There is a need to bifurcate Bhagavan Buddha from Buddhism to rediscover the lost wisdom of Bhagavan Buddha.+

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

Buddhism has no answer to certain questions like the existence of Atama (Soul) and rebirth. Buddhists do not believe in Athma because they believe in emptiness but they are unaware of the fact that emptiness is the nature of the Atama, the Self. Without the Atama there is no nonduality. Nonduality is the nature of the Atama.

Bhagavan Buddha did not founded Buddhism because Bhagavan Buddha rejected religion, scriptures, and the concept of God. When Bhagavan Buddha died all the Buddhist philosophical schools arose. It had never happened in the whole world as it happened in India after Bhagavan Buddha. The man, who for his whole life was against philosophy and philosophizing, became the source of the greatest philosophical endeavor ever. Thirty-six schools of philosophy were born when Bhagavan Buddha died. And the people that he had always condemned all gathered together to philosophize about him.

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. For you cannot form any idea of misery without contrasting it with its opposite, happiness. The two will always go together. Bhagavan 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 in 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 that has come into being or has 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.

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

Fortunate is the seeker who does not lose himself in the labyrinths of Buddhist philosophy but realizes that form, time and space are one in essence. And that essence is the Soul, which is present in the form of consciousness.

That is why Buddha said: ~ “Believe nothing because a wise man said it, Believe nothing because it is generally held. Believe nothing because it is written. Believe nothing because it is said to be divine. Believe nothing because someone else said it. But believe only what you, yourself judge to be true.

Bhagavan Buddha: ~ "It is better to conquer yourself than to win a thousand battles. Then the victory is yours. It cannot be taken from you, not by angels or by demons, heaven or hell."

 No one has anyone seen emptiness.  All the Buddhist theories are conceptual divisions invented by the Buddhist philosophers by their excessive analysis. Where do all these conceptual theories based on the dualistic perspective end? Why should confusion be created and then explained away?

Bhagavan Buddha’s wisdom is lost because of Buddhism because they believed that emptiness means the non-existence of the Atama. There is a need to bifurcate Bhagavan Buddha from Buddhism to rediscover the lost wisdom of Bhagavan Buddha.  

Dalai Lama said: that 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-Gulbarga)

All the Buddhist theories of reincarnation are based on the birth entity, which is the false self within the illusory world.  Buddhists who are caught up with the idea of reincarnation and rebirth theories are not qualified to acquire Advaitic or nondualistic wisdom. When Buddhists do not believe in the Soul but believe in reincarnation then what is it that reincarnates without the Soul?

Buddhist who believes in reincarnation and rebirth theories are unaware of the fact that all their theories and philosophy are egocentric therefore Buddhism has no answer to certain questions like the existence of Atama [Soul] and rebirth.

From the standpoint of the Soul, the  Self the birth, life, death, rebirth, and reincarnation theory is part of the dualistic illusion.

Your body cannot reincarnate because it is insentient.

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.

Buddhism and its relationship with Science are like that of water and wine, one cannot say there is no water in wine, but when you drink it, it would not be the water but wine... thus Einstein’s view is a water in wine because modern science does not believe in the matter but in this religion, everything is the matter only"

Emptiness is the nature of the Soul, which is present in the form of consciousness. Emptiness is the fullness of consciousness without the division of form, time, and space.

Bhagavan Buddha was a Gnani, but his interpreters were not. Bhagavan Buddha did not enter into the scriptural interpretation.

Sage Sankara however although he agreed in nearly all points with   Bhagavan Buddha was a tactician and wanted to teach these truths within the Vedic Society. Hence he did in Rome as Rome does! He made himself outwardly appear as a Vedic orthodox and thus secured his aim.

Buddhism has failed by misunderstanding Gautama and believing that nothing is left to exist after Nirvana. What is it that sees the illusory nature of the finite ego? This is what the Buddhists need to answer and cannot on their theories.

Only the Advaita has the answer: it is the Soul, the witness, the Seer. The Buddhists are in error in regarding the finite ego as illusory, and as having nothing more behind it: but they would have been perfectly correct in such an outlook had they added the notion of the witness.

How is it that Skandhas come together and compose the ego?

What sees them come and go?

It is the Atman, the witness, and this lack is fulfilled by Advaitic wisdom.

When Buddhists say that the mind comes and goes they are forgetting that there must be another part of the mind as the Soul, the ‘Self, which is present in the form of the consciousness which notices it and that tells them of this disappearance and appearance.

All Buddhist misunderstandings arise from the fact that Bhagavan Buddha refused to discuss ultimate questions.

When Buddhism degenerates into Nihilism Sage Sankara refutes it (Manduka Upanishad P.281). The truth of a single reality within or underlying the illusory ego is all-important and without it Buddhism becomes fallacious.

Sages of Advaita admit the transitoriness and evanescence of thoughts just like Buddhism, but not of the Mind which observes this transitoriness and knows it.

Buddhists borrowed from the Upanishads because they were Indians. The Vedantins did not need to borrow from Buddhism therefore (P.396 v.99 of Manduka Upanishad)

Bhagavan Buddha taught the illusoriness of ego but did not go farther probably because he thought the world could not understand the higher truth. Hence followers go with him to that point of his and then deny the Vedantic doctrine of one supreme reality when Bhagavan Buddha himself neither denied nor advocated it. Anyway, the refutation of his followers is to ask them “What is it that is aware of the ego's illusoriness?" There must be something that tells you that. That something is the  Atman, the witness, and if you say this witness itself may be illusory, coming and going, still there must be something non-transient i.e. permanent, to tell you this.

Sages of Advaita disagree with Buddhists (Vijnanavadin) only on the Ultimate Question, but they agree with their idealism fully.

Even when you say "I am not" you are thinking. Hence every thought means positing some existence. To exist is to be thought of hence the Advaitic criticism of Sunyavada which says there is nothing. In saying "There is nothing" they are unconsciously positing something. The thought of nothing is existence itself. Hence only by refraining from thought can they state their case. The thought itself is an object. The negation of existence is a thought. The presence of an object means duality. Hence this proves that the Sunyavadins never understood the non-duality that is Brahman.

Buddhism agrees in thinking that the ego sees itself; they do not admit there is anything that sees the ego: they say there is no proof that any witness exists. When thoughts are there, thoughts become conscious of themselves. Advaitic criticism is that these Skandhas which appear and disappear are witnessed only.  

Sages of Advaita say the witness is hidden by the witnessed. The witnessed is merely an illusion created out of the witness. In reality, there is neither witness nor witnessed only oneness that is Advaita or nonduality. 

ZEN may get a flash of peace but that is not the same as Advaitin who realizes that the whole world is the Atman, the Self. Zen is mysticism.

Bhagavan Buddha: ~  ‘There are only two mistakes one can make along the road to truth: not going all the way... and not starting.

Sage Sankara's arrival on the scene was at a most critical juncture when both Buddhism and Vedism were fast disintegrating into various sects and cults. Buddha's original teachings were a reaction to the Vedic sacrificial extremities. But in the later century practices like magic and sexual mysticism crept into Buddhism. Vedic religion was not very different, having given way to superstitious ways, and a large number of rituals. It was Sage Sankara who tried to re-assess and integrate the sound teachings of Buddha in the Vedic following and was successful in forming a new religion. 

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

Critics say Sage Sankara and Sage Goudapada borrowed their ideas from Buddhism. But in Manduka (page 281) these two declare they are not Buddhists, only a number of their ideas agree with those of Buddhism, whilst they point out their difference of view from Sunyavada Buddhists and Vijnanavadins. Thus, Sage Sankara, and Sage Goudapada both agree and disagree with Buddhists.

Sunyavadins say there is nothing, neither matter nor mind: they are nihilists. How do they know the mind ceases to exist? Where is the proof? When you know everything is mind, both the changing forms and the underlying substances how can you posit its real change into nothingness? Mind, Brahman always remains really itself because of its nature. We see change every minute but by an inquiry into the nature of change and cause, we see that it is only when we imagine that there is cause and change.

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.

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 in the ultimate standpoint of non-duality, which is indescribable because the description is possible only in the realm of form, time, and space whereas from the ultimate standpoint the form, time and space are merely an illusion created out of the Soul, the Self.

Sage Sankara disagrees with Buddhists who say, there is nothing - a 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).

Moksha meaning liberation from the cycle of transmigration pertains to the lower or purely religious sphere. This doctrine is on the lower level because it is based on the reality of form, time, and space.

On the Advaitic perspective, the interpretation of the word is "liberation from ignorance." Similarly, the word Nirvana is interpreted in Buddhist countries as a meaning release from the cycle of births and deaths. This too is the popular interpretation, not philosophical which is precisely the same as the Advaitic perspective.

Tibetan and Chinese Buddhists who say that many Buddhas are living in spirit bodies and helping our earth from the spiritual world are still in the sphere of religious illusion, not the ultimate truth. Their statements are wrong. Every sage realizes that the only way to help mankind is to come down amongst them, for which he must necessarily take on flesh-body. When people are suffering how can he relieve their suffering unless he appears among them? When people are suffering how can he feed them from an unseen world whether their struggle is for material bread or for spiritual truth? No! He must be here actually in the flesh. It is impossible to help them in any other way and all talk of Shiva living on Mount Kailas in the spiritual body or Buddha in Nirmanakaya, the invisible body belongs to the realm of delusion or Self-deception.

It is quite true that Bhagavan Buddha constantly taught that man should seek release from transmigratory existence, but we must remember however that what the sage knows is known only to himself in its fullness and that he gives out to the public only so much as they could grasp and no more.:~Santthosh Kumaar