This claim seeks to give religious tolerance a reflective or intellectual foundation. At the same time, it possesses an aesthetic allure: the many religions then appear as diverse windows into a single vast mystery. People love to think—sages, Buddha, Sufis, Christian mystics, Zen masters—all have glimpsed the same mountain peak, only ascending by different slopes. Though outward form, language, ritual, and doctrine differ, the inner truth is one—this imagination is humane, generous, and brings peace to minds exhausted by conflict. Thus perennialism—the belief that beneath all religions, all spiritual disciplines, all mystical traditions lies one identical eternal truth—is not merely a philosophy; it is also an emotional necessity of modern religious dialogue.
Glasenapp's analysis directly contests this perennialist notion. He shows: Vedanta and Buddhism do not speak the same thing in different languages—they speak fundamentally opposed things. When Huxley equates Nirvana with Brahman, he mistakes surface resemblance (both are "transcendence of suffering," both are "supreme peace") for deep identity. Glasenapp seems to say: two trains depart from the same station—one goes north, one south. You cannot look only at the station and claim they travel to the same place.
The philosophical significance of this objection runs deep. Human experience may contain certain common experiential resemblances—silence, ego-dissolution, peace, the sense of infinity, the end of suffering, the breaking of duality. But the metaphysical interpretation of that experience is not one. One person calls that experience the revelation of self-nature; another calls it the vision of non-self. One says, "I realized the nature of truth"; another says, "I saw that there is no enduring self." Thus experiential resemblance and ontological identity are not the same thing. According to this logic, Huxley's error lies here: he does not give sufficient weight to the fundamental chasm that exists between the interpretations imposed upon experience. Glasenapp takes this very chasm to be the true philosophical matter at hand. His objection is not against religious liberality; it is against intellectual dishonesty. If two traditions truly make contradictory claims, then saying "they speak the same thing" may preserve the appearance of tolerance, but it does not do justice to truth.
Yet perennialism possesses a valuable contribution that Glasenapp does not acknowledge, but which we ought to recognize. The spiritual hunger of humanity is universal—though answers differ, the question is the same: "Who am I? Why is there suffering? What is the way to transcend it?" Across the world, throughout all ages, in every culture, humans have posed this question. The universality of the question is true; the identity of answers is not. Huxley, seeing the universality of the question, assumes the identity of answers; Glasenapp shows that one and the same question can receive fundamentally different answers, and that erasing this difference does injustice to truth.
This passage brings to the whole discussion a necessary balance. There is no outright dismissal of perennialism here; rather, it says that within it lies a genuine insight, but that insight has been extended to a place where authentic differences vanish. Humans everywhere face death, bear the weight of suffering, encounter crises of identity, are shaken by impermanence, and search for ultimate meaning. This anthropological universality cannot be denied. Yet from the same existential wound, different metaphysical remedies may be born. In this sense, perennialism's most valuable teaching is not the lesson of unity; it is the lesson of shared questioning. And Glasenapp's most valuable teaching is not the lesson of denying unity; it is the lesson of honesty toward difference. Hold these two perspectives together, and one understands: human questioning is one, but human answers are manifold.
In conclusion: Two paths, two horizons
On certain questions, two truths cannot both be true at once. Either there is an elephant in the room or there is not—both cannot be true together.
–>
# Exactly So: A Question of Being
It is thus: either there exists an eternal substance at the root of the world, or there does not. On this question, Vedānta and Buddhism have given answers that are utterly opposed—and both cannot be true at once.
This conclusion is deliberately stern, because at the end of the whole discussion, the text means to stand not in the soft region of compromise, but in the territory of philosophical clarity. In modern comparative discourse, one often observes a tendency—to explain away all differences, in the end, as merely linguistic ones. This section stands against that tendency and says: no, there are questions whose answers are mutually exclusive. If Vedānta declares the ultimate truth to be Self-Brahman, and Buddhism declares that the very concept of a permanent self is the root of delusion, then to reconcile these two positions would be to lose the true sharpness of their opposition. True, both speak of liberation; true, both speak of the transcendence of suffering; true, both speak of awakening. Yet this shared concern for liberation does not erase their metaphysical opposition. It is, so to speak, a clear statement against relativism—not all words finally amount to one; some words truly differ.
In later times, the two philosophies borrowed from each other’s language—Mahāyāna took on Vedāntic hues, Gauḍapāda bore the marks of Buddhism, and in the tathāgatagarbha doctrine there occurred an impossible union of the two vocabularies. But a change in color does not alter the nature—as when you paint a white horse black, it becomes a black horse, not a white one painted over.
Here, the distance between language and essence is brought to the fore. Through historical dialogue, the borrowing of terminology is nothing unusual. One tradition may adopt another’s language, its metaphors, its methods of reasoning, even its figures of liberation. Yet borrowed language does not mean borrowed metaphysics. Sometimes, in Mahāyāna descriptions of emptiness, one hears a tone that recalls the depth of the Upaniṣads; again, in certain passages of Advaita Vedānta, one finds language that touches very closely upon Buddhist conceptions. Yet despite this, they do not thereby become one and the same. “A change in color does not alter the nature”—this simile means to suggest that the outer expression and the inner essence are not of the same order. One doctrine may sound like another, yet the claim embedded within it may remain unaltered. Therefore, in comparative study, it is dangerous to reach conclusions hastily upon seeing surface resemblances.
The Vedānta seeker seeks that inner light which has never been extinguished—the turīya state of the Māṇḍūkya, the “tat tvam asi” of the Chāndogya, the “īśāvāsyam idaṁ sarvaṁ” of the Īśa. His search is inward—peeling away, layer by layer, the outer husks of an onion, reaching toward that immortal seed which remains even after all the husks are gone. The Buddhist seeker seeks that silence in which there is no need for seeking itself—the “unborn, unbeing, unmade, uncompounded” of the Udāna, the “all dharmas are non-self” of the Dhammapada. His search is in all directions—peeling away, layer by layer, discovering that within there is nothing, and the understanding of that “nothing” itself is liberation.
In this text, “light” and “silence” have become two symbolic horizons. The Vedāntic “light” is no mere poetic ornament; it is the symbol of self-manifesting consciousness. That consciousness is not illuminated by anything else; rather, it is the fundamental radiance behind all experience, all knowledge, all world-consciousness. Hence the search is inward: not the body, not the mind, not the intellect, not the ego—transcending all these veils, one arrives at that point of consciousness, or rather that ocean of consciousness, which is unchanging. On the other hand, Buddhist “silence” is not the name of some empty despair; it is the cessation of all impositions, all sense of constructed being, all the noise of clinging. There, the discovery of the self is not paramount; rather, the ending of the notion of self is primary. The statement “there is nothing within” is therefore not nihilism; it is the indication of the absence of a permanent, self-sufficient, imperishable self-center. And the understanding of this absence is the path to liberation from suffering, for therein the center of attachment is broken. Thus both “light” and “silence” are languages of liberation, yet their metaphysical directions are opposed.
One says: I exist within all things—and to know that “I” is the meaning of life.
Another voice declares: when all things are relinquished—what remains contains no “I”—and therein lies peace.
This seemingly simple statement concentrates the entire philosophical essence of the comparison. The first “I” is certainly not the ordinary ego; it is the Self, consciousness, ultimate identity. In Vedanta, the goal of life is to recognize this I, for the world’s fragmentation, suffering, and ignorance are born from forgetting this true nature of the Self. By contrast, when Buddhism proclaims “there is no I,” it is not a nihilistic self-annihilation; rather, it is the insight that within the aggregate of all elements, no separate, fixed, eternal self can be found. Thus, where Vedanta discovers liberation in remembrance, Buddhism discovers it in the wisdom of non-attachment. One sees salvation in self-recognition; the other in the wisdom of self-absence. This difference stands at the very center of the entire discourse.
The Tathagatagarbha doctrine represents the most audacious attempt to build a bridge between these two horizons—yet even beneath that bridge runs a crack: the Lankavatara Sutra itself admits it is merely “upaya” (skillful means), not ultimate truth. The bridge, therefore, is not truly a bridge—it is an invitation, a gesture, an outstretched hand—but the two banks do not meet.
To many readers, the Tathagatagarbha doctrine has seemed to suggest something like an “atman” (soul) within Buddhism itself. For here we find such language as Buddha-nature, the potential of inner awakening, latent wisdom, Buddhahood obscured beneath defilement—terminology that appears to draw very close to Vedantic vocabulary. Yet the crux of the matter lies precisely here: must this language be read as a literal metaphysical assertion, or as a pedagogical strategy—this question is supremely important. When texts like the Lankavatara Sutra call it “upaya,” we understand that this language’s purpose is not to re-establish any permanent theory of the soul; rather, it is to guide certain types of practitioners toward the teaching of emptiness. For this reason, though the metaphor of a bridge is used here, it is simultaneously declared that it is not a complete bridge. This is the language of approach, not of ultimate union. It brings the two shores closer, but does not make them one.
And this unbridgeable distance itself is the signature of these two great philosophies—and equally their beauty. Without distance, there would be no debate; without debate, no depth; without depth, human spiritual thought would not have become so enriched.
This difference must be seen not as a problem, but as a creative force. The distance between Vedanta and Buddhism is not merely a history of disagreement; it is also a history of intellectual sharpness. In opposing one another, they have made themselves clearer, more profound. Here, debate is not mere sophistry; it is also a means of self-disclosure. However different the two paths may be, both have accorded supreme importance to humanity’s ultimate questions. And for that very reason, their opposition is not trivial; it is profound. This confrontation is therefore no mere cacophony of settlement; it is rather a scene of the highest gravity in spiritual thought. Here there is reverence, but no obscurity; there is sympathy, but no temptation to forge unity by force. “Light” and “Silence”—these two symbols thus ultimately become the names of two different continents in humanity’s quest for liberation. One continent says: return inward—there eternal radiance dwells. The other says: release all superimposition—there silence dwells. And the richness of human thought lies in this: that it has heard both these calls, deeply known both, and transformed the distance between them into a distinct form of knowledge itself.