Confused by a book on Perennialism

[Thomas]

How can people tell?

It takes work and effort, if you're looking for technical or metaphysical distinctions.

Then again, if it floats your boat, as they say, then who am I to argue?

Most Catholics are as naive about their religion as the followers of any other.

What the Perennialists were pointing to was a lack of intellectual rigour – and metaphysical and spiritual insight – available in a world where religion, like everything else, was becoming another channel of consumer culture.

I'll take my theology from anywhere, where it's valid: RC, Orthodox Patriarchates, Anglican, Lutheran ... but after that it's pretty thin on the ground.

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)

Quite, so you have to investigate those inconsistencies, etc., to see if there's any substance to them.

And, of course Rome / Roman Catholicism is the bête noire for so many, because everybody says so ... it's common knowledge, and so on. Even the Traditionalists fell into that.

Most Trads became Muslim, or more accurately, Sufi Muslims, and both Guénon and Schuon argue a sound reason why, but I was told "you're not going anywhere", so I stand by Catholicism.

 

[TheLightWithin]

It takes work and effort, if you're looking for technical or metaphysical distinctions.

Yes it sounds like people would have to devote some time to study several religions to see which ones didn't have metaphysical contradictions.
I think a number of people who become agnostic or atheist are trying to do that when they ask a lot of ""impertinent"" questions in youth bible study or something, as they are trying to work out the various things that are logically or intellectually baffling, as well as morally baffling, about the religion they are being taught. They don't get satisfying answers (to their own chagrin) and drop the entire thing (sometimes to chagrin of others)

 

[TheLightWithin]

I'll take my theology from anywhere, where it's valid: RC, Orthodox Patriarchates, Anglican, Lutheran ... but after that it's pretty thin on the ground.

Is this different from syncretism? Or is it not because everything you mentioned is within Christianity?
Is it that you would not take theology from a non Christian source, even Judaism?
As far as Protestantism goes, I can see being repelled by Calvinism, but what about Arminian and Wesleyan theology?
Have you looked into Mormon metaphysics? (Or do you consider them, as I do, a distinct Abrahamic faith? And thus not on your radar?)

 

[TheLightWithin]

Most Trads became Muslim, or more accurately, Sufi Muslims,

Interesting. Really? Why would they select Sufi Islam? Do you know?

and both Guénon and Schuon argue a sound reason why

Is it possible to put their sound reason why in a nutshell? Do you agree with it?

but I was told "you're not going anywhere", so I stand by Catholicism.

Who told you? If you don't mind my asking. It sounds like you agreed with them in any case.

 

[Thomas]

Yes it sounds like people would have to devote some time to study several religions to see which ones didn't have metaphysical contradictions.

Well it's a two-edged thing. I'd say the ancient mainline traditions don't.

The Dalai Lama was approached by someone who said he'd quested far and wide looking for something to believe in, and the DL told him if he couldn't find it in his own tradition, then it's unlikely he'd find it anywhere else. The DL is not the only one to say this.

I think a number of people who become agnostic or atheist are trying to do that when they ask a lot of ""impertinent"" questions in youth bible study or something, as they are trying to work out the various things that are logically or intellectually baffling, as well as morally baffling, about the religion they are being taught. They don't get satisfying answers (to their own chagrin) and drop the entire thing (sometimes to chagrin of others)

Yes... again why the Trads were critical of the lack of insight and rigour.

In the UK in the 70s, there were cult, there was the New Age, there was the Festival of Mind, Body and Spirit ... every high street bookshop had its shelf of 'spirituality' books .... those days re long gone.

What gets me now is the lack of 'wonder' at the world, and the inability of religions to get that across, that was always the way to attract young people, not intellectual argument, or a secular basis on which to present religion.

Religious educators need to be able to see beyond the 'impertinence'.

 

[Thomas]

Is this different from syncretism? Or is it not because everything you mentioned is within Christianity?

I see a distinction between 'synthesis' and 'syncretism' – the former is seeing what is essentially the same behind the forms, too often syncretism is the process of explaining away or simply ignoring differences to arrive at a consensus — as I said, it's a commonplace to say all religions are the same. They're not. All religions seek the same end, they don't.

How does one see the eschatalogical aim of a Buddhist is the same as that of a Catholic? How someone answers that will tell much.

Is it that you would not take theology from a non Christian source, even Judaism?

No, I do. Christianity generally does.

As far as Protestantism goes, I can see being repelled by Calvinism, but what about Arminian and Wesleyan theology?

Well those theologies emerged in relation to Calvinism and the Reformation.

And a quick glance suggests the theological distinctions go back to the opposing views of Augustine and Pelagius – so my reference is there.

Have you looked into Mormon metaphysics? (Or do you consider them, as I do, a distinct Abrahamic faith? And thus not on your radar?)

I have looked and I don't accept it. I simply think it lacks credibility.

 

[Thomas]

Interesting. Really? Why would they select Sufi Islam? Do you know?

I think it spoke to them in a particular way.

There's a long entry on the Schuon page on wiki that includes quite a lot

Who told you? If you don't mind my asking. It sounds like you agreed with them in any case.

It was a personal experience.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Yes... again why the Trads were critical of the lack of insight and rigour.

Good, everyone should be

The Dalai Lama was approached by someone who said he'd quested far and wide looking for something to believe in, and the DL told him if he couldn't find it in his own tradition, then it's unlikely he'd find it anywhere else. The DL is not the only one to say this.

What would be meant by "your tradition" esp if you don't have one, as such? If you weren't raised in one?

In the UK in the 70s, there were cult, there was the New Age, there was the Festival of Mind, Body and Spirit ... every high street bookshop had its shelf of 'spirituality' books .... those days re long gone.

I think all those things still exist to some extent in the US, though not in every community.
Last I knew bookstores had those shelves (but I haven't checked since before COVID at least) there are still New Age things around and some pagan communities, and people into so called "witchy" things, though all of those tend to lump together... not necessarily with any kind of metaphysical accuracy, just mutual tolerance and overlapping and not entirely distinct communities.

I'm a little worried about "Christian" hardliners / nationalists trying to crack down on religious freedom in the coming years, feeling emboldened as they do, but that's too political to elaborate on.

Religious educators need to be able to see beyond the 'impertinence'.

Most definitely.

 

[TheLightWithin]

There's a long entry on the Schuon page on wiki that includes quite a lot

It's an informative summary. As they do mention the "transcendent unity of all religions" I think that is probably what people think they are getting at when they say religions are the same. The distinction is fine enough or tricky enough or something that many people (amazed as they are at seeing thoughts about the underlying connection or metaphysical unity of religions) end up gliding past it.

I see a distinction between 'synthesis' and 'syncretism' – the former is seeing what is essentially the same behind the forms, too often syncretism is the process of explaining away or simply ignoring differences to arrive at a consensus — as I said, it's a commonplace to say all religions are the same. They're not. All religions seek the same end, they don't.

I think the distinction is lost on many, and I'm just barely trying to nibble at the edges of the idea.

Many people at Unity church would say things somewhat like "all religions are the same" or "all religions come from the same Source" but often they would glide past that and say "We are all One".

I wasn't totally sure what all the metaphysical implications of that were, but, I knew it had to do with the fairly firm conviction held there that we all come from the same Source (Source would often be capitalized if written, seeming to be a word for God or maybe like Providence)

These ideas would eventually translate into the idea that all religions are the same at their core, that their founders had the same message of unity and love for everybody, and that their ideas were corrupted by others as time went on.

I think I had long, long assumed (like since I was a little kid) that there was some kind of metaphysical truth and reality that religion came from but that none of them accurately represented, and I always wondered "what the REAL reality was"

From what you are saying, and what little bit I have been able to glean and process from sources I read or try to read, it seems that the Perennial approach is more likely to say this:
1- All religions are from the same source
2-They are all correct (insofar as they have developed some kind of consistent orthodoxy, but even then watch out, they may not be?)
3-They are all different and don't try to mix them.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Last I knew bookstores had those shelves (but I haven't checked since before COVID at least) there are still New Age things around

Though I should have clarified, in small communities maybe not the library or bookstore shelves.
When I was visiting family about 10 years ago, I remember looking at the religion section in the library and absolutely everything in it was Christian, if that were the sum total of religion.
However, in the neighboring towns, there were a smattering of little shops that sold Tarot cards, tarot readings, astrology type stuff, crystals, herbs, and alternative nutrition type stuff.

 

[muhammad_isa]

From what you are saying, and what little bit I have been able to glean and process from sources I read or try to read, it seems that the Perennial approach is more likely to say this:
1- All religions are from the same source
2-They are all correct (insofar as they have developed some kind of consistent orthodoxy, but even then watch out, they may not be?)
3-They are all different and don't try to mix them.

I know little about "the perennial", but I would say that:-
1. Most major religions are originally from the same source
Some religions are clearly of man-made ideology, and don't claim to be anything other.

2. They share a common theme of a supreme creator

 

[TheLightWithin]

2. They share a common theme of a supreme creator

Is that true in Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism?

 

[muhammad_isa]

Is that true in Buddhism, Taoism, and Confucianism?

I refer to the "original source" .. and I believe that most ancient religions
have evolved into what they are today.
We only have to look at more recent Abrahamic religions, to see how they have split into multiple creeds.

 

[Thomas]

What would be meant by "your tradition" esp if you don't have one, as such? If you weren't raised in one?

I think in context the inquirer had said he came from a western religion.

I'm a little worried about "Christian" hardliners / nationalists trying to crack down on religious freedom in the coming years, feeling emboldened as they do, but that's too political to elaborate on.

You have every reason to be. I empathise with you.

 

[Thomas]

From what you are saying, and what little bit I have been able to glean and process from sources I read or try to read, it seems that the Perennial approach is more likely to say this:
1- All religions are from the same source
2-They are all correct (insofar as they have developed some kind of consistent orthodoxy, but even then watch out, they may not be?)
3-They are all different and don't try to mix them.

Yes ... although there is a distinction between 'religion' and the various 'denominations', the question then is whether the latter speaks to a particular spiritual type, or whether it's a deviation from the path.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Yes ... although there is a distinction between 'religion' and the various 'denominations', the question then is whether the latter speaks to a particular spiritual type, or whether it's a deviation from the path.

Does that imply that heterodox denominations are "deviations" but wait, when does something stop being a deviation and become a true religion?

 

[Thomas]

Does that imply that heterodox denominations are "deviations" but wait, when does something stop being a deviation and become a true religion?

The million-dollar question.

The Perennialist would say what constitutes an authentic religion is a founding Revelation which establishes the practices and principles of that religion. The 'straight path' is orthodox (Gk ortho, 'straight' or 'right'; doxa, 'opinion'). Heterodox is, as its name says, a variation (Gk heteros, 'other').

How the heterodox view differs from the orthodox, and on what basis, then determines whether or not the denomination is a deviation, that is, it's not another view of the one path, as it were, but has gone off on a tangent of its own.

As ever with the Trads, it's looking towards the principle, and not necessarily the form.

But there's no sure test ... Guénon believed Buddhism was a 'Hindu heresy' until other Trads argued the case for Buddhism.

Guénon and Schuon had a very poor opinion of Christianity, and thought Catholicism had 'lost the plot' as it were, whilst other Traditionalist writers offered strong defences – Jean Borella from the Catholic perspective, Philip Sherrard the Orthodox – although both writers are critical of certain developments within the traditions.

 

[Thomas]

For example ... the Reformation was largely driven by political motivation than any attempt to purify what was perceived as a corrupt Catholicism. Money and power had a lot to do with it, rather than Biblical interpretation.

The Reformers, for instance, argued that the Liturgy was a Romish invention, whereas scholarship since has shown that Christianity was a Liturgical before it was Scriptural or Traditional. They got that wrong, but were trying to break the grip of the clergy on the laity.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Guénon and Schuon had a very poor opinion of Christianity, and thought Catholicism had 'lost the plot' as it were,

I think Luther thought that too, hence the 95 Theses and the Reformation
Heterodox denominations think that all mainline Christianity or all of Christianity has lost the plot.
(except them, whichever heterodox church in question, they found it- each one of them!)

The later Restoration (19th century) had in mind the idea to "restore the 1st century church"
Problem is nobody really knows too well what that was like.

Hmm so some Perennialists thought Christianity had lost the truth it once held?
(More or less the message I was raised on)

Interesting...

 

[TheLightWithin]

For example ... the Reformation was largely driven by political motivation than any attempt to purify what was perceived as a corrupt Catholicism. Money and power had a lot to do with it, rather than Biblical interpretation.

The Reformers, for instance, argued that the Liturgy was a Romish invention, whereas scholarship since has shown that Christianity was a Liturgical before it was Scriptural or Traditional. They got that wrong, but were trying to break the grip of the clergy on the laity.

Yes, I was thinking of that too... Luther had his objections to what he thought of as corruption in practice and some doctrinal and scriptural doubts as well. But of course his ideas took off not just because they were perceived widely as "great ideas" or anything as such, but the backing of those with money and power and axes to grind got wheels moving.