Buddhism and Advaita share remarkable similarities yet differ fundamentally. Both emphasize meditation, direct experience over ritual, and transcending dualistic thinking. Both employ two-truths framework (conventional vs ultimate). Both critique substantialism and naive realism. Yet crucial differences exist. Buddhist Madhyamaka (Nagarjuna) teaches Shunyata (emptiness)—all phenomena lack inherent existence, are dependently originated, empty of self-nature. Even consciousness is empty. No permanent self (anatman) exists. Yogacara Buddhism is idealistic—external objects are consciousness projections—seeming close to Advaita, but still denies permanent self. Zen points directly to mind-nature beyond concepts. Advaita makes a positive assertion: Brahman EXISTS as pure consciousness (Chit). Atman IS, not empty but fullness itself (purna). The difference: Buddhism negates (via negativa)—nothing has inherent existence; Advaita affirms (via positiva)—pure consciousness alone exists. Buddhist anatman (no-self) means no permanent individual self; Advaitic Atman means the true Self is universal Brahman, not the individual ego. Some scholars call Advaita "crypto-Buddhism," arguing Shankara borrowed heavily from Buddhist logic while maintaining Vedic authority. Others stress fundamental incompatibility: consciousness vs emptiness as ultimate. Historically, Shankara's success partly stemmed from offering an alternative to Buddhism that preserved Vedic tradition while incorporating sophisticated philosophical analysis. His synthesis helped Hinduism reclaim intellectual ground from Buddhism, which subsequently declined in India.