Namaste,
I too also do not agree with Shantoham's interpretation of Advaita, because his interpretation depends on redefining the word maya to not mean illusory or unreal, when in fact the word does mean illusory or unreal. This is clear in the famous Advaita mahavakya: brahma satya jagan mithya. Here mithya is used as the opposite of satya and satya means truth, real, existent, therefore mithya being the inverse means untrue, unreal and not-existent.
If we start changing the meaning of the words to reinterpret Vedanta(Upanishads) we are basically doing word-forgery and distorting what they originally say. Now, I may accept the Upanishads are open to interpretation due to their symbolic language, Advaita being a very specific philosophy of non-duality is not open to dualistic interpretations. The position of Advaita is made clear in all primary texts of Advaita.
Only Brahman or Atman are real, both terms used interchangeably to mean the same substance from different perspectives; Brahman being the macrocosm and Atman being the microcosm. Atman literally means the inner-being of all and Brahman is the being of all. The reason for why different words are used is because Atman is describing being from the perspective of a conscious self-reflective organism, who calls their inner most being 'atman' and refers to the being of the whole word as 'brahman' Atman is more intimate and directly experienced by a subject, but they cannot directly experience the being of the world, say a rock, a tree, a river(in ordinary perception). It is for this reason there is an apparent distinction between matter and consciousness, hence substance dualist philosophies like Samkhya which draw a sharp divide between matter and consciousness and resolve them into different ultimate substances.
Advaita goes a step beyond Samkhya. In fact it would be fair to say Advaita is simply the next logical step after Samkhya, it starts where Samkhya ends. Samkhya leaves us with a problematic vision of reality where we have two absolute and infinite substances matter and consciousness, without any explanation for how they interact with one another, why does one have the potential for change and why does the other not change? Why is one plural and the other singular? One of the solutions offered for this draws from the gaps in knowledge fallacy that we must artificially posit a third substance, ishvara, as superintendent over both matter and consciousness - but this is not rational, for it requires a leap of faith. Advaita rejects this theory of ishvara as a superintendent, and an official refutation of this is given in the Brahma Sutras of Badaryana in the section on refutation of other schools and also covered in the bhashaya of Shankara to it.
Advaita resolves the Samkhya problems through not positing any further entities but through the critique of naam-rupa it is found that out of the two Samkhya substances of matter and consciousness, matter actually has no real substance, but only apparent substance. It is dependent on consciousness for its substance, but not in the way that consciousness is like its fundamental cause like an apple seed is the fundamental cause of an apple tree, but in the way a reflection is dependent on the object it is reflected from, but the object is not really its fundamental cause. In fact the fundamental cause of a reflection isn't even the mirror it is being seen in. The fundamental cause of the reflection is perception. It is a trick of perception that makes it seem like to us there is a reflection there. As in the case of the mirage. Similarly, Advaita traces the fundamental cause of the entire world not to consciousness, but to advidya ignorant perception. The fact I see any world at all is due to a trick of perception and my basic ignorance. Through language I differentiate all forms in a singular field of awareness and differentiate each of these forms through language and the possibility for division is infinite. As we can see with something simple as the object snow, in Eskimo cultures the one object snow can be turned into dozens or hundreds of seemingly different types simply based on the adjunct(upadhi) like stormy snow, falling snow, watery snow, vapoury snow. So through language we divide reality into many arbitrary divisions based on how we perceive its behaviour - and this can be seen in every field of knowledge. In astronomy: universe, galaxy, nebula, suns, stars, planets, moons, asteroids; in biology; DNA, RNA, chromosomes, cells, organs, muscle, tissue, marrow, skeleton; in physics: forces, photons, quarks, electrons, protons, anti-electrons, anti-protons, neutrons and atoms; in chemistry: atoms, molecules, organic and inorganic matter, acids, alkalis; In psychology; personality, memory, thoughts, feelings, sensations, states of consciousness etc etc etc. This is why every taxonomy we list has a problem of definition. It is arbitrary, based on dividing forms into names.
Advaita traces all of our reality down to its actual main source of Maya, the source of naam-rupa. Maya is neither real or unreal, it is like a field(hence why it is also called kshestra in Sanskrit) which emanates from consciousness. It is also like a dreaming reality that is bubbling out from consciousness, hence why in the Sanskrit tradition reality is also described as a dream of some supreme consciousnes(Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva) Its nature is inexplicable and undefinable. It is mysterious. However, what is definitely unreal according to Advaita, is the products of Maya, which are basically all just maya with a different upadhi, just like the same snow becomes dozens and hundreds through different upadhis. The very first product of Maya is Mahat(the great principle) and because Mahat is the closest to the actual source, it is also called Ishvara. It has the closest nature to consciousness, but it is not actually conscious, it is inert, it is material. But in like manner neither are you Jiva, conscious, you too are inert matter. Both ishvara and jiva are equally inert, having only reflected consciousness, and seeming to behave as if they are conscious.
Advaita considers Maya to be great and amazing power and inexplicable. Shakta's even worship this Maya, because in some or way or another this maya is a direct route to God.
However, worshiping Maya is actually forbidden in Vedanta. The Upanishads and even the Gita state not to worship the unmanifest nature, otherwise we pass from death to death. This is why the character Krishna says "Worship me alone" Here 'me' refers to the Atman, the actual real substance that Maya depends on. Hence why in Advaita while showing our utmost respect to this great power called Maya, we do not worship it, in the same one would not worship a tornado or an earthquake, but rather respect and stand in awe of them. Advaita worships the ONE only existent reality, that this entire world we see is an appearance of the Atman: We do this through constant remembrance of the Self, constant contemplation on the Self, inquiry and analysis of the Self and meditation on the Self.
It is tricky to negotiate the relationship between us illusory jivatmas with the real Atman, because there is an apparent dualism between us and Atman. It is easy to misinterpret statements like aham brahmasmi into egocentric philosophies where we jivas literally start to think ourselves as god/s. Hence the statement must be made with the understanding of Advaita philosophy. We are not saying I the jivatman who is the empirical self is the supreme ONE being, but we are saying that I the Atman the transcendental Self am the supreme ONE being. Hence in our statements we need to employ a slight dualistic language, "Oh great Lord, the Self of all beings, you are the source of me, the inner-dweller, lead me to light" The meaning of the words is not in the words themselves, but in the understanding of the words. This is why Shankara could actually worship Rama, Shiva, Krishna, for he did not really worship them as separate god/s, but with the understanding they are the Self.
