If we call ocean, droplet and streams name and form of water, then what is the advaita view here? The view is 'all is water only'. The whole charade of water from the ocean evaporating and being deposited as streams to merge with the ocean again is all maya- the viewpoint from name and form only. Water remains water, whether it be in the form of the ocean, the droplet or the streams. In this analogy, the water is brahman, all apparent transformations are maya, and therefore the atman 'droplet' is no droplet at all, it is simply water being discussed in terms name and form, in terms of maya. From the highest standpoint of the water here, there is no such thing as ocean, droplet or streams, there is just water. Translating this, there is no distinction within brahman by which an atman could separate and then merge back into it, the atman and brahman are forever identical.
People like to use the ocean analogy so much, but I think it is rather misunderstood. An ocean, despite its vastness and greatness compared to a drop of water, is still in the realm of name and form. The nature or identity of the ocean and the droplet are completely identical because they are both water. The analogy does not represent a droplet merging with the ocean when understood correctly, it represents the identity of the ocean and the droplet through the negation of superimposed attributes (name and form) by the understanding 'all this is water only'. In the same way, there is no merging of a separate atman into a greater brahman, since any notions of size pertaining to either are mutually limiting for both of them, and brahman is by nature said to be without limitations!
We might say that the droplet represents the jiva under bondage, and the ocean represents Isvara who rules over the jiva and is himself ever free. But this view is limited and relative to the domain of self-ignorance. Furthermore, since the jiva under bondage cannot be equivalent to the Isvara who is his ruler and who is not bound, objections in the form of 'both cease to exist' when there is a merger of the two are apt, and this is, no doubt, why so many people misunderstand the advaita view. The bound jiva will not merge into the Isvara- no, they are mutually exclusive from the relative standpoint. But what is the higher standpoint? It is that the jiva is not bound, it is not a droplet, but it is instead the atman whose nature is identical to brahman but appears otherwise for as long as the name and form is being superimposed on it. Then, what is the Isvara, the ocean? This too, is only water, brahman, again Isvara is sensible from the standpoint of superimposition only. If the Self is covered by name and form, then it appears limited like a droplet, and therefore logically it follows that there is an entity which is less limited, and which is the ruler, like the ocean.
Bookmarks