Buddhism has no answer to certain questions like the existence of Atama (Soul).+

 

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 an 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, i.e. 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 the 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 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 the 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.

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. 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 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.

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-Gulbarga).

Buddhist does not believe in Atma. Thus, the entire Buddhist theories and Sutras are physical based, therefore; they yield the truth of the part not the truth of the whole. All the Buddhist teachings are not of the Bhagavān Buddhas, but it is mixed up with other religion of different nations in Asia which were merged with Buddhism. Thus, it is very difficult to get pure essence of pure essence of Bhagavān Buddha’s wisdom.

Buddhism has not proved the truth of Nonduality. Advaitic Sages agree Bhagavān Buddha pointed out the unreality of the world.

Bhagavān Buddha 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.

Only when we independently search the truth without the religion and its doctrine then we will be able to realize the truth beyond form, time, and space.

Buddhism believes in reincarnation. Buddhism does not believe in the existence of Athma. Buddhism does not believe in the existence of God, whereas Sage Sankara proved the existence of Athma and the existence of Brahman or God by declaring Atman is Brahman. From the standpoint of Athma, the reincarnation is an illusion because the birth, life, death, and the world are merely an illusion.

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. Buddha started the quest and Sage Sri, Sankara completed the journey.

Bhagavān Buddha & Sage Sankara both are Sage of truth. The humanity owes gratitude to both great sages of truth.

Buddhism has not proved the truth of Nonduality because Buddhist does not believe in Athma. Nonduality has to be based on Athma. Athma is the very essence of nonduality.

Sage Sankara says the Athma is Self-evident. It is not established by extraneous proofs. It is not possible to deny the Athma because it is the very essence of the one who denies it. The Athma is the basis of all kinds of knowledge, presuppositions, and proofs. The Athma is the Self.

Bhagavān Buddha pointed out unreality of world, and he told people, they were foolish to cling to it. However, he stopped there. He came nearest to Advaita in speech, but not to Advaita fully.

Sage Sankara disagrees with Buddhists who say, there is nothing - 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’s subject is to know what is it that is Real.

Unless one exercises his Reason (Buddhi) there is no chance of getting the ultimate truth or Brahman. : ~ Santthosh Kumaar