Pre-Sankara period, the Vedantists did not subscribe to advaita but rather a different philosophy and will show proof from the words of historians and scholars.
Sankara's philosophy of Advaita is really just Buddhism in disguise
The critisms that Advaita is Buddhism in disguise are unfounded. Advaita and Buddhism are entirely different philosophies. Some of the fundamental differences
1) Atman vs Anatman: The Advaitins believe in the existence of a permenant unchanging substance of Self, that is Sat-Chit-Ananda, existence, consciousness and bliss. The Buddhists believe in anatman, no permenant substance, all that exists is constant change, no permeant self or universal self or consciousness. Self is an illusion.
2Mayavada vs Shunyavada: Advaita believe all of empirical reality is an appearance of the fundamental cause of Self which is transcendental reality. Buddhists believe that all of empirical reality is empty of form and has no fundamental substance, but is emptiness.
There are similarities between Advaita and Buddhism, but there are fundamental differences which make them very different philosophies.
and that is also explained in Padma Purana:mayavada-asac-chastram pracchanam bauddham ucyate.
Well, yes it would be found in the Puranas, as they are reflect the sectarian biases of their authors. Just as you find Buddha co-opted by the Puranas as the 'deceiver' These texts hold no authority in Hinduism, because they are Smriti, constructed by humans.
In Buddhist scriptures like the Mahaparinirvana sutra and the Lankavatara sutra the seeds of Sankara's philosophy are found. Sunyavada(an prominent school of Buddhism) had an influence on the members of the Vedic Brahminical community who were atheistic at heart. So naturally this began to influence Vedanta scholarship.
Yes, the Mahaparinvana sutras belong to the non orthodox Mahayana school of Buddhism, which claim that the original teachings of Buddha were distorted and they have the real teachings. They accept a transcendental self. This form of Buddhism flourished closer to India, showing clear Hindu influence.
Advita vada began to appear in Vedanta commentaries even before Sankaracarya for example, in the writings of Gaudapada.
Why should this be surprising? Sankara was not the originator of Advaita philosophy, he was simply the most popular proponent of it. His particular tradition is traced to Gaudapada, who the was the teacher of his teacher. One of the oldest and uanimous teacher of Advaita is Yajnavalkya in the Upanishads. I have a thread in the scripture debate forum where you provide evidence from scripture that Upanishads teach Dvaita and not Advaita. It is pretty clear they teach Advaita, even the Mahavakyas are very clear on this: Aham Brahmasmi, Ayam Atma Brama, Pranjana Brahman, Tat Tvam asi.
In a Chinese version of the Mahaparinirvana-sutra, written after Buddhism was driven out of India, the following note regarding the state of affairs of Buddhist philosophy in India of that time: "Nowadays there are some remaining teachings of Buddha that were stolen by Brahmins and written into their own commentaries." A Buddhist writer by the name of Bhartrhari, who lived about the same time as Sankaracarya, wrote that Sankara had similar ideas as did he and other Buddhist philosophers of that time. So from this we can know that Advaita has it's roots in Buddhism and originates from it.
This is not proof, it is a claim made by some anonymous Chinese Buddhist
Now here's proof that pre-Sankara Vedantists did not follow advita:
1)Certain pre-Sankara Buddhist scriptures contain descriptions of the teachings of Vedanta philosophers who used to argue against the Buddhists.
2)The Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra (written around 150 A.D.) and the Satyasiddhisastra (250 A.D.) say that the followers of the Vedas and Upanisads believe in the Mahapurusa Narayan, who existed before the world began and exists within the heart of all creatures with a form of the size of a thumb. The Abhidharma-mahavibhasa-sastra says that the followers of the Vedas believe that, "All that exists is nothing but Purusa. All that happens is caused by the transformation of the self-existent Isvara Narayan."
Not proof, claims.
3)In a work called Sastra by Aryadeva, Vedantists are portrayed as those who believe that the world was created by Brahma, who appeared from the navel of Vishnu.
4)The Buddhist writer Bhavya in the Madhyamika-hrdaya-karika describes the Vedanta philosophy as "Bhedabheda" ("one-and-different") philosophy.
5)In the Tattvasamgraha, the Buddhist writer Kamalasila equates "Vedavadin" with "Purusavadin." He also defines Purushavadis as being those who believe in a personal God.
6)Hajime Nakamura(Japanese Buddhist professor of Sanskrit) also presented strong historical evidence that the ancient pre-Shankara Vedantists were purusa-vadins who believed in personal God as the goal of Vedanta. You can buy his book from Amazon. It's called "A History of Early Vedanta Philosophy" and it received Imperial Prize by the Academy of Japan.
SO Conclusion is: Pre-Sankara Vedantism was personal (aimed at knowing Narayan) and did not hold to a doctrine of "Brahman is only true and all is illusion"
Again, no proof here just claims. What Buddhists say about Vedanta philosophy is not representative of Vedanta philosophy, it is their representation of it. Likewise, Hindus say quite a lot of stuff about Buddhism like Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu and had come to deceive the people by pretending to be atheist, and this is clearly not the actual Buddhist position. Other religions are never going to fairly represent another religious tradition, because they have their own bias, so whatever they say is not reliable. You need real objective, impartial and reliabe evidence to prove that Advaita is cryptobuddhist or Sankara Vedanta was Dvaitist.
