Advaita Vedānta and modern science can be brought into a meaningful relationship if they are seen as speaking to different levels of reality. Advaita distinguishes between ultimate reality, where only non-dual Brahman is absolutely real, and empirical reality, the domain in which the world appears and functions. Science operates entirely within this empirical realm, describing regularities and structures in the world of experience. From an Advaitic standpoint, such descriptions are valid and useful within their own sphere, yet they do not reach the level of ultimate truth. The apparent tension eases when science is taken as methodologically modest, concerned with phenomena rather than with what is finally real in itself.

The two also differ in how they claim to know what they know. Scientific inquiry relies on sense perception, experiment, and logical inference, all of which presuppose a subject observing an object. Advaita accepts these means for dealing with empirical life but adds scriptural testimony and direct intuitive realization as avenues to knowledge of Brahman, which is said to lie beyond objectification. Because of this, Advaita does not expect scientific methods to prove or disprove non-duality; the very tools of science are shaped by the duality that Advaita seeks to transcend. The aims diverge as well: science seeks explanation and control within the world, while Advaita seeks liberation through a radical shift of identity.

A particularly sharp point of contrast and possible dialogue lies in the understanding of consciousness. Many scientific approaches treat consciousness as emerging from brain processes, whereas Advaita regards consciousness as fundamental and non-derivative, the very ground in which body, brain, and world appear. The empirical findings of neuroscience can be interpreted in different philosophical ways: one may say the brain produces consciousness, or, in an Advaitic spirit, that consciousness manifests as brain–mind processes. Certain philosophical positions that question strict materialism stand closer to this Advaitic intuition, though such views remain interpretive rather than established science. In any case, the data themselves do not settle the metaphysical question.

Advaita’s teaching that the world is an appearance—neither absolutely unreal nor ultimately independent—also finds a loose resonance with the way modern physics undermines naïve realism. The recognition that ordinary intuitions about space, time, and matter are limited and constructed can be seen as compatible with the idea that empirical reality is conditioned and provisional. Yet Advaita goes further, suggesting that from the highest standpoint even creation and causality are ultimately reinterpreted, while scientific cosmology remains firmly within the network of causes and effects in space-time. For spiritual practice, scientific insights into the mind and behavior may assist, but the realization of non-duality, as Advaita understands it, belongs to contemplative transformation rather than to experimental verification.