/lit/ - Literature

>>16895275
>Just tryna see why a perennialist like him didn't like Buddhism but liked hinduism
Because I don't find Buddhist doctrines to be compelling after reading what I consider to be refutations of basically all the major Indian Buddhist schools. Does Buddhism have some good basic spiritual teachings as well as a repertoire of helpful meditation practices? Yes. Is its metaphysics or philosophy logically coherent and likely to describe the true nature of things? Not in my opinion. Here is just a portion of Śaṅkarācārya's classic refutation of the Abhidhamma Buddhist schools for example.

Of those who teach that everything exists (i.e. the Abhidhamma-based schools including Theravada), some admit the existence both of internal (mental) and also external realities. They admit the existence of elements external to consciousness and of products of those elements, and also of minds and of mental components. For the moment we will confine our refutation to them. In their doctrine, the elements are earth, water, fire and wind. The products are the four qualities, odour, taste, colour and touch, and the senses that perceive them, namely the senses of smell, taste, sight and touch. They hold that the four different kinds of primary atoms, the earth-atoms, wateratoms, fire-atoms and wind-atoms, being respectively solid, liquid, fiery and kinetic, combine to form the earth and other perceptible elements. There are also (as the basis for the appearance of an experiencing individual) the five ‘groups’ (skandha, of momentary factors of existence, dharma). These are formed respectively of the sense-organs and their objects (rupa), consciousness of objects associated with ego-feeling (vijnana), consciousness of objects associated with the feelings of pleasure, pain and indifference (vedana), determinate consciousness of objects (samjna) and the various drives and passions (samskara). And they believe that these groups combine to form the basis of all individual experience.

On this we make the following observation. Our opponents hold to the existence of two separate aggregates, each having their peculiar causes. One is the aggregate forming the elements and the products of the elements, which has atoms for its ultimate material cause. The other is the aggregate formed by the five ‘groups’, which has the ‘groups’ for its material cause. They speak, indeed, of an aggregate arising from each of these two causes (i.e. atoms and ‘groups’), but, says the Sutra, ‘They have no right to do so’. That is, no aggregate is rationally possible (under their terms). Why not? Because the things entering into aggregate are non-conscious, since the mind (as they conceive it) could only acquire the light of consciousness if the aggregate were already assured. They do not admit any other conscious principle such as an experiencer (a permanent conscious individual soul) or a controlling God who should exist permanently and effect the aggregation.