Do his works on Hinduism still hold merit or is he too infected by perennialist thought to be worth while?
>>25564611Theoretically, you could claim Guenon didn't go too far into the complexities of Hinduism and this could be a serious claim. You could also claim he was too stringent and this could be a serious claim. Of all the traditionalists his Hinduism material is likely the best. >Hinduism primary texts > Guenon>Guenon = every other westerner just looking to critique modernity through Hinduism>Guenon > the other trads on HinduismThe main problem with questions like this, is that if you're just mad about modernity there is literally nothing about Guenon to distinguish him from anyone else with impotent rage aside from his mistakes. Which is also a poor reason to say his stuff still holds merit. The other side of this is that there is a voluminous amount of material in Hinduism, so just telling someone to read those only appeals to a small group of people. The only real use is if you just want to read 2 books and decide for yourself whether it's worth reading further.
>>25564611If you are not a larper and you actually read primary sources in Indian philosophy or are serious about imminently doing so, then his book on Vedanta is worth reading if you are planning to specifically study Advaita Vedanta at any point, his book Studies in Hinduism has some great essays about various more general aspects of Hindu thought like the theory of elements and so on.
