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.
Remember:~
Buddhism has not proved the truth of Nonduality because they do not believe in the existence of Athma they believed in emptiness. Without Athma there is no nonduality. Buddhist fail to recognize the emptiness is the nature of the Athma, the 'Self'.
Sage Sankara proved the existence of God in truth on the Vedic perspective and also proved the existence of God rationally.
Unless we bifurcate Buddha from Buddhism and Sage Sankara from Hinduism, the Advaita hidden by the Dvaita will not be revealed.
Remember
Buddhist Sutra and Sage Sankara’s Advaitic Wisdom
Heart sutra: ~ “Gate, gate para gate parasamgate Bodhi svaha”
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 Sri, 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 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 its 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 Sag Sankara was wiser and gave religion; such as Bhakti, worship, etc.--to the ignorant masses, as well as Advaitic wisdom to those of higher intellect.
Sage Sankara' gave religious, rituals, 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) is present in 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 - 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). : ~ Santthosh Kumaar
