On Revelation, from the writings of Frithjof Schuon

[Thomas]

Revelation is none other than the objective and symbolic manifestation of the Light which man carries in himself, in the depths of his being; it reminds him of what he is, and of what he should be since he has forgotten what he is.
(Survey of Metaphysics and Esoterism, Universal Eschatology)

It is because Adam at the time of the fall was no longer at the level of the paradisial ambience that the state of semi-death that is post-Edenic matter came to be produced: we die because this matter is of itself a substance of death, an accursed substance; our state is something like that of fishes unknowingly enclosed in a block of ice. Revelation is then the ray of Omniscience which teaches us that this ice is not everything, that there is something else around it and after it, that we are not the ice and that the ice is not us. (Treasures of Buddhism, Cosmological and Eschatological Viewpoints)

Each Revelation is indeed “true man and true God”, that is to say, “true ego and true Self”, whence precisely the meaning of the divergences on the surface of Unity. A Revelation is a “means of salvation”, and such a means is what Buddhists term an upaya, a “heavenly mirage”,* without there being in this word the slightest pejorative connotation, except that the Absolute alone is purely real; this means is necessarily drawn from the cosmic or samsaric Substance, hence from Maya; and the same meaning is understood or implied, not only in the Shahadah, but also in the doctrine of the two natures of Christ, notably in this saying: “Why callest thou me good? None is good, save one, that is, God.”
(* A “mirage” rendering pure Truth intelligible and without which it would remain inaccessible. The so to speak feminine complement is Prajna, liberating Knowledge.)
(Form and Substance in the Religions, The Koranic Message of Sayyidna Isa)

 

[TheLightWithin]

These topics are fascinating. I don't quite understand the ideas presented in this post, I don't know if I have the context to, but I really like knowing about the thought and reflection on the deeper meanings of things, especially religious / supernatural ideas.

 

[Ahanu]

Revelation is none other than the objective and symbolic manifestation of the Light which man carries in himself, in the depths of his being; it reminds him of what he is, and of what he should be since he has forgotten what he is.
(Survey of Metaphysics and Esoterism, Universal Eschatology)

It is because Adam at the time of the fall was no longer at the level of the paradisial ambience that the state of semi-death that is post-Edenic matter came to be produced: we die because this matter is of itself a substance of death, an accursed substance; our state is something like that of fishes unknowingly enclosed in a block of ice. Revelation is then the ray of Omniscience which teaches us that this ice is not everything, that there is something else around it and after it, that we are not the ice and that the ice is not us. (Treasures of Buddhism, Cosmological and Eschatological Viewpoints)

Each Revelation is indeed “true man and true God”, that is to say, “true ego and true Self”, whence precisely the meaning of the divergences on the surface of Unity. A Revelation is a “means of salvation”, and such a means is what Buddhists term an upaya, a “heavenly mirage”,* without there being in this word the slightest pejorative connotation, except that the Absolute alone is purely real; this means is necessarily drawn from the cosmic or samsaric Substance, hence from Maya; and the same meaning is understood or implied, not only in the Shahadah, but also in the doctrine of the two natures of Christ, notably in this saying: “Why callest thou me good? None is good, save one, that is, God.”
(* A “mirage” rendering pure Truth intelligible and without which it would remain inaccessible. The so to speak feminine complement is Prajna, liberating Knowledge.)
(Form and Substance in the Religions, The Koranic Message of Sayyidna Isa)

I didn't know the nature of matter ("post-Edenic matter") is an inherently "accursed substance." So let's make sure we have this right. The "Fall" disrupted the original, higher state of matter. As consciousness became separated from the divine, matter underwent a transformation. It became denser, more resistant, and less transparent, becoming what we know today as "post-Edenic matter."

While I sorta like the idea that revelation "teaches us that this ice is not everything," I think his view of the ice or "post-Edenic matter" is a pessimistic view. His emphasis on limitations of "post-Edenic matter" seems to imply this matter is inherently resistant to change or transformation.

My main problem is that Schuon is suggesting in the quote above that reality is composed of static substances. The "block of ice" analogy, while effective in conveying the limitations we face, seems to inadvertently suggest to me an unchanging and unyielding reality.

 

[Tony Bristow-Stagg]

Revelation is none other than the objective and symbolic manifestation of the Light which man carries in himself, in the depths of his being; it reminds him of what he is, and of what he should be since he has forgotten what he is.
(Survey of Metaphysics and Esoterism, Universal Eschatology)

These topics are also beyond my academic pursuits in life, but I feel I can offer some meaningful insight from what I have read and studied, as the light within us can guide, but I see it is a light that we need to awaken, or as the Bible offers, we need to be born again into for it to awaken.

In the above quote I see the word Manifestation needs to be replaced with "Awakening of the light". This is also an important spiritual lesson, that we must consider that we are not "Annointed Ones", which is a nature above our human reality.

(The above statement has further clarification after next quote)

I assume this topic was started as it is quoting the dual nature of Jesus Christ and offering that dual nature is available to us all, Thomas can correct if that observation is flawed.

John 3:6 “That which is born of the flesh is flesh and that which is born of the Spirit is spirit”

Ephesians 2:1-5

Each Revelation is indeed “true man and true God”, that is to say, “true ego and true Self”, whence precisely the meaning of the divergences on the surface of Unity. A Revelation is a “means of salvation”, and such a means is what Buddhists term an upaya, a “heavenly mirage”,* without there being in this word the slightest pejorative connotation, except that the Absolute alone is purely real; this means is necessarily drawn from the cosmic or samsaric Substance, hence from Maya; and the same meaning is understood or implied, not only in the Shahadah, but also in the doctrine of the two natures of Christ, notably in this saying: “Why callest thou me good? None is good, save one, that is, God.”
(* A “mirage” rendering pure Truth intelligible and without which it would remain inaccessible. The so to speak feminine complement is Prajna, liberating Knowledge.)
(Form and Substance in the Religions, The Koranic Message of Sayyidna Isa)

I can now clarify my above statement and offer that the “true man and true God” is a nature above the human, as the human is born with the potential of that image, a potential that requires a rebirth.

Each Revelation is given by God via an "Annointed One", it is not the domain of a human, who has to find and embrace an "Annointed One", to be born again from the human condition into the "Holy Spirit".

It is the Holy Spirit that awakens the potential in us, we are not born of the Holy Spirit, the Annointed are.

I see the virgin birth allows us to consider the 3 aspects of the nature of Christ. A person that was born from a womb, born human with the same rational choice ability of other humans, but also born of the Holy Spirit, born of God, the son of God (I consider this as the virgin birth).

Supporting this, we know the Bible offers that Jesus fought his dual nature between good and evil. ( I see that as symbolic of our struggle) Jesus born and Annointed as Christ, had no evil to overcome, one could say as per the quote, Jesus was “true man and true God”.

I see we need to be born again, but even then, we will still have to fight all the days of our life against our lower nature, which is turning away from our potential of the light. The faith of no one is dependent on his own self, we can empower our choices with the "Word of God".

Please advise if this is appropriate for this discussion.

Regards Tony

 

[Thomas]

I didn't know the nature of matter ("post-Edenic matter") is an inherently "accursed substance."

Yeah, I tend to agree as I don't see God as cursing matter or the material creation – however He does see it as a providential good, so one could argue from the standpoint of semantics.

I read it in the understanding that the 'post-Edenic' condition leaves humanity under the "Archon of this Kosmos" (cf John 12:31, 14:30, 16:11 and Ephesians 2:2); that matter is subject to death.

Bearing in mind Schuon adhered to the principles of purusha and prakriti (essence and substance beyond forms), I do not read him to imply 'accursed' in the sense that a fundamentalist Christian might. Rather, I would read it in the sense of the third of the three gunas, the three cosmic tendencies:
Sattva, the luminous and ascendant tendency;
Rajas, the fiery, horizontal and expansive tendency;
Tamas, the obscure and descending tendency.

So let's make sure we have this right. The "Fall" disrupted the original, higher state of matter. As consciousness became separated from the divine, matter underwent a transformation. It became denser, more resistant, and less transparent, becoming what we know today as "post-Edenic matter."

Something along those lines. I can only speculate about the constitution of pre-lapsarian matter ... the question then is, has matter undergone a transformation, or have we lost that insight that saw something more in matter than we do now?

My main problem is that Schuon is suggesting in the quote above that reality is composed of static substances. The "block of ice" analogy, while effective in conveying the limitations we face, seems to inadvertently suggest to me an unchanging and unyielding reality.

I think we can safely say Schuon did not see the world, nor substance, as static.

I think that would be part of his critique of modernity, that nowadays we tend to see matter in a definitively and exclusively empirical sense.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Tony —

In the above quote I see the word Manifestation needs to be replaced with "Awakening of the light". This is also an important spiritual lesson, that we must consider that we are not "Annointed Ones", which is a nature above our human reality.

There you have it, I think. The Perennial Philosophy does not see the 'Anointed Ones' as above human, if by such you refer to the Prophets and Patriarchs of Israel; to John the Baptist, Jesus and the sacred scribes of the New Testament; to Muhammed (pbuh), the Buddha, Rumi and Ibn'Arabi, Aquinas, Bonaventure and Eckhart, the saints and sages down through the ages.

I assume this topic was started as it is quoting the dual nature of Jesus Christ and offering that dual nature is available to us all, Thomas can correct if that observation is flawed.

Not quite right. Participation in the divine nature is available to all, but Jesus alone is the Logos of God. We become one in Christ, but we are not equal to Christ.

I can now clarify my above statement and offer that the “true man and true God” is a nature above the human, as the human is born with the potential of that image, a potential that requires a rebirth.

A rebirth, but not a change of nature. We are still human, and the divine remains divine – the union of the two does not constitute a 'third nature'.

It is the Holy Spirit that awakens the potential in us, we are not born of the Holy Spirit, the Annointed are.

The perennialist would disagree.

Please advise if this is appropriate for this discussion.

Not inappropriate per se, but you are talking about what you believe, not what the Perennialists believe.

 

[Ahanu]

the question then is, has matter undergone a transformation, or have we lost that insight that saw something more in matter than we do now?

In my opinion, the question of a transformed matter or a lost insight is a false dichotomy. It conflates experience with articulation. Our understanding of matter evolves through language, concepts, and culture - a continuous process of discovery, not a loss.