It is no use arguing Bhagavan Buddha is wrong or sage Sri Sankara is right, but where we are going wrong in our understanding the non-dualistic or Advaitic truth.+

It is no use arguing Bhagavan Buddha is wrong or Sage Sankara is right, but where we are going wrong in our understanding of the non-dualistic or Advaitic truth, propagated by the great sages of the past. Some say, that without the sunyavada, 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 the final and ultimate truth.

Since the Buddhist and the 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 'Sloka' or sutta is open to many layers of interpretation.

Sage Sankara said:~  Talk as much philosophy as you like, worship as many gods as you please, observe ceremonies, and sing devotional hymns, but liberation will never come, even after a hundred aeons, without realizing the Oneness.

Sage Sankara himself had often said that his philosophy was based on Sruti, or revealed scripture.  This may be because Sage 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. 

Sage Sankara’s  Supreme Brahman is Nirguna (without the Gunas), Nirakara (formless), Nirvisesha (without attributes), and Akarta (non-agent). He is above all needs and desires.

Sage Sankara says ~  "This Atman is self-evident. This Atman or Self is not established by proofs of the existence of the Self. It is not possible to deny this Atman, for it is the very essence of he who denies it. The Atman is the basis of all kinds of knowledge. The Self is within, the Self is without, the Self is before and the Self is behind. The Self is on the right hand, the Self is on the left, the Self is above and the Self is below".

Satyam-Jnanam-Anantam-Anandam,  are not separate attributes. They form the very essence of Brahman. Brahman cannot be described because the description implies a distinction. Brahman cannot be distinguished from any other than Brahman (God).

The objective world-the world of names and forms has no independent existence. The Atman alone has real existence. The world is only phenomenal.

Sage Sankara was the exponent of Advaita philosophy. His teachings can be summed up in the following words:-

Brahma Satyam Jagat Mithya,

Jeevo Brahmaiva Na Aparah

Brahman alone is real, this world is unreal; the Jiva is identical to Brahman.

As one indulges in deeper self-search he becomes aware: - As per the religious archaeologists' view: the date of Sage Sankara may be taken most correctly as that of the 9th 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 Sage Sankara having lived two centuries before Christ is either were conjectures or orthodox 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 orthodox 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  Gudapada, and the emptiness of the  Bhagavan Buddha.

How it was possible for  Sage Sankara to 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.

Sage Sankara wrote his Manduka commentary first, and then as this revealed that he thoroughly understood the subject, his gurus requested him to write the commentary on Badarayana's Brahma Sutras, which was a popular theological work universally studied throughout India. That is why his commentary is written from a lower dualistic point, for those who cannot rise higher, save that here and there Sage  Sankara occasionally has strewn a few truly Advaitic sentences.

Sage Sankara had only four fully trained disciples, although he advised some kings. His doctrines spread after his lifetime. Sage Sankara’s books were dictated to secretaries as he traveled, therefore,  only a few were capable of understanding his philosophy.

Nearly all orthodox hold views of Maya which are entirely incorrect and untenable. They do not know  Sage Sankara's Upanishad Bashyas, but only the Brahma Sutra Bashya.

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 Manduka 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 one says "All this is gold" and shows a piece of gold, the words are understandable. Suppose one has never seen gold. Then what is the use it becomes meaningless when the object indicated is seen by none.

Hence, the Brahma Sutra opening is equivalent to "All this is Brahman". 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, the Brahma Sutra is intended for theological mindsets because it begins with dogma although its reasoning is close. For it starts with something imagined.

Critics who declare Sage Sankara's philosophy as negative (because of his Neti, Neti) do not know that this is applied only to the witnessed (three states), the critic ignorantly believes that it is also applied to the formless witness (soul). The seeker should never negate the formless witness, only witnessed.

Sage Sankara himself had often said that his philosophy was based on Sruti, or revealed scripture.  This may be because Sage 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. 

Scriptural mastery is not wisdom:~

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

The Veda serves only at the starting point. What one has to learn from Veda must be understood through the exercise of reason, as far as reason might go. And what one has understood must be realized in one’s life.

It is not that one should pore over the ancient scriptures.  There is no need to study first then realize. One has to realize first then only he will know ‘what is truth’ and ‘what is untruth’.

There are hundreds of commentaries on the Bhagavad Gita. Each one goes on spinning yarns imagining as he likes what the meaning may be. But once one acquires Self-knowledge or Brahma Gnana or Atma Gnana he will know what they really meant, he will see that there is only one possible interpretation, irrespective of his opinion or imagination.

A permanent view of the world as unreal can come only after soul-centric reasoning; such knowledge cannot change. Were the seeker who is sufficiently sharpness he could grasp the unreal nature of the world by soul-centric reasoning alone.  To know the whole truth, one must know the whole universe, otherwise, he gets only half-truth. 

According to Advaita Vedanta, the Veda addresses itself to two kinds of audiences - the ordinary ones who desire the transitory heaven and other pleasures obtained as a result of ritual sacrifices, and the most advanced seeker who seeks to know Brahman. Thus, the Purva mimam. sa, with its emphasis on the karma kanda of the Vedas, is meant for the first audience, to help lead its followers along the way. However, the Vedanta, with its emphasis on the jnana kanda, is meant for those who wish to go beyond such transient pleasures.

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 religious side of Advaita, the present religious-based Advaitic knowledge and theories are meant for the ignorant mass, who hold the religion as high, not the ultimate truth because religion is based on the form (waking entity) and they view and judge and argue on the base of the waking entity(ego)   as self, but Gnanic  Advaita is based on the formless (soul) and it negates everything other than the formless  Soul, the Self.

Sage Ramana Maharishi said:~  All the conceptual divisions invented by teachers of philosophy by their excessive analysis. Where do all these concepts end? Why should confusion be 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.

Ignorance is the cause of experiencing the duality (universe or waking) as reality. Thus, eradicating ignorance completely is necessary. And this is possible only through self-knowledge.   Thus, there is no other road to freedom other than Gnana.  

There is no other entrance other than Gnana.  The ignorance will vanish only when the nondual wisdom dawns. Detachment to attachment is impossible without wisdom. Only when one realizes the fact that the 'Self' is not the form but the 'Self' is non-dual, then only it is possible to detach the ‘Self’ from the false attachment. 

That is Sankara, 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, it proves that wisdom is universal irrespective of any religion of faith one belongs to.  Thus, religion is not the means to Self-knowledge. 

Sage  Sankara’s Advaita minus orthodoxy is true Advaita.:~Santthosh Kumaar