Buddhism Vs Advaitam

[Chandran, Nanda (NBC)]

I'm well aware that I'm beating the old horse again and am at that
vyavaharika level, but the more I read Buddhism and Advaitam, the stronger
gets this theory :

I think the principle difference between Buddhism (as taught by Buddha) and
Advaitam (as expounded by Gaudapada and Shankara), is the motive. The famous
statement of the Buddha, that he preaches only the cessation of suffering,
which is applicable to all, is quite in contrast with Gaudapada and
Shankara, who in each of their works clearly state the requisite
qualitifications of the aspirant, which makes their club exclusive. The
motive of Buddha, is aimed more towards the welfare of all people and their
happiness, rather than enlightment (which, as expounded by the Upanishads is
clearly not for the majority). The motive of Gaudapada and Shankara, other
than the resurrection of the Vedic religion, was Self-Realization.

Correct me if I'm mistaken, I feel that the intellectual dimension of
Buddhism grew with the likes of Asvagosha, Nagarjuna et al. Not that the
Compassionate One wasn't capable of it (for he was as capable as any,
ever!), but probably felt, there cannot be any blue print for the
achievement, that he achieved and that it's to be created by every man for
himself and that time would be better spent for the greater good and
happiness of all.

        Because e-mail can be altered electronically,
        the integrity of this communication cannot be guaranteed.