Confused by a book on Perennialism

[TheLightWithin]

Modernism is under the glamour of its own surface, if you like, we're bedazzled by our achievements,

Interesting

and that deludes us into thinking we are in every respect superior beings with regard to those who went before,

Does anybody really think that?

when actually, we're not that much different,

Biologically of course not, we're not different creatures... biological evolution takes a LONG time.
Culturally we ARE different from people of the past, what is the old saying? Oh wait I guess it is a literary quote
“The past is a foreign country: they do things differently there,” L.P. Hartley 1953 novel “The Go-Between.”
I never read it but like the quote.

and take away all our tech, and we'd devolve pretty rapidly ... we are 'hothouse' flowers, in that regard.

Take away useful tools from anybody at any time and lots of things would happen, if things were different they wouldn't be the same, as they say.
Not sure what is meant by "devolve" in the context esp if the claim is that our "progress" is being regarded as "devolving" anyway -- it's like going back entirely on the idea that we have experienced a long decline of sometime, total reversal, now admitting we have made progress but saying that if the progress were taken away we wouldn't have the progress... ah..eh... uh.... ???

By modernism they mean the refutation of the religious and the spiritual – it's hard to see, but if you've been raised in a religion, and then taken the trouble to look into and interrogate your own beliefs, you come to see that so much of what passes for 'common sense' with regard to comments on religion are not the product of any real thought at all, and are largely spun out of thin air, prejudice and ignorance...

Right.... which is one of the reasons, AFAIK, that people have refuted religion.
Also, AFAIK it's not like people are JUST rudely "refuting" religion and the spiritual or supernatural randomly or just because.
Some of this goes down to scientific discoveries around biology and outer space and many, many other things that shows physical reality to be at variance with some literal readings of some religious texts and helps people develop a world view that is at variance with their religious worldview or at least I think so...

And all too often instead of saying "oh right thanks for the new information let us fix or reinterpret our teachings" some religious factions pushed back hard and refuted science of all things.

So, yes, much of the population views religion differently than they would have a couple of centuries ago. Not for nothing!

(This is fascinating, I am going to return to this, I just have to call it a night right now. Thanks for such a detailed lengthy and thoughtful reply to all of this! Thanks!)

 

[Thomas]

What does he mean by that?

There was a great blossoming of pseudo-spirituality across Europe in his day, and Guénon was involved in many ways, and found most of what he was introduced to wanting, both intellectually and spiritually, and saw that many were 'dabblers' in the 'esoteric' and in it for dubious reasons.

Intriguing assertion but I do not know what it means

An engagement with an authentic tradition is a necessity if one is serious about engagement with the spiritual domain.

As for the New Age, shops selling various occult or spiritual paraphernalia – crystals, dream-catchers, fairy-photos, etc., etc ... it's all spiritual materialism, fetishism and idolatry.

Interesting, but I have no idea what this means.

The Trads see the West as materially rich, but metaphysically bankrupt.

 

[Thomas]

Does this propose that scientific theories of the age of the universe, and the idea that physical laws as we know them have been consistent through time... is not correct, and that at an earlier historical point there were magic, or miracles, or both or something, and only later for some reason did physical material scientific laws come into being? What is being said here?

An interesting question ... a Hindu would be better placed to offer a commentary on the various ages.

My viewpoint is Catholic, and we have a different view of time, which I shall address elsewhere.

 

[Thomas]

I don't know if these things are truly meant literally or not. I do not know if they will happen swiftly enough for someone to notice in a lifetime. I do not know what the outcome is supposed to be.

Generally I think it's a slow process ... like global warming ... then we reach a tipping-point and everyone looks round and says 'what happened?'

I do know that all too often things like equality for women or minorities is somehow seen as part of the "decadence" of "modernity" and lumped into the idea of "decay and downfall mrrr mrrr mrrr" and I'm not sure what to make of that.

Yeah ... that's a 'conservative' rather than Perennialist view.

t's never inspired me to be dubious about equality nor dubious of the many grand and wonderful things about the modern world that I and millions of others take for granted every day.

It's not so much what we've gained, as what we've lost, and how we view what we've got.

 

[TheLightWithin]

The meaning of tradition is 'that which is handed down'.

Ok. Could it ever use updating?

What 'tradition' is not, is the more contemporary reading of the term to imply a "nostalgia for the past”, in the words of Schuon, 'a particularly reprehensible arbitrariness' which utterly devalues its proper meaning.

Isn't an appeal to tradition sometimes motivated by nostalgia for the past? Or equally, a resistance to change? "But we've always done it this way"

the same can be applied to well-founded logical processes – mathematics is a tradition; that mathematical theorems exist today is not the result of such a 'nostalgia' but rather the recognition of their versimilitude.

Versimilitude to what?
My understanding of the endurance of mathematics is not so much that it was handed down as such, but that mathematical theorems function accurately consistently.

With regard to religion, modernity tends to reproach these ideas simply because they are found in the past

Is that the actual reason?

The Enlightenment introduced the opinion that we are other-than nature, something we are somehow apart from and superior to.

Is that really the main idea of the Enlightenment? I think that idea may have been in there but I never got the impression it was a prominent idea. I thought egalitarianism was closer to the main idea. Are they saying somehow that egalitarianism is against nature? And that to promote it because by virtue of rationality we can do better, also against nature? What would that actually mean?

Humankind is a part of nature, and evolved from nature through nature. Due to our natural ability to engage in reason, we can do better than survival of the fittest. In that way I suppose one could say that we have the ability to transcend some of the limits imposed by natural conditions or natural proclivities or something. Don't religion and social mores and traditions also try to restrain what might be natural or impulsive behaviors?

As the Native American commentator might have said, "If you're so enlightened, how come you shit in your own tent?"

What were they referring to?

to approach the brink of catastrophe, an extinction event, to recognise that we cannot control nature

Climate change is one example and many do recognize it and are trying to get some kind of course correction going

Better is working in harmony with, but that is not the 'male' way ...

I'm not sure what that means, haven't hunters, usually male, worked in recognition of and harmony with nature for eons upon eons?
Perhaps it just means that's not the way to build an empire and become filthy rich. The people who succeed at that are usually male I guess, but women can and do hop on the bandwagon and drive it too... not just hereditary queens but contemporary business and political leaders.

 

[TheLightWithin]

The distinction between 'traditionalism' and 'pluralism' can be seen in the case of comparative religion.

The Traditionalist, that is the follower of the Sophia Perennis, holds that all truth is one, and works from a set of top-down principles, to highlight the essential sameness and the formal differences between religious traditions, and thus offers a means of reconciliation for those for whom the differences become an impediment.

The pluralist, on the other hand, tends to work on bottom-up principles, and often such are founded on egalitarian ideas, which too often is an egalitarian idealism, founded on sentimentality and romance, rather than actual metaphysical principles.

This is super intriguing. I just cannot think of any concrete examples to help me see or grasp what it means for real.

All religions are not the same.

Yes I think some people I spoke to at Unity church would say things like "we are all one" and "all religions are one" and "all religions are the same or say fundamentally the same things", though religions are most definitely distinct from one another. That's what makes them fascinating.

However I think the idea

The Traditionalist, that is the follower of the Sophia Perennis, holds that all truth is one

leads to the other idea, that religions are the same, as people don't know how to draw the distinction.

I don't really know quite how to draw the distinction either, not in a clear solid way, I'd need an example, a good detailed concrete example, a for instance, a story, either real or hypothetical, to see the distinction vividly.

then Christianity, for example, refutes every other religion, or at best situates it beneath itself – "Jesus saith to him: I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No man cometh to the Father, but by me" (John 14:6) – that's pretty dogmatic.

Yep. Hence the constant bantering about it.
It seems then that the reality of the more transcendant truth actually contradicts the dogmatic truth
(of Christianity in this case, but all religions in the end)

All religions are both true and false.

My intuition has always been that all religions are riddled with human misperception, misconception, error, or outright dogmatic demands to serve human interests, but, that no religion was actually baseless. They are all based in some transcendent reality.

I can't prove it, it just seemed intuitively obvious to me.

Being raised with mixed messages about religion was in it's own way a great gift.

You can't be a Zen Christian – or rather, you can identify as such, as long as you're not fully conversant with either Zen Buddhism, Christianity, or both. The 'way' of those paths contradict each other at the formal level.

Thomas Merton comes to mind. I only know a little about him on the surface, maybe read one book years ago, but in some ways he seems something like a Perennialist yet something like a Zen Christian.

You can delight in the correspondence between traditions that points to a common essence, that is what the Perennial Tradition is all about – but what the Traditionalists assert, is that to know a religion you have to do it – there are plenty of those who comment on or about religion from outside. You can't ride two horses, you can't serve two masters, and at some point you're gonna have to get off the fence.

I'm thinking it would be difficult to follow two Orthodox paths like both Judaism and Christianity as they diverge in so many key points.
But then again there is Messianic Judaism (controversial and arguably not Jewish except in form) and there are other so called Judaising sects of Protestantism - Restoration type sects, heterodox sects.

what the Traditionalists assert, is

You can't ride two horses, you can't serve two masters, and at some point you're gonna have to get off the fence.

Or?
What if people do not get off the fence?
Isn't that itself a Western idea? Owing to classical philosophy, AND Abrahamic faiths thinking, AND the Enlightenment?

Isn't it true that in some parts of the world, China for example, there are people who follow Buddhism, Taoism, Confucianism, and Chinese folk religion? Without seeing any contradiction, experiencing any known ill effects, and never having been told by Westerners that they "can't" or "have to get off" some kind of "fence"?

 

[TheLightWithin]

TA: Perennial Philosophy is distinct from religious syncretism in that it insists on maintaining the boundaries of individual religions on the external level. Can you elaborate upon this distinction between the two schools of thought?
SHN: There is a radical difference. Perennial philosophy as understood traditionally believes that each religion has an inward or essential and an outward or formal aspect or dimension. On the formal level religions are different and since these forms in orthodox and traditional religions are sacred and sacrosanct, they must be respected on their own level and not mixed together or neglected. Traditional perennial philosophy is therefore opposed strongly to syncreticism and pseudo-esoterism. Of course on the intellectual level a religion can borrow certain elements from another tradition to express its own truths as we see for example in St. Augustine and Christian Platonism in general but that is very different from using rites of the Greek religion as part of the Christian mass. As for religious syncreticism, as ordinarily understood, it is a mixing of different traditional elements into an amalgam, something that is completely opposed by traditionalist followers of the perennial philosophy.

This is fascinating.

It does seem to imply though that they take the word "orthodox" at its most literal "correct belief" if I am not mistaken - and assume that the orthodox forms of every religion have it right.

They oppose syncretism, but it's not quite clear what is perceived to be wrong with syncretism.

Heterodoxy is not addressed.

 

[TheLightWithin]

The Trads see the West as materially rich, but metaphysically bankrupt.

I still am not sure what that means.
How can one be "metaphysically bankrupt"
What would be an example of "metaphysically solvent" or "metaphysically wealthy"

 

[TheLightWithin]

Traditional perennial philosophy is therefore opposed strongly to syncreticism and pseudo-esoterism.

What is it about syncretism they think is bad? What bad things do they think will happen? What good things do they think will be prevented?

Of course on the intellectual level a religion can borrow certain elements from another tradition to express its own truths as we see for example in St. Augustine and Christian Platonism in general but that is very different from using rites of the Greek religion as part of the Christian mass.

Why is it okay to borrow certain elements? How is it different from using the rites?
I mean those rites took awhile to develop. Did some of them come from Greek religion? Where did they come from?

As for religious syncreticism, as ordinarily understood, it is a mixing of different traditional elements into an amalgam, something that is completely opposed by traditionalist followers of the perennial philosophy.

Again, why? Is there a rationale in a nutshell?

Of course I may understand better when I've read more for context. But whatever you can tell me can help me contextualize what I am finding a bit abstruse thus far.

 

[TheLightWithin]

An interesting question ... a Hindu would be better placed to offer a commentary on the various ages.

Oh, that is specifically a Hindu idea then? I didn't catch that.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Yeah ... that's a 'conservative' rather than Perennialist view.

The link I posted in post 7 of this thread seems to take that view, though to be fair that is just the book description, I haven't read it.

 

[muhammad_isa]

I still am not sure what that means.
How can one be "metaphysically bankrupt"
What would be an example of "metaphysically solvent" or "metaphysically wealthy"

I guess it means spiritually bankrupt .. no awareness of ultimate realities other
than worldly pursuit.

 

[TheLightWithin]

I guess it means spiritually bankrupt .. no awareness of ultimate realities other
than worldly pursuit.

I have seen the word bankrupt used in non-monetary contexts before, but have always found it confusing.
The word "morally bankrupt" comes to mind, oft-used in the news.
To be bankrupt means unable to pay any bills or debts. No funds.
I guess the word is also used to mean "lacking a certain quality" but why not just say that?
Why is the word bankrupt chosen?
It seems to have connotations of something like money or bank accounts, conjuring up images of attempting to withdraw funds but not having any
As if non religious people were by necessity trying to draw on spiritual 'funds' (whatever that would look like) and not having any, and then not getting any 'funds' which apparently are implied to be received joining a religion. That's what the word "bankrupt" implies in my brain. (My thoughts are inclined to be visual have always looked like gif files, long, long, long before such things were invented)
So to me the word bankrupt calls up a visual of someone trying to withdraw funds from a bank or a machine, and getting none, or writing checks and getting in trouble for bouncing checks, little gif scenes of that occurring
But picture someone who, for any number of reasons, including spiritual reasons, chooses to live a very spartan life on almost no funds. Are they by definition bankrupt? (Let's assume they are not living that way due to being made broke by debt or something, that would be financially bankrupt-- but living that way by choice on minimal income by choice. Maybe they even have a nest egg and a part time job, but live simply by deliberate choice.)
But if someone for whatever reason isn't religious, but are at peace, are they any more bankrupt spiritually, than the person I described above is bankrupt financially?

 

[TheLightWithin]

I have seen the word bankrupt used in non-monetary contexts before, but have always found it confusing.
The word "morally bankrupt" comes to mind, oft-used in the news.
To be bankrupt means unable to pay any bills or debts. No funds.
I guess the word is also used to mean "lacking a certain quality" but why not just say that?
Why is the word bankrupt chosen?

Ah-ha! This article from Psychology Today helps clear up the choice of language for me a little:

"What is moral bankruptcy? The state a person reaches when they trade away or violate too many of their core moral values and commitments. They may also lose important relationships either as a cause or consequence of his loss of moral commitments. Someone who is morally bankrupt may or may not recognize that they have reached this state."
Peg O'Connor, Declaring Moral Bankruptcy, Psychology Today (online)

Declaring Moral Bankruptcy

Violating core moral principles costs too much.

www.psychologytoday.com

She is suggesting that someone who is morally bankrupt has traded away or compromised what once would have been their core moral commitments, and that is why the word bankrupt would have been chosen.

The author does not appear to be a psychologist, but a philosopher specializing in the area of moral philosophy.
(A thread on moral philosophy would be a good topic on its own. Maybe I'll come up with something soon...)

 

[Thomas]

Ok. Could it ever use updating?

It is, all the time. We call it 'unpacking' ... what we don't do is fundamentally change.

Yves Congar OP (1904-1969), author of "The Meaning of Tradition":
"... I hope that I am open-minded and that I recognise the problems of our time. But I am a man of tradition. This does not mean I am a conservative. Tradition, as I understand it, is like the Church itself: it comes from the past but looks forward to the future and sets the stage for a new eschatology."

Tradition, he wrote, “always tries to answer current problems; it grows and renews itself. Nothing is more foolish than to think that everything has been said in the past.”

But Congar also expressed his concern with those who did not learn the tradition before answering those current problems: "I am distressed when I see young clerics, sometimes even seminary professors, trying to invent a new synthesis from scratch—to meet the needs of modern man, as they say."
Which answers your comment on syncretism, asked below.

David Bentley Hart wrote "Tradition and Apocalypse", and there is a thread in there that regards a true apprehension of Tradition as being Apocalyptic – in the sense that it is on the one hand a 'revelation' (which is what apocalypse means) of its own nature, and at the same time such revelations tend to 'rock one's world' as it were ...

Isn't an appeal to tradition sometimes motivated by nostalgia for the past? Or equally, a resistance to change? "But we've always done it this way"

That's a common secular understanding, but it's not the theological nor perennial one.

I thought egalitarianism was closer to the main idea.

The main idea was that 'reason' is the primary source of authority and legitimacy. The Perennialist would argue that the Transcendent was the primary source.

Are they saying somehow that egalitarianism is against nature?

No.

Due to our natural ability to engage in reason, we can do better than survival of the fittest.

Well 'survival of the fittest' is, in some ways, assumed by the white, male, entitled classes to mean they are 'naturally' the best suited to lead.

Darwin quoted Tennyson in saying "Nature red in tooth and claw", but we now understand that a much greater and more powerful driver of evolution is symbiosis, the idea that organisms can work in harmony with each other for their mutual benefit.

The Romantic movement and the philosophy of the Sublime was a reaction to the Enlightenment's emphasis on rational thought and 'the mathematization of nature' created a cold approach to science that attempted to control nature and the assumption that anything that could not be adequate rationalised was irrational – such as religious belief or the idea of miracles.

This leads to the contemporary 'science v religion' debates.

In that way I suppose one could say that we have the ability to transcend some of the limits imposed by natural conditions or natural proclivities or something. Don't religion and social mores and traditions also try to restrain what might be natural or impulsive behaviors?

Yes. But the enlightenment rejects the idea of 'the Transcendent' as something beyond human nature.

 

[Thomas]

This is super intriguing. I just cannot think of any concrete examples to help me see or grasp what it means for real.

LOL, I can think of examples.

However I think the idea (perennialism) leads to the other idea, that religions are the same, as people don't know how to draw the distinction.

Well the perennialists are pretty dogmatic on their point that you have to practice a religion, and that means as it is, not amend it or alter it to suit oneself.

Likewise the perennialist would say that when someone says where religions agree they are right, and where they disagree they are wrong, that person doesn't understand the metaphysics of the religions, not the distinction between essence and form, and the nature of things.

I don't really know quite how to draw the distinction either, not in a clear solid way, I'd need an example, a good detailed concrete example, a for instance, a story, either real or hypothetical, to see the distinction vividly.

Basically, no religion needs an adjunct or input or an element from another religion to realise and attain its object. No religion is deficient.

Buddhism says do 'this' to realise 'that'. So does Judaism, so does Christianity, Islam, etc. None say that they're only 90% effective and for completeness you have to add a touch of something else.

It seems then that the reality of the more transcendant truth actually contradicts the dogmatic truth
(of Christianity in this case, but all religions in the end)

That is often how it appears in form ... in essence, not.

All religions are both true and false.

The world is both true and false. Only God is true. Atma and Maya. The real Dao cannot be spoken ...

St Catherine of Sienna was told: "I am He Who Is, you are she who is not." Same applies to the Cosmos.

 

[Thomas]

I still am not sure what that means.
How can one be "metaphysically bankrupt"

I think @muhammad_isa nailed it.

I'd say the transcendent has become 'occluded', we've become blind to the transcendent, and replaced it with abstract projections.

Same with a 'spirituality' which tends to speak more of how one thinks/feels about oneself in relation to things.

 

[TheLightWithin]

LOL, I can think of examples.

I'm listening... (or reading)

Well the perennialists are pretty dogmatic on their point that you have to practice a religion, and that means as it is, not amend it or alter it to suit oneself.

Which version of a religion?

Likewise the perennialist would say that when someone says where religions agree they are right, and where they disagree they are wrong, that person doesn't understand the metaphysics of the religions, not the distinction between essence and form, and the nature of things.

Right, I think I do not.

Basically, no religion needs an adjunct or input or an element from another religion to realise and attain its object. No religion is deficient.

I'm not sure what is meant by "object" other than for religions so inclined, to gain entry into Heaven or something.
As far as no religion being deficient, that has me scratching my head as to the array of denominations within most religions-sometimes vast array

St Catherine of Sienna was told: "I am He Who Is, you are she who is not."

That's nice, actually.

Same applies to the Cosmos.

Wait - meaning the Cosmos would say that, or God (presumably God) would say the above TO the Cosmos?

 

[Thomas]

I'm listening... (or reading)

Well ... off-hand I'd say the Baha'i Faith and the Theosophical association are examples ... but there are those who owuld contend that.

Which version of a religion?

LOL, the 'original' one (in quotes because there's no such thing).

Any denomination that does not hold conflicting metaphysical views.

I think they'd say theravada and mahayana Buddhism are both correct, according to their formal structure, but one according to essence.

I'm not sure what is meant by "object" other than for religions so inclined, to gain entry into Heaven or something.

Well Christians have heaven, Buddhists have somewhere else in mind ... the point being the religions are self-sufficient.

As far as no religion being deficient, that has me scratching my head as to the array of denominations within most religions-sometimes vast array

Well as nowadays a denomination is often a commercial enterprise, the field is obscured.

That's nice, actually.

She knew a thing or two.

Wait - meaning the Cosmos would say that, or God (presumably God) would say the above TO the Cosmos?

Only God is.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Any denomination that does not hold conflicting metaphysical views.

How can people tell?
I think those who follow JWs, Mormons, SDAs, Christadelphians, etc believe their views are consistent internally and with Scripture
Likewise the more mainstream denominations see themselves in that light as well.
And they all point at one another for inconsistencies...and heresy... and blasphemy... and they all look back and scowl at the Church of Rome (or worse, call it blasphemous names) (Scowl at Orthodoxy too if they know of its existence)