I can explain something from what I understand
What appears in the dream state is an illusion in the waking state.After appears to be true to normal waking state in an illusion from the pointing of view of super conscious(samadhi/satori) state.
Anekāntavāda is one of the three Jain doctrines of relativity used for logic and reasoning. The other two are:
------->syādvādathe theory of conditioned predication and;
------->nayavādathe theory of partial standpoints
syād-astiin some ways, it is,
syād-nāstiin some ways, it is not,
syād-asti-nāstiin some ways, it is, and it is not,
Nayavāda is the theory of partial standpoints or viewpoints.
As a type of critical philosophy, nayavāda holds that all philosophical disputes arise out of confusion of standpoints, and the standpoints we adopt are, although we may not realize it, "the outcome of purposes that we may pursue".[17] While operating within the limits of language and seeing the complex nature of reality, Māhavīra used the language of nayas. Naya, being a partial expression of truth, enables us to comprehend reality part by part.
More on it here.
http://www.religiousforums.com/forum/jainism/87815-philosophy-anekantavada.html
IMHO,Buddhism sees the same experience from inside and vedanta from outside.
If there is a of of water inside a water.The pot breaks to dissolve in to ocean.This is akin loss of ego or sense of I in the samadhi state.
Now ,from the point of view of pot water.There is no self .It is void.This is the Buddhist stance.
"He who experiences the unity of life sees his own Self in all beings, and all beings in his own Self, and looks on everything with an impartial eye"---Buddha
Is that like the Hindu statement: "See the self in all things; and all things in the self is not seperated from me nor am I seperated from Him."--Bhagavat Gita
From the point of point of Ocean,the pot has become everything.This is the advaita stance.It has become Universal Self.
Karma and birth apply only when there in individuality,when there is a thought of 'I' and 'Me".i.e when there is a desire.In the samadhi state however,all these thoughts are transcended and hence karma and rebirth become an illusion.
There is undeniably a serious difference between early Buddhism and Vedanta: the first says there is no self and the other says everything is the self; there is apparently no consciousness in nirvana, but everything is consciousness in moksha.So the debate between Mahayana and Vedanta often resembles a fight where the two boxers are tied together back-to-back.. The fact that these systems are so diametrically opposed here, that one is the mirror image of the other, is suggestive. They are both extreme positions, trying to resolve the relation between the self and the non-self by conflating the one into the other. The not-self of Buddhism swallows the self; the self of Advaita swallows the not-self.Both descriptions amount to the same thing; what is clear in each case is that there is no longer a duality between an object which is observed and a consciousness which observes it; or between the external world and the self which confronts it.
More on it here.
Enlightenment in Buddhism and Advaita Vedanta
Brahman.
Maharishi Mahesh Yogi defines Brahman as follows:
Brahman, which is an all-pervading mass of bliss, does not exhibit any quality of bliss. It may be likened to a mass of energy- matter - which does not exhibit any quality of energy... Brahman is that which cannot be expressed into words, even thought the Upanishads use words to educate about Its nature. In the field of speech, Brahman lies between two contrary statements. It is absolute and relative at the same time. It is the eternal imperishable even while It is ever changing. It is said to be both This and That. It is spoken of as Sat-Chita-Ananda but includes what is not Sat, what is not Chit, and what is not Ananda. It is beyond speech and thought, yet the whole range of thought and speech lies within It.
Love and regards,
