Buddhism did not graduate its teaching to suit people of varying grades; hence its failure to affect society in Asia.

Bhagavān Buddha was a Gnani, not his followers. Bhagavān 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. Buddhist does 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.

Bhagavān Buddha not founder of Buddhism because Bhagavān Buddha rejected religion, scriptures and the concept of God.

When Bhagavān Buddha died, all the Buddhist philosophical schools arose. It had never happened in the whole world as it happened in India after Bhagavān 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 Bhagavān 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.

Bhagavān 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.

Bhagavān 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 it come out of nothing.

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

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

All the Buddhist theories of reincarnation are based on 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 for acquiring the Advaitic or nondualistic wisdom. When Buddhist does not believe in the Soul, but they 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. The body cannot reincarnate because it is insentient.

Bhagavān Buddha was a Gnani, but his interpreters are not. Bhagavān Buddha did not enter into scriptural interpretation.

Sage Sankara however although he agreed in nearly all points with Bhagavān 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 through 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.

The only 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 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 fulfilled by Advaitic wisdom.

When Buddhist says that 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 consciousness which notices it and which tells them of this disappearance and appearance.

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

When Buddhism degenerates into Nihilism, Sage Sankara refute 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 transistorizes and evanescence of thoughts just like Buddhism, but not of the Mind which observes this transitoriness and knows it.

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

Bhagavān 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 Bhagavān 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. : ~ Santthosh Kumaar