Attachment to doctrines motivates some to ignore the differences between advaya, and advaita. Of course, it is maintained that not all Vedanta is Advaita-Vedānta. Most formally, and notably, the term advaita was translated into English as “one without a second,” which is not to say “not-two” since this one (even if it is “zero”) always implies another. Of course, it describes Brahman/jīvātman as being such that they are seen as being one, without an opposite. Dvaya implies in-two; dvaita implies the notion of 1, then 2.
The book entitled, Primordial Experience, in its translators’ attempts to derive/contrive a more “natural language” (Ezra Pound, etc.) has created much confusion in this vein. And most native-speaking Tibetans have no interest in the significant but subtle differences, in the English language, between saying that variety does not by necessity indicate difference, and in saying that there is only one thing, which appears to be multiple objects; though subtle, crucial.
Relatedly, it is apparent that the doctrine of Tathāgata, having done away with the social status of the Brāhmaṇa as dominators of society, was gradually (after the first 500 years) hijacked, and the attempt was made to fabricate entire teachings based upon this resultant “Crypto-Buddhism” and fabricate the ancient manuscripts thereby seeming to validate the notions of the “Crypto-Buddhists” and foist such upon the Indian public.
Included are the notions found in the Bhagavad Gita. By the time of its popularization (albeit, as an “ancient” text) we have the notions of a supreme godhead, in Vishnu, said to have been both the historical Buddha, and (the mythical) Kṛṣṇa.
This move finalized the non-Buddhist status of India and Indian society — a very unfortunate conclusion.
It is in recognition of this trend that I insist upon the individual being fully informed, alongside the more inner work, their development of discernment in these regards, emphasized.
༅། །བཀྲ་ཤིས་བདེ་ལེགས། །