Hello bro..
Purana is smriti, I got it So what if I gain the knowledge of brahman and write it down on paper in simpler yet in most efficient way, will it be different than what I gained?
Moving forward: Every Hindu school has mayavada theory. Because they explain what maya is
. Besides, I also don't understand why you call adishankara as mayavadi. In fact he said "Only Brahman is real".. He should be called as Brahmavadi and he's definitely brahmavadi. Rivals can bark but we don't listen..
Veda and Upanishada are contradictory to each other, Upanishada refutes the reality of preceding portions of veda and accepts only brahman. Because non-upanishadik veda mainly deals with Karma while upanishada deals with knowledge, this knowledge and karma are contradictory to each other and they can not be reconciled.
Upanishada is a part of Veda, the ending part of veda that unveils the real message of Veda. Lord krishna, brahman, himself talks on this subject like this:
Krishna says:
“The Vedas enjoins me alone in the form of Yadnya, me alone in the form of various deities in Devata Kanda nay whatever is super-imposed on me first and then negated in Dnyana kandas is me alone taking this stand on me as the cause of all causes and the highest reality, the Vedas posit (states) diversity as a mere illusion and then denying it, ultimately becomes quiet. This much is the import of all the Vedas. (BG 11.21.43)
I hope you've understood what krishna is talking about here..
Rise up dude! You say there's no duality but you accept two different things in first place and yet say they're equal.[It's logical fallacy]. The idea is that unless you don't accept that essential nature of Saguna is Nirguna only, you are still overwhelming in duality, of course, you can't say they are one and you know, Veda screams whoever see duality here go through the cycles of birth and death, no end whatsoever!
Yeah, the world is Brahman. Who's denying it? But Vedanta also says that this world is an illusion. Thus, these are two ideas, seeming contradictory to each other but are not contradictory at all. It seems that you've failed to reconcile these two ideas and you are confused and blindly interpreted that as it is said world is brahman, the world [as we perceive] is real. Surely, that's not what veda preaches.
"There's existence of Brahman alone"- This is the core teaching of Vedanta. Whatever there's is all brahman. So where's the question of rejecting something. Vyavaharika satya is never called as lower reality, it has been called as non-existent. It is neither real nor unreal nor in between. In reality it has no existence at all but it is just assumed in order to unveil the brahman, by a technique of negation.
Let me explain, For example, suppose a man is seeing the bird flying in the sky and for some time through imagination he's assumed himself that he's seeing a bird flying with its footprints, So what'll the person, who's well discrimination, gonna do to awake him from his false impression ? Yeah, he will say footprints are not there or all you see is only a bird. The reality that there was only bird not its footprints, is unchanging irrespective of that man's imagination.
So here, let's see what I've said-
Man- Ignorant
Another person- Veda
Bird- Brahman
Footprints- World
All you see is only a bird- All is Brahman
Footprints are not there at all- The world is non-existent, unreal
You got it. huh?
I don't see any blind ignorance than believing world as real, that's what even common men do or perceive in their lives and you know they are as ordinary as animals are, both believe in the reality of world
Thank You