Multiple Revelation

Thomas

So it goes ...
Veteran Member
Messages
15,336
Reaction score
4,861
Points
108
Location
London UK
From The Heart of the Religio Perennis: Frithjof Schuon on Esotericism
(Harry Oldmeadow, “The Heart of the Religio Perennis: Frithjof Schuon on Esotericism”, in Edward Crangle (ed), Esotericism and the Control of Knowledge, Sydney University, 2004, pp. 146-179.)

"The principle of multiple Revelations is not accessible to all mentalities and its implications must remain anathema to the majority of believers. This is in the nature of things. Nevertheless, from a traditionalist viewpoint, anyone today wishing to understand religion as such and the inter-relationships of the various traditions must have a firm purchase on this principle.

"As each religion proceeds from a Revelation, it is, in Seyyed Hossein Nasr's words, both:
"... the religion and a religion – the religion inasmuch as it contains within itself the Truth and the means of attaining the Truth, a religion since it emphasises a particular aspect of Truth in conformity with the spiritual and psychological needs of the humanity for whom it is destined." (Nasr, Ideals and Realities of Islam, London, 1966, p. 15).

"In other words each religion is sufficient unto itself and contains all that is necessary for man's sanctification and salvation. Nevertheless, it remains limited by definition. The recognition and reconciliation of these two apparently antagonistic principles is crucial to the traditionalist perspective. Schuon:
"A religion is a form, and so also a limit, which "contains" the Limitless, to speak in paradox; every form is fragmentary because of its necessary exclusion of other formal possibilities; the fact that these forms—when they are complete, that is to say when they are perfectly "themselves"—each in their own way represent totality does not prevent them from being fragmentary in respect of their particularisation and their reciprocal exclusion." (Schuon, Understanding Islam, London, 1976, p. 144).

"Further, as Nasr reminds us:
"... every religion possesses two elements which are its basis and its foundation: a doctrine which distinguishes between the Absolute and the relative, between the absolutely Real and the relatively real... and a method of concentrating upon the Real, of attaching oneself to the Absolute and living according to the Will of Heaven, in accordance with the purpose and meaning of human existence." (Nasr p15)"
 
This is correct. I think this is very well explained.
 
"The principle of multiple Revelations is not accessible to all mentalities and its implications must remain anathema to the majority of believers. This is in the nature of things. Nevertheless, from a traditionalist viewpoint, anyone today wishing to understand religion as such and the inter-relationships of the various traditions must have a firm purchase on this principle.
It makes sense to me there would be multiple revelations.
 
It makes sense to me there would be multiple revelations.
Absolutely...

From my perspective that would seem normal.

When one has a revelation (Theo or not) they state it, share it, with their best words possible...but then folks question it...either they or someone else will have to go back to the well to clarify.

Also in my mind once you are connected, tuned to the frequency or whatever, odds seem high to me that lightning has now the chance to strike twice.
 
It makes sense to me there would be multiple revelations.
It's axiomatic of the Perennialists.

What they do not agree with, on metaphysical grounds, is the sense that a later revelation supersedes a prior revelation.

Moreover, that a given revelation abrogates what went before.

+++

'Buddhanature' is the belief that all sentient beings have an innate, pure, and unchanging mind that can be awakened to enlightenment – the idea of 'progressive revelation' ignores this actuality.
 
It's axiomatic of the Perennialists.

What they do not agree with, on metaphysical grounds, is the sense that a later revelation supersedes a prior revelation.

Moreover, that a given revelation abrogates what went before.

+++

'Buddhanature' is the belief that all sentient beings have an innate, pure, and unchanging mind that can be awakened to enlightenment – the idea of 'progressive revelation' ignores this actuality.
How can one discern whether there is a true revelation or not?
For example, people who hold to any particular religious belief may claim that another religion's claim to revelation is "false" instead positing the revelation is either a deceit from Satan or something else, OR that the new revelation was humanly made up.
Given that either claim may be at least hypothetically possible, how do we determine which new revelations are true?
How do we determine which of the old ones are true?
 
How can one discern whether there is a true revelation or not?
For example, people who hold to any particular religious belief may claim that another religion's claim to revelation is "false" instead positing the revelation is either a deceit from Satan or something else, OR that the new revelation was humanly made up.
Given that either claim may be at least hypothetically possible, how do we determine which new revelations are true?
How do we determine which of the old ones are true?
An excellent question and one that has long concerned me. Some time back I watched a video discussion between two Christian academics. They argued a great deal and I could only conclude that if they can't work it out, what chance do I stand?

I do not believe that if revelation exists, it is a one-off event. Rather, it would be part of a process by which it could be followed through to its natural conclusion.

This need not be further revelations but perhaps applying the original and seeing where this leads. At all times I think that in the absence of clear evidence, there should always be an awareness that "perhaps we have got this wrong".
 
My approach would be to look at the principles of the Revelation according to what one can describe as 'universal metaphysical principles' – Hindu philosophy in the East, the high-points of Neoplatonism in the West – the two correspond.

Notably Frithjof Schuon and René Guénon – founders of the Traditionalist school with Perennialism, converted to Islam and were initiated into ane eventual shaykhs of a Sufi order.

I'll post separately on Revelation and Metaphysics.
 
What they do not agree with, on metaphysical grounds, is the sense that a later revelation supersedes a prior revelation.

Moreover, that a given revelation abrogates what went before.
Totally in tune here, determining what is revelation, how much ego or bias affected the dissemination of the revelation...is where the waters get deep.

I marvel at the thought of revelations which we have yet to translate either to be found in the likes of petroglyphs, ancient carvings, Stonehenge, pyramids, etc.
 
Back
Top