Nearly all orthodox hold views of Maya which are entirely incorrect and untenable.+

As one indulges in deeper self-search he becomes aware: - As per the religious archaeologists' view: the date of Sage  Sankara may be taken most correctly as that of the 9th century. 

Some claims are made in India that he lived two thousand years ago, but there is absolutely no proof for this claim. They do not go back further than the 12th century A.D. and all so-called evidence for Sage Sankara having lived two centuries before Christ is either conjectures or orthodox fabrication.

Regarding the question of Sage Sankara's death, one may dismiss the legend that he did not die, at the age of 32, but disappeared into a cave. This is another orthodox story that is quite unfounded. He did really die in the Himalayas at that age.

As one goes into the annals of history, one becomes aware that; the spiritual Advaita is mixed up with orthodox punditry. 

There is a need for our own research to know the true essence of Advaita propounded by Sage Sankara, and Sage Gudapada and the emptiness of the Bhagavan Buddha.

How Sage Sankara could have written so many books during such a short term of existence. The fact is that he wrote very few books. Those actually written by him were Commentaries on Brahma Sutras and the Upanishads and on the Gita. All other books ascribed to him were not written down by his own hand.

Sage Sankara wrote his Manduka Upanishad commentary first, and then as this revealed that he thoroughly understood the subject, his gurus requested him to write the commentary on Badarayana's Brahma Sutras, which was a popular theological work universally studied throughout India. That is why his commentary is written from a lower dualistic point, for those who cannot rise higher, save that here and there Sage Sankara occasionally has strewn a few truly Advaitic sentences.

Sage Sankara had only four fully trained disciples, although he advised some kings. His doctrines spread after his lifetime. Sage Sankara’s books were dictated to secretaries as he traveled, therefore, only a few were capable of understanding his philosophy.

Nearly all orthodox hold views of Maya which are entirely incorrect and untenable. They do not know Sage Sankara's Upanishad Bashyas, but only the Brahma Sutra Bashya.

Sage Sankara varied his practical advice and doctrinal teaching according to the people he was amongst. He never told them to give up their particular religion or beliefs or metaphysics completely; he only told them to give up the worst features of abuse: at the same time, he showed just one step forward toward the truth.

In Brahma Sutras, Sage Sankara says that Brahman is the cause of the world, whereas in Manduka he denies it. This is because he says that at the lower stage of understanding, the former teaching must be given, for people will get frightened as they cannot understand how the world can be without a cause, but to those in a higher stage, the truth of non-causality can be revealed.

Brahma Sutras, i.e. "Vedanta Sutras" by Badarayana, is intended for those of middling intellects, not for those who have the best brains: it is a semi-theological, semi-philosophical work; it starts with the assumption that Brahman exists.

The opening sentence is "All this is Brahman." But nobody knows or has seen Brahman.

If one says "All this is gold" and shows a piece of gold, the words are understandable. Suppose one has never seen gold. Then what is the use of it becomes meaningless when the object indicated is seen by none?

Hence, the Brahma Sutra opening is equivalent to "All this is Brahman". Both have no meaning so long as they are not understood if we take them as the data to start from. 

It is for this reason, that the Brahma Sutra is intended for theological mindsets because it begins with dogma although its reasoning is close. For it starts with something imagined.:~Santthosh Kumaar