The Perennial Philosophy

[Thomas]

The Source of Divine Wisdom or Theosophy is - surprise - Divine Beings. Call them buddhas or avatars.

Well, I think the facts would argue otherwise. The ancient Greek Tradition of theo-sophia, for example, claims its Source as the Divine Itself, which in their own words is 'beyond-being'.

Beings of light are not the source of the light that is their being.

All being in its ground is lit by the same light, no matter how luminous or obscure or occluded that light may be.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

The religio perennis, like traditional theosophy, philosophy or metaphysics...

Did you intend to write theosophy here, or theology?

 

[Nothingtoknow]

Source of all religions:

I think religion is a set of rules, laws, customs and regulations hoping to form a orderly society. It also works by instilling fear (known and unknown) in the mind. In the current context, law/judiciary achieves the same propose- with more known fears.

Source of religion or law/judiciary is the need of the society to achieve stability. This ensures maximum chances of survival. So, the source of all religion is a drive/need for survival/maintaining its identity.

Universal truth:

It is easy to have a subjective concept of truth, but there is no way of knowing if it is the universal or ultimate truth, due to the limitations of the human mind.

'Strive to be happy', 'to love and be loved', 'Selflessness and oneness':

Sounds quite pleasant and we may all experience it in transient forms. But, everlasting, permanent happiness, love will be a pain not pleasure!

Selflessness is just not sustainable.

Concept of Oneness will only be imaginary during life. After-life is anybody's guess.

 

[Tadashi]

Oh, I would if you 'fit the bill' ...

It's well known that the next pope will be accompanied by his wife, the one after that will be accompanied by her husband, and the one after that by his husband ... so pick which one's for you, and go for it! You'll have my nomination!

Thanks! Thomas! If that ever happens, I'll appoint you as my spokesman. So you can CORRECT ME when I give a homily like "People, do not worry, there's no hell, everyone will go to heaven..." [you cutting me off, covering my mouth] "Oh, what he really meant was..." lol...

I'm surprised (and of course glad) that you are that open-minded... Don't you get into trouble saying something like that in your church?

Tad

 

[Tadashi]

Source of all religions:

I think religion is a set of rules, laws, customs and regulations hoping to form a orderly society. It also works by instilling fear (known and unknown) in the mind. In the current context, law/judiciary achieves the same propose- with more known fears.

Source of religion or law/judiciary is the need of the society to achieve stability. This ensures maximum chances of survival. So, the source of all religion is a drive/need for survival/maintaining its identity.

Universal truth:

It is easy to have a subjective concept of truth, but there is no way of knowing if it is the universal or ultimate truth, due to the limitations of the human mind.

'Strive to be happy', 'to love and be loved', 'Selflessness and oneness':

Sounds quite pleasant and we may all experience it in transient forms. But, everlasting, permanent happiness, love will be a pain not pleasure!

Selflessness is just not sustainable.

Concept of Oneness will only be imaginary during life. After-life is anybody's guess.

Thanks for your two cents. I have my own whole different worldview.

I'll probably start a new thread sometime in the future trying to show my point of view, that our sense of morality is not developed only to ensure our survival or species-preservation.

You all have a nice weekend

Tad

 

[Nick the Pilot]

GK, you asked,
　
"If all religions come from a common source - What is this source?"
　
--> According to Christianity, different countries and ethnic groups have patron saints that guide them and look after them. Theosophy agrees with this idea and takes it even further. According to Theosophy, certain large groups of countries have their own ‘patron saints’ and all of humanity has its own ‘patron saint. The process continues, in a seemingly endless parade — our solar system has its own ‘patron saint’, our galaxy has its own ‘patron saint’, etc.
　
Your question, then refers to the ‘patron saint’ of our humanity. He guides our humanity and he has a plan for how humanity should unfold over the centuries, how long this should take, etc. This plan and an accompanying collection of knowledge is the source from which all human religions develop. Periodically, he indirectly ‘sends forth’ various individuals to start world religions, each world religion revealing various aspects (but not all aspects) of the plan for humanity and the knowledge that we humans are expected to acquire during our human incarnations.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Tad, you said,

"...my girlfriend (most likely my future wife if she doesn't get tired of me!) and her family are all devout Christians and I love them deeply, they treat me as their own son. I want to spiritually stay connected with them, and be able to have meaningful conversations about Jesus and the Bible.

--> I do marriage counseling and I have a question for you. Let's say, hypothetically, one day in the future, you decided to change religions. Would this cause trouble between your wife-to-be and you? Or the other way around, if your wife-to-be one day in the future changed religions would this bother you?

 

[Nicholas Weeks]

Well, I think the facts would argue otherwise. The ancient Greek Tradition of theo-sophia, for example, claims its Source as the Divine Itself, which in their own words is 'beyond-being'.

Beings of light are not the source of the light that is their being.

All being in its ground is lit by the same light, no matter how luminous or obscure or occluded that light may be.

My you are a fussy one; but that is good.

Of course The Source is the One, but I was addressing what the source of modern Theosophy was; that of Blavatsky & her gurus. The latter are part of a most ancient lineage of Adepts, bodhisattvas, jivanmuktas et al.

Furthermore the One does not conceptualize or teach doctrines or suggest paths or practices. Entities with Minds put some form to the experience of Unity. Those forms are what nearly all aspirants deal with. We must go within and beyond them to approach some semblance of the One and that is an effort of many, many lives.

 

[Tadashi]

--> I do marriage counseling and I have a question for you. Let's say, hypothetically, one day in the future, you decided to change religions. Would this cause trouble between your wife-to-be and you? Or the other way around, if your wife-to-be one day in the future changed religions would this bother you?

Wow, you're a marriage counselor? I think me and my girlfriend are fine, because when I started dating her, I was still an agnostic, and she didn't really care. When I asked her, she's the one who said "Just be a good person, that's all God cares about"...

And I'd have no problem if she changes her religion in the future as long as she doesn't become a militant atheist (it's not the atheism, but the hostile attitude that I may not like). You know, 99% of my Japanese family and friends are agnostic, and I love them just the same.

Tad

 

[Thomas]

Did you intend to write theosophy here, or theology?

I intended theosophy, to draw attention to the fact that the Ancients saw 'theosophy', 'philosophy' and 'metaphysics' as the same, a Sacred Science, as in Aristotle's 'First Philosophy'.

But you've drawn my attention to a definite mistake here. I said:
"The religio perennis, like traditional theosophy, philosophy or metaphysics ... cannot be called 'a religion' in its own right" — and that's wrong, because some philosophical schools did have what we would call a 'religious' dimension. They would see it as all part of the one discipline, and there is strong evidence of various theurgic practices by the philosophers.

To further clarify, the religio perennis points to the unicity of the Revealed Traditions, not to itself. The Revelation is from them, transmitted by them, and approached through them by the spiritual method and medicine given by whatever sacramental means they choose to deploy.

 

[Thomas]

My you are a fussy one; but that is good.

Yeah, sorry about that.

Of course The Source is the One, but I was addressing what the source of modern Theosophy was; that of Blavatsky & her gurus. The latter are part of a most ancient lineage of Adepts, bodhisattvas, jivanmuktas et al.

Ah, with you now.

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

I intended theosophy, to draw attention to the fact that the Ancients saw 'theosophy', 'philosophy' and 'metaphysics' as the same, a Sacred Science, as in Aristotle's 'First Philosophy'.

But you've drawn my attention to a definite mistake here. I said:
"The religio perennis, like traditional theosophy, philosophy or metaphysics ... cannot be called 'a religion' in its own right" — and that's wrong, because some philosophical schools did have what we would call a 'religious' dimension. They would see it as all part of the one discipline, and there is strong evidence of various theurgic practices by the philosophers.

To further clarify, the religio perennis points to the unicity of the Revealed Traditions, not to itself. The Revelation is from them, transmitted by them, and approached through them by the spiritual method and medicine given by whatever sacramental means they choose to deploy.

Understood, wanted to be certain.
Well written as usual, don't think I had any trouble following your reasoning. Being totally ignorant of the subject myself I'll sit back and see if someone confronts you on the subject. I like 'your' religio perennis, I would think it is an important perspective for any religious person who has to share this world with other religions. I haven't seen anything but facts on the subject from you, what are your feelings?

 

[Thomas]

I haven't seen anything but facts on the subject from you, what are your feelings?

Oh, I said a long time ago I would not discuss my own personal way here.

Perhaps it is time to reconsider.

I'll get back to you.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Tad, you said,

"I think me and my girlfriend are fine, because when I started dating her, I was still an agnostic, and she didn't really care."

--> I'm glad to hear that. I have done a fair amount of interfaith marriage counseling, and I have heard some horror stories.

 

[Thomas]

Don't you get into trouble saying something like that in your church?

What, that I put a bag over your head and dragged you off the podium for saying that God's Grace is an open gift to everyone? (That's how I heard it!)

I'd be in trouble if I did that!

But seriously, we can be more broad-minded than perhaps you might think.

 

[Nick the Pilot]

Tad, you said.

"...I'd have no problem if she changes her religion in the future..."

--> Unfortunately, I have heard this before. What do you think is the biggest problem in interfaith marriages?

 

[Nicholas Weeks]

Tad, you said.

"...I'd have no problem if she changes her religion in the future..."

--> Unfortunately, I have heard this before. What do you think is the biggest problem in interfaith marriages?

Very Off Topic Nick.

 

[Tadashi]

I put a bag over your head and dragged you off...

Isn't this what happened to some people in.... The Godfather? or was it Goodfellas..?

God's Grace is an open gift to everyone? (That's how I heard it!)

Yea, but 'you cut me off' before I could say "...when you truly love Him and He is waiting for you..."

But seriously, we can be more broad-minded than perhaps you might think.

What I meant by being surprised was because you said 'his husband'... it wasn't a typo, was it? If not, then, you might indeed be more broad-minded than I ever imagined! Well, this will be another topic I can start a new thread for sometime.

Tad

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

What I meant by being surprised was because you said 'his husband'... it wasn't a typo, was it? If not, then, you might indeed be more broad-minded than I ever imagined! Well, this will be another topic I can start a new thread for sometime.

You're not forgetting that you're in the US right? Prejudice is everywhere but certain 'truths' aren't as certain everywhere as they are in many places in America.

Could I entice you to visit my thread and look at the picture I posted.
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/different-christian-perspectives-14692.html

 

[Tadashi]

You're not forgetting that you're in the US right? Prejudice is everywhere but certain 'truths' aren't as certain everywhere as they are in many places in America.

Could I entice you to visit my thread and look at the picture I posted.
http://www.interfaith.org/forum/different-christian-perspectives-14692.html

That is a wonderful picture! So, Do Europeans generally have a more understanding frame of mind toward this issue than Americans?

This is one of the most touchy subjects I have difficulty bringing up among my Christian friends. Some of them still actually believe it can be prayed away... I'll eventually open a new thread asking people advice as to how to approach it.

Tad