery of the eternity of life and with the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world…”

Here Einstein plainly denies the idea of a personal afterlife. He even characterizes the belief in individual survival after death as born of fear or ego – implying that the ego clings to its own importance by imagining it will eternally endure. Instead, Einstein finds solace in the “eternity of life” in a cosmic sense: life continues as part of the ongoing universe, even if we as individuals do not. In another statement, he put it succinctly: “I do not believe in the immortality of the individual, and I consider ethics to be an exclusively human concern with no superhuman authority behind it.”.

Despite rejecting personal immortality, Einstein’s perspective on death was not nihilistic. He viewed human life as part of nature, and the end of an individual life as a natural return to the broader cosmos. Famously, when his lifelong friend Michele Besso died, Einstein wrote in consolation, “Now he has departed from this strange world a little ahead of me. That means nothing. People like us… know that the distinction between past, present, and future is only a stubbornly persistent illusion.” In this poetic way, Einstein suggested that from the standpoint of physics, time itself is an illusion, so the separation caused by death may be less absolute than it seems. Still, he did not mean that a personal consciousness continues after death – only that, in a four-dimensional spacetime sense, every life is forever part of the fabric of the universe.

In summary, Einstein’s naturalistic view held that the individual self dissolves at death (no eternal personal soul), yet each person remains a part of the cosmos. He encouraged us to overcome the “optical delusion” of separateness during life – to identify with the larger whole through reason, love and humility. This outlook is both sobering and uplifting: we must accept the finality of personal death, but we can also find meaning in recognizing our unity with something greater than our individual selves.

Vedic Teachings: Vedanta, Samkhya, and Yoga on the Self

Turning to the Vedic tradition, we find a rich tapestry of philosophies addressing consciousness, self, and what lies beyond death. The Vedanta school (drawn from the Upanishads), Samkhya (a dualist philosophy), and Yoga (the spiritual discipline systematized by Patanjali) each offer insights on these themes. Despite differences in their approaches, these schools share some core principles: they all posit an eternal essence beyond the body, regard ordinary individuality as a limited or false view, and seek a form of liberation (moksha or kaivalya) from the cycle of death and rebirth.

Vedanta (Upanishadic Perspective): The Vedanta tradition, especially in its non-dual (Advaita) form, teaches that our true identity is the ātman – the innermost Self – which is identical with Brahman, the ultimate reality. The Upanishads repeatedly emphasize the unity of the individual soul and the cosmic whole. For example, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad declares “That Ātman (Self) is indeed Brahman”, and that this Self pervades everything. It suggests that the essence within each person is the same infinite reality that underlies the universe. In one passage, the Upanishad even says “Whoever knows the Self as ‘I am Brahman’ becomes all this universe… If a man worships another deity thinking ‘He is one and I am another,’ he does not know (the truth).”. In Vedanta, the feeling of being a separate, isolated individual is attributed to ignorance (avidyā) or illusion (māyā). Under the spell of māyā, we see multiplicity and division where in truth there is one unified existence. The goal of spiritual wisdom (jnāna) is to dispel this ignorance and realize the oneness of Ātman and Brahman, often encapsulated in the saying “Tat Tvam Asi” (“Thou art That”).

Crucially, Vedanta holds that the ātman is immortal, changeless, and beyond the physical. It is not born, nor does it die when the body dies. One Vedanta summary explains that Ātman is “eternal, imperishable, beyond time… not the same as body or mind… It is pure, undifferentiated, self-shining consciousness… ever-free, never-bound”. What we normally call the “person” – the body, mind, ego, memories (sometimes termed the jīvātman or embodied soul) – is just a temporary costume worn by the Ātman. Over many lifetimes, this jiva undergoes samsāra, the cycle of birth and death, until through spiritual realization it is liberated. Moksha (liberation) in Vedanta is precisely the awakening to our true identity as the universal Self. This is described as an experience of unity with Brahman, often accompanied by an outpouring of compassion for all beings (since one literally sees all beings as oneself). As one scholar of Vedanta put it, “the ultimate goal of Hindu religious life is to transcend individuality, to realize one’s own true nature”, the inner Self that is divine and pure. In Vedantic philosophy, individuality is a transient role, and the death of the body is not the end of the Self – it is like changing clothes for the soul. The true Self continues, ultimately seeking reunion with the cosmic whole.

Samkhya: The Samkhya school offers a slightly different but related model. It is a dualistic philosophy which holds that reality consists of two fundamental principles: Purusha (consciousness) and Prakriti (material nature). Every individual living being is a combination of Purusha and Prakriti. Purusha corresponds to the Self – a pure consciousness or spiritual witness – while Prakriti encompasses the body, mind, ego, and all matter. Importantly, Samkhya teaches that each person has their own Purusha, and these conscious selves are plural in number (unlike Vedanta’s single universal Self). However, all Purushas are of the same essence: they are pure, attribute-less awareness, utterly separate from the machinery of mind and matter.

In our ordinary state, the inner Purusha is entangled with Prakriti, leading us to misidentify the mind-body complex as “I.” Samkhya identifies the ego (ahaṃkāra) and ignorance of one’s true nature as the root of suffering. We go through life thinking “I am this body, these thoughts, these desires”, not realizing that our real Self is the silent witness behind it all. The goal of Samkhya (and its sister tradition, Yoga) is to disentangle consciousness from matter – to realize “I am Purusha, not the body-mind”. This realization is called kaivalya, meaning “isolation” or absolute freedom of the Self. It is liberation when the Purusha stands alone, knowing itself to be independent of physical nature. When this happens, the illusion of identity with the body dissolves. According to Samkhya-Yoga, the Self (Atman/Purusha) does not merge into a larger whole at liberation (since Samkhya accepts many separate Purushas), but it does attain a state of pure consciousness at peace, untouched by worldly sufferings. It’s an eternal entity. Even while Samkhya differs from Vedanta on whether there is one Self or many, it agrees that our ordinary sense of self is clouded by ignorance. As the Yoga Sutras state, “Ignorance (avidyā) is regarding the transient [body] as eternal, the impure as pure, and the non-Self as Self.”. In other words, we mistakenly take the impermanent body-mind to be our true Self, and that confusion is the source of all pain. Self-knowledge is the remedy: “Self-knowledge is the means to attain kaivalya”, through which one discovers the Atman/Purusha as the true observer, utterly free.

Yoga: In the context of philosophy, the Yoga school (Patanjali’s Raja Yoga) builds on Samkhya metaphysics and provides a practical method to achieve that liberating insight. Yoga accepts the same model of individual Purushas and a material mind-body (Prakriti). Patanjali’s Yoga Sutras describe the process of meditation and ethical discipline by which one can calm the mind’s modifications and eventually witness the pure soul. The culmination is a state of samādhi (deep absorption) where the distinction between the Self and the contents of the mind becomes crystal clear. At that point, the yogi achieves “viveka-khyāti” – discriminative knowledge – realizing the difference between the true Self and the mind. Book IV of the Yoga Sutras says that when such spiritual discernment is achieved, the Purusha rests in its own true nature as pure consciousness, and is no longer affected by mental afflictions. The false identification drops away, “ignorance vanishes, and pure consciousness settles in its own pure nature.”. This is essentially the Yoga version of liberation (also called kaivalya). Like Samkhya, classical Yoga affirms that each liberated Self abides in its eternal, individual purity, no longer entangled in the cycle of birth and death. There isn’t a focus on merging into a single cosmic Self in Yoga; rather, each ātman realizes itself independently. Nonetheless, just as in Vedanta, the key problem to overcome is the illusion of separateness and misidentification. The Yoga teachings echo that the ordinary human condition is one of confusion: we treat the mind-body as Self (when it is not), and we treat the true Self as if it were an object or just another part of the mind (when it is actually the subject, the seer). Overcoming this confusion through disciplined practice leads to liberation.

Common Threads: Across these Vedic schools, several common themes emerge: (1) Consciousness is a fundamental reality – whether as one universal Brahman or many Purushas – and it is distinct from the material world. (2) The experience of individuality as “just this body-mind, separate from the rest” is seen as a result of ignorance or illusion. What we perceive as the individual ego-self is not the ultimate truth about who we are. (3) After death, something of the self does continue – the soul (ātman/jiva or purusha) is not annihilated when the body dies. Instead, it either transmigrates to another life (if ignorance remains) or, if true knowledge has been attained, it remains in freedom (moksha), having no need to be reborn. (4) Unity with a greater whole is a strong ideal in Vedanta (where each self is the Whole in essence), and even in Samkhya/Yoga, there is an implied kinship of all souls as sharing the same essential nature of pure consciousness. The ethical consequence often encouraged in Hindu thought is compassion and respect for all living beings – since the same divine Self lives in all. For example, the Mahā Upanishad famously says “Vasudhaiva Kutumbakam” – “the world is one family,” capturing the sense that all beings are inwardly one. The Bhagavad Gītā teaches that the illumined person “sees the Self in all beings and all beings in the Self” and thus is free from delusion and egoism. Such teachings parallel Einstein’s call to “widen our circle of compassion to embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature in its beauty.” Indeed, the Vedic idea of dharma includes universal compassion ( dayā ) stemming from recognition of the one Self in all.

Parallels Between Einstein and Vedic Worldviews

On the surface, Einstein – a scientist with no formal ties to Eastern mysticism – and the Vedic seers of ancient India could not be more different. Yet when it comes to fundamental insights about self and cosmos, it is remarkable how much common ground can be found between Einstein’s views and Vedic philosophy:

Illusion of Separateness: Both Einstein and the Vedic sages pinpoint the sense of isolated individuality as a kind of illusion. Einstein spoke of the separateness of self as “a kind of optical delusion of consciousness” that acts like a prison. Similarly, Vedanta calls the perception of multiplicity māyā – a veil that makes us see division where there is unity. The Yoga Sutras likewise define ignorance as confusing the non-Self for the Self. In both perspectives, the ordinary human mind doesn’t see reality clearly; it sees through a distorted lens that exaggerates separateness.
Unity of All Beings: Because they consider separateness an illusion, both views affirm an underlying unity. Einstein saw all life as “part of the whole… called Universe”, and urged freeing ourselves from ego to “embrace all living creatures and the whole of nature” in compassion and humility. The Vedic teachings proclaim that “the Self of every person is the Self of all”. In Advaita Vedanta, literally Atman = Brahman, meaning your innermost consciousness is the same infinite consciousness in everyone. Even the more pluralistic Samkhya/Yoga acknowledges that all conscious selves are of the same essence (pure awareness) and all are part of a greater cosmic framework (Prakriti provides a single stage on which the many Purushas play). The ethical upshot in both cases is a call to expand one’s identity beyond the little “I.” Einstein’s solution to the human predicament was to widen our circle of compassion, and he said that doing so is “the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind.” Vedic ethics similarly teaches universal compassion: if I recognize every creature as a manifestation of the one Self, love and non-harm (ahimsa) naturally follow. Thus, both Einstein and the Vedic sages see compassion as a logical consequence of understanding the true nature of reality. They converge on the idea that we are all fundamentally connected – in Einstein’s terms, part of one universe, in Vedanta’s terms, expressions of one Brahman – and that living with this awareness is both rational and spiritually enlightened.
Transcending the Ego: Both perspectives emphasize overcoming the small self or ego. Einstein spoke of not “nourishing the delusion” of separateness but striving to overcome it. This is strikingly similar to the Vedic goal of transcending ahaṃkāra (ego). In the Vedic view, spiritual practices like meditation, self-inquiry, or devotional surrender are designed to break down one’s ego-identification so that the universal Self can be realized. Einstein, who was not a practitioner of those techniques, nevertheless arrived at a comparable understanding through intellectual and ethical reflection: he valued humility and saw human egotism as something to be dissolved in the face of a vast, orderly cosmos. He even criticized the belief in personal immortality as stemming from “absurd egoism”, a clinging of the ego that can’t accept its own end. The Vedic tradition would agree that egoism (asmitā) is an obstacle – in Hindu and Buddhist thought alike, clinging to a false sense of self causes fear of death and suffering. Both Einstein and Vedic philosophy counsel us to let go of ego-driven fears and desires, replacing them with an identification with a larger reality (be it the cosmos or Brahman).
Knowledge as Liberation: Both hold that the remedy for our limited condition is insight or knowledge. Einstein found “peace of mind” in understanding the larger picture of nature – in “the awareness and a glimpse of the marvelous structure of the existing world”. There is a kind of salvation for him in the scientific-philosophical knowledge that all of life is interconnected and subject to natural laws. Likewise, the Vedic tradition holds that “liberation comes from knowledge (vidyā, jñāna).” The Svetasvatara Upanishad states that ignorance or delusion causes our bondage, and “deliverance comes from knowledge.” It teaches that the Supreme Being (Brahman) “dwells in every being” and “is not a separate entity” – to know this is to be free from the cycle of birth and death. In the Katha Upanishad, Yama (the lord of death) tells the seeker that it is the lack of self-understanding that keeps one in sorrow, and that “knowledge of the Supreme Self who dwells in all beings” leads to liberation. In short, both Einstein’s worldview and the Vedic worldview put a premium on seeing reality as it truly is. For Einstein, that meant scientifically informed cosmic insight; for the Vedic sages, it meant spiritual self-realization. In both cases, truth is liberating: it frees one from illusions – whether the illusion is purely mental (Einstein’s “delusion of consciousness”) or metaphysical (Vedanta’s māyā).

Despite these profound parallels, we must also acknowledge some clear differences and contrasts between Einstein’s views and Vedic teachings:

Personal Afterlife: The most obvious divergence is on the question of an individual soul’s survival after death. Einstein emphatically rejected any personal afterlife – for him, one life is enough and the personality does not endure beyond the grave. Vedic tradition, by contrast, fundamentally incorporates the idea of the soul’s continuity. All orthodox schools of Hindu philosophy accept that the ātman or jiva is reborn repeatedly (through reincarnation) until liberation. Even Samkhya/Yoga, which are non-theistic, assume the pre-existence and post-existence of the Purusha beyond one body. The conception of immortality thus differs: Einstein saw immortality as a poetic connectivity to the cosmos or to the impact one’s life has on others, but not a literal ongoing consciousness. In Vedic thought, immortality is taken more literally as the timeless nature of the Self – “the Self is not born, nor does it die”, says the Bhagavad Gītā (2:20), “as a man sheds worn-out garments and puts on new ones, so the soul sheds a worn-out body and enters a new one” (BG 2:22). Einstein would likely view such statements as unproven metaphysical claims or consolations. He would agree that atoms and energy are recycled in nature, but not accept that an individual mind-stream carries on. This is a significant philosophical difference: Einstein’s unity is a here-and-now unity in the material universe, whereas Vedic unity extends to a transcendent, spiritual continuum that outlives physical death.
Nature of Ultimate Reality: Einstein’s ultimate reality was the lawful harmony of the physical universe (what he called “Spinoza’s God”). He did not personify this or consider it a conscious being – it was essentially the order of nature. The Vedic concept of Brahman, however, is a spiritual absolute – not matter or energy, but pure being and consciousness. To Einstein, consciousness arises as a function of the brain (he never stated this explicitly in technical terms, but as a scientist he viewed human thought as an outcome of natural processes). In Vedanta, consciousness is primary and universal – the cosmos itself is a manifestation or play of consciousness. Thus, the metaphysical underpinning differs: Einstein’s monism is naturalistic (the universe is one big impersonal system governed by physics), while Vedanta’s monism is idealistic/spiritual (one infinite Spirit manifesting as all things). This means Einstein and the Vedic tradition may agree on unity but disagree on what is fundamentally unified. Einstein might say energy, matter, space, and time form one continuum. Vedanta says all of that is underlaid by one consciousness (Brahman). To put it another way, Einstein saw human consciousness as a tiny part of the cosmos, whereas Vedanta sees consciousness as identical with the essence of the cosmos.
Method and Experience: Einstein arrived at his insights through rational reflection, science, and a humanistic conscience. He famously said “science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind,” advocating a synthesis where empirical knowledge informs our larger understanding. The Vedic sages arrived at their insights through meditation, yogic practice, and introspection, often described as mystical experience or direct revelation (śruti). The experiential aspect in Vedic tradition is very prominent: one is encouraged to realize the truth in the depths of meditation (Samadhi), potentially experiencing states of unity or cosmic consciousness. Einstein, on the other hand, did not claim to experience a mystical unity; his was an intellectual and emotional conviction (the “cosmic feeling” of awe). Thus, the avenues to knowledge differ: Einstein trusted in external observation and logical inference, whereas Yoga-Vedanta trusts in inner observation (meditation) and transcendent insight. Both would agree that the truth must be experienced to truly transform a person (Einstein felt deep awe, Vedantins feel transcendental bliss in unity), but they operate in different arenas – one in scientific theory, the other in spiritual practice.
Multiplicity vs Oneness of Self: Within the Vedic schools themselves there is a range: Advaita Vedanta says there is only one true Self (all differences are surface-level), while Samkhya/Yoga say there are many individual selves. Einstein’s view of unity was not about a “One Self,” but about an interconnected network of existence. In that sense, Einstein’s thinking might align somewhat more with the idea of many individuals who are deeply connected, rather than literally one singular being. (He did not, for instance, claim that his consciousness is the same as another person’s consciousness in a literal way; rather, he implied we should treat others as part of one family because separation is a mental illusion.) Advaita Vedanta goes a step further to say only one universal Consciousness exists. This is a subtle point: Einstein promotes unity in diversity (a kind of profound interdependence of distinct beings), whereas Advaita asserts absolute unity (distinctions themselves ultimately dissolve). Samkhya and Yoga fall somewhere in between, admitting distinct souls but identical in nature and all capable of the same liberated state. So, depending on which Vedic interpretation we consider, the parallel with Einstein shifts. With Advaita Vedanta, Einstein’s view of the illusory separate self is very resonant (since Advaita also calls the individual ego an illusion, Maya). With Samkhya/Yoga, there is resonance in diagnosing ego-ignorance as the problem, though Samkhya would still regard Einstein’s one-big-Universe notion as incomplete because it doesn’t acknowledge multiple eternal Purushas.
Role of God or Ishvara: Einstein did not believe in a personal God – he explicitly rejected the idea of a God who concerns himself with human fates, calling that a naïve anthropomorphism. He sometimes used the word God to mean the cosmic order (Spinoza’s God), but this is an impersonal principle. In the Vedic tradition, especially in Vedanta, there is room for a personal God (Ishvara) as a cosmic Lord, alongside the impersonal Brahman. Different schools debate this: Advaita Vedanta sees Ishvara (God) as the aspect of Brahman related to the manifest universe – real enough for the conditioned mind, but ultimately also transcended in non-dual realization. Yoga (Patanjali) allows for Ishvara as a special Purusha, an object of devotion to aid practice, but not as the creator in a monotheistic sense. Einstein’s worldview doesn’t involve prayer or a supreme being who grants liberation. In Bhakti yoga or theistic Vedanta, love of God can itself lead to the same goal of unity (union with God). This is a theological divergence: Einstein’s cosmic unity is impersonal, whereas Vedic unity can be experienced either impersonally (as Brahman) or personally (as union with God’s consciousness in, say, Vaishnavism or other devotional paths).

In summary, Einstein’s and the Vedic perspectives converge in their understanding that the ordinary human sense of self is limited and can be transcended, revealing a greater reality in which we are all connected. They both celebrate unity, compassion, and knowledge as key to a meaningful existence. Yet, they diverge on metaphysical questions such as what that greater reality is (material cosmos vs. spiritual Brahman), and whether individual consciousness is extinguished or continues after death. Einstein remains firmly on the side of scientific empiricism and one fleeting life, while the Vedic philosophy embraces a spiritual metaphysics of an eternal Self.

Conclusion

It is fascinating that Albert Einstein – a man of science – and the Vedic tradition – rooted in spiritual insight – seem to point toward a unified understanding of reality and consciousness. Both portray human life as part of a vast continuum: for Einstein, each of us is inseparable from the universe and each other (like waves on one ocean), and for Vedanta, each of us is the Universal Self in disguise, and in truth there is one ocean of consciousness. Both regard the ego-driven feeling of “I am separate” as an illusion to be overcome – Einstein saw it as a delusion that true religion must combat, and the Vedic sages saw it as ignorance that yoga and wisdom can dispel. Each in their own way encourages us to expand our identity: Einstein urges a rational cosmic compassion that embraces all beings, while Vedanta urges a spiritual realization of unity that literally identifies with all beings.

At the same time, an intellectually honest comparison must note that Einstein did not endorse some key tenets of Vedic metaphysics (like reincarnation or an eternal soul), nor did the Vedic tradition limit reality to what can be measured by physics. Einstein’s perspective could be described as naturalistic monism with a moral-spiritual flavor, and the Vedic perspective as spiritual monism (in Advaita) or dualism (in Samkhya) with a mystical experiential flavor. Despite these differences, it is striking that a 20th-century scientist and a 3,000-year-old spiritual tradition independently arrived at the view that compassionate unity is the ultimate truth and that overcoming the illusion of separateness is the key to peace.

In Einstein’s words, “Not to nourish the delusion [of separateness] but to try to overcome it is the way to reach the attainable measure of peace of mind.” The Vedic scriptures likewise tell us that when one realizes the one Self in all, one attains paramānanda (supreme bliss) and fearlessness. Both paths — one through scientific awe and humanism, the other through enlightenment and liberation — lead to a profound appreciation that we are part of something far greater than our individual selves. In an age where science and spirituality are often seen at odds, the unexpected harmony between Einstein’s worldview and Vedic wisdom offers a hopeful bridge. It suggests that Truth, whether arrived at by equation or meditation, has a consistent flavor: a movement from the isolated self to a grander vision of Unity.

References:

Einstein, Albert. “Letter to Dr. Robert S. Marcus” (1950). – Quoted in: The New Quotable Einstein (Calaprice 2005), emphasizing the illusory nature of separateness and the need to expand our compassion.
Einstein, Albert. “The World As I See It” (1931). – Einstein’s essay denying a personal afterlife and expressing contentment with understanding nature’s eternity.
Einstein, Albert. Letter (July 1953). – In Albert Einstein: The Human Side, ed. Dukas & Hoffmann. Contains Einstein’s statement, “I do not believe in immortality of the individual…”.
Brihadaranyaka Upanishad (c. 800 BCE) – Upanishadic teaching that the Ātman (Self) of a person is Brahman (Ultimate Reality), and realization of this oneness dispels the illusion of “I and other”.
Ātman in Hinduism – Encyclopedic summary: Ātman is the immortal, unchanging Self, distinct from the changing personality; the goal is to transcend individuality and realize one’s divine essence.
Samkhya-Yoga Philosophy – Encyclopedic summary: In Samkhya and Yoga, the Self (Purusha/Atman) is pure consciousness, multiplicity of selves is accepted, and ignorance (ego-identification) is the cause of suffering; liberation is achieved through Self-knowledge, separating consciousness from matter.
Svetasvatara Upanishad (c. 400 BCE) – Upanishad teaching that ignorance (illusion) causes bondage and knowledge of the one Spirit present in all beings leads to liberation (moksha).
Einstein’s “cosmic religious feeling” – Einstein’s view of a rational yet spiritual awe toward the universe’s order, which rejects a personal God but finds unity in natural law.