Jahnava Nitai Das

Has a single stalwart acharya commented on the text of the anu-gita? Why hasn't it been commented on? Shankara and Vijnana Bhikshu both quote a couple verses found within the Anu-Gita, but they cite the source as "from a Purana" (not from the Mahabharata, nor from the "Anu-Gita"). Though in other places they have identified sources as being from the Anu-Gita. This shows that the present day Anu-gita was a latter compilation taken from various Puranas. If the Anu-Gita had existed in full at that time, Shankara would have clearly labeled the verses as "from the Anu-Gita". Thus it is impossible to know what verses compossed the original Anu-Gita, and which were compiled later. Other quotations from Shankara, which are cited as coming from the Anu-Gita do not exist in the present texts of the Anu-Gita. Thus the sensible conclusion is that there once was an Anu-Gita, but the text was lost. This is the case for countless Vedic scriptures; they are quoted by past acharyas, but the manuscripts don't exist. The fact that no acharya has commented on this text, which itself claims to be on an equal status with the Bhagavad Gita, shows that it isn't taken that seriously. In addition to this, the Anu-Gita is full of misdirected vocative statements. For example someone calling to Arjuna, but talking to someone else. There is more, but I think this is enough.

I moved this to give you your own thread to discuss this on.

There are plenty of vaishnavas who did not take the position of the straw in the street and allow others to do what ever they pleased. For example Hanuman, Arjuna, Nityananda, etc. The Vaishnava is humble when he is personally insulted. But when the Lord or His devotees are insulted, he does not remain humble, but stands in their defence.

This again brings us to the topic of jivan-mukti in advaita and its inherent inconsistencies. If Shankara was a jivan-mukta, then how was he perceiving the ignorance of multiplicity and interacting with it. There is no consistent answer within advaita for this. Further, if the world is nothing but ignorance, then Shankara's words and writings (a product of the world), are also ignorance, and should not be followed. Since there is no consistent explanation for a jivan-mukta maintaining individuality, there can be no divination of the jivan-muktas writings. As Ramakrishna would say, one who knows doesn't speak. (Of course, the fact that he said this would mean he didn't know.)

Have you come across any statement where Prabhupada says Shankara is a rascall? The fact is he has never said it. Chaitanya has said about Shankara the following: tanra dosha nahi, tenho ajna-kari dasa ara yei shune tara haya sarva-nasha "Shankaracarya, who is an incarnation of Lord Shiva, is faultless because he is a servant carrying out the orders of the Lord. But those who follow his Mayavadi philosophy are doomed. They will lose all their advancement in spiritual knowledge." Prabhupada's criticism is to those who deny the spiritual position of Krishna and who consider Him to have a mundane form. But that is something Krishna himself says in the Gita (calling them fools), so you should take up your complaint with God. Chaitanya has also said the same thing: prakrita kariya mane vishnu-kalevara vishnu-ninda ara nahi ihara upara "One who considers the transcendental body of Lord Vishnu to be made of material nature is the greatest offender at the lotus feet of the Lord. There is no greater blasphemy against the Supreme Personality of Godhead." Some may also say that Shankara unfairly criticizes gramarians, calling them fools. bhaja govindam bhaja govindam govindam bhaja mudha mate. It is nothing unique to any particular school.

Shankara's Gita Mahatmya with commentary by Srila Prabhupada --1-- O Bhagavad-gita, Through Thy eighteen chapters Thou showerest upon man The immortal nectar Of the wisdom of the Absolute. O blessed Gita, By Thee, Lord Krsna Himself Enlightened Arjuna. Afterward, the ancient sage Vyasa Included Thee in the Mahabharata. O loving mother, Destroyer of man's rebirth Into the darkness of this mortal world, Upon Thee I meditate. --2-- Salutations to thee, O Vyasa. Thou art of mighty intellect, And thine eyes Are large as the petals Of the full-blown lotus. It was thou Who brightened this lamp of wisdom, Filling it with the oil Of the Mahabharata. Purport Sripada Sankaracarya was an impersonalist from the materialistic point of view. But he never denied the spiritual form known as sac-cid-ananda-vigraha, or the eternal, all-blissful form of knowledge that existed before the material creation. When he spoke of Supreme Brahman as impersonal, he meant that the Lord's sac-cid-ananda form was not to be confused with a material conception of personality. In the very beginning of his commentary on the Gita, he maintains that Narayana, the Supreme Lord, is transcendental to the material creation. The Lord existed before the creation as the transcendental personality, and He has nothing to do with material personality. Lord Krsna is the same Supreme Personality, and He has no connection with a material body. He descends in His spiritual, eternal form, but foolish people mistake His body to be like ours. Sankara's preaching of impersonalism is especially meant for teaching foolish persons who consider Krsna to be an ordinary man composed of matter. No one would care to read the Gita if it had been spoken by a material man, and certainly Vyasadeva would not have bothered to incorporate it into the history of the Mahabharata. According to the above verses, Mahabharata is the history of the ancient world, and Vyasadeva is the writer of this great epic. The Bhagavad-gita is identical with Krsna; and because Krsna is the Absolute Supreme Personality of Godhead, there is no difference between Krsna and His words. Therefore the Bhagavad-gita is as worshipable as Lord Krsna Himself, both being absolute. One who hears the Bhagavad-gita "as is" actually hears the words directly from the lotus lips of the Lord. But unfortunate persons say that the Gita is too antiquated for the modern man, who wants to find out God by speculation or meditation. --3-- I salute Thee, O Krsna, O Thou who art the refuge Of ocean-born Laksmi And all who take refuge At Thy lotus feet. Thou art indeed The wish-fulfilling tree For Thy devotee. Thy one hand holds a staff For driving cows, And Thy other hand is raised-- The thumb touching the tip Of Thy forefinger, Indicating divine knowledge. Salutations to Thee, O Supreme Lord, For Thou art the milker Of the ambrosia of the Gita. Purport Sripada Sankaracarya explicitly says, "You fools, just worship Govinda and that Bhagavad-gita spoken by Narayana Himself," yet foolish people still conduct their research work to find out Narayana; consequently they are wretched, and they waste their time for nothing. Narayana is never wretched nor daridra; rather, He is worshiped by the goddess of fortune, Laksmi, as well as by all living entities. Sankara declared himself to be "Brahman," but he admits Narayana, or Krsna, to be the Supreme Personality who is beyond the material creation. He offers his respects to Krsna as the Supreme Brahman, or Parabrahman, because He (Krsna) is worshipable by everyone. Only the fools and enemies of Krsna, who cannot understand what the Bhagavad-gita is (though they make commentaries on it), say, "It is not the personal Krsna to whom we have to surrender ourselves utterly, but the unborn, beginningless Eternal who speaks through Krsna." Fools rush in where angels fear to tread. Whereas Sankara, the greatest of the impersonalists, offers his due respects to Krsna and His book the Bhagavad-gita, the foolish say that "we need not surrender to the personal Krsna." Such unenlightened people do not know that Krsna is absolute and that there is no difference between His inside and outside. The difference of inside and outside is experienced in the dual, material world. In the absolute world there is no such difference, because in the absolute everything is spiritual (sac-cid-ananda), and Narayana, or Krsna, belongs to the absolute world. In the absolute world there is only the factual personality, and there is no distinction between body and soul. --4-- The Upanisads Are as a herd of cows, Lord Krsna, son of a cowherd, Is their milker, Arjuna is the calf, The supreme nectar of the Gita Is the milk, And the wise man Of purified intellect Is the drinker. Purport Unless one understands spiritual variegatedness, one cannot understand the transcendental pastimes of the Lord. In the Brahma-samhita it is said that Krsna's name, form, quality, pastimes, entourage, and paraphernalia are all ananda-cinmaya-rasa--in short, everything of His transcendental association is of the same composition of spiritual bliss, knowledge, and eternity. There is no end to His name, form, etc., unlike in the material world, where all things have their end. As stated in the Bhagavad-gita, only fools deride Him; whereas it is Sankara, the greatest impersonalist, who worships Him, His cows, and His pastimes as the son of Vasudeva and pleasure of Devaki. --5-- Thou son of Vasudeva, Destroyer of the demons Kamsa and Canura, Thou supreme bliss of Mother Devaki, O Thou, guru of the universe, Teacher of the worlds, Thee, O Krsna, I salute. Purport Sankara describes Him as the son of Vasudeva and Devaki. Does he mean thereby that he is worshiping an ordinary, material man? He worships Krsna because he knows that Krsna's birth and activities are all supernatural. As stated in the Bhagavad-gita (4.9), Krsna's birth and activities are mysterious and transcendental, and therefore only the devotees of Krsna can know them perfectly. Sankara was not such a fool that he would accept Krsna as an ordinary man and at the same time offer Him all devotional obeisances, knowing Him as the son of Devaki and Vasudeva. According to the Bhagavad-gita, only by knowing the transcendental birth and activities of Krsna can one attain liberation by acquiring a spiritual form like Krsna's. There are five different kinds of liberation. One who merges into the spiritual auras of Krsna, known as the impersonal Brahman effulgence, does not fully develop his spiritual body. But one who fully develops his spiritual existence becomes an associate of Narayana or Krsna in different spiritual abodes. One who enters into the abode of Narayana develops a spiritual form exactly like Narayana's (four-handed), and one who enters into the highest spiritual abode of Krsna, known as Goloka Vrndavana, develops a spiritual form of two hands like Krsna's. Sankara, as an incarnation of Lord Siva, knows all these spiritual existences, but he did not disclose them to his then Buddhist followers because it was impossible for them to know about the spiritual world. Lord Buddha preached that void is the ultimate goal, so how could his followers understand spiritual variegatedness? Therefore Sankara said, brahma satyam jagan mithya, or, material variegatedness is false but spiritual variegatedness is fact. In the Padma Purana Lord Siva has admitted that he had to preach the philosophy of maya, or illusion, in the Kali-yuga as another edition of the "void" philosophy of Buddha. He had to do this by the order of the Lord for specific reasons. He disclosed his real mind, however, by recommending that people worship Krsna, for no one can be saved simply by mental speculations composed of word jugglery and grammatical maneuvers. Sankara further instructs: bhaja govindam bhaja govindam bhaja govindam mudha-mate samprapte sannihite kale na hi na hi raksati dukrn-karane "You intellectual fools, just worship Govinda, just worship Govinda, just worship Govinda. Your grammatical knowledge and word jugglery will not save you at the time of death." --6-- Of that terrifying river Of the battlefield of Kuruksetra Over which the Pandavas victoriously crossed, Bhisma and Drona were as the high banks, Jayadratha as the river's water, The King of Gandhara the blue water-lily, Salya the shark, Krpa the current, Karna the mighty waves, Asvatthama and Vikarna the dread alligators, And Duryodhana the very whirlpool-- But Thou, O Krsna, wast the ferryman! --7-- May the spotless lotus of the Mahabharata That grows on the waters Of the words of Vyasa And of which the Bhagavad-gita Is the irresistibly sweet fragrance And its tales of heroes The full-blown petals Fully opened by the talk of Lord Hari, Who destroys the sins Of Kali-yuga, And on which daily light The nectar-seeking souls, As so many bees Swarming joyously-- May this lotus of the Mahabharata Bestow on us the highest good. --8-- Salutations to Lord Krsna The embodiment of supreme bliss, By whose grace and compassion The dumb become eloquent And the lame scale mountains-- Him I salute! Purport Foolish followers of foolish speculators cannot understand the meaning of offering salutations to Lord Krsna, the embodiment of bliss. Sankara himself offered his salutations to Lord Krsna so that some of his intelligent followers might understand the real fact by the example set by their great master, Sankara, the incarnation of Lord Siva. But there are many obstinate followers of Sankara who refuse to offer their salutations to Lord Krsna and instead mislead innocent persons by injecting materialism into the Bhagavad-gita and confusing innocent readers by their commentaries, and consequently the readers never have the opportunity to become blessed by offering salutations to Lord Krsna, the cause of all causes. The greatest disservice to humanity is to keep mankind in darkness about the science of Krsna, or Krsna consciousness, by distorting the sense of the Gita. --9-- Salutations to that supreme shining one Whom the creator Brahma, Varuna, Indra, Rudra, Marut, and all divine beings Praise with hymns, Whose glories are sung By the verses of the Vedas, Of whom the singers of Sama sing And of whose glories the Upanisads Proclaim in full choir, Whom the yogis see With their minds absorbed In perfect meditation, And of whom all the hosts Of gods and demons Know not the limitations. To Him, the Supreme God, Krsna, be all salutations-- Him we salute! Him we salute! Him we salute! Purport By recitation of the ninth verse of his meditation, quoted from the Srimad-Bhagavatam, Sankara has indicated that Lord Krsna is worshipable by one and all, including himself. He gives hints to materialists, impersonalists, mental speculators, "void" philosophers, and all other candidates subjected to the punishment of material miseries--just offer salutations to Lord Krsna, who is worshiped by Brahma, Siva, Varuna, Indra, and all other demigods. He has not mentioned, however, the name of Visnu, because Visnu is identical with Krsna. The Vedas and the Upanisads are meant for understanding the process by which one can surrender unto Krsna. The yogis try to see Him (Krsna) within themselves by meditation. In other words, it is for all the demigods and demons who do not know where the ultimate end is that Sankara teaches, and he especially instructs the demons and the fools to offer salutations to Krsna and His words, the Bhagavad-gita, by following in his footsteps. Only by such acts will the demons be benefited, not by misleading their innocent followers by so-called mental speculations or show-bottle meditations. Sankara directly offers salutations to Krsna, as if to show the fools, who are searching after light, that here ls light like the sun. But the fallen demons are like owls that will not open their eyes on account of their fear of the sunlight itself. These owls will never open their eyes to see the sublime light of Krsna and His words the Bhagavad-gita. They will, however, comment on the Gita with their closed owl-eyes to mislead their unfortunate readers and followers. Sankara, however, discloses the light to his less intelligent followers and shows that the Bhagavad-gita and Krsna are the only source of light. This is all to teach the sincere seekers of truth to offer salutation to Lord Krsna and thus surrender unto Him without misgivings. That is the highest perfection of life, and that is the highest teaching of Sankara, the great learned scholar whose teachings drove the voidist philosophy of Buddha out of India, the land of knowledge. Om tat sat.

Since the objective reality of existence is that the atma is eternally individual and dependent on God, it remains true that monists are trying to be something they are not, even if they fail to understand it as so. Thus it is not a misunderstanding of their philosophy, but an understanding that they fail to perceive the supreme reality properly.

svasty astu visvasya khalah prasidatam dhyayantu bhutani sivam mitho dhiya | manas ca bhadram bhajatad adhoksaje avesyatam no matir apy ahaituki || "May there be good fortune throughout the universe, and may all envious persons be pacified. May all living entities become calm by practicing bhakti-yoga, for by accepting devotional service they will think of each other's welfare. Therefore let us all engage in the service of the supreme transcendence, Lord Sri Krsna, and always remain absorbed in thought of Him." -- Prahlada Maharaja, Srimad-Bhagavatam, 5.18.9

"I offer my respectful obeisances unto the Supreme Lord, Hari, the congregational chanting of whose holy names destroys all sinful reactions, and the offering of obeisances unto whom relieves all material suffering." Srimad Bhagavatam, 12.13.23

And regarding this particular quote, there is a nondualistic school that believes the avatara Krishna had a body of bones and flesh, and that when he was killed by an arrow, his material body remained and was later cremated. They even cite Puranic references in this regard.

There are hundreds of branches of advaita philosophy founded by different teachers such as Dattatreya, Ashtavakra, etc. Shankara is simply the most famous teacher, but he is not the origin of the various schools. Each school will hold slightly different teachings. We need to see the teaching being mentioned and connect it to the school that teaches it.

In Prabhupada's quote given by theist he doesn't mention advaita at all. You are inferring that he is referring to a particular school taught by a particular teacher. I think the flaw lies in your inference, and your resultant feeling of offence.

The secret of the mantra is not the sound or pronunciation. The secret of the mantra is the utilization of it, which is taught by the guru. The Puranas are full of "secret" mantras. In modern times, saints such as Prabhupada have included secret mantras such as gayatri and their explanations in their writings and commentaries.

To give a serious reply, I am analysing the self-consistency of a tenet of advaita (jivan-mukti). I am judging it based on logic, as self-consistency is associated with logic as opposed to divine statement. Such a discussion has nothing to do with realization, neither personal nor that of previous acharyas. It is based on self-contradictions within a teaching. I am using the first quote in this thread as the basis for further discussion. If one does not consider that a proper presentation of the teaching of Shankara, then it doesn't have to be connected to Shankara. Advaita is not founded by Shankara. It has existed for millions of years, and has had thousands of teachers and lineages, with many disagreeing with each other on particular points of doctrine. It isn't necessary to cite one's purvacharya's when dealing with direct observations. I am saying the preceding tenet of advaita is inconsistent with the overall doctrine. It doesn't matter whether I say it or Mr. XYZ says it. Whether it is true or not, or whether it was spoken by me or Mr. XYZ, it could be addressed and refuted logically.

I believe Catholicism is more prominent in India, as opposed to U.S. protestant churches. I dont have any statistics on this, but it is just an unscientific observation. Does the Anglican Church hold similar views as the Catholic church? Also, I think Bhaktivinoda's comments are in regards to modern Christians interpretation of the Bible. He is actually criticizing their philosophical misconceptions, and not the position of Christ.

[someone posted this on another forum, so I thought I would post it here. It is not in reply to any thing posted here.] Thinking about the virtues and faults of this world, some moralist monotheists concluded that this material world is not a place of unalloyed pleasures. Indeed, the sufferings outweigh the pleasures. They decided that the material world is a prison to punish the living entities. If there is punishment, then there must be a crime. If there were no crime, then why would there be any punishment? What crime did the living entities commit? Unable to properly answer this question, some men of small intelligence gave birth to a very wild idea. God created the first man and placed him in a pleasant garden with his wife. Then God forbade the man to taste the fruit of the tree of knowledge. Following the evil counsel of a wicked being, the first man and woman tasted the fruit of the tree of knowledge, thus disobeying God's command. In this way they fell from that garden into the material world filled with sufferings. Because of their offense, all other living entities are offenders from the moment of their birth. Not seeing any other way to remove this offense, God Himself took birth in a humanlike form, took on His own shoulders the sins of His followers, and then died. All who follow Him easily attain liberation, and all who do not follow Him fall into an eternal hell. In this way God assumes a humanlike form, punishes Himself, and thus liberates the living entities. An intelligent person cannot make sense of any of this. To accept this mixed-up religion one must first believe these rather implausible things: "The living entity's life begins at birth and ends at death. Before birth the living entity did not exist, and after death the living entity will no longer stay in the world of material activities. Only human beings have souls. Other creatures do not have souls." Only extremely unintelligent persons believe this religion. In this religion the living entity is not spiritual in nature. By His own will God created the living entities out of matter. Why are the living entities born into very different situations? The followers of this religion cannot say. Why is one living entity born into a house filled with sufferings, another living entity born into a house filled with joys, another living entity born into the house of a person devoted to God, and another living entity born into a wicked atheist's house? Why is one person born in a situation where he is encouraged to perform pious deeds, and he performs pious deeds and becomes good? Why is another person born in a situation where he is encouraged to sin, and he sins and becomes bad? The followers of this religion cannot answer all these questions. Their religion seems to say that God is unfair and irrational. Why do they say that animals have no souls? Why do birds and beasts not have souls like human beings? Why do the human beings have only one life, and, because of their actions in that one life are rewarded in eternal heaven or punished with eternal hell? Any person who believes in a truly kind and merciful God will find this religion completely unacceptable. The followers of this religion have no power to worship God selflessly. In general their idea is that by cultivating fruitive work and speculative philosophy one should work to make improvements in the material world and in this way please God. By building hospitals and schools, and by doing various philanthropic works, they try to do good to the world and thus please God. Worship of God by performing fruitive work (karma) and by engaging in philosophical speculation (jnana) is very important to them. They have no power to understand pure devotional service (suddha-bhakti), which is free of fruitive work and philosophical speculation. Worship of God done out of a sense of duty is never natural or unselfish. "God has been kind to us, and therefore we should worship Him." These are the thoughts of lesser minds. Why is this not a good way to worship God? Because one may think, "If God is not kind to me, then I will not worship Him." In this way one has the selfish, bad desire to get God's kindness in the future. If one wishes that God will be kind by allowing one to serve Him, then there is nothing wrong with that desire. But the religion under discussion does not see it in that way. This religion sees God's kindness in terms of one's enjoying a happy life in this material world. (From Tattva-viveka commentary)

Before answering I need to know if your question is based on your own inquisitiveness, or the inquisitiveness of your previous acharyas. Here we don't use granthas, we use pusthakams. Inda thamizh nadu. Neenga thamizh la pesunga. /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/smile.gif

But a body must exist with a soul in it for life. The body which is exhausting its prarabda karma has a fully realized brahman functioning through it. That functioning requires perception of the multiplicity, which is avidya. Thus the fully realized Brahman is in ignorance. To be practical, a soul such as Ramana attains jivan-mukti (hypothetically). He is now free from the ignorance of experiencing the multiplicity and only experiences the one nondual absolute reality. Yet his body is continuing to function as a conscious entity. He walks, talks, answers questions; all of which require perception of multiplicity, which is a product of avidya. If he is realized and liberated he should no longer perceive the ignorance of multiplicity. If he continues to perceive it, then we can conclude he is not liberated.

Yes, it is simple, but not self-consistent. Thus it is impossible for there to be jivan-mukti in advaita vedanta. Jivan-mukti requires a liberated atma to remain embodied while prarabdha karmas are burnt off. That liberated atma continues to act within the world, yet all new karmic reactions are burnt by the fire of jnana, thereby not creating any new reactions. Thus there is action after the state of mukti (jivan-mukti). Yet how is it possible for the liberated atma (who has now realized that he is the absolute supreme Brahman and all that there is) to continue acting through the deha of his embodied self. To do so would require continued perception of multiplicity, which is a direct product of avidya. If he is situated within avidya, he is not liberated. If he is situated beyond avidya, he experiences no multiplicity and cannot perform any illusory activities. Yet the jivan-mukta by definition continues to act within the world through his past body, thus he continues to experience multiplicity. It is impossible for jivan-mukti to exist within advaita vedanta and for the system to continue to be a self-consistent model.

In that case, the absolute non-dual Brahman, is interacting with illusion (a mirage) and functioning through an illusory body (another mirage). Thus he is situated and interacting within duality - there is something other than the One, there is multiplicity. If He is situated beyond multiplicity, then there is no question of interacting within the illusory nonexistant world. The multiplicity does not exist, and it is not perceived by the jivan-mukta, for it is a product of avidya (which the jivan-mukta has transcended). Thus it is impossible for the liberated Brahman to act on the level of multiplicity while remaining free from avidya.

Then he is not a jivan mukta, there can be no liberated consciousness within him or functioning through him. If it is, then he is interacting with the illusory multiplicity, and therefore not beyond avidya. For every conscious body there is the combination of atma and matter. When I (a conditioned soul) perceive a liberated "jivan-mukta", which consciousness is functioning within that body? If it is not a liberated consciousness, then it is not a jivan-mukta. If it is a liberated consciousness, then he is continuing to interact with avidya.

According to advaita, Atma is brahman who, due to ignorance, does not understand that he is Brahman and that the world (individuality) is false (jagan mithya). At the point of Brahman realization (i.e. mukti or liberation), his body continues to exist and he remains embodied, though liberated, until the prarabdha karmas are exhausted (i.e. his body dies). If the world is false and its perception existing only because of our avidya (ignorance), then when the avidya is removed, the illusory world should cease to exist. Our body and its karmas are the product of avidya, they are a mirage that does not actually exist but is only perceived to exist. If we remove avidya (ignorance), the mirage should no longer be perceived and the conditioned body and its prarabdha karma should no longer exist, nor should its perception exist. We should conclude that the world is not false, but real (vishvam satyam).

From advaita vedanta FAQ, on the topic of bhakti: "Thus, moksha can only indirectly be called a result of ritual action (karma mArga) or of devotional service (bhakti mArga ). These paths lead along the way, and constitute the "how" but not the "why" of liberation. In fact, moksha is not a result of anything, for it always exists. All that is required is the removal of ignorance. For this reason, the way of advaita vedAnta is also called the path of knowledge (jnAna-mArga)."

Again, from the advaita vedanta FAQ. They seem to have no problem calling advaita as Mayavada, why do you? Why is advaita sometimes referred to as mAyAvAda? The word mAyAvAda serves many purposes. Since advaita upholds the identity of the individual Atman with brahman, a doubt naturally arises about the origin of the variegated universe. The appearance of difference in the universe is attributed to mAyA. In popular parlance, mAyA means illusion, and a magician or a juggler is called a mAyAvI. Within advaita, mAyA has a technical significance as the creative power (Sakti) of brahman, which also serves to occlude, due to which the universe is perceived to be full of difference, and the unity of brahman is not known. See fuller details in response to Q. 3 above. Some vaishNava schools use the word mAyAvAda in a derogatory sense. However, this criticism interprets mAyA solely as illusion and criticizes advaita for dismissing the world as an illusion that is nothing more than a dream. Such a criticism neglects the philosophical subtlety of the concept of mAyA in advaita.

You are confused as to what Shankara taught. Without getting into details, I will just quote from the advaita vendanta website FAQ to summarize their position. Point One: The individual atma is the one supreme brahman. Point Two: The world of multiplicity, which is avidya or ignorance, is caused by Maya. Point three: the atma (Brahman) is covered by avidya, the by-product of maya, and must become free from this avidya to realize it's true nature.