Advaita Vedanta

==Buddhist influences==
{{Main|Buddhist influences on Advaita Vedanta}}

===Similarities===
Advaita Vedānta and various other schools of Hindu philosophy share numerous terminology, doctrines and dialectical techniques with Buddhism.{{sfn|Isaeva|1993|p=172}}{{sfn|Deutsch|Dalvi|2004|pp=126, 157}} According to a 1918 paper by the Buddhism scholar O. Rozenberg, "a precise differentiation between Brahmanism and Buddhism is impossible to draw."{{sfn|Isaeva|1993|p=172}} Murti notices that "the ultimate goal" of Vedanta, Samkhya and Mahayana Buddhism is "remarkably similar"; while Advaita Vedanta postulates a "foundational self," "Mahayana Buddhism implicitly affirms the existence of a deep underlying reality behind all empirical manifestations in its conception of ''[[sunyata]]'' (the indeterminate, the void), or ''[[Yogachara#The doctrine of Vijñapti-mātra|vijnapti-matrata]]'' (consciousness only), or ''[[tathata]]'' (thatness), or ''[[dharmata]]'' (noumenal reality)."{{sfn|Murti|1983|p=339}} According to Frank Whaling, the similarities between Advaita Vedānta and Buddhism are not limited to the terminology and some doctrines, but also includes practice. The monastic practices and monk tradition in Advaita are similar to those found in Buddhism.{{sfn|Whaling|1979|pp=1–42}}

===Mahayana influences===
The influence of [[Mahayana|Mahayana Buddhism]] on Advaita Vedānta has been significant.{{sfn|Whaling|1979|pp=1–42}}{{sfn|Grimes|1998|pp=684–686}} Sharma points out that the early commentators on the Brahma Sutras were all [[Philosophical realism|realists]], or [[Pantheism|pantheist]] realists. He states that they were influenced by Buddhism, particularly during the 5th-6th centuries CE when Buddhist thought developing in the [[Yogacara]] school.{{sfn|Sharma, B.N.|2000|p=60–63}}

Von Glasenap states that there was a mutual influence between Vedanta and Buddhism.<ref group=note name=helmithglasenapp2>Helmuth Von Glasenapp (1995), Vedanta & Buddhism: A comparative study, Buddhist Publication Society, pages 2-3, '''Quote:''' "Vedanta and Buddhism have lived side by side for such a long time that obviously they must have influenced each other. The strong predilection of the Indian mind for a doctrine of universal unity has led the representatives of Mahayana to conceive Samsara and Nirvana as two aspects of the same and single true reality; for [[Nagarjuna]] the '''empirical world is a mere appearance''', as all dharmas, manifest in it, are perishable and conditioned by other dharmas, without having any independent existence of their own. Only the indefinable "Voidness" (''Sunyata'') to be grasped in meditation, and realized in Nirvana, has '''true reality''' [in Buddhism]".</ref> Dasgupta and Mohanta suggest that Buddhism and Shankara's Advaita Vedānta represent "different phases of development of the same non-dualistic metaphysics from the Upanishadic period to the time of Sankara."{{sfn|Dasgupta|Mohanta|1998|p=362}}{{refn|group=note|This development did not end with Advaita Vedanta, but continued in Tantrism and various schools of Shaivism. Non-dual [[Kashmir Shaivism]], for example, was influenced by, and took over doctrines from, several orthodox and heterodox Indian religious and philosophical traditions.{{sfn|Muller-Ortega|2010|p=25}} These include Vedanta, Samkhya, Patanjali Yoga and Nyayas, and various Buddhist schools, including Yogacara and Madhyamika,{{sfn|Muller-Ortega|2010|p=25}} but also Tantra and the Nath-tradition.{{sfn|Muller-Ortega|2010|p=26}}}}

The influence of Buddhist doctrines on [[Gauḍapāda]] has been a vexed question.{{sfn|Potter|1981|p=105}}{{sfn|Comans|2000|p=2}} Modern scholarship generally accepts that Gauḍapāda was influenced by Buddhism, at least in terms of using Buddhist terminology to explain his ideas, but adds that Gauḍapāda was a Vedantin and not a Buddhist.{{sfn|Potter|1981|p=105}}

Adi Shankara, states Natalia Isaeva, incorporated "into his own system a Buddhist notion of ''[[Maya (illusion)|maya]]'' which had not been minutely elaborated in the Upanishads".{{sfn|Isaeva|1993|p=172}} According to Mudgal, Shankara's Advaita and the Buddhist Madhyamaka view of ultimate reality are compatible because they are both transcendental, indescribable, non-dual and only arrived at through a ''[[via negativa]]'' ([[neti neti]]). Mudgal concludes therefore that "the difference between [[Shunyata|Sunyavada]] (Mahayana) philosophy of Buddhism and [[Advaita]] philosophy of Hinduism may be a matter of emphasis, not of kind.{{sfn|Mudgal|1975|p=4}} Similarly, there are many points of contact between Buddhism's [[Vijnanavada]] and Shankara's Advaita.{{sfn|Isaeva|1993|p=174}} According to S.N. Dasgupta,
{{blockquote|Shankara and his followers borrowed much of their dialectic form of criticism from the Buddhists. His [[Brahman]] was very much like the [[Śūnyatā|sunya]] of Nagarjuna [...] The debts of Shankara to the [[Svasaṃvedana|self-luminosity]]{{refn|group=note|name=self-luminous}} of the Vijnanavada Buddhism can hardly be overestimated. There seems to be much truth in the accusations against Shankara by [[Vijnanabhiksu|Vijnana Bhiksu]] and others that he was a hidden Buddhist himself. I am led to think that Shankara's philosophy is largely a compound of [[Yogacara|Vijnanavada]] and [[Madhyamaka|Sunyavada]] Buddhism with the Upanisad notion of the permanence of self superadded.{{sfn|Dasgupta|1997|page=494}}}}

===Differences from Buddhism===
The Advaita Vedānta tradition has historically rejected accusations of [[crypto-Buddhism]] highlighting their respective views on ''Atman'', ''Anatta'' and ''Brahman''.{{sfn|Isaeva|1993|pp=60, 145–154}} Yet, some Buddhist texts chronologically placed in the 1st millennium of common era, such as the Mahayana tradition's ''Tathāgatagarbha sūtras'' suggest self-like concepts, variously called ''Tathāgatagarbha'' or ''[[Buddha nature]]''.{{sfn|Williams|2008|pp=104, 125–127}}{{sfn|Hookham|1991|pp=100–104}} In modern era studies, scholars such as Wayman and Wayman state that these "self-like" concepts are neither self nor sentient being, nor soul, nor personality.{{sfn|Williams|2008|pp=107, 112}}{{sfn|Hookham|1991|p=[https://books.google.com/books?id=JqLa4xWot-YC&pg=PA96 96]}} Some scholars posit that the ''Tathāgatagarbha Sutras'' were written to promote Buddhism to non-Buddhists.<ref>{{harvnb|Williams|2008|pp=104–105, 108–109}}: "(...) it refers to the Buddha using the term "Self" in order to win over non-Buddhist ascetics."</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=Merv Fowler|title=Buddhism: Beliefs and Practices|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=A7UKjtA0QDwC|year=1999|publisher=Sussex Academic Press|isbn=978-1-898723-66-0|pages=101–102}}{{Dead link|date=August 2023 |bot=InternetArchiveBot |fix-attempted=yes }}</ref><ref>{{cite book|author=John W. Pettit|title=Mipham's Beacon of Certainty: Illuminating the View of Dzogchen, the Great Perfection|year=1999|publisher=Simon and Schuster|isbn=978-0-86171-157-4|pages=48–49|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=6Kz4ox1vp5IC|access-date=2 February 2017|archive-date=16 January 2024|archive-url=https://web.archive.org/web/20240116175559/https://books.google.com/books?id=6Kz4ox1vp5IC|url-status=live}}</ref>

The epistemological foundations of Buddhism and Advaita Vedānta are different. Buddhism accepts two valid means to reliable and correct knowledge – perception and inference, while Advaita Vedānta accepts six (described elsewhere in this article).{{sfn|Grimes|1996|p=238}}<ref name=ds>{{cite journal| author= D Sharma |year= 1966| title= Epistemological negative dialectics of Indian logic — Abhāva versus Anupalabdhi| journal= [[Indo-Iranian Journal]]| volume= 9| number= 4| pages= 291–300|doi= 10.1163/000000066790086530}}</ref><ref>John Clayton (2010), Religions, Reasons and Gods: Essays in Cross-cultural Philosophy of Religion, Cambridge University Press, {{ISBN|978-0521126274}}, p. 54</ref> However, some Buddhists in history, have argued that Buddhist scriptures are a reliable source of spiritual knowledge, corresponding to Advaita's ''Śabda'' pramana, however Buddhists have treated their scriptures as a form of inference method.<ref>Alex Wayman (1999), A Millennium of Buddhist Logic, Volume 1, Motilal Banarsidass, {{ISBN|978-8120816466}}, pp. xix–xx</ref>

Advaita Vedānta posits a [[Substance theory|substance ontology]], an ontology which holds that underlying the change and impermanence of empirical reality is an unchanging and permanent absolute reality, like an eternal substance it calls Atman-Brahman.{{sfn|Puligandla|1997|pp=49–50, 60–62}} In its substance ontology, as like other philosophies, there exist a universal, particulars and specific properties and it is the interaction of particulars that create events and processes.<ref name="Bartley2011p91"/> In contrast, [[Buddhism]] posits a [[Process philosophy|process ontology]], also called as "event ontology".{{sfn|Williams|Tribe|Wynne|2000|p=92}}<ref name="Bartley2011p91">{{cite book|author=Christopher Bartley|title=An Introduction to Indian Philosophy|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PlupnDEr5iAC|year=2011|publisher=Bloomsbury Academic|isbn=978-1-84706-449-3|pages=90–91}}</ref> According to the Buddhist thought, particularly after the rise of ancient Mahayana Buddhism scholarship, there is neither empirical nor absolute permanent reality and ontology can be explained as a process.{{sfn|Williams|Tribe|Wynne|2000|p=92}}{{sfn|Puligandla|1997|pp=40–50, 60–62, 97}}{{refn|group=note|Kalupahana describes how in Buddhism there is also a current which favours substance ontology. Kalupahanan sees [[Madhyamaka]] and [[Yogacara]] as reactions against developments toward substance ontology in Buddhism.{{sfn|Kalupahana|1994}}}} There is a system of relations and interdependent phenomena (''pratitya samutpada'') in Buddhist ontology, but no stable persistent identities, no eternal universals nor particulars. Thought and memories are mental constructions and fluid processes without a real observer, personal agency or cognizer in Buddhism. In contrast, in Advaita Vedānta, like other schools of Hinduism, the concept of self (atman) is the real on-looker, personal agent and cognizer.<ref>{{cite book|author=Christopher Bartley|title=An Introduction to Indian Philosophy|url=https://books.google.com/books?id=PlupnDEr5iAC|year=2011|publisher=Bloomsbury Academic|isbn=978-1-84706-449-3|pages=90–91, 96, 204–208}}</ref>

===Criticisms of concurring Hindu schools===
Some Hindu scholars criticized Advaita for its ''Maya'' and non-theistic doctrinal similarities with Buddhism.<ref>[[Julius Lipner]] (1986), The Face of Truth: A Study of Meaning and Metaphysics in the Vedantic Theology of Rāmānuja, State University of New York Press, {{ISBN|978-0887060397}}, pp. 120–123</ref>{{sfn|Whaling|1979|pp=1–42}} sometimes referring to the Advaita-tradition as ''Māyāvāda''.{{refn|{{harvnb|Hacker|1995|p=78}}; {{harvnb|Lorenzen|2015}}; {{harvnb|Baird|1986}}; {{harvnb|Goswami Abhay Charan Bhaktivedanta|1956}}}}

[[Ramanuja]], the founder of [[Vishishtadvaita|Vishishtadvaita Vedānta]], accused Adi Shankara of being a ''Prachanna Bauddha'', that is, a "crypto-Buddhist",{{sfn|Biderman|1978|pp=405–413}} and someone who was undermining theistic [[Bhakti]] devotionalism.{{sfn|Whaling|1979|pp=1–42}} The non-Advaita scholar [[Bhāskara (philosopher)|Bhaskara]] of the Bhedabheda Vedānta tradition, similarly around 800 CE, accused Shankara's Advaita as "this despicable broken down Mayavada that has been chanted by the Mahayana Buddhists", and a school that is undermining the ritual duties set in Vedic orthodoxy.{{sfn|Whaling|1979|pp=1–42}}
Description	What you type	What you get
Italic	''Italic text''	Italic text
Bold	'''Bold text'''	Bold text
Bold & italic	'''''Bold & italic text'''''	*Bold & italic text*
Description	What you type	What you get
Reference	Page text.<ref>[https://www.example.org/ Link text], additional text.</ref>	Page text.^[1]
Named reference	Page text.<ref name="test">[https://www.example.org/ Link text]</ref>	Page text.^[2]
Additional use of the same reference	Page text.<ref name="test" />	Page text.^[2]
Display references	<references />	↑ Link text, additional text. ↑ Link text