There is no need to study neither Buddhism nor Advaita to realize non-dual reality or Brahman because it is very difficult to reach ultimate end(non-duality) of understanding.

Buddha, Sri, Sankara and Sri, Goudpada have declared non-dual truth centuries back but one has to reach the destination with scientific (rational) investigation not through punditry and intellectuality. One has to mentally reach the final conclusion, than only the conviction becomes firm. Without the firm conviction the wisdom will not dawn. Therefore, there is a need to know consciousness is real all else is myth, which Sri, Sankara declared as the world is myth Brahman(consciousness) alone is real.

Sri, Sankara says Atman is Brahman and everything is Brahman is scientific declaration not religious or yogic. Sri, Sankara and Goudpada are more scientific than anyone else in the world. Since, the real Advaitic essence is hidden it cannot be got without the inner (mental) journey.

 As deeper self-search and my final conclusion :- There is no need to study neither Buddhism nor Advaita to realize non-dual reality or Brahman because it is very difficult to reach ultimate end(non-duality) of understanding.  The Buddhist teaching are adulterated and mixed up with many local religions of Tibet, China and Burma, Sri Lanka wherever it existed. it takes many life time to bifurcate the real essence wisdom expounded by the great sages. 

Advaita is mixed up with orthodoxy and lost it real essence. But deeper self –search reveals the fact that,  if Advaita is bifurcated from orthodoxy and  if on indulge in deeper self-search through soul-centric reasoning,  one can reach ultimate end of understanding and realization.        

Buddha was an enlightened, but his interpreters are not. Buddha did not enter into scriptural interpretation because he rejected religion, idea of God and scriptures. So the Hindus threw him out of their religion. 

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.

Sri, Sankara agreed all points with Buddha but he went much deeper and reached the ultimate end. The Advaita Masters kept their supreme state of study wisdom a secret and hidden it not fully revealing the reason best known to them. Even though they would indicate it or hint at it here and there in their teaching.

In Advaita Vedanta: - Brahman is without attributes and strictly impersonal. It can be best described as infinite Being, infinite Consciousness and infinite Bliss. It is pure knowledge itself, similar to a source of infinite radiance. Since the Advaitins regard Brahman to be the Ultimate Truth, so in comparison to Brahman, every other thing, including the material world, its distinctness, the individuality of the living creatures and even Ishvara (the Supreme Lord) itself are all untrue. Brahman is the effulgent cause of everything that exists and can possibly exist. Since it is beyond human comprehension, it is without any attributes, for assigning attributes to it would be distorting the true nature of Brahman. Advaitins believe in the existence of both Saguna Brahman and Nirguna Brahman; however they consider Nirguna Brahman to be the absolute supreme truth. 

They do not hesitate to say that Atman itself is ultimate reality or Brahman. 


The Atman is the formless timeless, spaceless one, all pervading all the three states of waking, dream and deep sleep as their substance and witness.   If Atman is ultimate reality or Brahman than all the three states are mere illusion created out of Atman, which is present in the form of consciousness because the three states are one in essence.  

Sri, Sankara says in Brahma Sutras: that Brahman is the cause of the world, whereas in Mandukya he denies it.

Gaudapada says: - the merciful Veda teaches karma and upasana to people of lower and middling intellect, while jnana is taught to those of higher intellect.

Sri, Sankara says in Brahma Sutras: that Brahman is the cause of the world, whereas in Mandukya he denies it. 

Brahma Sutras, i.e. "Vedanta Sutras" by Badarayana, are intended for those of middling intellects, not for those who have the best brains: it is a semi-theological, semi-philosophical work; it starts with the assumption that Brahman exists.

The doctrine of causality taught in Brahma Sutra is not the same as the  highest Advaitic non-causality. It is only a beginning towards that; it says that one  do not find in the effect what is not already present in the cause.

The Sutra-Bhashya of Sankara principally deals with the principle of superimposition yet the pundits have not grasped its higher semantic value.

Brahma Sutras begin with the dogma of Brahman but who has seen Brahman? It is a mere empty word. Hence it is a book of religion, not philosophy. It is for beginners who have not yet unfolded discrimination, who believe in creation (i.e. causality) and who have to be raised as some orthodox the commentators or interpreters  themselves write.

The opening sentence is "All this is Brahman.” But nobody knows or has seen Brahman.

If one says "All this is stone" and show a stone, the words are understandable. Suppose one has never seen the stone. Then what is the use of such a sentence? It becomes meaningless when the object indicated is seen by none. Hence the Brahma Sutra opening is equivalent to "All this is X". Both have no meaning so long as they are not understood, if we take them as the data to start from. It is for this reason that I say the book is intended for theological minds, because it begins with dogma although its reasoning is close. For it starts with something imagined.

The Brahma Sutras together with Sri Sankara's commentary thereon do not contain higher

Vedanta. They are intended for less wise people.

Sankara's commentary on Brahma Sutras is not on philosophical basis, but on a religio-mystic one, with appeal to Vedas as final authority.

 In Brahma Sutra Sankara takes the position that there is another entity outside us, i.e. the wall really exists separately from the mind. This was because Sankara explains in Mandukya that those who study the Sutras are religious minds, intellectual children, hence his popular view point to assist them. These people are afraid to go deeper because it means being heroic enough to refuse to accept Shruti, and God's authority, in case they mean punishment by God.  Scriptures  are not of any use  for the  wise seekers.

Orthodox Advaitin hold virtue is essential for the attainment of Moksha or freedom. But when the self is not and individual this question is hardly a relevant one. It is not quite just to interpret the knowledge which brings freedom as if it were of the nature of a purely intellectual intuition. 

As one goes in deeper self –search one becomes aware of the fact that: - The Upanishads are self-contradictory. Different scholars give different conflicting interpretations of them. Final authority therefore is using our own reason. This does not mean one need to give up the scriptures, but he should apply his reason to them. Reason is common to all, whereas orthodoxy belongs to separatist.

The scriptures are for ignorant masses, who wholly accept the material world as it presents itself. Gnana is for those who have begun to realize that things are not what they seem.

Scriptural citations may be quoted only after one has shown the reality and proved the truth, for then he can point out that the texts teach the same thing. If one quotes them before having demonstrated truth, then it is scholasticism.

Scriptures are of value only when dealing with persons who are incapable of understanding truth. They have no value as authority for those who use reason.

Reason is the common ground for all humanity, whereas the appeal to scriptural relations reaches only groups. Because all the religions are based on the false self and the false experience,  there are   so many conflicting ideas , many changes, divisions and subdivisions ,which leads to all sorts of  doubts and confusions.  When one meets with suffering and disappointment doubts arises. Doubts are absolutely necessary to make one inquire. Pursuit of truth is for getting rid of all doubts. 

This is because he says that at the lower stage of understanding, the former teaching must be given, for people will get frightened as they cannot understand how the world can be without a cause, but to those in a higher stage, the truth of non-causality can be revealed. 

Sri, Sankara himself has warned us not to use ambiguous words, and to practice semantic analysis in his book "Definition of one's own Self. [" Page 199, v.24 of "Sankara's Selected Works]

Sri, Sankara founded his Advaita Vedanta either on reason independent of sruti or on sruti confirmed by reason."   Sri, Sankara's commentary on the Mandukya Upanishad, II, 1:  This [the unreality of duality] is borne out by the Srutis ... But it is possible also to show the unreality of the object world even from pure reasoning, and this second chapter is undertaken for that purpose.

 Sri, Sankara himself had often said that his philosophy was based on Sruti, or revealed scripture.  This may be because Sri, Sankara addressed the ordinary man, who finds security in the idea of causality and thus in the idea of God—and Revelation is indispensable to prove the latter.  He believed that those of superior intelligence, have no need of this idea of divine causality, and can therefore dispense with Sruti and arrive at the truth of Non-Dualism by pure reason. 

Dualist  and realists who believed  in the practical life and practical world as reality and others came to supply the common demand of the mass mindset who are immersed in the material side of their life.

Orthodox non-dualist, qualified non dualist and dualist say that, only the Brahmin-born could attain liberation. This therefore rules out all non-Brahmins! Sankara on the contrary taught that anyone could attain.  

Many Vedantic logical books are vitiated in value because they do not inquire into the ego.  The ego, body and the world appears together and disappears together as deep sleep. The 'ego ' is always changing as any other part of the world.

If one has   one idea--say ego, he cannot have ultimate truth or Brahman, one idea leads to several. The treasure of Brahman is coiled by illusion or “I”.  Give up immediately identification with ‘I’ or mind or universe or waking.  .

To realize the ultimate truth is the prime goal. 

All the scriptures indicate that Atman is Brahman, and Brahman is ultimate truth. Therefore the SOUL, which is in the form of consciousness, is ultimate truth.  Thus to realize the ultimate truth is the prime goal.   A well-directed inquiry, analysis and reasoning will lead one to his non-dual destination. 

Studying of scriptures is not necessary

The Upanishads clearly indicate:-

This Atman cannot be attained by the study of the Vedas, or by intelligence, or by much hearing of sacred books. It is attained by him alone whom It chooses. To such a one Atman reveals Its own form. [Katha Upanishad Ch-II -23-P-20]

This Atman cannot be attained through study of the Vedas, nor through intelligence, nor through much learning. He who chooses Atman—by him alone is Atman attained. It is Atman that reveals to the seeker Its true nature. [3 –page-70 Mundaka Upanishad (Upanishads by Nikilanada)

Sri , Sanakara said:-

Neither by the practice of yoga nor philosophy, nor by good works nor by learning, does liberation come, but only through the realization that Atman and Brahman are one in no other way.(1) VivekaChudamani v 56, pg 25

 [VC]65. As a treasure hidden underground requires (for its extraction) competent instruction, excavation, the removal of stones and other such things lying above it and (finally) grasping, but never comes out by being (merely) called out by name, so the transparent Truth of the self, which is hidden by Maya and its effects, is to be attained through the instructions of a knower of Brahman, followed by reflection, meditation and so forth, but not through arguments.

One cannot expect mental spoon feeding for everything.  Seeker has to do his own homework.  One will not understand it through argument, which leads nowhere but to perversity.  

Sunyavadins say there is nothing, neither matter nor spirit (consciousness).  How do they know spirit (consciousness) ceases to exist? Where is the proof? When one knows everything is spirit (consciousness), both the changing forms and the underlying substances how can he posit its real change into nothingness? Spirit (consciousness), always remains really itself because of its nature. One sees change every minute but by inquiry into nature of change and cause, he sees that it is only when he imagine that there is cause and change.

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

Buddha's teachings that all life is misery belong to the relative standpoint only.  One 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 because it contrasted with restlessness.

 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.

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

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.  Sri ,Sankaraand gave religion; such as Kirtan, rituals  etc.--to the ignorant masses, as well as non-dual  wisdom to the qualified. 

Buddha gave as the central feature of his doctrine the great law of Karma in order to reiterate its ethical meaning. He did more good in this to uplift the people than the ritualists.

BUDDHISM:

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. 

Buddha also holds that this world which changes from moment to moment is not real, it is only a reflection and the Thing of which it is the reflection alone is real.

Only Sankara says: it is the, 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 Seer.

 How is it that Skandas come together and compose the ego? Who sees them come and go? It is the seer, the Atman, and one can overcome this lack by subject and object analysis. When they say that mind comes and goes they are forgetting that there must be another part of the mind as consciousness which notices it and which tells them of this disappearance and appearance.

 All their misunderstandings arise from the fact that Buddha refused to discuss ultimate questions. When Buddhism degenerates into Nihilism Advaita refutes it (See Mandukya P.281).

The truth of a single reality within or underlying the illusory ego is all-important and without it Buddhism becomes fallacious.

Vedanta admits the transitoriness and evanescence of thoughts just like Buddhism, but not of the self which observes this transitoriness and knows it.

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

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 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 one that. That something is the  Formless witness, and if one  says this formless witness  itself may be illusory, coming and going, still there must be something non-transient i.e. permanent, to tells one this.

Final conclusion: - 

 1

Buddha was right in saying:-

Do not believe a spiritual teaching just because:
1. it is repeatedly recited,
2. it is written in a scripture,
3. it was handed from guru to disciple,
4. everyone around you believes it,
5. it has supernatural qualities,
6. it fits my beliefs anyway,
7. it sounds rational to me,
8. it is taught by a respectable person,
9. it was said to be the truth by the teacher,
10. one must defend it or fight for it.

However, only when it agrees with your experience and reason, and when it is conducive to the good and gain of oneself and all others, then one should accept the teachings, and live up to them."
....Buddha.

2

Sri, Sankara was right in  saying : one must first know what is before him. If he cannot know that, what else can he know or understand? If he gives up the external world in his inquiry, he cannot get the whole truth.

[63. Without causing the objective universe to vanish and without knowing the truth of the Self, how is one to achieve Liberation by the mere utterance of the word Brahman? — It would result merely in an effort of speech.[ Sri, Sankara says in Viveka Chudamani ]  

 --

The scriptures and theories and teaching based on the ego are not the yardstick. Using them as yardstick to understand and assimilate the truth will lead one towards pursuit of arguments. Seeker of truth has to discover on his own, the truth of his true existence by inquiring “what is mind?” and “what is substance of the mind?” and move forward.   

The ultimate truth is one without the second, the one is not in the sense half or two, but the one that remain forever One, without the second.  The consciousness is all pervading. There is no place where consciousness is not. 

Consciousness is in everyone, consciousness is in everything .consciousness is one behind many. Consciousness alone is. It means the universe is the visible form of

 3

Gaudapada’s rational exposition of Advaita: - that whatever is seen, whether external or internal, whether by the ordinary persons or yogis, is unreal.

 4

Upnishads say :- They alone in this world are endowed with the highest wisdom who are firm in their conviction of the sameness and birthlessness of Atman. The ordinary man does not understand their way. [Chapter IV — Alatasanti Prakarana 95-P-188 in Upanishads by Nikilanada]

 5

Swami Vivekananda said: - “You have to grow from the inside out. None can teach you, none can make you spiritual. There is no other teacher but your own soul.”

 6

 

Raman Maharshi said:-  fortunate are the one who do not lose themselves in the labyrinths of philosophy. Bhagwan says: Take Vedanta, for instance: it speaks of 15 pranas the names and functions of it   which the student is asked to commit memory. Will it not be sufficient if he thought only one prana does the whole work of maintaining the body? Again the antakaran is said to think, to desire, to will, to reason etc. Why all these details? Has anyone seen antakarana, or all these pranas? Do they really exist? They are conceptual divisions invented by teachers of philosophy by their excessive analysis. Where do all these concepts end? Why should confusion created and then explained away? Fortunate is the man who does not lose himself in the labyrinths of philosophy, but goes straight to the source from which they all arise. (GURU RAMANA .By S.S Cohen -vii Danger of philosophy-Page -58-59)

The above passages further prove that: Self-Knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana  cannot be attained by study of the Vedas and intellectual understanding or by bookish knowledge.  Therefore there is no use of studying the Vedas and other scriptures in order to acquire the non-dual wisdom.  That is why Buddha rejected the scriptures, and even Sri, Sankara indicated that, the ultimate truth or Brahman  lies beyond religion, concept of God and scriptures. 

Therefore one can come to final conclusion that,  there is no use of taking strain to understand assimilate the conceptual divisions invented by teachers of philosophy by their excessive analysis. There are more and more doubts and confusions, if one tries to understand and assimilate the ultimate truth through scriptures. 

 Why to follow the path of doubts and confusion by losing oneself in the labyrinths of philosophy, when one can realize the ultimate truth without them.  By mentally tracing the source of the mind from where it rises and subsides one becomes aware of the fallacy of the mind, which rises as waking or dream(duality)  and subsides as deep sleep(non-duality).  The mind(universe) raises form consciousness and subsides as consciousness.  Therefore, there is a need for perfect understanding assimilation of non-dual truth. 

There is no need to renounce the worldly life and take sanyasa or monk hood in order  to get non-dual truth or Advaitic truth or ultimate truth or Brahman . Any householder can acquire  it,  if has the inner urge  for knowing the ultimate truth or Brahman.

 FC:-

 Soul , which is present in the form of  Consciousness is our innermost self . Consciousness is the witness that experiences the action, the actor, and the world of separate things. It is like a light that illuminates everything in a theatre, revealing the master of ceremonies, the guests, and the dancers with complete impartiality. Even when they all depart, the light shines to reveal their absence.

What is not consciousness (formless) in the experience of diversity [waking or universe]?  The waking and the dream cease to exist without consciousness.  


The seeker, seeking and his destination   all are one in essence. Thus There is no seeker, no seeking, no world   and no destination from ultimate standpoint, because there is no second-thing exist other than consciousness. Hence it is  non-dual.