What I am writing below may not be acceptable to many. But the whole complication with Sankara's advaitam is most probably due to the fact that He (i.e., Sankara) had to abide by the authority of the vedas and the major Upanishads of His times and this made it necessary for him to start from the top downwards - i.e., from a single extra-super, pure Consciousness which he termed Parabrahman - and then come down to the mortals and the world which they imagine they are inhabiting.
If, on the contrary, Sankara had started from the mortals, their AtmAs or jeevas and built upwards, perhaps it would have been a comparatively simple (and not "simplistic", I hope) advaita.
For instance all living entities including humans think that each of them have an individuality or "I"ness and the feeling of "I", "mine", etc. Whence does this emanate, and when the living entity 'dies' (and is no longer alive, except for a dead body which rots if not suitably disposed of, what happens to the feeling of this "I"ness? AFA our human ability today can understand, all the hullabaloo about "I" and "mine" etc., also die or come to a complete end. This is true for an ant as also for an elephant and also for a human being, however great or learned or mighty or rich or brave he/she might have been while alive. The whole drama ends or the chapter is closed— for ever. (Incidentally, this is true of even the great Acharyas, other godmen/godwomen etc.) For a person who can think with equanimity and in a dispassionate manner, this very basic and routine worldly truth, it will not require much of weighty philosophical discussions to understand that this world, this universe and everything that looked so very real must have completely vanished for every one who has been dead.
Our "ego" or the feeling of "I" ness is, however, so strong that humans have constantly rebelled against accepting this simple fact that all these phenomena of "I" and the universe was nothing more than a mirage for each of those dead persons, a cinema-show which lasts for a few decades. In this effort, human imagination has built many wonderful stories like ātmās, pitṛs, pitṛloka, punarjanma (transmigration of the ātmā or soul) etc., and has succeeded in establishing, to a very great extent, with the help of religions of various kinds, all or some of these beliefs, so that Man's quest for immortality is achieved, may be in a vicarious way.
In reality, there is no reason whatsoever to subscribe to any of the things referred to above. What we know and see, is that each one has the feeling of "I" & "mine" and this is the root cause of happiness and suffering in this worldly life. After experiencing happiness and suffering to varying degrees all of us die and there the story ends; the "I" does not continue to exist. (At least we have no evidence to the contrary.) The dead body is just perishable organic matter and by itself, has no "I" feeling. Looked at from this perspective the self or "I"-feeling, this world, this universe, all are mere transient phenomena for each one of us. But somehow we are unable to accept this knowledge and implement it in our lifetime. This is what is truly māyā.
If we build upwards from this basic level, we will find that this māyā is born as soon as life manifests in a body (foetus, in the case of humans probably, but in any case, right from the moment of 'birth') and pursues them till the moment of death. Hence, there is no point at all in talking about 'getting rid of māyā' etc.
What then is the substratum for all such manifestation? That has to be one and the same because all living beings are identical in the aspects aforesaid. It is this sub-stratum which is real and may be the equivalent of Parabrahman of Advaita. Since this is one and not more than one, it is ekaṃ evādvitīyam (one and not having a second). Thus we arrive at advaita.
Buddhism, especially Theravada Buddhism, gives a good account of anicca or impermanence, of everything in this universe. Gaudapada possibly was convinced of this and hence concluded (wisely, according to me) that—
"There is no dissolution, no origination, none in bondage, none possessed of the means of liberation, none desirous of liberation, and none liberated. This is the ultimate truth. — Verse 2.32, Mandukya Karikaa"
திருமூலர் (tirumūlar) also says much the same thing (as the Buddha) in this verse:
உள்ளம் பெருங்கொவில் ஊனுடம்பு ஆலையம்
வள்ளல் பிரானுக்கு வாய் கோபுரவாசல்
தெள்ளத்தெளிந்தார்க்கு சீவன் சிவலிங்கம்
கள்ளப்புலன் ஐந்தும் காணா மணிவிளக்கே
(uḷḷam peruṅkovil ūṉuṭampu ālaiyam
vaḷḷal pirāṉukku vāy kopuravācal
teḷḷatteḷintārkku cīvaṉ civaliṅkam
kaḷḷappulaṉ aintum kāṇā maṇiviḷakke)
- if "I" is not atma and neither the ego then what is it? I know you would say maya, but that would be incorrect as the viewpoint held is that "I" becomes due to maya!
