Buddhism has not proved the truth of Nonduality. There is no doubt Buddha pointed out the unreality of the world. He told people they were foolish to cling to it. But he stopped there. He came nearer to Advaita in speech but not to Advaita fully.
Dalai Lama said: Buddhism need not to 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)
Advaita has the answer: ~ ‘The Soul is the innermost ‘Self’. The Soul, the innermost ‘Self ‘is birthless and deathless because it is ever formless, timeless and spaceless existence.
When the Soul is birthless and deathless then the question of rebirth does not arise. The Soul is present in the form of consciousness. Buddhists identified the Soul as emptiness and deny the existence of the Soul.
It is an error to deny the Soul, which is the cause of the world in which we exist and it itself is uncaused.
The Soul is Self-evident. It is not established by extraneous proofs. It is not possible to deny the Soul because It is the very essence of the one who denies It. The Soul is the basis of all kinds of knowledge, presuppositions, and proofs. Self is within, the Self is without; the Self is before, the Self is behind; the Self is on the right, the Self is on the left; the Self is above and the Self is below. The Soul is everything. Thus, the Soul, which is present in the form of consciousness, is the ultimate truth or Brahman.
Advaitic sages 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 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. Skandhas which appear and disappear are an object only Buddhists are unaware of the subject.
ZEN may get a flash of peace but that is not the same as Advaitins who realizes that the world in which we exist is the Atman. Zen is mysticism.
Critics say Sage Sankara and Sage Goudpada borrowed their ideas from Buddhism. But in Manduka Upanishad (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 Goudpada 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. We follow the former.
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. 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 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.
Bhagavan Buddha as a construction 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 and worship, etc.--to the ignorant masses, as well as Advaita to those who were able to grasp it.
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.
Why the founder of Zen 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 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 amongst 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.:~Santthosh Kumaar
