user254: Is Advaita considered to be not-Buddhism (for the purpose of deciding what's on-topic on this site)?
I'm guessing that these answers might be Advaita, or something like that:

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/34960/254

Adisankara says, "Brahma satya jagan mothya".

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/34932/254

But the most important question remains? The intelligence you put in the puppet belongs to whom? It belongs to the one who created the puppet. He trojen intelligence into it. These are 5 skhandas. And there is also higher intelligence who have took this form. We are just puppet made by Absolute.

https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/34776/254

What you see, hear, touch, felt and see is actually experienced by Brahma. He is the seer behind all individual


Wikipedia has an entry for "Adisankara"

Adi Shankaracharya (Sanskrit: आदि शङ्कराआचार्य [aːdɪ ɕɐŋkɐɽɐ]) was an early 8th century Indian philosopher and theologian who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta. He is credited with unifying and establishing the main currents of thought in Hinduism.

Anyway, these answers are all downvoted and one has been flagged.

user295: 
Advaita: a Vedantic doctrine that identifies the individual self (atman) with the ground of reality (brahman). It is associated especially with the Indian philosopher Shankara (c. 788–820).

https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/advaita

Advaita Vedanta: Advaita Vedanta, originally known as Puruṣavāda, is a school of Hindu philosophy, and believed to be one of the classic paths to spiritual realization in Hindu tradition. The term Advaita refers to its idea that the true self, Atman, is the same as the highest metaphysical Reality.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta

Vedanta: Vedanta or Uttara Mīmāṃsā is the most prominent of the six schools of Hindu philosophy. Literally meaning "end of the Vedas", Vedanta reflects ideas that emerged from the speculations and philosophies contained in the Upanishads. It does not stand for one comprehensive or unifying doctrine.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta
These are Hindu concepts. therefore, if a question/answer is only about Advaita and/or Vedanta it belongs to https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/ can be migrated here. If it is comparative religions question with a Buddhist angle then it can be here. 

user471: All Vedanta schools must have Atman at the core of all sentient beings (Bhagavad Gita 2.17-30). If it does not, then it is not Vedanta. Regardless of whether it is Dvaita, Advaita, Visishtadvaita, Shuddhādvaita or Bhedabheda, all have Atman and Brahman.
Similarly, all Buddhist schools must accept that all phenomena is not Atman or not Self, regardless of whether it is unconditioned phenomena (Nirvana) or conditioned phenomena. If it does not fulfill this, then it is not Buddhism. This is confirmed in the essay "Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study" by German indologist Professor Helmuth von Glasenapp. This essay includes a definition of Atman or Self, that is consistent with Bhagavad Gita 2.17-30. This applies to all Hinayana / Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana schools.
This topic of Atman is a fundamental irreconcilable difference between Vedanta and Buddhism.
By this definition, since Adi Shankaracharya preached Atman at the core of all beings, he was definitely an astika (a believer) and therefore his teachings fall under the umbrella of Hinduism. This can be seen in his compositions: Atma Bodha, Vivekachudamani, Aparokshanubhuti, Tattva Bodha and his commentaries.
The Buddha rejected the concept of an eternal Atman at the core of any being and also rejected Brahman, so he was a nastika (a non-believer).
Another criteria is the acceptance of the authority of the Vedas as revealed scripture (shruti). Adi Shankara accepted the Vedas, so he was an astika. Meanwhile, the Buddha did not accept the Vedas as evidenced in the Canki Sutta, so he was a nastika.
It can be seen in this answer that even non-Vedanta schools that are classified as astika (believer), all accept Atman.
So, based on these two criteria, Advaita Vedanta does not fall under Buddhism, and instead falls under Hinduism.
From Professor Helmuth von Glasenapp's essay "Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study":

Nothing shows better the great distance that separates the Vedanta and
  the teachings of the Buddha, than the fact that the two principal
  concepts of Upanishadic wisdom, Atman and Brahman, do not appear
  anywhere in the Buddhist texts, with the clear and distinct meaning of
  a "primordial ground of the world, core of existence, ens realissimum
  (true substance)," or similarly.


254: <p>Is Advaita considered to be not-Buddhism (for the purpose of deciding what's on-topic on this site)?</p>

<p>I'm guessing that these answers might be Advaita, or something like that:</p>

<ul>
<li><p><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/34960/254">https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/34960/254</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Adisankara says, "Brahma satya jagan mothya".</p>
</blockquote></li>
<li><p><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/34932/254">https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/34932/254</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>But the most important question remains? The intelligence you put in the puppet belongs to whom? It belongs to the one who created the puppet. He trojen intelligence into it. These are 5 skhandas. And there is also higher intelligence who have took this form. We are just puppet made by Absolute.</p>
</blockquote></li>
<li><p><a href="https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/34776/254">https://buddhism.stackexchange.com/a/34776/254</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>What you see, hear, touch, felt and see is actually experienced by Brahma. He is the seer behind all individual</p>
</blockquote></li>
</ul>

<p>Wikipedia has an entry for "<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adi_Shankara" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Adisankara</a>"</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Adi Shankaracharya (Sanskrit: आदि शङ्कराआचार्य [aːdɪ ɕɐŋkɐɽɐ]) was an early 8th century Indian philosopher and theologian who consolidated the doctrine of Advaita Vedanta. He is credited with unifying and establishing the main currents of thought in Hinduism.</p>
</blockquote>

<p>Anyway, these answers are all downvoted and one has been flagged.</p>
 295: <blockquote>
  <p>Advaita: a Vedantic doctrine that identifies the individual self (atman) with the ground of reality (brahman). It is associated especially with the Indian philosopher Shankara (c. 788–820).</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/advaita" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://www.lexico.com/en/definition/advaita</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Advaita Vedanta: Advaita Vedanta, originally known as Puruṣavāda, is a school of Hindu philosophy, and believed to be one of the classic paths to spiritual realization in Hindu tradition. The term Advaita refers to its idea that the true self, Atman, is the same as the highest metaphysical Reality.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Advaita_Vedanta</a></p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Vedanta: Vedanta or Uttara Mīmāṃsā is the most prominent of the six schools of Hindu philosophy. Literally meaning "end of the Vedas", Vedanta reflects ideas that emerged from the speculations and philosophies contained in the Upanishads. It does not stand for one comprehensive or unifying doctrine.</p>
</blockquote>

<p><a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta" rel="nofollow noreferrer">https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vedanta</a></p>

<p>These are Hindu concepts. therefore, if a question/answer is only about Advaita and/or Vedanta it belongs to <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/">https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/</a> can be migrated here. If it is comparative religions question with a Buddhist angle then it can be here. </p>
 471: <p>All Vedanta schools must have Atman at the core of all sentient beings (<a href="https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bhagavad Gita 2.17-30</a>). If it does not, then it is not Vedanta. Regardless of whether it is Dvaita, Advaita, Visishtadvaita, Shuddhādvaita or Bhedabheda, all have Atman and Brahman.</p>

<p>Similarly, all Buddhist schools must accept that all phenomena is not Atman or not Self, regardless of whether it is unconditioned phenomena (Nirvana) or conditioned phenomena. If it does not fulfill this, then it is not Buddhism. This is confirmed in the essay "<a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/vonglasenapp/wheel002.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study</a>" by German indologist Professor Helmuth von Glasenapp. This essay includes a definition of Atman or Self, that is consistent with <a href="https://www.holy-bhagavad-gita.org/chapter/2" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Bhagavad Gita 2.17-30</a>. This applies to all Hinayana / Theravada, Mahayana and Vajrayana schools.</p>

<p>This topic of Atman is a fundamental irreconcilable difference between Vedanta and Buddhism.</p>

<p>By this definition, since Adi Shankaracharya preached Atman at the core of all beings, he was definitely an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80stika_and_n%C4%81stika" rel="nofollow noreferrer">astika</a> (a believer) and therefore his teachings fall under the umbrella of Hinduism. This can be seen in his compositions: <a href="http://www.shankaracharya.org/atmabodha.php" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Atma Bodha</a>, <a href="http://www.shankaracharya.org/vivekachudamani1.php" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Vivekachudamani</a>, <a href="http://www.shankaracharya.org/aparokshanubhuti.php" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Aparokshanubhuti</a>, <a href="http://www.shankaracharya.org/tattvabodha.php" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Tattva Bodha</a> and his commentaries.</p>

<p>The Buddha rejected the concept of an eternal Atman at the core of any being and also rejected Brahman, so he was a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80stika_and_n%C4%81stika" rel="nofollow noreferrer">nastika</a> (a non-believer).</p>

<p>Another criteria is the acceptance of the authority of the Vedas as revealed scripture (<a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C5%9Aruti" rel="nofollow noreferrer">shruti</a>). Adi Shankara accepted the Vedas, so he was an <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80stika_and_n%C4%81stika" rel="nofollow noreferrer">astika</a>. Meanwhile, the Buddha did not accept the Vedas as evidenced in the <a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/mn/mn.095x.than.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Canki Sutta</a>, so he was a <a href="https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/%C4%80stika_and_n%C4%81stika" rel="nofollow noreferrer">nastika</a>.</p>

<p>It can be seen in <a href="https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/a/22288/4596">this answer</a> that even non-Vedanta schools that are classified as astika (believer), all accept Atman.</p>

<p>So, based on these two criteria, Advaita Vedanta does not fall under Buddhism, and instead falls under Hinduism.</p>

<p>From Professor Helmuth von Glasenapp's essay "<a href="https://www.accesstoinsight.org/lib/authors/vonglasenapp/wheel002.html" rel="nofollow noreferrer">Vedanta and Buddhism: A Comparative Study</a>":</p>

<blockquote>
  <p>Nothing shows better the great distance that separates the Vedanta and
  the teachings of the Buddha, than the fact that the two principal
  concepts of Upanishadic wisdom, Atman and Brahman, do not appear
  anywhere in the Buddhist texts, with the clear and distinct meaning of
  a "primordial ground of the world, core of existence, <em>ens realissimum</em>
  (true substance)," or similarly.</p>
</blockquote>
