Buddhism says: all things are illusory and nothing exists. However, Advaita avers that it is not so.+

Sage Sankara: ~"That which permeates all, which nothing transcends and which, like the universal space around us, fills everything completely from within and without, that Supreme non-dual Brahman — that thou art."

People think it is very difficult to acquire  Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana. Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana has to be acquired carefully and gradually, through deeper self-search by realizing 'what is not the truth' to realize 'what is the truth'. 

In the past, spirituality was treated not as a separate subject but as a part of religion, but it is not so. Religion is based on form and spirituality is based on formless. Therefore, spirituality is nothing to do with religion.  Spirituality is a rational inquiry regarding all that is known to exist. Everyone, each to the extent to which one's reasoning power admits, is by nature free to exercise this faculty, at whatever stage one may be. One can devote himself exclusively to a pursuit of the highest Truth, through reason.

It is no use arguing Buddha is wrong or Sage Sankara is right, but where we are going wrong in our understanding of the non-dual truth, propagated by the great sages of the past.  Some say, that without the sunyvada, Advaita philosophy could not have come into existence; Because Advaita starts from where sunyavada ends.  That is why they say it is an extension of Buddhism.  If Advaita existed prior to Buddha, he would not have advocated sunyavada at all because Advaita is a final and ultimate truth. 

Bhagvan Buddha also holds that this world which changes from moment to moment is not real, it is only a reflection and a thing of which it is the reflection alone is real. Bhagvan Buddha was not an atheist. He never denied a 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 the barren woman is non-existent.  This subtle idea, Bhagvan Buddha's contemporaries and even his disciple-fail to catch. In one passage Bhagvan 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-existent, which again is not mine? 

From these similar statements of Bhagvan Buddha, it is clear that he was not an atheist. All philosophers old and new arrivals 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.  After realizing oneness with God, there is no distinction between God and devotee, and the word "devotion" has no meaning.   

Advaitin disagrees with Buddhists who say, there is nothing - a nonentity. Advaitin 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 of truth‘s subject is to know what is it that is Real.

Buddhism says: all things are illusory and nothing exists.  However, Advaita avers that it is not so.  It says that the universe, of course, is illusory, but there is Brahman, that exists forming the very substratum of all things. 

Since the Buddhist and Vedic scriptures have been passed down by hearing. They were written down only relatively late. So one wouldn’t know whether to rely on the times they give. Also, a lot depends on the translation. Each 'Shloka' or sutra is open to many layers of interpretation. 

So many centuries have passed since  Sage Sankara appeared, yet it is very hard to find his true teachings understood anywhere in India today Because so few could rise to his level. Hence, qualified non-dualist Sage   Sri, Ramanuja,  dualist Sage Madvacharya, and others came to supply the common demand.

Sage Sankara's work has got two aspects: the vyavikarika and the paramarthika. He gave religious, ritual, or dogmatic instruction to the populace but pure philosophy only to the few who could rise to it. Hence, the interpretation of his writings by commentators is often confusing because they mix up the two viewpoints. Thus, they may assert that ritual is a means of realizing Brahman, which is absurd. 

As per the religious archaeologists' view: the date of  Sage Sankara may be taken most correctly as that of the 9^th Century. Some claims are made in India that he lived two thousand years ago, but there is absolutely no proof for this claim.  They do not go back farther than the 12th century A.D. and all so-called evidence for Sankara having lived two centuries before Christ are either were conjectures or Pandit's fabrication.

Regarding the question of  Sage Sankara's death, one may dismiss the legend that he did not die, at the age of 32 but disappeared into a cave. This is another Pandit's story that is quite unfounded. He did really die in the Himalayas at that age.

As one goes into the annals of history, one becomes aware of the fact that; the spiritual Advaita is mixed up with punditry.  Therefore, there is a need to do his own research to know the true essence of Advaita propounded by Sage Sankara and Sage  Goudapada and the emptiness of the Bhagvan Buddha. 

How Sage Sankara could have written so many books during such a short term of existence. The fact is that he wrote very few books. Those actually written by him were Commentaries on Brahma Sutras and the Upanishads and on the Gita. All other books ascribed to him were not written down by his own hand.

They are merely collections of notes recorded by his disciples from his sayings, talks, and discussions. Fourthly Sage Sankara's own Guru was named Sri, Govinda and he lived near Indore. When  Sage Sankara wrote his commentary on the Manduka his guru was so pleased with it that he took his disciple to the Himalayas to visit his own Guru who was named  Sage Goudapada. Only when the latter agreed that the commentary was perfect did Sri, Govinda release his disciple to start his own mission of teaching.

Sage Sankara varied his practical advice and doctrinal teaching according to the people he was amongst. He never told them to give their particular religion or beliefs or metaphysics completely; he only told them to give up the worst features of abuse: at the same time he showed just one step forward towards the truth.

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

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 opening sentence is "All this is Brahman.” But nobody knows or has seen Brahman. If we say "All this is wood" and show a piece of wood, the words are understandable. Suppose you have never seen wood. 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.

A man who describes  Sage Sankara's philosophy as negative (because of his Neti, Neti) does not know that this is applied only to the world of the Seen, the critic ignorantly believes that it is also applied to the Seer. Vedanta never negates the 'Seer', only the seen. Scriptural mastery is not wisdom.

As one goes deeper into the subject one becomes aware of the fact that the religion, scriptures, and concept of God is nothing to do with the spiritual side of Advaita, the present religious-based Advaitic knowledge and theories are meant for the mass, who hold the religion as high, not the truth because religion is based on the form (waking entity or ego) and they view and judge and argue on the base of the body (waking entity or ego)as self,  but spiritual Advaita is based on the formless (Soul) and it negates everything other than the Soul.

The Soul is present in the form of consciousness is the ultimate y reality and there is nothing other than this Soul, which is present in the form of consciousness.  

From the standpoint of the Soul, the Self, there is no second thing that exists other than consciousness.  Because the whole universe in which we all exist is created out of consciousness.  There is no second thing that exists other than consciousness. Hence it is nondual (non-duality). :~Santthosh Kumaar