On Integrating or Re-Solving Variance in Jainism, Vedanta, Advaita Vedanta, and Buddhism Philosophies

 This brief and simplified discernment is to complement the following presentations https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QZtCQoTemoY and https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQBbipDMxUQ (and among many other comparable presentations): 

Advaita Vedanta  https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta is basically the modernization of Vedanta through scholarly process, method, and framework. And as well as to better refine the philosophy and practices through non-dualism  in similarly ways to Buddhism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhism  had done during the Nalanda tradition era.

There are more similarity between the traditions than differences. And the main differences between Vedanta and Advaita Vedanta is Vedanta is dual while Advaita Vedanta is non-dual.
​
The main differences between Jainism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jainism  (and Vedanta https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta. Advaita Vedanta is non-dual, and therefore this pretty much is not a real issue) and
Buddhism is mainly on aspects of permanent and impermanent  of nature of reality. However, this can be easily resolved since impermanent is constant transient or flux while permanent  can be considered as eternal rather than as static or non-changing. And therefore, impermanent permanent or permanent impermanent is part of nature of reality. The word Nirvana has many meanings which included permanent or eternal. And thus, there is no dualism or no contradiction. In other words, aspects of dualism in Buddhism and Vedanta were better expressed or interpreted non-dually through the Nalanda and Advaita Vedanta traditions respectively.

Other main differences between Vedanta and Advaita Vedanta and Jainism and Buddhism are:

1.0 In Buddhism, creation is self-assembled, self-organized, and self-evolved or self-created process while In Vedanta and Advaita Vedanta, Brahma is a representative of creation or god entity (even through this does not  indicated or  meant a personnel god).

2.0 And as well as an individual can become god or Brahman becomes Brahma while an individual can be part of All That Exist and Ever Exist but not god (since  individual can be part of the whole rather than an entity god as well as the cosmos was through self-created process) as in Jainism and Buddhism. The proper or scientific way to interpret Brahman is Brahma is individual has the potential to nurture, develop, transform, and purify form-formless or many sentient composite body-mind system to resonate and be one with the source of existence or All That Exist and Ever Exist.

While the self and no-self (no-self basically means individual does not exist by him or herself but rather as part of sum of parts of the greater the whole. And nothing has its own intrinsic inherent independent existence) among traditions are basically a matter of interpretation due mainly to perceived contradiction between Brahma-Brahman (Brahma is creation process and Brahman basically can be considered as god men, holy men, and deities) and self-created process of life and existence. All acknowledge the subtle body-mind of the many sentient composite body-mind system. And transition or evolution of subtle body-mind beyond the known physical. And the ultimate inspiration, aspiration, yearning, and liberation is for form-formless to resonate or be one with the source of existence. Buddhism through dependent and interdependent origination and arising process while Jainism through participatory parts of sum of parts of the whole process and Vedanta and Advaita Vedanta through Brahma-Brahman interdependent and interconnectedness process. And if Brahma is considered as a wholeness entity process rather than a personnel god (as previously mentioned), then they all basically expressed similarity or commonality.

Another main difference is Buddhism emphasizes on non-dual aspects of heart and mind of body-mind (or one cannot be without the other) while Vedanta, Advaita Vedanta, and Jainism emphasizes  more on the mind and complement body elements. In other words, all practice body-mind consciousness and awareness, but the mind is considered as the main vehicle or mean in many of these traditions. However, mind only is also the practices of many Buddhist traditions or lineages. And which is why all these traditions have been generally mistaken or confused for idealism philosophy rather than wholism idealism philosophy (the science or meaningful scientific practices would be considered as wholism realism).

And therefore, can easily be reconciled when Brahma is considered as self-created process rather than an entity. And an individual is considered as interdependent and interconnected  part of sum of parts of the greater whole. And can be one with the whole as in all Jainism, Vedanta, Advaita Vedanta, and Buddhism philosophies have expressed through metaphors and paraphrase's (such as all are connected, interdependent and interconnectedness, and oneness of wholeness (Vedanta and Advaita Vedanta), sum of parts of the whole and part of the collective (Jainism), dependent and interdependent origination and arising and nothing has its own intrinsic inherent independent existence (Buddhism)). However, since these traditions co-existed and co-evolved over millenniums, many words or metaphors are mixed or interchanged such as in Advaita Vedanta.

Buddhism and Jainism philosophies are the most similar. And could partially due to their interpretation of perception and experience of the world (or essence, nature, and ground of being, And nature) through more appropriate and common words and metaphors. Differences in interpretation and meanings should be expected since all these traditions even through overlapped, were developed during different eras by different practitioners and communities. However, they can be reconciled since nature of reality must converge or even through nature of reality is one (i.e. based on the essence, nature, and ground of being. And nature), it can be perceived and experience differently by different people due  to such as genetic, biologic, culture, background, intellect, physical and mental conditions, environment, life conditions, and among others. In simple words, people created or constructed their own perception of the world based on economical, cultural, social, communal, civil, political, education, and environment uprising and conditions as well as self-interests and self-evolution rather than on the essence, nature, and ground of being. And nature. Nature of reality and truth must or have to be derived from the essence, nature, and ground of being. And nature.

Basically, if the dualism is removed and the philosophy is integrated with and expressed through scientific language since many emancipation could be similar and the differences are due to the thinking, languages, and words of the days (i.e. the science, languages, and words were inadequate), then Jainism, Vedanta, Advaita Vedanta, and Buddhism philosophies would be practically similar (despite their many cultural and practices differences) as in their other common ground emancipation such as there are many types of nature of reality and truth (such as relative and absolute truths, many realms and worlds, and nature is dynamic and transformative). And as well as they are all wholeness ways all life and practices (based on the essence, nature, and ground of being. And nature) toward transforming form-formless (i.e. many sentient composite body-mind system) and liberation.

And as mentioned, these are expression or manifestation of diversity and pluralism of perception and experience of the world over the millenniums across individuals and collective, ways of life and practices, and environment. However, when skillfully discerned, they basically converge. And therefore, strengthen and complement the philosophy when they converge and integrate. Therefore, the sciences of naturalness-spiritual and epistemology and ontology. And thus, meaningful and essential ways of life and practices. In other words, the whole is far greater than sum of its parts. In simple words, philosophically, when converged, interpolated, extrapolated, and correlated they expressed real common aspects of nature of reality and truth or real and reliable common aspects of the essence, nature, and ground of being. And nature.

Updated 09/01/2019:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IQBbipDMxUQ (Jainism and Vedanta (and Advaita Vedanta and Buddhism): A Comparative Study)

The discernment is on core and holistic philosophy rather than on technical aspects such as re-incarnation. Since Buddhism lost influence and was dormant for many centuries after India was invaded, the revival of Buddhism was very  influenced or dominated by Hinduism. And was even considered as part of Hinduism. Furthermore, re-incarnation was more relevant in Jainism, Vedanta, and Advaita Vedanta than in Buddhism (i.e. many Buddhist traditions or lineages do not practice or rely on such belief (that do not rely on scriptures literally and or authority (as mentioned by the Dalai Lama regularly) such as https://www.theweek.in/theweek/cover/2019/07/05/exclusive-interview-reincarnation-isnt-important-says-the-dalai-lama.html (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uqOMZP6HPP8) and   https://www.dalailama.com/videos/relevance-of-indias-ancient-tradition-in-todays-world). Nalanda tradition is naturalness-spiritual based development and living rather than religious based belief or is not a religious tradition as evidence in the academia environment and scientific method as well as philosophy, science, and practices of wholeness ways of life development and living). Re-incarnation can be explored through meaningful scientific concept and method https://www.epistemologyontologyfoundationinstitute.org/philosophy-and-science/on-philosophy-and-science-of-re-incarnation)