/lit/ - Literature

That's wrong kiddo, stuff like Buddha-nature actually aligns very well with the sort of stuff Guenon was into, the reason he initially had a bone to pick with Buddhism is that in the 6th-8th century Buddhism in India had gone full retard and introduced all a bunch of retarded concepts that Shankaracharya rightfully btfos and refutes in his writings, but in fact many of these ideas did not originate with Buddha but from various yogacara figures like Dharmakīrti.

When Guenon eventually began to study later schools of Mahayana, particularly those that had been influenced by Shaivism, Tantra and Daoism (e.g. much of Tibetian and Chan) he took back what he earlier said and wrote that some of these schools had legitimate teachings but that there had just been a degenerated form of it in India at the time that Shankaracharya was writing about it. Some guy posted this image in a thread a long time ago summarizing his points, he says 'Buddhism' generally but in fact later schools disagree on many of these points and in fact a good amount of them take different positions more in line with Shankaracharya.

>>12479249
That's wrong kiddo, stuff like Buddha-nature actually aligns very well with the sort of stuff Guenon was into, the reason he initially had a bone to pick with Buddhism is that in the 6th-8th century Buddhism in India had gone full retard and introduced all a bunch of retarded concepts that Shankaracharya rightfully btfos and refutes in his writings, but in fact many of these ideas did not originate with Buddha but from various yogacara figures like Dharmakīrti.

When Guenon eventually began to study later schools of Mahayana, particularly those that had been influenced by Shaivism, Tantra and Daoism (e.g. much of Tibetian and Chan) he took back what he earlier said and wrote that some of these schools had legitimate teachings but that there had just been a degenerated form of it in India at the time that Shankaracharya was writing about it. I screen-capped this from some thread a long time ago where some Indian guy seems to have been summarizing his points, he says 'Buddhism' generally but in fact later schools disagree on many of these points and in fact a good amount of them take different positions more in line with Shankaracharya.

Can any Buddhists on /lit/ refute Adi Shankara's observation that Buddhist doctrine is self-contradictory?