I am confused about certain things, I really hope some kind person can help

Quite some deep quesitons there. Notice Buddhism is a pragmatic doctrine. “In the past, monks, and also now, I teach suffering and the cessation of suffering.” So while there's nothing wrong pondering all the deep questions while sitting in one's own comfy chair sipping hot chocolate, none of those would really matter for real life practice, especially in life-and-death situation. Imagine someone with a knife stuck in his belly and then you proceed and ask him if time and space really exist? or if his ongoing unbearable excruciating pain truly exist? What'd you think if you are the one with a knife stuck in your belly? We all are and we all will face "a knife stuck in the belly" situation in our life time, and so the answer would be that yes, time and space exist, and consciousness and objects are real... to the extent that they're useful to help one cultivates Virtues, Meditation, Wisdom, to make progress on the Path, and to put an end to Dukkha.

It's good to imagine that time in a good situation is running out and the space to actually match the path is getting smaller and smaller. Therefore one should turn over to do merits as long as possible and where ever is given such a space. Time and space to not enlarge by thinking around in wheels but by deed, from gross to refined.

(Note that it is not given to cheat about much time and space by trading around, exchanges, stacks and entertainments of laziness but as a tiny door to go beyond)

I will answer based on the Pali discourses and the Theravadin interpretation as i understand it.

What is the view of Buddhism on time and space does it exist?? In Advaita they say time and space do not exist at all.

It is known in the world that time exists as well as space but the nature of these phenomena is to be explored. The Sutta do speak of a space-element.

Advaita says that there is only the universal consciousness and all the objects and people are illusions what is the Buddhist view here?

If one says that "there is only a universal consciousness" or "we are all one" it can probably be inferred that this All is also a self. This is not the Buddhist position which would be that Consciouness is dependently arisen, impermanent and is not self.

Advaita says that in deep sleep consciousness do not stop what is the Buddhist view here?

It is similar in word but the meaning and definitions of consciousness itself will vary when the two schools are compared so even tho the expression might be agreeable the meaning would be disagreeable.

In Advaita in order to experience our true nature we have to relax our attention from objects and let consciousness be aware of itself. What is the Buddhist view here does Buddhism say that consciousness being aware of itself is our true nature if not how do we experience our true nature similarly to the way advaita vedanta showed us to do and how do Buddhist explain that experience of our true nature.

Buddhism makes a point of existing phenomena not being a self, as not belonging to a self nor constituting a self. There are dependently arisen external and internal phenomena which can be taken to be self or belonging to self but these phenomena are at that time grasped with wrong view.

Advaita Vedanta says that the world made out of matter in the waking state that we experience is in reality consciousness. They use the analogy of the dream where it seems that matter exists for us in the dream when we wake up we realize everything was consciousness. What is the view of Buddhism here?

The World is explained as that in the world which perceives and conceives of the world. All phenomena are said to be created by mind, made and led by mind. There is also a passage explaining that one should regard the world as a mirrage.

What is the difference between the nature of Brahman and Nirvana? What is the difference between Nirvana and Samsara I read that they are the same? Which implies that Buddhism agree with advaita vedanta that we are in fact our true nature all the time and we have are just in a illusion that we are not.

There are two elements the Conditioned and the Unconditioned, the Conditioned is manyfold and the Unconditioned is unvarying; a singleness. The world which can be taken to be Samsara is Conditioned, with the extinguishment of the Conditioned there is only the Unconditioned Element.

What is the view of Buddhism on time and space does it exist?

I once found this dictionary definition of the Pali words akalika ("timeless") and kalika (not timeless) ...

Ñánavíra on Citta, see footnote: "The notion of two successive 'moments', A and B, as akálika or non-temporal is a confusion. Either A and B are simultaneous (as e.g. viññána and námarúpa), in which case they are indeed akálika; or B follows A and they are successive (as e.g. the in-&-out-breaths), in which case they are kálika."

I think this is sometimes the intended meaning in the Pali, sometimes not. When one speaks of the simultaneous arising of nama/rupa+consciousness the meaning is simultaneity; when one speaks of consciousness depending on nama/rupa or other cases of 'fruition' the use is without interval, immediately successive.

It is probably most useful here to go to the ultimate roots: a = no; ka = shit; li = line; ka = shit. The track of scat left by an animal. The hunter sees: This is the track a week old, this is only two days old, this is from yesterday, and here it is now, eating. That would point to the original meaning of the term to be closer to successive than to simultaneity.

So e.g. time and space exist at least "conventionally" -- to whatever extent e.g. "an animal" and "shit" exist.

You might also say though that things don't exist: "That isn't really a chair -- it's just bits of wood which we use as a chair. And wood doesn't really exist (doesn't exist by itself) -- it's just cellulose, or just something which seems hard to the touch and which we call 'wood'. And it doesn't last forever, yesterday it was a tree and a carpenter, tomorrow it will be broken sticks and smoke."

Or even, "Space doesn't really exist, it's just a word, an interpretation we use to explain what we perceive via our senses. Or space doesn't exist independently, e.g. it's the distance between two things, but if those things don't really exist maybe the alleged space between them is also arbitrary".

does Buddhism say that conciousness being aware of itself is our true nature

One view is that there's no "me", or more particularly that for example moments of consciousness aren't permanent and aren't mine.

Another is that trying to define what "me" is is futile and unsatisfactory.

Another -- different schools of Buddhism explain this in different ways -- is that there are various "defilements", that "the mind" is "originally pure" (without defilement), that defilements too might be impermanent and not-me ... and that originally purity is Buddha-like (perhaps called "Buddha-nature").

I guess Buddhism says we might be aware of mental defilements, and of what causes them, and not cling them, and so ...

Ceasing to do evil, learning to do good, purifying the heart — this is the teaching of the Buddhas

-- Dhammapada (verse 183)

What is the view of Buddhism on time and space does it exist??

Nagarjuna is clear. Nothing really exists.

In Advaita they say time and space do not exist at all.

Thus they agree with Nagarjuna. But he would say it is unrigorous to say they do not exist at all, for this takes account only of the ultimate truth. To grasp this point would mean having a look at his Doctrine of Two Truths.

Advaita says that there is only the universal consciousness and all the objects and people are illusions what is the Buddhist view here?.

The same. But the word 'consciousness' may be used in different ways. Both traditions speak of transcending experience and thus 'intentional' consciousness, but 'consciousness' may be used with a different meaning, as in 'Being, Consiousness, Bliss'.

Advaita says that in deep sleep consciousness does not stop what is the buddhist view here?.

The same.

In Advaita in order to experience our true nature we have to relax our attention from objects and let consciousness be aware of itself. What is the Buddhist view here?

The same.

Does Buddhism say that consciousness being aware of itself is our true nature if not how do we experience our true nature similarly to the way advaita vedanta ....?

The same view in both cases, afaik, but I've never heard either put it quite like this. Awareness being aware of awareness is awareness.

Advaita Vedanta says that the world made out of matter in the waking state that we experience is in reality consciousness. They use the analogy of the dream where it seems that matter exists for us in the dream when we wake up we realize everything was consciousness. What is the view of Buddhism here?

The same.

What is the difference between the nature of Brahman and Nirvana?.

Nirvana is a relative term opposed to Samsara and as such the idea would be to transcend both to see beyond this distinction. There would lie Brahman. In his Vision of God Nicolas de Cusa discovers that what is ultimate lies 'beyond the coincidence of contradictories', thus beyond all conceptual distinctions. Buddhism teaches the transcendence of Samsara/Nirvana for Ultimate Reality. Non-dualism does not allow two things to be real.

What is the difference between Nirvana and Samsara I read that they are the same? Which implies that Buddhism agree with advaita Vedanta that we are in fact our true nature all the time and we have are just in a illusion that we are not.

This seems correct. The teaching that Samsara and Nirvana are the same is subtle and takes some work to untangle. As for most of these issues there are always two ways of conceiving and speaking of the situation due to the inability of words and concepts to describe it. (Thus Lao Tsu 'True words seem paradoxical'.)

In my opinion many of these questions are best approached by way of Nagarjuna's Two Truths doctrine. This explains the reason why what is said about these things often seems contradictory. I would recommend The Sun of Wisdom by Khenpo Tsultrim Gyamptso.

From Buddhist perspective, the key ideas of Advaita Vedanta are pretty similar to (Mahayana) Buddhism except the parts where it says that consciousness is everything and that our true nature is consciousness.

Instead we say that consciousness is just one of the phenomena, albeit a very important one. We also say that identifying with anything (including consciousness) leads to suffering, because it makes you vulnerable to change (of that).

What is the view of Buddhism on time and space does it exist?? In Advaita they say time and space do not exist at all.

I mean, obviously time exists in some sense. It's 4:27pm when I write this. I'm not making this up, really ;) Similarly, space exists in some sense. My cubicle at work has very little space. So in some sense space is real too.

In Buddhism we say, that every thing is valid within its certain context or within its certain frame of reference. But outside of that frame of reference, it makes no sense. So we try not to say "exists" or "does not exist" - we think these categories are naive. Instead we say, "here is the context in which it can be observed, here are the limits of that context, so this is the extent to which it can be said to exist".

Advaita says that there is only the universal consciousness and all the objects and people are illusions what is the Buddhist view here?

Well, in Buddhism we agree that everything is connected, or interrelated. Things influence each other and our consciousness arises based on those interactions. But we don't say it's "one" or "many" - because again that depends on perspective. In one sense its one, in another sense its many. We don't want to make one-sided statements.

In (Mahayana) Buddhism we say that separate objects and people are illusion, and that instead it's an interconnected network. We also say that the way things look to us is "like an illusion" because what we see is the models our mind builds, not the actual things. These models can be approximate or completely wrong, but that's what we see. In this sense too, objects and people as they appear to us are illusions.

Advaita says that in deep sleep consciousness do not stop what is the Buddhist view here?

There are different levels of mind, some more coarse and some more subtle. There is a kind of mind that does not stop in deep sleep and there is a kind of mind that does not stop with death.

In Advaita in order to experience our true nature we have to relax our attention from objects and let consciousness be aware of itself. What is the Buddhist view here does Buddhism say that consciousness being aware of itself is our true nature if not how do we experience our true nature similarly to the way advaita vedanta showed us to do and how do Buddhist explain that experience of our true nature.

There are many "schools" in Buddhism that teach different styles, created by different temperaments of teachers and thus better fitting for different temperaments of students. Some teach meditation that is very similar to what you describe, "relax our attention from objects and let consciousness be aware of itself". Others teach different methods. It depends on the student.

In Buddhism we would say that our true nature is "the way things really are" aka "truth" or "suchness". Which is more broad and more correct than "consciousness" because consciousness is just one part of the mix.

Advaita Vedanta says that the world made out of matter in the waking state that we experience is in reality consciousness. They use the analogy of the dream where it seems that matter exists for us in the dream when we wake up we realize everything was consciousness. What is the view of Buddhism here?

In Buddhism we also say that things are nondual - meaning that matter, energy, information and mind are different aspects of same stuff, that it is not fundamentally two or three or four different things. So, when you understand that matter, energy, information, and mind are different aspects of same stuff, you wake up from the dream that coarse phenomena are important, and realize that in fact subtle influences are much more important.

What is the difference between the nature of Brahman and Nirvana? What is the difference between Nirvana and Samsara I read that they are the same? Which implies that Buddhism agree with advaita vedanta that we are in fact our true nature all the time and we have are just in a illusion that we are not.

Yes of course. Generally speaking you are right, and Buddhism says the same. But it is important to really understand this in-depth, not just repeat someone's words.

Brahman is a fancy word for the Absolute, the totality of everything in space and time. Nirvana is the word for the absolutely perfect peace, freedom, and harmony. This perfect peace or perfect harmony is achieved when there is complete integration of all dualities, when there is no more conflict.

In Buddhism we say, it's not enough to just say that everything is already perfect, that universe is in harmony, and that samsara is nirvana. This is true, but not enough. We also say, it's not enough to just sit and let consciousness be aware of itself. Instead, we say, we should work on eliminating the conflict, both in our lives and in our minds. And how do we eliminate conflict?

We don't create outer conflict with our behavior. We create outer harmony with our behavior. We don't create inner conflict with our thinking. We create inner harmony with our thinking. We let go of childish simplifications and attain real understanding. This way we don't just say that everything is Brahman, Nirvana, Harmony and Peace - we actualize it in our life.