Advaita is the next step higher than Buddhism because it gives the missing reason.+

 Buddhist Sutra and Sage Sankara’s Advaita.

Bhagavan Buddha was a Gnani, not his followers. Bhagavan Buddha’s wisdom was lost, it is because Buddhism was mixed up and messed up with other religions in Asia wherever it existed.

Bhagavan Buddha started the quest and Sage Sankara completed the journey.

You must bifurcate Bhagavan Buddha from Buddhism and Sage Sankara from Hinduism then only it is possible to trace the wisdom of the great Sages of truth.

There is no need to argue whether Bhagavan Buddha is right or Sage Sankara is wrong. Such an argument will not yield wisdom. The seeker must discover where he is wrong in understanding Advaita or nonduality.

Buddhism has not proved the truth of Nonduality. Bhagavan Buddha pointed out the unreality of the world but he told people they were foolish to cling to it. But he stopped there. He came nearest to Advaita in speech but not to Advaita fully.

Buddhism rejects the existence of the Athma. So without the Atama, it is impossible to prove nonduality or Advaita. thus, Buddhist nonduality is only in words.

Advaita is the next step higher than Buddhism because it gives the missing reason, viz. unity, non-difference from others, and because it explains that it used the concept of removing the sufferings of others, of lifting them up to happiness, only as we use one thorn to pick out another, afterward throw both away. Similarly, Advaita discards both concepts of misery and happiness from the ultimate standpoint of non-duality, which is indescribable.

Buddhists say that a thing exists only for a moment, and if that thing has still some of the substance from which it was produced, how then can they deny that its cause is continuing in the effect; hence its existence is more than a moment. Vedanta is concerned with whether it is one and the same thing which has come into being, or has it come out of nothing.

The distinction between Sage Sankara's Advaita, and Vijnanavadin Buddhism is that the former is mentalism i.e. mind is the real, whereas the latter is idealism, i.e. ideas are real. We follow the former.

Buddhism did not graduate its teaching to suit people of varying grades; hence it failed to affect society in Asia.

Bhagavan Buddha's teachings that all life is misery belong to the relative standpoint only. You cannot form any idea of misery without contrasting it with its opposite, happiness. The two will always go together. Buddha taught the goal of cessation of misery, i.e. peace, but took care not to discuss the ultimate standpoint for then he would have had to go above the heads of the people and tell them that misery itself was only an idea, that peace even was an idea (for it contrasted with peacelessness). That the doctrine he gave out was a limited one, is evident because he inculcated compassion. Why should a Buddhist sage practice pity? There is no reason for it. Advaita is the next step higher than Buddhism because it gives the missing reason, viz. unity, non-difference from others, and because it explains that it used the concept of removing the sufferings of others, of lifting them up to happiness, only as we use one thorn to pick out another, afterward throw both away. Similarly, Advaita discards both concepts of misery and happiness from the ultimate standpoint of non-duality, which is indescribable.

Buddhists say that a thing exists only for a moment, and if that thing has still got some of the substance from which it was produced how then can they deny that its cause is continuing in the effect; hence its existence is more than a moment. Vedanta is concerned with whether it is one and the same thing which has come into being, or has it come out of nothing.

Even the Sunyavada ultimate of the "void" is really a breath, and therefore, an imagination and not truth.

Bhagavan Buddha as a constructive worker committed an error in failing to give the masses a religion, something tangible they could grasp something materialistic, if symbolic that their limited intellect could take hold of, in addition to his ethics and philosophy.

Sage Sankara gave religion; such as rituals, worship, etc.--to the ignorant populace, as well as Advaitic wisdom to those who are capable of grasping it

Bhagavan Buddha gave as the central feature of his doctrine the great law of Karma in order to reiterate its ethical meaning. He did more good in this to uplift the people than the ritualists.

Even in Buddhism: ~ Buddhist teaching has itself become a kind of interactive and Self-evolving process, much like its idea of pratityasamutpada. However, the end goal is still Nirvana, which is an experience ultimately beyond all concepts and language, even beyond the Buddhist teachings. In the end, even the attachment to the Dharma, the Buddhist teaching, must be dropped like all other attachments. The tradition compares the teaching to a raft upon which one crosses a swift river to get to the other side; once one is on the far shore; there is no longer any need to carry the raft. The far shore is Nirvana, and it is also said that when one arrives, one can see quite clearly that there was never any river at all.

Dalai Lama said:- Buddhism need not be the best religion though it is the most scientific and religion and inquisitive. But Buddhism has no answer to certain questions like the existence of Atama [Soul] and rebirth. Dali lama said that as an individual he believes in rebirth as he had come across a few cases of rebirth. Modern science, Dalai Lama hoped would unearth the mystery behind the rebirth. (In DH –dec-212009-Gulburga).

Sage Sankara disagrees with Buddhists who say, there is nothing - nonentity. Sage Sankara believes there is some reality, even though things are not what they appear to be. If one knows the truth, he will know what to do to find inspiration for action. The seeker of truth‘s subject is to know what is it that is Real.

Buddhism says: that all things are illusory and nothing exists. However, Advaita avers that it is not so. It says that the universe, of course, is illusory, but there is Brahman (consciousness), that exists forming the very substratum of all things (illusion or universe).

Only when we independently search for the truth without religion and its doctrine then we will be able to realize the truth beyond form, time, and space.

There is no need to study neither Advaita Vedanta nor Buddhism to realize the ultimate truth or Brahman. It is no use going roundabout way; trace the Brahman.

Heart sutra: ~ “Gate, gate para gate parasamgate Bodhi svaha”

The heart sutra is a great sutra. Yes, it takes us to the inner realm but all the Buddhist sutras are limited to form alone not to the entire form, time, and space, we have to go beyond form, time, and space by a perfect understanding of ‘ what is what’.

Since the Self is not the form but the ‘Self’ is formless, timeless, and spaceless existence.

All the Skandas are in the physical realm (Form, feeling, perception, mental formation, and consciousness). The Self is not limited to physicality, but it pervades everything and everywhere in the entire form, time, and space. Thus, the heart sutra yields only half-truth.

The Buddhist scriptures were completely distorted by the time of Sage Sankara; therefore, it is not possible to get the pure essence of Bhagwan Buddha’s teaching. Buddhism is mixed up and messed up with other religions wherever it existed in Asia.

Sage Sankara had to criticize the Buddhist literature prevailing then as the Buddhists themselves were confused as to what Shunyata is.

Dalai Lama said: ~ Buddhism need not be the best religion though it is most scientific and religion and inquisitive. But Buddhism has no answer to certain questions like the existence of Atama (Soul) and rebirth. Dali lama said that as an individual he believes in rebirth as he had come across a few cases of rebirth. Modern science, Dalai Lama hoped would unearth the mystery behind the rebirth. (In DH –dec-212009-Gulburga)

Dalai Lama was right in pointing out Buddhism need not be the best religion though it is the most scientific and religion and inquisitive. But Buddhism has no answer to certain questions like the existence of Atama (Soul) and rebirth.

Buddhism has not proved the truth of Non-duality. There is no doubt Bhagavan Buddha pointed out the unreality of the world. He told people they were foolish to cling to it. But he stopped there. He came nearest to Advaita in speech but not to Advaita fully.

The distinction between Sage Sankara’s Advaita, and Vijnanavadin Buddhism is that the former is mentalism i.e. mind is the real, whereas the latter is idealism, i.e. ideas are real. Advaitins follow the former.

Buddhism did not graduate its teaching to suit people of varying grades; hence it failed to affect society in Asia.

Bhagavan Buddha as a constructive worker committed an error in failing to give the masses a religion, something tangible they could grasp something materialistic, if symbolic that their limited intellect could take hold of, in addition to his ethics and philosophy. Here Sage Sage Sankara was wiser and gave religion; such as Bhakti, worship, etc.- to the ignorant masses, as well as wisdom to those of higher intellect.

Sage Sankara gave religious, ritual, or dogmatic instruction to the populace, but pure philosophy only to the few who could rise to it. Hence, the interpretation of his writings by commentators is often confusing because they mix up the two viewpoints. Thus, they may assert that ritual is a means of realizing Brahman, which is absurd.

The Upanishads have the answer for the existence of the Atama.

Brihadaranyaka Upanishad: ~ Brahman (God in truth) is the form of the Athma, and it is indeed Athma itself.

Advaita is the next step higher than Buddhism because it gives the missing reason, viz. unity, non-difference from others, and because it explains that it used the concept of removing the sufferings of others, of lifting them up to happiness, only as we use one thorn to pick out another, afterward throw both away. Similarly, Advaita discards both concepts of misery and happiness from the ultimate standpoint of non-duality, which is indescribable.

Sage Sankara disagrees with Buddhists who say, there is nothing - nonentity. Sage Sankara believes there is some reality, even though things are not what they appear to be. If one knows the truth, he will know what to do to find inspiration for action. The seeker of truth‘s subject is to know what is it that is Real.

Buddhism says: that all things are illusory and nothing exists. However, Advaita avers that it is not so. It says that the universe, of course, is illusory, but there is Brahman (consciousness), that exists forming the very substratum of all things (illusion or universe). : ~ Santthosh Kumaar