Sage Sri Sankara endeavored towards establishing Vedic religion overthrowing Buddhism. But even he was not able to avoid the influence of Buddhism.++****

Sage Sri Sankara endeavored towards establishing Vedic religion overthrowing Buddhism. But even he was not able to avoid the influence of Buddhism. The influence of the revolutionary atmosphere of Buddhism has reappeared in the Advaita of Sage Sri, Sankara. His inability to revive Vedic religion that flourished before the Buddhist revolution in its pure form is discernible.

He was even more mystical than the UPANISHADS, because the UPANISHADS, however mystical they look, have their own rationality. They talk about the transmigration of the Soul. Buddha talked about transmigration without a Soul. It is more mystical.

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

Dalai Lama said: ~  Buddhism need not to be the best religion though it is more 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).

Buddhism has not proved the truth of Non-duality.  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 nearest to Advaita in speech but not to Advaita fully.

The distinction between Sage Sri, 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 belongs 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, afterwards 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.

Bhagavan Buddha also holds that this world which changes from moment to moment is no real, it is only a reflection and a thing of which it is the reflection alone is real. Buddha was not an atheist. He never denied reality. There is nothing in his words or teaching to show that he considered truth to be non-existent like horns of a hare. He could not have held the foolish view that something came out of nothing. It is true; some of his disciples misunderstood and misinterpreted him. his idea was that the truth which cannot be designated by a name, or described is words and of which one cannot even say whether it is existent or none extent, is like non-existent.  The idea is quite in agreement with the view of the Upanishads. An object which cannot even be talked about, is, for all practical purposes, as good as non-extent. But it is not non-existent in the sense that the son of a barren woman is non-existent.  This subtle idea, Bhagavan Buddha.

Bhagavan Buddha's contemporaries and even his disciples fail to catch. In one passage Bhagavan Buddha says clearly: Srmana Gautama was an atheist. It is the annihilation of the non-existent of truth that he teaches. So will people attribute to me atheism, which is not mine? So will they ascribe me to the theory of non-existence, which again is not mine? 

From these similar statements of the Bhagavan Buddha, it is clear that he was not an atheist. All philosophers old and new arrives at the same point. Orthodox Advaita (monism) is inevitable; the people of thoughtful temperament cannot find peace and quietude until they do so. Moksha (liberation) is in the realization of oneness with God. They speak of God Goddesses, devotion and devotee, only in an inaccurate way only from the standpoint of dvaithi (dualists).  After realizing oneness with God, there is no distinction between God and devote and the word "devotion" has no meaning.  

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. :  ~Santthosh Kumaar