The Transcendent Unity of Religions, Perennialism ,Tradition

[Drunk On Love]

What do people make of the ideas of the "Traditionalist School" or the "Perennialist School" championed by Rene Guenon, Frithjof Schoun, Seyyed Hossein Nasr, James Cutsinger, Phillip Sherrard, Ananda Coomaraswamy, Rama Coomaraswamy, Reza Shah Kazemi, Marco Pallis, Martin Lings, Charles le Gui Eaton, Titus Burkhardt, Wiliam Chittick, Charles Upton, and Harry Oldmeadow among others ? Is there any truth to the idea of the unity of the great world religions at the transcendent level despite God ordained and providential differences at the formal level? Is this simply wishful thinking ?

The Transcendent Unity of Religions, James Cutsinger - YouTube
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tmow84__REo
Esoteric Ecumenism , James Cutsinger - YouTube
Tradition and Perennialism in the Contemporary World - YouTube

This "school" or manner of thinking was also influential in the religious understandings of the famous scholar of comparative religion and mythology Mircea Eliade, the Catholic Theologian Joseph Borrella and the scholar of religion Huston Smith.

 

[Drunk On Love]

The basic idea is that Divine Truth manifests itself according to certain forms best suited for the guidance of differing peoples. That these forms differ is in fact providential in nature and something to be thankful for. Humans themselves differ and differing manners of communication become necessary.

So there are important differences in the realm of form or the exoteric. These can NOT be reconciled on that level. There is no reason to try in the first place. In fact the forms in question are necessary safe guards and manners of communicating that should not be tampered with. They are effective vehicles of salvation for the communities in question. In the transcendent realm however they converge. The closer people of differing faiths come to God or the Absolute the closer they approach one another as well. The mystics and Saints of each faith bridge the gap by transcending the world of form all together.

 

[Ishraqiyun]

I agree with the basic idea of a unity of religions. As to the specific people that make up the so called school of tradition I have some major problems though**. They tend to be as right wing and reactionary as you can get. There is also a flirtation with fascism and racism that I see with some of the people who define themselves in that way. Certainly not all of them are like that but you mentioned M. Eliade and he was involved in the fascist Iron Guard early on. You also left out Julius Evola. Probably on purpose? His Aryan myths and "spiritual racism" are very dangerous. This isn't just people from the past either. A major figure in this movement in Russia Alexander Dugin is right wing statist and big influence in the Eurasian and National Boslehvik trends.

I also think they are prejudiced against NEW forms for this age. It's all about practicing outdated forms that are really not any longer understandable.

**I know you are aware of this but I want to stated it for everyone else. No one should be deprived of my wisdom after all

 

[Agnikan]

The basic premise -- that different religions "meet" somewhere in common -- is sound. In other words, it's a variation of the "many paths; one mountain" model, where each path is independent and needs to be followed on its own terms (the exoteric level), but all paths reach the summit (the esoteric level). Of course, some people don't ever get on any path, and just keep circling the base of the mountain. Other people go up a path, then strike a new path up the mountain.

Many paths might lead to the mountain top, but only one path provides snacks at the summit.

 

[Drunk On Love]

They tend to be as right wing and reactionary as you can get.

Like I told another poster. There are two major myths one or the other which people are pretty much disposed by nature to follow from birth. The myth of the Golden Age and the myth of Progress. It's kind of like being a Platonist or Aristotelian I guess. You don't choose either you simply recognize it in your nature. So, I don't really blame you. Maybe you can't help but be a liberal .

You also left out Julius Evola. Probably on purpose? His Aryan myths and "spiritual racism" are very dangerous.

Yes he was left out on purpose. I'm not a fan of his anti-Abrahamic position and his Aryanism.

A major figure in this movement in Russia Alexander Dugin is right wing statist and big influence in the Eurasian and National Boslehvik trends.

Didn't even think of him. I doubt many outside Russia would even know who he was. Even then he isn't known primarily as a Traditionalist. He does call himself a national bolshevik after all! Not really a central influence here.

 

[Hakan101]

The basic premise -- that different religions "meet" somewhere in common -- is sound. In other words, it's a variation of the "many paths; one mountain" model, where each path is independent and needs to be followed on its own terms (the exoteric level), but all paths reach the summit (the esoteric level). Of course, some people don't ever get on any path, and just keep circling the base of the mountain. Other people go up a path, then strike a new path up the mountain.

Many paths might lead to the mountain top, but only one path provides snacks at the summit.

I disagree, it sounds nice in principle but in reality I fail to see how all religions are "different paths up the same mountain", whilst Atheism or Agnosticism is merely circling the mountain. I think an Atheist would tell you there is no mountain there to begin with, which is why they're not climbing anything.

Come to think of it, what does this analogy even mean? What is the mountain, what's the importance of climbing the mountain? What's wrong with staying at the base of the mountain?

 

[Whisper of Hope]

I disagree, it sounds nice in principle but in reality I fail to see how all religions are "different paths up the same mountain", whilst Atheism or Agnosticism is merely circling the mountain. I think an Atheist would tell you there is no mountain there to begin with, which is why they're not climbing anything.

Come to think of it, what does this analogy even mean? What is the mountain, what's the importance of climbing the mountain? What's wrong with staying at the base of the mountain?

You didn't mention falling off the mountain for those who believe it's possible to fall off the mountain. What did you say again?

 

[Drunk On Love]

In Islamic terms the mountain would represent passage from the unreal to the Real. The outermost level would be the Shariah and then there would be the Traiqah path/s that lead to Haqiqah or Truth and finally to Mariafa or Gnosis. It is at the realm of Haqiqah and Marifa that the various paths converge. At the realm of Shariah or law there are major and irreconcilable differences between religions. The spiritual paths or Tariqahs of the various Religions have a lot more in common. Beyond that they start to converage completely.

 

[Drunk On Love]

The station of the Real itself is beyond everything known as "religion". It is beyond the expedient forms that made the journey possible.

 

[Drunk On Love]

I think an Atheist would tell you there is no mountain there to begin with, which is why they're not climbing anything.

Sounds rather Zen too. No mountain. No climber.

 

[Drunk On Love]

From the perspective of say a Christian it would probably be described with different terms. An Orthodox Christian might speak of the Canon Law and Dogmas of the Church as being the outer protective law much like the Shariah in Islam. Hesychasm would be the path or vehicle toward the center and summit. At the summit would be Theosis.

 

[razeontherock]

The basic idea is that Divine Truth manifests itself according to certain forms best suited for the guidance of differing peoples. That these forms differ is in fact providential in nature and something to be thankful for. Humans themselves differ and differing manners of communication become necessary.

So there are important differences in the realm of form or the exoteric. These can NOT be reconciled on that level. There is no reason to try in the first place. In fact the forms in question are necessary safe guards and manners of communicating that should not be tampered with. They are effective vehicles of salvation for the communities in question. In the transcendent realm however they converge. The closer people of differing faiths come to God or the Absolute the closer they approach one another as well. The mystics and Saints of each faith bridge the gap by transcending the world of form all together.

I agree with your basic premise here, but I take exception to the part I highlighted. I would say the exoteric form of Christianity has not been an effective vehicle for Salvation to much of the Church throughout history, as attested to by horrible atrocities we know took place. This makes me question that worth of the "outer layer" of any system, and look deeper ...

I especially like your closing statement!

 

[Drunk On Love]

I would say the exoteric form of Christianity has not been an effective vehicle for Salvation to much of the Church throughout history

Aren't those aspects useful as well though? Kind of like the first step on the ladder so to speak? Also provide some guardrails so people don't fall right off into destruction? I can understanding the frustration regarding people who fail to take any further steps but I think God has a way of saving even those stuck out on the rim. He is the forgiving and the merciful. It's a big net to catch as many fish as possible and not just the best fish.

I like your quote:
“There is nothing in the Mosaic books that yields its meaning on the surface. No rabbi ever read Genesis literally until modern times!” - Rabbi Jonathan Sacksj

Especially the bolded.

 

[Arthra]

Bahai Song Unity of Religion - YouTube

 

[Tariki]

A lot of talk about mountains and the need to climb them, and I'm made to think of the words of someone who once said that great things are seen from the valleys yet only small things from the peaks! And why this should be so. From my own Pure Land perspective (looking up.........) it comes down to grace. The polar opposite of this within Buddhism is the Theravada, where "Buddha's only point the way, each has to walk the path themselves", yet even here, at the moment of liberation, "effort falls away having reached the end of its scope". It is the scope and nature of effort that seems to be involved in all this.......the way of different paths, and where each may lead. Or not.

For me there is about "effort" the idea of switching the deckchairs about on the Titanic. All well and good, and perhaps a better view of the sea is obtained, yet ultimately the point is lost amid greater happenings! There seems much to commend effort, yet when we associate it with ourselves, and draw any sort of conclusion that it has gained us salvation, then the pure nature of grace has been lost - and possibly we enter the way of the Pharisee, where others are looked upon as lacking the stuff of which we are made.

There seems a lesson to be found in many places........Merton speaks of already being with God, yet "how far I have to travel to One in Whom I have already arrived." And the "zen" man D T Suzuki speaks on the need, not to become empty, but to realise that we are empty from the beginning. Merton - again - recognises that this in effect is to know by experience that God is His own gift, and therefore an ultimate dualism has been left far behind.

So as I see it, there are indeed many paths to "enlightenment", and each involves - in effect - the exhaustion of effort, the recognition that "salvation" is pure gift, not earned or gained by anything we have done or achieved. Therefore the only "wrong" path would be that where any human being congratulates themselves on being "saved" and from such a vantage point looks down upon another. From such darkness, only grace can save us!

 

[Montalban]

The basic idea is that Divine Truth manifests itself according to certain forms best suited for the guidance of differing peoples. That these forms differ is in fact providential in nature and something to be thankful for. Humans themselves differ and differing manners of communication become necessary.

When did you become Baha'i???

Lao Tzu in Tao Te Ching also wrote "Many spokes share the same hub"

 

[steve_bakr]

A lot of talk about mountains and the need to climb them, and I'm made to think of the words of someone who once said that great things are seen from the valleys yet only small things from the peaks! And why this should be so. From my own Pure Land perspective (looking up.........) it comes down to grace. The polar opposite of this within Buddhism is the Theravada, where "Buddha's only point the way, each has to walk the path themselves", yet even here, at the moment of liberation, "effort falls away having reached the end of its scope". It is the scope and nature of effort that seems to be involved in all this.......the way of different paths, and where each may lead. Or not.

For me there is about "effort" the idea of switching the deckchairs about on the Titanic. All well and good, and perhaps a better view of the sea is obtained, yet ultimately the point is lost amid greater happenings! There seems much to commend effort, yet when we associate it with ourselves, and draw any sort of conclusion that it has gained us salvation, then the pure nature of grace has been lost - and possibly we enter the way of the Pharisee, where others are looked upon as lacking the stuff of which we are made.

There seems a lesson to be found in many places........Merton speaks of already being with God, yet "how far I have to travel to One in Whom I have already arrived." And the "zen" man D T Suzuki speaks on the need, not to become empty, but to realise that we are empty from the beginning. Merton - again - recognises that this in effect is to know by experience that God is His own gift, and therefore an ultimate dualism has been left far behind.

So as I see it, there are indeed many paths to "enlightenment", and each involves - in effect - the exhaustion of effort, the recognition that "salvation" is pure gift, not earned or gained by anything we have done or achieved. Therefore the only "wrong" path would be that where any human being congratulates themselves on being "saved" and from such a vantage point looks down upon another. From such darkness, only grace can save us!

Grace indeed.

 

[Agnikan]

I disagree, it sounds nice in principle but in reality I fail to see how all religions are "different paths up the same mountain", whilst Atheism or Agnosticism is merely circling the mountain. I think an Atheist would tell you there is no mountain there to begin with, which is why they're not climbing anything.

Come to think of it, what does this analogy even mean? What is the mountain, what's the importance of climbing the mountain? What's wrong with staying at the base of the mountain?

Like my original post mentioned, one can circle the base of the mountain without taking a path up the mountain; one does not have to take a path up the mountain. And not all paths lead up the mountain: some go up, and then go back down. Some paths go up halfway. But the model suggests that there is more than one path up to the summit, not that all paths lead to the summit. And whether you want to even go to the summit, is up to you.

What is this summit? When I reach it, I'll let you all know.

 

[Drunk On Love]

When did you become Baha'i???

Not Bahai. The basic idea can be found through an intelligent exegesis of the Quran , Hadith, and sayings of the Imams. It's there in implicit or seed form. It was further elaborated on in a manner closer to what I've posted here by some of the Great masters of Islamic Tasawwuf like Rumi, and in an even more elaborate way, by the Shaykh al Akbar ( Greatest Shaykh) Ibn Arabi. Further elaborations have been made by many contemporary Muslims such as Seyyed Hossen Nasr, Reza Shah Kazemi, Martin Lings, Titus Burkhardt, Frithjof Schoun, Rene Guenon, and Charles le Gui Eaton,

 

[Drunk On Love]

Regarding the differing manners of communication necessary:

God has sent Prophets and Warners to every people. Prophets were not limited to the direct descendents of Abraham. Not just Jews and Arabs.

And there is a Guide for every people (13:8)

There is not a people to whom a warner has not been sent (35:25)


God sends these Warners speaking the language of the people in question. He communicates in a way that is most effective for them.



We sent not an apostle except (to teach) in the language of his (own) people, in order to make (things) clear to them. (14:4)