His view is just a contemporary version of the Brahmanical view of a single universal consciousness which the Buddha rejected. The Buddha’s view is the middle way, it is neither a oneness nor a manyness. Ultimately, there cannot be a universal self anymore than there can be a individual self because both are based on reification and conceptual proliferation.
As the Buddha said
Then a brahmin cosmologist went up to the Buddha … Seated to one side he said to the Buddha:
“Master Gotama, does all exist?”
“‘All exists’: this is the oldest cosmology, brahmin.”
“Then does all not exist?”
“‘All doesn’t exist’: this is the second cosmology.
“Well, is all a unity?”
“‘All is a unity’: this is the third cosmology.
“Then is all a plurality?”
“‘All is a plurality’: this is the fourth cosmology.
Avoiding these two extremes, the Realized One teaches by the middle way: ‘Ignorance is a condition for choices…
These ideas have been around for millennia but they are not the middle way. Brahmanical monism can be found in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad, which the Buddha knew about. K.R. Norman wrote a paper about this back in the 80s, called A Note on Attā in the Alagaddūpama Sutta. In it, he points out how the Buddha rejects both an individual self and a universal or “World Self”. Interestingly, the Jains rejected such a world self for similar reasons (it is not grounded on direct perception, and it makes a mockery of ethics since if all is a single self, then beings are not responsible for their actions).
There is more to it and of course there are different forms of Advaita etc. But it’s still all monistic idealism and it is eternalism. It is all drawn from the same root Vedic ideologies, even Neo advaita, since they draw on Ramana Maharshi etc. So I am not wrong in placing all forms of Advaita in this category.
The Buddhist teachings simply sneak out by rarely making positive statements about liberation/nirvana. But sometimes nirvana is tied to amata = the deathless, which is also a term for liberation of Brahmins. Just an example, but your simple claim to have penetrated all advaita and neo-advaita is too confident. I would like to see an informed advaitist making the claim “All advaita is X”, not a Buddhist.
If you don’t trust my judgement, that is fine, you can look up the numerous academic articles and studies that have been written on Advaita Vedanta yourself. But what you will find is that Advaita thinkers posit a non-dual consciousness which is eternal, pure, blissful, and truly existent (sat, cit, ananda). As Adi Shankara claims:
Brahman is real, the world is an illusion
Brahman and Jiva are not different. Brahmajnanavalimala 1.20
Here’s just a quick quote of Nisargadatta, explicitly beyond consciousness
All the objects of consciousness form the universe. What is beyond both, supporting both, is the supreme state, a state of utter stillness and silence. Whoever goes there, disappears. It is the nameless, contentless, effortless and spontaneous state, beyond being and not being.
That’s nice but one can find just as many quotes which affirm his eternalistic worldview, which makes sense since he followed an eternalistic philosophy. For example:
The life force [prana] and the mind are operating [of their own accord], but the mind will tempt you to believe that it is “you”. Therefore understand always that you are the timeless spaceless witness. And even if the mind tells you that you are the one who is acting, don’t believe the mind. […] The apparatus [mind, body] which is functioning has come upon your original essence, but you are not that apparatus.
The Ultimate Medicine, (pp.54 – 70)
“This dwelling on the sense ‘I am’ is the simple, easy and natural Yoga, the Nisarga Yoga. There is no secrecy in it and no dependence; no preparation is required and no initiation. Whoever is puzzled by his very existence as a conscious being and earnestly wants to find his own source, can grasp the ever-present sense of ‘I am’ and dwell on it assiduously and patiently, till the clouds obscuring the mind dissolve and the heart of being is seen in all its glory.”
I Am That 2nd ed. Epilogue
‘You are not your body, but you are the consciousness in the body, because of which you have the awareness of ‘I am’. It is without words, just pure beingness. It has become soul of the world. In the absence of your consciousness, the world will not be experienced. Hence, you are the consciousness… remember what you have heard… meditate on it.
Gaitonde, Mohan (2017). Self - Love: The Original Dream (Shri Nisargadatta Maharaj’s Direct Pointers to Reality).
Interesting. Especially since SN22.89 explicitly comments on this: SuttaCentral
For when it comes to the five grasping aggregates I’m not rid of the conceit ‘I am’. But I don’t regard anything as ‘I am this’.” api ca me, āvuso, pañcasu upādānakkhandhesu ‘asmī’ti adhigataṁ, ‘ayamahamasmī’ti na ca samanupassāmī”ti.
The result of Advaita Vedanta being preached by Sankaracharya, it’s founder, in India during it’s time, resulted in Buddhism emigrating to outside of India more and more, while in India Hinduism began to take hold, Buddhism grew in stature and strength outside of India while the population of India increased due to people embracing Advaita Vedanta over Buddhism during that time in India. Advaita Vedanta has been described as “covered Buddhism” by the some of the personalist Sanatana Dharma followers. But Advaita Vedanta, although an authentic Spiritual Path for many, it is not in line with the philosophy of Theravada Buddhist Principles. It is a very different tradition where one imagines there is a God, and it involves with the idea of merging into that figure to attain liberation. In Buddhism the Devas are clearly mentioned, but Buddhahood and a clear Nirvana and Parinirvana have nothing to do with merging into what the Sankarites call the Brahman Effulgence and sacrificing their individuality in the process. Advaita Vedanta may contain a certain form of liberation, but it’s goal isn’t a clear Buddhahood and Nirvana prescribed in the Suttas by Gautama Buddha. Advaita Vedanta is more of a dangerous Path because Sankaracarya had to misuse the Vedas by various forms of word jugglery to lead followers into a form of impersonalism. Gautama on the other hand respectfully rejected the Vedas and preached the Buddhist Philosophy standalone to Buddhists and voice-hearers, neither directly preaching against the Vedas nor misusing the Vedas, He spoke the Suttas and outlined a Way to Enlightenment for all beings, giving the Refuge of the Three Jewels and outlining the Noble Eightfold Path, and the Four Noble Truths.
One can find many contradictions between Buddhist Dhamma and the Vedas, but it is clearly seen in the Suttas that Gautama respectfully preached Buddhist Philosophy standalone, not taking the time to directly mention the Vedas even while rejecting them, or commenting on the Vedic Scriptures themselves, giving the practitioner of Buddhism sufficient information to make the choice of following Buddhist Dhamma, in amazing clarity and Sagacity, so the converts to Buddhism simply received the Higher Wisdom of the Dhamma and did not feel like the Vedas were misused, because the Vedas also contain a Spiritual Purpose for those who are attached to the Devas.
In Buddhism the Suttas contain a clear Pathway to Buddhahood and Nirvana, so studying them and following the Theravada Tradition is in line with what the Buddha wants for us. And who are we not to trust the Buddha? There are no discrepancies in the words of the Buddhas. Theravada Buddhism is a perfect tradition, not a makeshift philosophy like Advaita Vedanta. The Suttas are perfect Scriptures full of truth, wisdom, and knowledge, while Advaita Vedanta commentaries contain word jugglery and the pitfall of impersonalism, and misusing the Vedas in order to drive Buddhism out of India and increase the population. So there is a purpose in Advaita Vedanta, but Shakyamuni Buddha’s philosophy is the honest Path towards Enlightenment, clear, honest, and Perfect. Let us take it.
This is a piece of Hindu propaganda. There’s no evidence that Shankara’s preaching weakened Buddhism in India. These are just the claims which are made in Shankara’s hagiographies.
We can trade quotes back and forth but the fact remains Advaita’s foundation is still in the Brahma sutras and the Upanishads, which promote eternalism.
Well, I just want you to know that no one can weaken Buddhism. Even if there is only one monk in a city, the strength of the Dhamma will be able to persevere if people are receptive to that Bhikku’s preaching, and if they decide to turn away, Buddhism itself isn’t what’s being weakened or diminished, it’s strength will always be there, just the people who have turned away have lost their stature. So let us be Buddhists, and honour the Three Jewels.
That’s already been established, but it doesn’t mean that all said is of no importance, even for some who calls themselves Buddhists. Grasping can also mean that one shuts oneself off for all that’s not considered to fit a certain frame one has chosen.
I like simple sentences like that, and when I contemplate it further, it leaves my mind still and peaceful.
If I remember correctly other things said by Nisargadatta, one other sentence goes like: Rest in the I am and know that you are not the I am.
