Bhagavan Buddha's teachings that all life is misery belongs to the relative standpoint only.+

Bhagavan Buddha was a Gnani, but his interpreters are not. Bhagavan Buddha did not enter into the scriptural interpretation. So the Hindus threw him out of their religion. 

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

Buddhism has failed through misunderstanding Gotama 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 in their theories. 

Only a Gnani can reply: it is 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 Seer. How is it that Skandhas come together and compose the ego? Who sees them come and go? It is the Seer, the Atman. 

. When they say that the mind comes and goes they are forgetting that there must be another part of the mind as consciousness which notices it and which tells them of this disappearance and appearance. All their misunderstandings arise from the fact that Bhagavan Buddha refused to discuss the ultimate questions. When Buddhism degenerates into Nihilism we refute it (See Manduka P.281).

The truth of a single reality within or underlying the illusory ego is all-important and without it Buddhism becomes fallacious.

Vedanta admits 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 (see P.396 v.99 of Manduka Up)

Bhagavan Buddha taught the illusoriness of ego but did not go further 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

Seer, and if one says this Seer itself may be illusory, coming and going, still there must be something non-transient i.e. permanent, to tell him this.

The ZEN Buddhist "Koan" exercises are known and taught in India; only privately and individually.

Advaitic sages disagree with Buddhists (Vijnanavadin) only on the Ultimate question, but we 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 our 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 non-duality, ie. 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 illusions only the Brahman is hidden by the illusion or Maya.

Remember:~

ZEN may get a flash of peace but that is not the same as Vedantin who realizes that the whole world is yourself. Zen is mysticism.

Ignorant commentators say Sankara and Gaudapada borrowed their ideas from Buddhism. But in Mandukya (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 Sankara and Gaudapada 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 the 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 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.

Remember:~

Buddhism did not graduate its teaching to suit people of varying grades; hence its failure 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 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 come out of nothing.

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

Remember:~

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 Sankara was wiser and gave religion; such as rituals, worship, etc.--to the ignorant masses, as well as Advaitic wisdom to those who were able to grasp it.

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

Why Suzuki e has failed to influence the Japanese in practicing Zen, whether it is because Zen Buddhism has degenerated into religion instead of philosophy.

Tibetan and Chinese Buddhists who say that there are many Bhagavan Buddhas 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 Bhagavan Buddha in Nirmanakaya, the invisible body belongs to the realm of delusion or self-deception.:~Santthosh Kumaar