Advaita discards both concepts of misery and happiness in the ultimate standpoint of non-duality***

Sage Sri Sankara, indicated in Bhaja Govindam says: ~ (Jnana Viheena Sarva Mathena Bajathi na Muktim janma Shatena) ~ one without knowledge does not obtain liberation even in a hundred births, no matter which religious faith he follows.

Thus, the path of the wisdom is the only means. Then it is no use going a roundabout way, trace the Brahman which is the formless substance and the witness of the universe (mind).  By tracing the source of the mind or the universe,  one will be able to realize the Brahman.

Yoga Vasistha says:~ Self-knowledge or knowledge of truth is not had by resorting to a Guru (preceptor) nor by the study of scripture, nor by good works: it is attained only by means of enquiry inspired by the company of wise (Gnani). One’s inner light alone is the means, naught else. When this inner light is kept alive, it is not affected by the darkness of inertia. 

'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 the consciousness. And the Soul the innermost Self is present in the form of the consciousness. 

To realize the Advaitic truth the seeker has to be free from all superstitions and orthodox contaminations. The seeker must  intense urge  to acquire Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana alone.

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

Jesus said: ~  "Know what is in front of your face, and what is hidden from you will be disclosed to you. (THE GOSPEL OF THOMAS- Saying 5)

"The Kingdom of God is inside you and all around you, not in a mansion of wood and stone.  Split a piece of wood and God is there, Lift a stone and you will find God." (Gospel of Thomas)

The distinction between Sage Sri, Sankara’s Advaita and Vijnanavadins Buddhism is that the former is mentalism i.e. the mind is the real, whereas the latter is idealism, i.e. ideas are real. Advaita follows the former.

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

Buddha's teachings: ~ 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.

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.