Advaita is not a philosophy. Advaita is the nature of the Soul, the Self.+

Advaita is not a philosophy. Advaita is the nature of the Soul, the Self.  There is no need to study any philosophy to realize the ultimate truth or Brahman.  The Soul, which is present in the form of consciousness, is the ultimate truth or Brahman or God in truth.

All the philosophy and all the teachings on nonduality are based on the dualistic perspective. Such teachings are mere imaginary nonduality from the dualistic perspective.

That is why Sage Sankara said:~  Talk as much philosophy as you like, worship as many Gods as you please, observe ceremonies, and sing devotional hymns, but liberation will never come, even after a hundred aeons, without realizing the Oneness.

That is why Buddha said: ~ Believe nothing just because a so-called wise person said it. Believe nothing just because a belief is generally held. Believe nothing just because it is said in ancient books. Believe nothing just because it is said to be of divine origin. Believe nothing just because someone else believes it. Believe only what you yourself test and judge to be true. 

Sage Sankara is the only sage who has final authority on the Advaitic truth. The Advaitic truth is rational truth and scientific truth without dogma.

The Advaitic orthodoxy is not the means to acquire Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana.  Advaitic orthodoxy is meant for the ignorant mass that is unfit to grasp the highest truth.   Thus, the Advaitic orthodoxy is nothing to do with the ultimate truth or Brahman.

The world is both real and unreal. It is real because it is a manifestation of consciousness but is unreal, in the sense, that it is not absolute and eternal like consciousness itself.

Sage Sankara disagrees with Buddhists who say, there is nothing - a nonentity. Sage Sankara believes there is some reality, even though things are not what they appear to be. If one knows the truth, he will know what to do to find inspiration for action.  The seeker of truth‘s subject is to know what is it that is Real.

Buddhism says: ~ all things are illusory and nothing exists.  However, Advaita avers that it is not so.  It says that the universe, of course, is illusory, but there is Brahman (Consciousness), which exists forming the very substratum of all things (illusion or universe).

People's approach is more practical, and they stuck with the reality of the world, they take it as real. That is why all the confusion.

That is why Sage Sankara says: ~ VC-63. Without causing the objective universe to vanish and without knowing the truth of the Self, how is one to achieve Liberation by the mere utterance of the word Brahman? — It would result merely in an effort of speech.

65. As a treasure hidden underground requires (for its extraction) competent instruction, excavation, the removal of stones and other such things lying above it, and (finally) grasping, but never comes out by being (merely) called out by name, so the transparent Truth of the Self, which is hidden by Maya and its effects, is to be attained through the instructions of a knower of Brahman, followed by reflection, meditation and so forth, but not through perverted arguments.

In Self-awareness, the Soul will be in the objectless –awareness in the midst of the duality (objects), and then the sense of duality will cease to exist as a reality.

The mind is nothing but objective existence.   The seeker has to eliminate all the objective knowledge through wisdom and then objectless knowledge will alone remain. This is the nature of the Soul, the Self.

People can only lecture by giving out falsehood, but it is waste of time delivering a public lecture by giving out the truth.   

The illusions that appeal to the taste of the audience because they are ignorant about the world in which they exist are merely an illusion, from the standpoint of the Soul, the Self.

A crowd at a venue will contain men of varying capacities to understand, of whom only one or two might be receptive to receive Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana.

What is the use of discussing the practical life within the practical world within the unreal world? Instead one has to find how this world is unreal (illusion).   

In the Atmic discussion, the body and the world are merely an illusion. Why discuss the practical life within the practical world, when the Self is not the body (you). :~Santthosh Kumaar