[tln750]

Liberation in Advaita Vedanta is attaining the realization that one's individual self is identical with Brahman, posited as Higher Self. This is diametrically at odds with the anatta (not-self) doctrine of the Buddha. There is simply no common ground here - I am sorry, but you are washing away key doctrinal differences with a sweep. When Adi Sankara himself condemned Buddhadhamma as incomprehensible heresy, and yet you claim that Advaita Vedanta is the same as Buddhadhamma - I doubt that there can be any further discussion.

It is troubling to see how the current wave of jingoism coupled with religious fervor is trying to reduce the Buddha to a mere pawn in an imaginary, all-encompassing Hindu pantheon. Maybe you are not deliberately trying to do this, but the muddled and confused efforts of numerous foot-soldiers expose the sad trend all the same.

[zozbot234]

> Liberation in Advaita Vedanta is attaining the realization that one's individual self is identical with Brahman, posited as Higher Self. This is diametrically at odds with the anatta (not-self) doctrine of the Buddha.

This is not true, there's no conflict. The Buddha was not interested in abstract doctrines but only in what was most pragmatically useful for attaining stream entry, enlightenment and liberation from craving and desire. People who are actually pursuing these goals, even in modern times (with very compelling results, though obviously any claims to arhat status will always be viewed skeptically by most) have clarified how anatta is entirely compatible with a Higher Self as with Brahman.

[tln750]

Your assertion that there is no doctrinal difference between Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta is ludicrous and downright silly. Even Wikipedia clarifies this.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara

From the second para:

He also explained the key difference between Hinduism and Buddhism, stating that Hinduism asserts "Ātman (Soul, Self) exists", while Buddhism asserts that there is "no Soul, no Self".

[zozbot234]

I didn't say that no doctrinal difference exists, only that Anatta is highly compatible with the truth of a Higher Atman. You only mentioned Higher Atman in your previous comment, not common, individualistic meaning of Atman.

For that matter, even Shankara's description of the Atman is entirely in the negative, stating what the Atman is not. So even while accepting the existence of the Atman, he's clearly tending towards a universalist description that, again, is quite compatible with a practical understanding of the Buddhist doctrine of not-Atman.

[jaldhar]

They are the same in the sense that both privilege jnana over karma for liberation that is all. They are different in that Advaita Vedanta gives some scope to karma (Indian) Buddhism gave none.

Buddhists themselves reduced the historical Shakyamuni to one member of a pantheon long ago. This was a clear trend in Mahayana and Vajrayana before Allauddin Khilji came and settled the issue once and for all.