>>22155495My main issue with Buddhism lies in what I perceive as its philosophical inconsistency. Its doctrines often seem scattered and internally unresolved. For instance, the Sarvastivadins, with their quasi-Platonic ontology, illustrate the tradition’s varied and sometimes conflicting influences. While I hold deep respect for Buddhism (having once followed it myself), I find Nagarjuna’s dialectics to be largely sophistic, and much of the Pali canon to be an expansive yet loosely structured collection. At times, Buddhist thought leans toward extreme nominalism; at other times, it pivots in a markedly different direction like Lankavatara Sutra's monistic idealism.
Even in its critique of the Self, Buddhism paradoxically reintroduces something akin to it - particularly in its treatment of Nirvana as a determinate state (though some later schools even question that). Over time, especially within Mahayana traditions, this tendency seems to risk veering toward nihilism, as the rejection of inherent essence sometimes dissolves into an absence of substantive affirmation. There comes a point when one must move beyond mere upaya (skillful means) and directly articulate truth. Historically, when figures such as Huineng did just that in works like the Platform Sutra, their insights bore a striking resemblance to Vedanta.
In essence, Buddhism seems to orbit Vedantic conclusions without fully committing, caught in a web of its own conceptual tensions. Vedanta, by contrast, offers a more internally coherent framework - one that not only aligns with modern philosophy but also addresses certain gaps in scientific understanding, particularly concerning teleology and purpose. Even Schrodinger recognized this profound connection.
Furthermore, while Buddhism resists the label of nihilism, it hesitates to affirm a definitive purpose. If it seeks to move beyond mere negation, why not embrace a clearer metaphysical foundation, as Vedanta does?
