Let me first attempt to state the questioner's viewpoint. Unless mAyA is already present, neither concealment nor projection can take place. Is mAyA then coeval with brahman? Do they exist side by side? Does this not contradict the non-dual status of brahman? Where does mAyA operate? What is its base of operation? These questions raise very profound issues.
The base of activity of mAyA cannot be brahman because the latter is Absolute luminosity and there is no place in it for ignorance or darkness. Nor can the jIva be the base of operations of mAyA. For jIva itself cannot come into existence until mAyA has operated. There seems to be an irresolvable logical difficulty here.
But the difficulty will vanish once we realize that we are here making an implicit assumption that is not valid. We are actually assuming the prior reality of time and space before the appearance of mAyA. Otherwise we could not have asked the question: Where does mAyA operate? When does it come into existence? These questions are valid only if you have a frame of reference in time and space independent of mAyA. But time and space, says Shankara, are themselves creations of mAyA. (cf. `mAyA-kalpita-desha-kAla- kalanAt' in his dakshiNAmUrti-stotra, sloka no.4).
In fact, this is also the answer to the physicist's question: When did time originate? Time did not originate in a timeless frame because we would then be begging the question. The very fact that we are conscious of the passage of time is a consequence of mAyA. So questions such as, `Where does mAyA operate?' and `When did it start operating?' are not properly posed. Time and space cannot claim prior existence. It is therefore wrong to ask whether mAyA is prior to jIva or later than jIva. Ultimate Reality is beyond space and time. In the words of Swami Vivekananda, time, space and causation are like the glass through which the Absolute is seen. In the Absolute itself, there is neither space, nor time nor causation.
As in the field of modern physics, so in the field of vedanta, time and space are modes incidental to sense perception and should not be applied to what is trans-empirical. jIva and mAyA are both given a priori in our experience and we have to take them as such. They are anAdi (beginningless). The only relevant question that you can ask about them is about their nature and final destiny. Examination will show that mAyA is neither real nor unreal.
`I am ignorant' is a common expression, within anybody's experience. Hence mAyA is not completely unreal. But it disappears with the onset of knowledge. So it is not real either. Thus it is different from both the real and the unreal. In Sanskrit it is therefore called `sad-asad- vilakshaNa', meaning that it is different from both the real and the unreal. And for the same reason it is said to be `anirvachanIya', meaning, that which is undecidable or that which cannot be defined one way or the other. It is in this sense we say that the world of perception, the common world of experience, cannot be rejected out of hand as totally false, like the hare's horn or the lotus in the sky; nor can it be taken to be totally real because it suffers contradiction at a higher level of experience. It is real in the empirical sense and unreal in the absolute sense.
This is also the case with a dream. For the dreamer, the dream is real. The acceptance of the reality of the dream to the dreamer is the king-pin of Shankara's explanation of Advaita. He bases many of his arguments on this phenomenal reality of the dream. This reality, called `vyAvahArika-satyaM' is in between the total unreality - `asat' - of the barren mother, and the total reality - `sat' - of brahman. The dream and similarly the perceptible universe is neither `sat' nor `asat'. It is `mithyA'. The meaning of the word `mithyA' is not falsehood but comparative unreality. It is not total non-existence like hare's horn but it is midway between the absolute truth of brahman and the absolute falsehood of hare's horn.
There are actually different analogies to explain the peculiar relationship between brahman and the universe. The analogy that Shankara very often uses is the relationless relationship of the rope that is mistaken for the snake, because of poor lighting. The rope appears as a snake no doubt, but actually there is no snake there, ever. Even when it appeared to be there, it was not there. But the one who saw it did really get scared on `seeing' the snake and only when help came in the form of better lighting did the person realize that what `was there' all the time was only a rope.
The second analogy that is used in the literature is the appearance of water in a mirage. And the third one is that of the dreamer and his dream. Each of these three analogies has its own limitation in explaining the relationship between brahman, which is invisible, and the universe, which is visible. Brahman is the rope; the visible universe is the snake. What appears as the universe is not really the universe. When spiritual illumination takes place we will know that what was there all the time was only brahman. Similarly in the example of the mirage and water, the water appearance is only an illusion. What is there in reality is only sand, no water. The dream of course is totally a mental aberration, fully subjective and it vanishes the moment the person wakes up.
The three analogies are not however just three analogies in place of one. There is a gradation, says Ramana Maharshi. First it may be questioned, with reference to the analogy of the rope and the snake that when the lighting situation improves the appearance of the snake is no more there, whereas, in the case of brahman versus universe, even after learning that brahman is the substratum of truth, and the universe is only a superimposition like the snake on the rope, we still continue to see the universe; it has not disappeared!
For this the Maharishi wants you to go to the analogy of the mirage. Once you understand it is the mirage and no watershed, the appearance of water is no more there. But now there is another objection: 'Even after knowing that there is only brahman and the universe is only an appearance, one gets certain wants fulfilled from this appearance of a universe: one gets one's hunger satisfied, thirst quenched and so on. But the water in the mirage does not quench one's thirst; so to that extent the analogy is inappropriate'.
The analogy of the dream meets this objection, says the Maharishi. The dreamer has his thirst quenched in the dream. The thirst itself is a dream thirst and it is quenched by drinking (dream) water in the dream; so also the wants that one feels in this universe like hunger and thirst are also quenched by corresponding objects in this universe. Thus in this sense the analogy of the dream is reasonably perfect. Maybe that is why Shankara uses the analogy of the dream so emphatically to describe the reality or unreality of the universe.
In Advaita the concept of reality is always comparative. Relative to materials, things made out of the materials are unreal. In other words if a bucket is made out of plastic, the bucket is unreal relative to the plastic. It is the cause that is `more real' than the effect. The cause of the world versus the world itself gives us a comparison about their relative reality. When we say that the universe is unreal, we mean that it is unreal as the universe, but it is surely real as brahman, its cause.
In order to explain this relative unreality the theory of superimposition is meticulously worked out by Shankara. While the snake is superimposed on the rope, the rope undergoes no aberration or modification in the process. It is the same rope all the time. What appears to you is only in your mind. The visible universe is just a perishable (kShara) superimposition on brahman. Brahman does not undergo any change in the process. All the time brahman remains as brahman, the imperishable (akShara) substratum. This is where the nirguNa (attributeless) character of brahman is effectively applied by Shankara to his explanation of this mysterious relationship.
This phenomenon of brahman not being visible but something else, the universe, being visible, is exactly what the term `mAyA' means. It does two things. It hides brahman from you. Simultaneously it projects the universe to you.
The declaration that this is what is happening comes forth from the Lord Himself in Gita IX - 5, 6. 'Everything that is perceptible is pervaded and permeated by Me, who is unmanifested. All the beings are established in Me but not I in them; they are not in Me either, this is my divine yoga.'. He remains unmanifested while what is visible is basically a permeation by him. While he remains unchanged, and imperceptible, the universe is what is perceptible. Everything visible is supported by Him as the only substratum, whereas He Himself is not supported by anything. He is His own support.
The snake appears on the rope, the rope does not undergo any change, but the snake is supported by the rope, (meaning, without the rope there is no snake). But in reality the snake was never there and so it is also true to say that the snake is not in the rope. To the question: Where is the snake?, the answer is: it is in the rope. To the question, Is the snake there?, the answer is, there is no snake, the snake was never in the rope. It is in this strain that the Lord gives out, almost in the same breath, what appears to be two contradictory statements. Everything is in Me; and nothing is in Me. This is the cosmic mystery of the existence of the Universe. It is and is not - sad-asad-vilakshaNa, mAyA!
More Resources: Shankaracharya's Advaita Vedanta
When we say 'I am', 'I' stands for the consciousness aspect and 'am' stands for the existence aspect. When we say ‘I am this’, there is the confusion of identification of the subject ‘I am’ with the object 'this'. That is due to error ,which is due to the ignorance of not knowing that 'I am'. Right now 'I am a jiiva' is the notional understanding while ‘I am Brahman’ is the vision of my self according to the Upanishads. That true ‘I am’ has to realized or recognized.
The body is only a vehicle or instrument required to exhaust my vAsana-s. Essentially, vAsana-s decide the type of body required - man or woman, white, brown or black skin etc. I, the jiiva, gravitate towards the environment that is conducive to my vAsana-s. Hence they are called 'kAraNa shariira' or causal body.
Hence what birth I take next depends on the most powerful vasana-s that are ready to germinate next. There is my ‘total bank account’ of karma (saMchita karma), of which I brought into this life only those that can be exhausted (prArabdha karma) and, if in the process I make new ones (AgAmin karma), which cannot be exhausted in this life, these are deposited to my account. Until all vasanas get neutralized, I will continue taking births in one form or the other. By yoga or sAdhanA, I neutralize the vAsanas. When I realize who I am - I am ‘not this, not this’ etc. (since I am the subject that can never be an object 'this') - I recognize that I am that sat chit ananda and then there is no more ownership of any karma. All are transcended in that knowledge of who I am.
As long as I think I am a jiiva, these notions are regarded as facts and Brahman does not come into picture – ‘I am Brahman’ is only realised from the state of absolute knowledge. Until this is recognized as a fact and not merely as a thought, jiiva-hood is there and vAsana-s operate. So karma and its kShaya (dominion) are there as long as you are there to question, since the questioning is done by a jiva.
As long as I am dreaming that I am being chased by a tiger, that dream tiger is as real as the one who is being chased. I have to run away as fast as I can to save myself from that tiger. Only when I am awakened to the higher state of consciousness, are the tiger and the one whom the tiger is chasing, as well as the forest and the ground upon which I am running, all resolved into my own mind.
The dreamer thinks that the dream world is real until he is awakened to a higher state where there is only one mind that projects the world of plurality. The plurality is real as long as dream lasts. The problem in your questions is that you want to place one leg in the waking state and one leg in the dream state and then question the validity of each from the other reference point. Any question from the Brahman viewpoint whilst still sitting at the jiiva position is like a dreamer asking about the waking mind. The waking mind is one – Advaita. The plurality of the dream world is from the viewpoint of a dreamer who thinks he is different from the tiger and the trees in the forest.
Jiiva (soul) itself is a notion and when that notion is taken as real - all other problems become as real as jiiva. Hence reincarnation and transmigration of soul are all real in that frame of reference.
Look at this way: gold, iron and copper look different if these difference as taken as real. They can exist in different forms - now as ring, now as bangle, now as chain, now as bracelet - gold undergoing transmigration or reincarnation into different forms.
If one understands that all are nothing but electrons, protons, neutrons etc., then from that perspective gold, iron, copper are just bunches of electrons, protons and neutrons - which themselves are nothing but energy-states.
I can understand as a scientist they are all one - yet I can transact in the world taking gold as different from iron and copper. Transactions are done at one level while understanding is at the ultimate level - there is no confusion if one understands correctly. I know that the sun neither rises nor sets but I can still appreciate the beauty of sunrise and sunset.
That is advaita in spite of dvaita - that is no incarnation in spite of reincarnation. Karma (action) is at the transactional level. At the absolute level I realize that I am never a kartRRi (doer). That is Advaita. Advaita in spite of dvaita.
Source: http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/reincarnation_sada.htm
More Info: Advaita Vedanta of Shankaracharya
SOCRATES Hail to Thee, Aeschines! From where do you return to visit us now?
AESCHINES I have just returned from my father's kitchen where I was assisting him in making his famed spiced meat delicacies.
S. Yes! Charinus makes the finest sausages in all Athens, that is beyond dispute.
A. Thank you, Socrates. Next to my father, I love you dearly. I hope I shall never leave you. Strike me with your staff, for you will find no wood hard enough to keep me away from you, so long as I think you've something to say.
S. Only the sausage-maker's son knows how to honour me. 2 I wish all my friends were as loyal as you, Aeschines. In some ways, your respected profession has often appealed to me as most enviable. You assist your Father whom you love, earn an honest livelihood, exercise great care and attention keeping the restless mind in check, and what is more, create delicacies for the citizens of Athens to enjoy with wine and fill their bellies, which when digested, turns to thought and hopefully beneficial actions.
A. Thou speakest truth as always, Socrates. I have toiled to excel at this work, selecting the choicest herbs, learning to pound the cooked rare meats into a paste and blend them, pack them in an edible skin and make them look as appetising as possible.
S. I am persuaded of your eminent skill, Aeschincs. I trust you will not refuse me a sample of your labours.
A. Here is one of Father's latest concoctions, a mixture of lamb and rabbit flavoured with honey, thyme and black pepper.
S. Thank you. I shall relish it more after our conversation but now ask me whatever you will.
A. You said earlier that my food after being digested, stimulates thought which leads to action.
S. I recall having said that.
A. Does this mean I am indirectly responsible for my clients' thoughts and deeds?
S. After a fashion, partially, but not completely. Thoughts need food stuff to make them happen.
A. But surely Socrates, man is responsible for his own thoughts and actions, and has the freedom to decide his acts?
S. Dear boy, I hope you will not be shocked when I tell you that man has no freedom of will, and is not responsible for his actions.
A. But surely Socrates, this goes against the 'consensus gentium' of educated people and their commonsense. I feel and I know that I am responsible for my acts. When I think to do something, I carry it out.
S. Are you so sure, my dear fellow? Let us examine this matter more closely. Sit down a while. You say you think; where does the thought that you have, come from, in the first instance? Where does it arise?
A. From me, of course.
S. From Me. Tell me, who is this Me? Can you find him inside? Now watch closely. Where do thoughts actually come from? Be very honest.
A. Well, surprisingly they seem to arrive from nowhere, out of the blue. From the Gods, perhaps.
S. Now you see that you did not create the initial thought. It arrives from you know not where. Then what happens?
A. It commences the faculty of reasoning.
S. Yes. It touches your mind, and either the thought is rejected as unworthy or accepted as useful, according to needs, standards of upbringing and so forth; and it starts a process called thinking.
A. But surely I start the process of reasoning.
S. Are you sure? Look closely now. See what actually happens. A thought arrives from nowhere, touches the mind which reacts according to its patterns of education and what it believes to be the right response, and some more thought weighs the matter up.
A. But surely in the weighing I choose from the alternatives offered by commonsense and reason?
S. I mistrust your commonsense and conventional opinion, the so-called reason of the masses. Only the philosophers understand the nature of choice, and not too many of them, I suspect.
A. Do you mean I didn't choose?
S. What happens if you watch, dear sausage maker, is that the mind or thoughts present alternatives, and according to your disposition you choose what you consider to be the most practical, pleasurable and in the best interest for you. But there is no daemon inside to choose. The choice happens mechanically, like an abacus, and then the mind foolishly ascribes it to itself as "a free agent", boasting arrogantly "I CHOOSE."
A. Please continue, Socrates. This is most illuminating.
S. Truly the choice was inevitable. The so-called act of choosing was part of the structure of predetermination. The choice was inevitable, because it appealed to your hidden tendencies of pleasure, and what you believe to be appropriate. In fact there was never any freedom to choose anything other than that which was chosen.
A. But surely if a man does good deeds, they are his own, just as the man who does evil deeds?
S. Again, Aeschines, let us examine very closely. Watch how everything happens. A train of inevitable events leads one man to the good, another to the so-called evil.
A. How is that?
S. One man is born into a noble womb, with refined educated parents, another into an uncaring home of ignorance. Patterns of behaviour are laid down like a mosaic, by example and imitation. What you call good and bad habits are largely mimicry.
A. But surely, Socrates, there are innate tendencies of good and evil that men are born with?
S. Yes. Souls are transmigrated with these tendencies laid down.
A. So what determines this behaviour of these souls?
S. Examples from parents, family, teachers, people you meet, heroes, reading, and so forth. You are determined all the time, by each new event.
A. Is this the way the Gods control our destiny?
S. Broadly, yes.
A. I see. So when I choose, I imagine I'm choosing, but really it's all predetermined.
S. Exactly. You are beginning to see the point.
A. Then tell me, Socrates, the idea that I can do anything of my own free will, is that falsely imagined?
S. Yes.
A. Then how do I live?
S. Choose as if you have choice, knowing you really have none. This is a step towards freedom and the Good. It will remove guilt, and stop you from blaming others for their so called bad deeds, and stop you from flattering others for their so called good deeds, according to society's approval or disapproval.
A. If this was generally understood, what would our tragedians have to write about?
S. Very little. But about good and bad, the Nubian, Libyan and Egyptian have quite different standards to we Greeks, neither better nor worse except according to our opinion. Moreover, each tragedy illustrates a chief characteristic which prevents the hero from coming to Self knowledge. Such was the blindness of Oedipus.
A. But how will I live, knowing all this?
S. Enjoy yourself, my boy. Be happy. Love your work, and study philosophy, but don't attribute your actions to an imaginary ME who doesn't actually exist which is the real slavery.
A. Thank you Socrates. But…
S. There are always 'buts' - listen! This idea that men can act independently of the Gods is at the root of their bondage, and enslaves master and boy alike. To be free, a man must know this clearly. This is my point. I hammer it home continuously.
A. How do I see this clearly?
S. Some time, reflect on major events of your day and examine how much they really happened through your free will? This will undermine your vanity and your pride.
A. Thank you.
S. The tyrant is the imaginary ME who has usurped the Good which is our birthright of freedom. Sacrifice him to the Gods, and all will be well, I promise.
A. Thank you again, Socrates.
S. Come, my dear friend, let us enjoy your sausage with some Cypriot wine; Ah! I can see Alciabides approaching.
source: http://www.advaita.org.uk/discourses/teachers/freewill_jacobs.htm
The seeker must serve the Guru and submit questions with all humility in order to remove all doubts (see Bhagavad Gita 4.34). By doing so, advaita says, the seeker will attain moksha (liberation from the cycle of births and deaths).
More Info: Necessity of a Guru in the trdition of Advaita Vedanta
The orthoprax advaita tradition is closely allied to the smArta tradition, which follows the system of pancAyatana pUjA, where vishNu, Siva, Sakti, gaNapati and sUrya are worshipped as forms of saguNa brahman. In some sources, the concept of the pancAyatana is replaced by the notion of shaNmata, which adds skanda to the above set of five deities. The worship is done both on a daily basis and on specific festival occasions. Questions of who is superior, vishNu or Siva, which are very popular among many groups of Hindus, are not relished by advaitins. In the words of Sri Chandrasekhara Bharati (1892 - 1954), the accomplished jIvanmukta, "you cannot see the feet of the Lord, why do you waste your time debating about the nature of His face?"
That said, vishNu and Siva, the Great Gods of Hinduism, are both very important within the advaita tradition. The sannyAsIs of the advaita order always sign their correspondence with the words "iti nArAyaNasmaraNam ". In worship, advaitins do not insist on exclusive worship of one devatA alone. As brahman is essentially attribute-less (nirguNa), all attributes (guNas) equally belong to It, within empirical reality. The particular form that the devotee prefers to worship is called the ishTa-devatA. The ishTa-devatAs worshipped by advaitins include vishNu as kRshNa, the jagadguru, and as rAma, Siva as dakshiNAmUrti, the guru who teaches in silence, and as candramaulISvara, and the Mother Goddess as pArvatI, lakshmI and sarasvatI. Especially popular are the representations of vishNu as a sAlagrAma, Siva as a linga, and Sakti as the SrI-yantra. gaNapati is always worshipped at the beginning of any human endeavor, including the pUjA of other Gods. The daily sandhyAvandana ritual is addressed to sUrya. The sannyAsis of the advaita sampradAya recite both the vishNu sahasranAmam and the SatarudrIya portion of the yajurveda as part of their daily worship. In addition, "hybrid" forms of the Deities, such as hari-hara or Sankara-nArAyaNa and ardhanArISvara are also worshipped.
Full Article: Position of Bhakti in Advaita Vedanta Philosophy
Apart from karma, there is scope for free will (called “purushartha”) in human lives. Good action and good thought can reduce papa and increase punya. Whether free will or karma will prevail or to what extent free will can mitigate karma depends on the relative strength of the two. Since there is no way of knowing what one’s karma is, wisdom lies in doing good actions and entertaining good thoughts. One should not lose faith in the efficacy of good actions and good thoughts; good actions and good thoughts are bound to bring about a better balance of punya papa and, consequently, mitigate suffering and increase happiness in the present janma itself or in future janmas.
Brhadaranyaka Upanishad, fifth chapter, fourteenth section talks of the beneficial result of the chanting of the famous Savitri mantra in the Gayatri metre.
Full Article: Free Will according to Advaita Vedanta
On the other hand, Adi Shankara claims that the world is not absolutely false. It appears false only when compared to Brahman. In the pragmatic state, the world is completely true—which occurs as long as we are under the influence of Maya. The world cannot be both true and false at the same time; hence Adi Shankara has classified the world as indescribable.