Monotheism is defined as the belief in only one God and polytheism is defined as belief in many Gods.+

Theism is in traditional sense; it is the belief in at least one God. Monotheism is defined as the belief in only one God and polytheism is defined as belief in many Gods.

Some organized religions follow monotheism where God is supreme and none except him. These God-centric faiths follow a particular code of conduct that the ‘believer’ has to follow without questioning. He cannot question those rules, the life of the Sage or the ultimate God. The individualized Gods God is isolated from nature and everything is GOD’s. Thus,  an element of attachment to a name and gender, obstruction to free thinking and free will can be seen in all belief system.

History speaks that in the past those who questioned the validity of this religious authority were exiled, killed or termed as irreligious and condemned.

Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present and active in the governance and organization of the universe.

The Bhagavad Gita: ~ Brahmano hi pratisthaham ~ Brahman (God) is considered the all-pervading consciousness, which is the basis of all the animate and inanimate entities and material. (14.27).

When Bhagavad Gita says, God is considered the all-pervading consciousness which is the basis of all the animate and inanimate entities and material then nothing has to be accepted as God other than consciousness. 

Lord Krishna Says Ch ~V: ~ “Those who know the ‘Self’  in truth.". The last two words (tattvataha) are usually ignored by pundits, but they make all the difference between the ordinary concept of God and the truth about God.

The dualistic worship of "God” is only for the ignorant populace. The God in truth is only Atman, the innermost ‘Self’.   In reality, there is no dualities, no differentiation. Only Atman exists.

The Vedas confirms God is Atman (Spirit), the ‘Self’.

Rig Veda: ~ The Atman is the cause; Atman is the support of all that exists in this universe. May ye never turn away from the Atman the innermost ‘Self’. May ye never accept another God in place of the Atman nor worship other than the Atman?" (10:48, 5)

Rig-Veda 1-164-46 and Y.V 32-1 clearly mention that God is “One”.

Rig Veda says God is ‘ONE’ and God is Atman, then why believe and worship in place of real God.

Brihad Upanishad: ~ “If you think there is another entity, whether man or God there is no truth."

When Upanishad itself says: ~   Sarvam khalvidam brahma ~ all this (universe) is verily Brahman. By following back all of the relative appearances in the world, we eventually return to that from which it is all manifest – the non-dual reality (Chandogya Upanishad). 

It proves the Vedic Gods are not with the Gods with attributes because the Vedic God is spiritual God because the Vedas consider God as the Supreme Spirit which is Atman.

That is what Yajurveda says:~  not to worship the things which are part of the falsehood. 

Translation 1.

They enter darkness, those who worship natural things (for example air, water, sun, moon, animals, fire, stone, etc).

They sink deeper in darkness those who worship sambhuti. (Sambhuti means created things, for example, table, chair, idol, etc.) (Yajurved 40:9)

Translation 2.

"Deep into the shade of blinding gloom fall asambhuti's worshippers. They sink to darkness deeper yet who on sambhuti are intent." (Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T. H. Giffith pg 538)

Translation 3.

"They are enveloped in darkness, in other words, are steeped in ignorance and sunk in the greatest depths of misery who worship the uncreated, eternal prakrti -- the material cause of the world -- in place of the All-pervading God, But those who worship visible things born of the prakrti, such as the earth, trees, bodies (human and the like) in place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness, in other words, they are extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow, and suffer terribly for a long time." (Yajur Veda 40:9.)

So, Yajur Veda indicates that:~

They sink deeper in darkness those who worship sambhuti. (Sambhuti means created things, for example, table, chair, idol etc (Yajurved 40:9)

Those who worship visible things born of the prakrti, such as the earth, trees, bodies (human and the like) in place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness, in other words, they are extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow, and suffer terribly for a long time." (Yajur Veda 40:9)

Brihad Aranyaka Upanishad/ 3/8/9:~ It is in the truth that Imperishable, O Gargi, Brahman is not seen but is the seer, Brahman is not heard but is the hearer, Brahman is not thought but is the thinker, Brahman is not known but is the knower. There is no other seer but Brahman, no other hearer but Him, no other thinker but Brahman, no other knower but Brahman. And it is that Imperishable which is the warp and the woof of space.”

Thus, the Vedic scriptures recognize the unity of Reality or Brahman without any human intervention or intercession.

Religion and mysticism is a species of mesmerism affecting weaker or impressionable minds. Thus the panoply of a guru’s religious robes or presence of Godmen creates an unconscious suggestion in weaker minds of superior power or magical knowledge. Similarly, mass visitors to ashrams are suggested into thinking they experience great peace and their wishes will be fulfilled if they unconditionally surrender to Guru or Godmen.  Since they are unconsciously hypnotized into believing that will happen. However, when a strong mind which is aware of the truth meets a guru or Godmen are entirely unaffected.  Whatever happening within the waking experience is part of the duality, thus it cannot be part of the reality.

The metaphysics based on Vedas and Upanishads are beyond any form of theism be it monotheism or polytheism, as they point to “reality” which cannot be described by terms like monotheism or polytheism.

 The Vedas recognizes the “reality” both in its formless and manifest aspects. But today, the Vedic science and philosophy are demeaned, distorted and reduced by measuring it through an Abrahamic framework. Therefore, one has to bifurcate all the adulteration to grasp the real essence of Vedas and Upanishads to realize the ultimate truth which beyond form, time and space.   

Polytheism: While the so-called Hindus are based on Puranas, look at the disintegrated aspects of Reality or Brahman, the truth is that there is an inherent realization that all these aspects roll into the Reality or Brahman. The most often used example to dig out polytheism in Hinduism is the story of 33 million Gods in Hinduism. From the scriptures, we find a plethora of quotes that completely debase this myth.

Rig Veda 1/164/46:~ They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni or the heavenly sunbird Garutmat. The seers call in many ways that which is One; they speak of Agni, Yama, Matarishvan.

Rig Veda 8/58/2:~ Only One is the Fire, enkindled in numerous ways; only One is the Sun, pervading this whole universe; only One is the Dawn, illuminating all things. In very truth, the One has become the whole world.

The religion of the Veda knows no idols

Max Müller says:- "The religion of the Veda knows no idols; the worship of idols in India is a secondary formation, a degradation of the more primitive worship of ideal Gods."

Therefore, there was no individual God or temples and worship in the Vedic religion, which existed prior to Buddhism.  Thus the individualized Gods and temples must have been built later on when the worships of the idol were introduced.  Thus the Vedic religion which existed in the past was free from idol and nature worship and idol worshiping rituals. 

Thus, the present day’s worship of individual Gods, created things, nature, and human are against Vedic teachings, and it looks like it has been fabricated and introduced by priestcraft. Since it, has passed on from one generation to the next it is hard for the people to believe the truth of their own religion, because they have sentimentally and emotionally involved in it and they refuse to accept anything else other than their inherited beliefs.  

Even Upanishads confirm that it is impossible to find and realize the truth via religion and scriptural study.:~Santthosh Kumaar 

The temples and temple Gods and temple worships are nothing to do with Santana Dharma or Vedic Religion.+

Temple Gods are not Vedic Gods because the Vedic God is Atman the Spirit. The temples and temple Gods and temple worship have nothing to do with Santana Dharma or Vedic Religion. 

The religion of the Veda knows no idols. All the idol worship belongs to Hinduism. Hinduism is not ancient Santana Dharma or Vedic Religion. 

Max Müller says:~"The religion of the Veda knows no idols; the worship of idols in India is a secondary formation, a degradation of the more primitive worship of ideal Gods."

Therefore, there was no individual God or temples and worship in the Vedic religion, which existed prior to Buddhism.  Thus the individualized Gods and temples must have been built later on when the worship of the idol was introduced.  Thus the Vedic religion which existed in the past was free from idol and nature worship and idol worshiping rituals. 

Thus, the present day’s worship of individual Gods, created things, nature, and humans is against Vedic teachings, and it looks like it has been fabricated and introduced by priestcraft. Since it, has passed on from one generation to the next it is hard for people to believe the truth of their own religion, because they are sentimentally and emotionally involved in it and they refuse to accept anything else other than their inherited beliefs.  

It is impossible to find and realize the truth via religion and scriptural study. Even Upanishads confirm this.  

Theism is in the traditional sense; it is the belief in at least one God. Monotheism is defined as the belief in only one God and polytheism is defined as the belief in many Gods.

Some organized religions follow monotheism where God is supreme and none except him. These God-centric faiths follow a particular code of conduct that the ‘believer’ has to follow without questioning. He cannot question those rules, the life of the Sage, or the ultimate God. The individualized Gods God is isolated from nature and everything is GOD’s. Thus,  an element of attachment to a name and gender, obstruction to free thinking and free will can be seen in all belief systems.

History speaks that in the past those who questioned the validity of this religious authority were exiled, killed, or termed as irreligious and condemned.

Theism, in this specific sense, conceives of God as personal, present, and active in the governance and organization of the universe.

The religious sects like Dvait and Visishita Advaita including the orthodox Advaita have nothing to do with the ultimate truth or Brahman because they worship idols, human worship, and symbol worship and indulge in non-Vedic rituals barred by Vedas.  

Rig Veda: ~ The Atman (Soul or Spirit) is the cause; Atman is the support of all that exists in this universe. May ye never turn away from the Atman the Self. May ye never accept another God in place of the Atman nor worship other than the Atman?" (10:48, 5)

Yajurveda – chapter- 32:~, God is  Supreme Spirit has no ‘Pratima’ (idol) or material shape. God cannot be seen directly by anyone. God pervades all beings and all directions. Thus, Idolatry does not find any support from the Vedas

That is what Yajurveda says:  Not to worship the things which are part of the creation, which is the dualistic illusion or Maya.  

Translation 1.

They enter darkness, those who worship natural things (for example air, water, sun, moon, animals, fire, stone, etc).

They sink deeper in darkness those who worship sambhuti. (Sambhuti means created things, for example, table, chair, idol, etc.)  (Yajurved 40:9)

Translation 2.

"Deep into the shade of blinding gloom fall asambhuti's worshippers. They sink to darkness deeper yet who on sambhuti are intent."  (Yajurveda Samhita by Ralph T. H. Giffith pg 538)

Translation 3.

"They are enveloped in darkness, in other words, are steeped in ignorance and sunk in the greatest depths of misery who worship the uncreated, eternal prakrti -- the material cause of the world -- in place of the All-pervading God, But those who worship visible things born of the prakrti, such as the earth, trees, bodies (human and the like) in place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness, in other words, they are extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow, and suffer terribly for a long time." (Yajur Veda 40:9.)

So, Yajur Veda indicates that:-

They sink deeper in darkness those who worship sambhuti. (Sambhuti means created things, for example, table, chair, idol, etc (Yajurved 40:9)

Those who worship visible things born of the prakrti, such as the earth, trees, and bodies (human and the like) in place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness, in other words, they are extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow, and suffer terribly for a long time." (Yajur Veda 40:9.)

ISH Upanishads:~ By worshipping Gods and Goddesses you will go after death to the world of Gods and Goddesses. But will that help you? The time you spend there is wasted because if you were not there you could have spent that time moving forward towards Self-knowledge, which is your goal. In the world of Gods and Goddesses, you cannot do that, and thus you go deeper and deeper into darkness.

It clearly indicates that if the human goal is to acquire Self-Knowledge then why indulge in rituals and Bhakti to the conceptual Gods, Goddesses, and Gurus to go into deeper darkness. Instead spend that time moving forward towards Self-knowledge, which is one’s prime goal.   

Fortunate is the man who does not lose himself in the labyrinths of paths and practices but goes straight in search of the truth. .... Bhakti is an important component of many branches of Hinduism, defined differently by various sects and schools are non-Vedic introduced several centuries back. :~Santthosh Kumaar 

The orthodox people made Sage Sankara confined to caste whereas Sage Sankara is the Sage of universal order.+

The orthodox people made Sage Sankara confined to caste whereas Sage Sankara is the Sage of universal order.

It is unfortunate people have not tried to understand the Advaitic wisdom of Sage  Sankara. 

Sage Sankara is one of the greatest geniuses of all time. This world owes him a deep debt of gratitude. He not only consolidated the classical values of life but also spiritual wisdom. 

Sage Sankara is the only Sage who has final authority on the Advaitic truth. The Advaitic truth is rational truth and scientific truth without dogmas.

Unfortunately, few philosophers in the world are as misunderstood and misinterpreted as Sage Sankara. Ironically, most of the harm came from his admirers and followers of Advaitic orthodoxy because they propagated rituals as a means to attain lower knowledge which is meant for those who believed in the physical existence (universe or waking) as a reality.

The Advaitic orthodoxy is dualistic and it is not the means to acquire Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana. Advaitic orthodoxy is meant for the ignorant mass that is unfit to grasp the highest truth. Thus, the Advaitic orthodoxy is nothing to do with the ultimate truth or Brahman. Those who have chosen the Atmic path have to discard orthodoxy in order to get the pure essence of Advaita.

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 ~ “All things are illusory and nothing exists. However, Sage Sankara 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)”.

In the context of Advaita Vedanta: ~ Jagat (the world) is not different from Brahman; however, Brahman is different from Jagat

It has not been possible to preach Advaitic Truth entirely free from the settings of dualistic weakness it has not been more operative and useful to mankind at large because only a few will be able to grasp and realize it.

'To realize the Advaitic Truth a freer and fuller scope the seeker has to realize the form, time and space are one in essence. And that essence is consciousness. And the Soul, the innermost Self is present in the form of consciousness.

To realize the Advaitic truth the seeker has to be free from all superstitions and orthodox contaminations. The seeker dedicated himself to acquiring Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana alone.

Remember:~ 

Swami Vivekananda aptly described Sage Sankara’s Advaita as the fairest flower of philosophy that any country in any age has produced.

The Advaitic truth is a rational or scientific truth declared by Sage Sankara centuries back, but unfortunately, the original essence of the rational Advaita is lost mainly, because of orthodox adulteration. 

Sage Sankara was a Jagadguru for the orthodox populace and a Brahma Gnani for the seeking world.

Sage Sankara’s wisdom is nothing to do with orthodox belief systems. Sage Sankara is the only sage who has final authority on the Advaitic truth. The Advaitic truth is rational truth and scientific truth without dogma.

Sage Sankara’s wisdom is nothing to do with the orthodox belief systems. Some philosophers in the past dissented from this interpretation of Vedanta philosophy, holding that the incarnated Souls were separate from the Divine Essence and only finally merged with it after the cycles of birth.

All these theoretical philosophies are based on the imagination based on the false ‘Self’ (ego or you) within the false experience (waking).

Orthodox people argue that Sage Sankara had a Guru. Sage Sankara himself was Guru.

Yes, for orthodox people he was JagadGuru but for the seeker of truth, he was a Brahma Gnani of universal order

Traditionally religious people are so entangled in orthodox religiosity; it is very difficult for them to free themselves from narrow-minded prejudices and dogmas and superstitions. These educated orthodox people are more ignorant than illiterate.

They strongly stuck to their inherited orthodox baggage meant for the ignorant populace.

Even though their own sage has said that orthodoxy is meant for the ignorant populace they ignore and they are like blind led by another blind follow the inherited blind belief.

Even Swami Vivekananda was Ramakrishna Paramahansa's disciple. Swami Vivekananda himself’ said: ~ “You have to grow from the inside out. None can teach you, and none can make you spiritual. There is no other teacher, but your own Soul.”

There are two kinds of audiences - the ordinary ones who desire the transitory heaven and other pleasures obtained as a result of ritual sacrifices, and the most advanced seeker who seeks to know the ultimate truth or Brahman. The Guru and Guru paramparas are meant for the first audience, to help lead its followers along the way. However, there is no need to follow any parampara and follow any Guru for those who wish to realize the truth which is beyond form, time, and space. We should not mix religion with spirituality because religion is based on the ego and spirituality is based on the Soul. Religion is concerned with its paramparas, not truth whereas spirituality is concerned only with the truth, which is beyond form, time, and space. Religion is not spirituality.

Sage Sankara: ~ "Though I wear these robes of a Sanyasin, it is only for the sake of bread." (Select Works of Sage Sankara" also his commentary on Brihad)

Thus, the above passage proves that all those who were the sanyasin robes are wearing it for the sake of bread belong to the religion; they are nothing to do with the ‘Self’-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana. There is no need to criticize and condemn the Gurus, yogis, and swamis because they are needed for the welfare of the ignorant masses in the dualistic world.

So he wore a Guru's robe only for the sake of the ignorant. So he was identified as Guru with parampara by religious people. For the truth seekers, Sage  Sankara is a Brahma Gnani.

Sage Sankara clearly indicates in Viveka Chudamani (2) that the Knower of the Atman (A Gnani) "bears no outward mark of a holy man" (Stanza 539).

When Sage Sankara says, the Knower of the Atman (A Gnani) "bears no outward mark of a holy man.

Thus, it proves that religious Gurus and yogis are not Gnanis because they identified themselves as holy people.

From the Advaitic perspective, A Gnani never identifies himself as a Guru or a Yogi or someone disciple. The one who accepts himself as a Guru or someone’s disciple is not a Gnani.

The seekers of truth need not identify Sage Sankara as a holy man or JagadGuru but as a Brahma Gnani.

Ashtavakra Samhita: ~ "The man of knowledge (Gnani), though living like an ordinary man, is contrary to him and only those like him understand his state.

All the Guru Parampara is for religious people. There is no need for a Guru who wants to tread the path of wisdom.

The Guru is useless so long as the ultimate truth is unknown, and Guru is equally useless when the ultimate truth or Brahman has already been known.

A Guru is needed in the religious and the yogic path. There is no need for a Guru to acquire  Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana. : ~ Santthosh Kumaar

A Gnani is a rational thinker. A Gnani will not be so foolish as to argue with an irrational man.+

A Gnani is a rational thinker. A Gnani will not be so foolish as to argue with an irrational man; the latter will put great warmth of feeling into his words, whereas the other will remain cool and calm-headed, not wasting his time in attempting to reason with someone who is incapable of reasoning calmly, but can only rationalize his emotions.

Sage Sankara alone is Brahma Gnani humanity has to bow with gratitude the great Sage.

Religious and yogic paths are not the Gnanic path or the Atmic path. Never mix religious and yogic ideas in the Atmic path.

Guru, the disciple concept is meant for the religious and yogic path. In the Atmic path, the Guru and Disciple concepts have no value.

A person who realized the ultimate truth or Brahman will throw off his religious robe and all religious identity and lives like a commoner. He never identifies himself as Gnani nor does he identify himself as superior to others. He only shares his knowledge with fellow seekers.

A Gnani never identifies himself as a Guru or a Yogi or someone disciple. The one who accepts himself as a Guru or someone’s disciple is not a Gnani.

Ashtavakra Samhita: ~ "The man of knowledge (Gnani), though living like an ordinary man, is contrary to him and only those like him understand his state.

Even friends and family members of a Gnani will not know him as the Gnani. Due to ignorance, people will not be able to recognize a Gnani. Outwardly the Gnani behaves like an ordinary person behaves. A Gnani talks and jokes like others, but he is not understood as he really is. People may regard him as an exceptional person, but only a few can recognize him as a Gnani.

A Gnani is the one who has realized the matter itself is Spirit and the matter is an illusory expression of the Spirit. A Gnani there is no further quest. To a Gnani, there is nothing to realize because he has realized everything is the Spirit.

To a Gnani, the world in, which he exists is non-existent as a reality because the world in which he exists is nothing but the Spirit. 

A Gnani is free from experiencing the dualistic illusion as a reality because he is fully aware of the Spirit, which is the cause of the dualistic illusion and the Spirit is uncaused.

Religious Gurus are not Gnanis, they propagate only religion. Religion is not spirituality. Religious Gurus do not propagate wisdom they are meant for guiding ignorant populace in practical life within the practical world. 

Many Religious gurus are serving humanity by giving free education and maintain love and harmony in society but they are nothing to do with the Atmic path.

The Guru is nothing to do with Advaitic wisdom. A Gnani never identifies himself as a guru.

There are so maybe in the guise of Gurus and Godmen with criminal records who indulge in cheating rape, murder.

The Gurus and Godmen who promise instant enlightenment or Self-realization are not Gnanis. Mixing religion with the Atmic path is like mixing oil in the water.

Seekers from west mistake whoever calls them as gurus are Gnanis, thus their mission of seeking the truth is misguided by such Gurus.

Sage Sankara: ~ "Though I wear these robes of a Sanyasin, it is only for the sake of bread." (Select Works of Sage Sri, Sankara" also his commentary on Brihad)

Thus, the above passage proves that all those who were the sanyasin robes are wearing it for the sake of bread belongs to the religion; they are nothing to do with the Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana. There is no need to criticize and condemn the Gurus, yogis, and swamis because they are needed for the welfare of ignorant mass in the dualistic world.

Sage Sankara says the transparent Truth of the Self, which is hidden by the illusion, is to be attained through the instructions of a knower of Brahman, (Gnani)

~ Then why you are sticking a Guru who is not a Gnani.

That is why Swami Vivekananda said: ~ “You have to grow from the inside out. None can teach you, none can make you spiritual. There is no other teacher, but your own Soul.”

Yogis and Guru s are not Gods.

This idea of worshiping a Guru as God is not a Vedic idea but adopted from Jainism and Buddhism.

Vedas bars human worship: ~

"They are enveloped in darkness, in other words, are steeped in ignorance and sunk in the greatest depths of misery who worship the uncreated, eternal prakrti -- the material cause of the world -- in place of the All-pervading God, But those who worship visible things born of the prakrti, such as the earth, trees, bodies (human and the like) in place of God are enveloped in still greater darkness, in other words, they are extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow, and suffer terribly for a long time.":~ (Yajur Veda 40:9.)

Than why to worship and glorify the Guru s and Yogis (human form) in place of God when Veda bars such activities and it also warns people who indulge in such activities are enveloped in still greater darkness, in other words, they are extremely foolish, fall into an awful hell of pain and sorrow, and suffer terribly for a long time.

Sage Sankara says the transparent Truth of the Self, which is hidden by the illusion, is to be attained through the instructions of a knower of Brahman, (Gnani)

~ Then why you are sticking a Guru who is not a Gnani.

A Gnani will easily appreciate the high flights of Sage Sri, Sankara’s Advaitic wisdom is one of the 'most majestic structures and valuable products of the Genius of man in his search for Truth. : ~Santthosh Kumaar

Bhagavan Buddha’s wisdom was lost, it is because it is mixed up and messed up with other religions in Asia wherever it existed.+

Bhagavan Buddha was a Gnani, not his followers. Bhagavan Buddha’s wisdom was lost, it is because it is 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 found 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 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 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.

Bhagavan Buddha gave as the central feature of his doctrine the great law of Karmtoto 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: 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-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 in the idea of reincarnation and rebirth theories are not qualified for acquiring Advaitic or nondualistic wisdom. When Buddhist do not believe in the Soul but believe in reincarnation then what is it that reincarnates without the Soul?

Buddhists 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 innermost 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 are not. Bhagavan Buddha did not enter into the scriptural interpretation.

Sage Sri, Sankara however although he agreed on 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 in 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 Buddhist 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 which 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 the 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 not 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.

The critics say Sage Sankara and Sage Gaudapada 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  Gaudapada both agree and disagree with Buddhists.

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 among them? When people are suffering how can he feed them from an unseen world whether their struggle be 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.

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

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 from 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: 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 as 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.

From the Advaitic perspective, the interpretation of the word is "liberation from ignorance." Similarly, the word Nirvana is interpreted in Buddhist countries as the 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.

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.

Bhagavan Buddha was very rational, but he had very irrational gaps. Bhagavan Buddha was at ease with the irrational also. The concept we have of Bhagavan Buddha is not really of Bhagavan Buddha, but of the traditions that followed. Bhagavan Buddha was an altogether different thing. Because we cannot do otherwise, we have to go through Buddhists to reach Buddha. They have created a long tradition of two thousand years, and they have made Bhagavan Buddha very rational. He was not so. :~Santthosh Kumaar