^..hi zhoro (thank you for your advaitan sharings)

....well, there never really was a debate ..as i came to at the end of that post...it's more that there are different sets of language to attempt to describe the Paramarthika Satta (absolutely real)

the differences in philosophy are subtle, perhaps semantic..and between shakta advaita and Shankaracharya, possibly non-existent..but they are two different traditions..leading to the non-dual..

some forms of shaktism could be seen (while being monist in principle) as 'practical dualism', such as folk shaktism involving trance mediums..or Ramakrishna singing to and asking questions to 'Ma' (Kali) ..Ramakrishna said Shakti and Brahman are One..

the difference in tone of the two doctrines is mainly in the position on Maya being the reason for the apparent world..the Shankara position summed up as:

[URL unfurl="true"]http://www.sankaracharya.org/advaita_philosophy.php[/URL]

recalling that the Shankaracharya Maya philosophy in Advaita Vedanta is called Mayavadin,

Woodrolfe sees the difference as this:

..the last sentence being quite poignant..

there is no description in language..

Brahman (or pure Adi Shakti) is not an object..it's..well, yes 'Neti Neti' (not this, not this)

..change is unchanging in it's ceaseless changing..the absolute is unchanging, though it has the power of change..

Shakti (Maya) really means 'power'..but like 'consciousness', that's just a word..and no language or mind can step outside or contain Reality..

though words give us bridges, reflections..

from the Isha Upanishad (Müller translation) :