Theosophy vs. Syncretism

[Thomas]

It is a natural part of human nature that religions become ossified and dogmatic as the centuries.

Indeed. Such is the nature of man.

The Catholic contemplative David Steindl-Rast has written with great insight about this, the text is available on Gratefulness website.

The diagram below (from p5) shows the way to the 'mystical core' of the tradition, and how to get to it: The Way of the Heart attains the Heart of the Way.

The ossification is described as the 'hardening of the heart' in the Christian Scriptures.

Whilst human nature is not immune to the cooling of the heart, the mystical core of the religion itself remains as vital today as ever it was, and there is nothing to stop anyone accessing the wellspring if they so desire.

 

[Thomas]

negative brush....gad you take everything personally....

Not taking it personally at all, just saying that's typical of your kind of negative generalisation.

You said:

doesn't all orthodoxy get upset at reform?

Answer: No. Not always.

Surely this is not a surprise to folks....
The old always fights on its way out when the new arrives...

Not always, no.

It's your assumption that it does suggests a personal agenda?

Rejection of new ideas is not uncommon...

Nor is it universal.

The most amazing thing is that my beliefs and opinions (and that is all they are) should not affect yours in the least.

They don't.

But doesn't apply in the conversation??? When this new syncretic idea is being rejected by you.....oh....ok.

No, you're generalising again.

 

[wil]

Not a negative generalization...just an overall observation....

Folks don't like losing their perceived control....and in order to keep it, they capitulate, they attempt to assimilate or blend the two...

I just checked out the wiki page, it provides plenty of examples...but I suppose you'll provide a number where my generalization is wrong?

You know, Dictators that voluntarily step down when asked, Corporations that like losing market share, Churches that are happy their congregations are going elsewhere or not at all....

Syncretism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Thomas]

Syncretism:

"The amalgamation or attempted amalgamation of different religions, cultures, or schools of thought" eg: interfaith dialogue can easily slip into syncretism" (OED)

By that definition, Christianity is 'syncretic' because it introduces something 'new' into Judaism.

But in the language of the Sophia Perennis, there is a critical distinction between syncretism and synthesis. I have borrowed the following from a dialogue on a Traditionalist forum.

According to René Guénon (Perspectives on Initiation, Chapter 6, "Synthesis & Syncretism"):

"Syncretism in its true sense is nothing more than a simple juxtaposition of elements of diverse provenance brought together "from the outside" so to speak, without any principle of a more profound order to unite them."

The two primary examples that he gives are "Modern counterfeits of tradition like occultism and theosophy ... fragmentary notions borrowed from different traditional forms, generally poorly understood and more or less deformed ... mixed with ideas belonging to philosophy and profane science."

These represent practical and doctrinal syncretism respectively. Aleister Crowley's occult order Astron Argon is an example of the former. Practically, it combines elements of medieval, renaissance, and modern ceremonial magic with different forms of yoga as expounded by Swami Vevekananda, and psuedo-Egyptian initiatory rites, within an improvised framework of Kabbalistic symbolism.

For an example of the latter, which is chiefly doctrinal, one can simply peruse either of Blavatsky's primary theosophical texts, Isis Unveiled or The Secret Doctrine.

Also according to Guenon, "Synthesis starts from principles, that is to say from what is most interior; it goes, one might say, from center to circumference." Guenon's chief example of synthesis is the metaphysical exposition of traditional doctrine. He states that "Whatever is truly inspired by traditional knowledge always proceeds from "within" and not from "without"; whoever is aware of the essential unity of all traditions can, according to the case, use different traditional forms to expound and interpret doctrine, if there happens to be some advantage in doing so."

A good example of this is Schuon's alternate use of Platonic, Hindu, and Islamic equivalent terms when expounding metaphysical principles.

Guenon here emphasizes doctrinal synthesis but does not mention practical synthesis although we do know from prior comments that traditional ritual practices are inherently incompatible at the formal level.

One practical domain in which synthesis seems plausible is that of the cosmological sciences such as astrology, alchemy, and architecture. The unifying element in this case is the cosmological vision underlying the science which may be transposed into various traditional domains and exposited within the language of the respective revelations with which it becomes associated.

One may examine the Codex Rosae Crucis D.O.M.A., for example, which is a magnificent representation of Christian Alchemy, while remembering that the alchemical art passed into Christendom, through the Islamic tradition, which in turn inherited it from the Graeco-Egyptian tradition. Alchemy may be exposited in distinctly Christian terms, and related to from within the scope of the Anthropocosmic vision of Christianity, but the science remains internally consistent from "within" different traditional domains.

An example of synthesis is that of Christianity and Platonism. The latter was the philosophical language of the Patristic Era.

Classical Gnosticism of the 2nd century is an example of syncretism, when ideas, poorly understood and erroneously expressed, were taken from Christian, Jewish, Platonic, Stoic and other streams.

 

[Thomas]

Not a negative generalization...just an overall observation....

On the downside though, ain't it ...

 

[Thomas]

Let's get back to a point you made:

doesn't all orthodoxy get upset at reform?

Does it? Always?

The old always fights on its way out when the new arrives...

Does it? Always?

Discredit, ridicule, ignore....ego is a tough thing....and if it sees it is losing the last ditch effort is an attempt at assimilation....

Does it? Always?

 

[wil]

Let's get back to a point you made:

Does it? Always?


Does it? Always?


Does it? Always?

It must.... I don't think really always...I think most of the time...enough of the time to make the generalization....and since you haven't decided to show one counter example.... I guess it does...

By that definition, Christianity is 'syncretic' because it introduces something 'new' into Judaism.

Yup, and the Jews weren't happy about it....were they? Nor were the Romans.... the new boy in town, the new idea upset the old order.

 

[Thomas]

It must.... I don't think really always...I think most of the time... I guess it does...

Nice fudge.

 

[Thomas]

Yup, and the Jews weren't happy about it....were they?

Well some were, obviously, as the early Christian communities were predominately Jewish that's a bit of a generalisation, isn't it?

Nor were the Romans....

Romans were Christians too. Saul of Tarsus was a Roman.

The point is, speak only in stereotypes if you must, but I find no substance to the discussion.

 

[wil]

Doh....of course those that already moved to the new order were happy....in all cases it is the dinosaurs who fear their extinction or loss of control that have issues.

Yup Saul was a Christian persecutor yeah? And then he saw the light of syncretism on the road to Damascus?

 

[A Cup Of Tea]

See how different we all see things, I don't see those groups of people as having one single opinion on new sects or denominations, but individuals with various individual opinions based on various reasons.

 

[Thomas]

Yup Saul was a Christian persecutor yeah? And then he saw the light of syncretism on the road to Damascus?

No, of course not. That's not what 'syncretism' is.

That's like Archimedes stepping into the bath and shouting out 'syncretism!' rather than 'eureka!''.

Synthesis follows realisation, it is not the realisation itself.

Paul's synthesis (rather than syncretism) took him 14 years to work it out, if Galatians is to be believed.

But really we've wandered off into generalities that make no useful contribution to the topic, so I think we should wind it up here.

 

[Thomas]

See how different we all see things, I don't see those groups of people as having one single opinion on new sects or denominations, but individuals with various individual opinions based on various reasons.

Exactly. I don't subscribe to the 'one size fits all' mode of arguing. Nor the assumption that all opinions are negative.

 

[taijasi]

You mean we can do bigger things than Jesus? Is that a Unity doctrine?

Are you serious? Possibly, Thomas. But originally that was Jesus ...

Indeed He can work great deeds through us if we only will allow ... but to think it's us doing them, or we can do more than He can do is, I suggest, pride talking?

Thus when Christ was praised, he rebuked them for it, and pointed to what you just said. It was GOD, not Jesus. Again, JESUS SAID THIS ... and how have Christians responded? Have they heeded, by and large, and more often than not? Or have they placed Christ on a pedestal, worshipped him in direct contradiction to his own wishes, and made of him the God ... which as often as not they fear, grovel before, throw money at, and utterly, miserably transgress against, even as surely as they transgress against one another, daily.

Nor are Christians the only transgressors, by any means. But methinks them among the greatest hypocrites upon the planet.

Christ has no time, room or interest in this. The Law of Karma governs and insures our slow but certain approach, along with the Law of Love (including Forgiveness, Compasssion) ... plus the Law of Synthesis, which draws all Souls unto the Father (in time, via experience).

Yes, but that's not the point. The point is, we don't. So every now and then, God decides to give us a nudge in the right direction.

Definitely, and we learn to thank God for it, even when we stub our toe, or break our nose to bleed by walking into a wall - or beating our head against it. Amazing, how many do this, over, and over, and over ... [my own is rather bent!]

But I think my main point is: If we can't trust in the word of Scripture (in the spirit of the letter) ... then who do we trust?

We trust ourselves, as we learn to use the Intuition. This is the Christ Principle, or Christ Consciousness. We already share it - as Souls - with all other Souls, with the Great Ones, and with the Christ Himself. It is our birthright, but we must develop the bridge in consciousness to such a Faculty. And for that, we DO need meditation, and prayer. We must study, and above all, we must lovingly, intelligently Serve.

Spiritual Service is the noblest, greatest, and swiftest path to God. For this, we must sacrifice self-interest, and we cannot force dedication or devotion ... but we learn spontaneously to make Service our `2nd Nature,' meeting the need of the moment automatically, yet with the power and dynamism of a greater aspect of our being than the `little self.'

Above all, service to God IS service to Humanity. We serve God best when we serve with Self-Forgetfulness, and also when we forget the very distinctions between self and `other' ... such that, as we progress, we learn to see and LIVE the meaning of the expression:

Mind is the great Slayer of the Real. Let the Disciple slay the Slayer.

 

[taijasi]

Guenon accuses Theosophy of being syncretist ... and there's his error. That's the point of the OP. That's the point of the thread. There are many fools willing to take a pock shot at what they themselves have never understood. The hope is that something might go away, because it is inconvenient, because in several ways it is so radical that it requires of the thinking, intelligent, rational - as well as concerned, compassionate, sensitive and empathic person - that s/he rethink several, maybe many basic, underlying assumptions and paradigmatic assertions regarding the nature of the world we live in ... and its denizens, notably - MAN. Nevermind God, that's a fish of a different squadron.

The problem is, we have the leaf calling the tree trunk inauthentic and suggesting that it is less important than the main limbs, the large branches, the smaller branches, the twigs, and all other leaves. But let's be clear. Inasmuch as leaves are a living expression of the tree itself, not separate until they `fall away' and APPEAR so - yet all the while remaining dependent upon the Tree Itself for their own existence in the metaphysical and chronological chain of growth and causality, nevertheless, the leaves do biodegrade, providing rich mulch for the soil around the tree, even thereby contributing to the fecundation of that ground of being which gives rise to, supports, sustains, and itself eventually claims - the Tree. WORD

Now you see, the employment a simple example may mean little to one individual, yet where the intuition is functioning, it will speak volumes to another, even suggesting the most profound and sublime state of things - of what some would even argue is simply a logical, obvious and marvelously Perfect SYSTEM ... the expression of the Logos, or of God. There was once a Master Parable teller, a Teacher no doubt in touch; there were times when He spoke to the multitudes, and times when He didn't talk much. And so on ...

The TREE is Theosophy, but it has many other names. While Augustine may have known it, recognizing it as the same River Alph, Ariadne's Thread of Greek mythology, it was already the case in those days that the early Church was on its warpath, crushing out all forms of the Truth in its myriad other expressions [including within the arts, sciences - although these have had their latterday balancing effects, as we can observe ... political theory, economic theory, medicine, etc. - in short, the church began persecutions of that which it could not control, or successfully graft its own doctrines into, or onto, as you see, the horticultural metaphor will always informs us best when we are studying the evolutions of religion and of spiritual philosophies - for an obvious reason, I hope we can see].

Yet to be fair, the Inquisition and true downfall of Christianity may only have gotten into full swing in the centuries after Constantine ... culminating in the Middle Ages and Inquisition, resurfacing during the Salem Witch hunts ... and only again in more modern times, for what I predict to be signs of the death throes. A final coup de grâce may be approaching, assuming that certain revelations, discoveries and accessions can be hastened. Time will tell. But what we do know is to follow is the exaltation of the true kernel of Christianity, and of EVERY OTHER FAITH. It is the vindication of Theosophical Doctrine and its exponents, and not its removal. It is the recognition that the Greatest Saints and Wayshowers, the Lightbears, even in most recent times - now as once before, and some of the SAME players, even at the hand of the SAME players - have been PERSECUTED, MURDERED, SLANDERED and DEPOSED ...

... from what a warmer, friendlier world would have acknowledged as the true, rightful role and office, Responsibility and position, of Chief Prophet, or Governing Body ... in the very least, Advisor or Advisory body to the {Governing Group, or Figure}. This will all become clear, if I have not rendered it so.

 

[taijasi]

This is probably not the most opportune moment, or perhaps the thread, but one thing which the public - and especially Christians - need to understand is how the perversion of the Mysteries became possible ... within any of the Traditions, and in this case I mean their own. How were the Crusades and Inquisition possible, when there was supposed to be an unbroken chain? Of course, humanity's own weakness is offered as the answer, yet a more detailed - helpful explanation will serve to restore the Bridge.

People want to understand. And where questions are earnestly asked, it becomes useful to provide accurate answers - so that the true Work of spiritual Redemption can continue. Nothing can stop this, and even the longest delay is only a temporary hindrance.

 

[Thomas]

Are you serious? Possibly, Thomas. But originally that was Jesus ...

Hey! That's not me claiming that, that's Wil!

 

[wil]

Seems folks mistake us all the time....we are like twins, finishing each others sentences....

John 14:12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

 

[Thomas]

Guenon accuses Theosophy of being syncretist ... and there's his error. That's the point of the OP. That's the point of the thread.

I am sorry, but you haven't demonstrated how he is in error.

If I may say, it does rather seem to me that the Theosophical Association relies on 'The Emperor's New Clothes' argument: If we don't see it the way you do, then we're blind, stupid, corrupt or incompetent.

There are many fools willing to take a pock shot at what they themselves have never understood.

Calling someone a fool doesn't constitute a proof.

If you think Guénon a fool, then I can only weigh that opinion against the vast range of opinion of more enlightened souls than you or I, the opinions of revered spokespersons of many traditions, who have demonstrated they 'walk the walk'.

In my own limited experience, Guénon has been the source of much fruitful insight.

And my Tradition warns against recrimination (cf Matthew 5:22). The Book of Proverbs does so again and again. (My own common sense tells me that that door has the tendency to swing the other way and clout the claimant on the nose! .

The problem is, we have the leaf calling the tree trunk inauthentic ...

No. Guénon makes no claim to represent the Theosophical Association. Unless you're claiming that the Theosophical Association is the tree from which all the world's religions have sprung!

The TREE is Theosophy... but it has many other names.

Good grief ... Are you?

The attraction of the Traditionalist School for me is that it seeks to show how every Tradition has it right.

It seeks to explain the doctrines of the various traditions by a discourse on the tradition, according to the tradition, rather than according to its own opinions.

The Trads explain the meaning of the hermeneutic lexicon; How the doctrines came about and why their necessity; How the doctrines of different traditions can co-exist without conflict; Where they coincide, where they depart, and why.

It's axiomatic for the Traditionalists that each tradition is sufficient and entire in itself to rise above the cosmological horizon in seeking the Divine.

The rest of this post might as well rage against the Taliban as if they prove that Islam is a violent religion.

As if the relative determines the Absolute.

 

[Thomas]

Seems folks mistake us all the time....we are like twins, finishing each others sentences....

John 14:12 Very truly I tell you, whoever believes in me will do the works I have been doing, and they will do even greater things than these, because I am going to the Father.

And how is that possible?

"Because I go to the Father: and whatsoever you shall ask the Father in my name, that will I do: that the Father may be glorified in the Son. If you shall ask me any thing in my name, that I will do." (v13-14 my emphasis.)

That bit rather points to who actually does the doing ... At the very least, it's the bit that keeps our feet on the ground, and prevents serious swelling of the head!