The Trouble with Transcendental Unity of Religions

[China Cat Sunflower]

Well, I see what the quote says at face value, but I also know a little bit about the man being quoted, which makes me wonder what the broader context of this letter might be. Huston Smith is an interesting character. He was dropping acid with Tim Leary and hanging out with Aldous Huxley way back when.

Chris

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Here's a quote from Huston Smith from a 1997 interview with Mother Jones magazine:

I don't want to justify religion in terms of its benefits to us. I believe that, on balance, it does a lot of bad things, too -- a tremendous amount. But I don't think that the final justification of religion is the good it does for people. I think the final justification is that it's true, and truth takes priority over consequences. Religion helps us deal with what is most important to the human spirit: values, meaning, purpose, and quality.

Historically, religion has given people another world to live in, a world more adaptive to the human spirit. As a student of world religions, I see religion as the winnower of the wisdom of the human race. Of course, not everything about these religions is wise. Their social patterns, for example -- master-slave, caste, and gender relations -- have been adopted from the mores of their time. But in their view of the nature of reality, there is nothing in either modernity or postmodernity that rivals them.

Q: You've been critical of the role secularism and science have played in supplanting religion...

A: I'm nearing 80, and I find myself more optimistic than I've ever been on this subject. In science, for example, physics is already out of the tunnel constructed by Enlightenment thinking. Newtonian physics worked very much at cross-purposes with the Spirit, which is beyond matter, space, and time. Of contemporary physics, Henry Stapp, a world-class physicist at Berkeley, said that "everything we know about nature is in accord with the idea that the fundamental process of nature lies outside space-time."

Religion, for its part, says that God, who is the source of it all, is outside nature. Now, don't quote me as saying Henry Stapp says that God exists! He didn't say that at all. Besides, he has no competence to talk about that as a physicist, because physics can't deal with quality or consciousness. Nevertheless, for him to say that the fundamental process of nature is immaterial opens the door for a meeting of physics and faith. Both are speaking the same language in their own domain.

Good stuff, I think!

Chris

 

[Bishadi]

From a letter written by Prof. Huston Smith in 2004:

"It is only of late (perhaps in the last year or two) that I seem finally to have made my peace with the TU [Transcendental Unity] doctrine. It became clear to me that what I had found troubling was not the doctrine as such, but certain misconceptions associated with the doctrine, which not a few of its proponents seem to hold.

The problem, as I see it, is that one is tempted to conceive of that ‘transcendent unity’ as a doctrine in its own right. Typically one conceives of it in advaitic terms, thereby reducing that stipulated superdoctrine to an abstract formula of ‘nonduality’ which is supposed to embody the quintessential truth of the religions. Yet in truth a ‘reduction’ of this kind constitutes a betrayal of tradition, beginning with the Hindu tradition itself, which insists upon its six classical darshanas, and moreover counts advaita as only one of several Vedantic schools. What is more, it recognizes that the actual truth of advaita Vedanta cannot be expressed in words or grasped this side of nirvikalpa samadhi – which is just what the authentic doctrine of ‘transcendent unity’ likewise insists upon.

The problem with the TU doctrine, then, is that it is prone to be misunderstood. A Promethean temptation befalls us, an overweening desire to lay claim to an understanding which by right is proper to God. We have had occasion to see with horror! where this can lead.

Meanwhile, however, I am fully convinced that there IS a transcendent unity of which every authentic religion constitutes a manifestation willed by God. It seems to me that this transcendent unity is indeed ‘the pearl of truth’ enshrined within every religion, which the faithful are destined to discover and take possession of at the end of the road, when they shall have, Deo volente, attained to what Christianity terms theosis; for indeed, that truth is no longer a matter of doctrine, of theological or metaphysical conceptions, but is God Himself: ‘I am the truth’, said Christ.”"

And that unifying frame is 'light'...... and to convey the interactions of all things within the comprehension of the scientific properties know about light, then the associations and foundations set into faithful observance resonate these properties within the human construct of articulation.

i.e... non-local affect (from God) is entangled energy (light). and to increase the entanglement of associations between 2 separate structures increases the potential; we can observe this as Love.

The cross; a drawing of what light is as scientifically represented; electric and magnetic fields at perpendicular planes.

Light is the life upon mass and from most every rendition on earth; light is that source and often considered God himself.

the Christ is supposed to be the one to bring these truths. as Jesus did not

every religion speaks of a day when the 'truth' will combine all knowledge and combine mankind under one set of Understanding; in which each of the great contributors of the world will be of the 'book of life' in which all them gift each of the greats offered for the future builds a layer on knowledge, for the next generation perfecting and 'evolutionary' pattern to comprehension itself.

and eventually 'that' pinnacle is reached and each can comprehend, each can be aware, each responsible, each creating life, each know the combination of God (existence) and themselves, within the 'mind' (knowledge) and consciousness.......... equally.

Which in time removes the fibs of old, the religious beliefs as magic and that end period to believing the truth when each can know the truth of exactly what makes us alive and how our choices determine our continuance (life) ever after.

So is there a combining frame............... YES!

 

[Vajradhara]

What does 'advaitic' mean? It's not in my dictionary and I can't find anything clear and straightforward online.

it means "nondual" which is a way of wholistically viewing the cosmos and all phenomena and noumena within.

<though you probably figured that out by now>

metta,

~v

 

[Thomas]

Hi Lunamoth —

Henri Le Saux (Abhishiktånanda)'s book is a delight ... mine's so used and so old the spine's broken and it's held together by a bulldog clip.

There is also "Christianity and the Doctrine of Non-Dualism" by 'A Monk of the West' which is a bit more in the Perennialist line.

The idea of Advaita (Sanskrit for ‘non-dual’ or ‘not two’) is fundamental to the Abrahamic Traditions, so much so that it is often overlooked, and especially if viewed through an Hellenic (dualist) eye.

In C&DND the author shows that non-dualism is neither pantheism nor monism, and that there is no incompatibility between orthodox Christian doctrine and the strictest understanding of non-dualism in the Advaita Vedanta.

Thomas

 

[Thomas]

And that unifying frame is 'light'...

To echo Chris' quote of Huston Smith:

Religion, for its part, says that God, who is the source of it all, is outside nature. Now, don't quote me as saying Henry Stapp says that God exists! He didn't say that at all. Besides, he has no competence to talk about that as a physicist, because physics can't deal with quality or consciousness. Nevertheless, for him to say that the fundamental process of nature is immaterial opens the door for a meeting of physics and faith. Both are speaking the same language in their own domain.

(my emphasis)

Is this the ground of our disagreement — are you saying physics renders faith invalid? (A 'yes' or 'no' answer will do)

Thomas

 

[Penguin]

A good, thought provoking thread Thomas.

 

[Raksha]

I also know that he does not consider his own mix and match combination of religious practices to be the same thing as the "cafeteria spirituality" he despises.

Chris,

That tells me he's an elitist right there! "I'm allowed to do it but you aren't" is to me the very essence of spiritual elitism, the "gatekeeper" paternalism that I so despise. I have a radar for that kind of thing, and whenever I sense it there is INSTANT hostility! It just gets my back up like nothing else.

I guess that's why I have such a prejudice against Huston Smith. I read an article by him many years ago--I can't even remember the name of it or what it was about, but I seem to remember it was in Gnosis magazine, which unfortunately is no longer being published. Anyway, I sensed that paternalistic attiitude and was immediately put off, to the point where just seeing his name in the lead note got my back up.

I may check out some of the links, but Huston Smith is going to have an uphill battle convincing me he has anything worthwhile to say about universalism.

--Linda

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Huston Smith is an old elitist prissy pants. He's Ellsworth Toohey.

Chris

 

[Raksha]

Huston Smith is an old elitist prissy pants. He's Ellsworth Toohey.

Chris

Chris,

I don't know who Ellsworth Toohey is, but I freely admit that my negative impression of Huston Smith is a prejudice. I was NOT intending in any way to downgrade his accomplishments, which are even more formidable than I realized at first. My big gripe is with his attitude.

In a serious attempt to be fair, I just did a search on his name and spent the last several hours reading interviews with him. I found a great deal to agree with, a lot of real insight and wisdom. But again I detected that irritating note of paternalism, and again I experienced the same negative response.

It's especially noticeable when he talks about shamanism. For example: He freely admits that the Australian aborigines are telepathic and that this is a normal ability with them, I guess in the same way that musical talent or artistic talent are normal abilities with us. Obviously some individuals have these abilities to a much higher degree than others, but they are still considered normal aspects of the human birthright.

And yet for all that he admires and defends aboriginal cultures, he STILL feels compelled to issue the standard Western knee-jerk paternalistic warnings against focusing on the development of the "siddhis" or paranormal abilities, because that can result in ego inflation and so on. The "do-not-try-this-at-home" attitude. Well, sometimes you don't even HAVE to try because it happens on its own.

I know perfectly well when I am experiencing telepathy, and so do you and so does everyone. I also know that for me, as for most Western people, it comes sporadically, in fits and starts, and there are long periods when I seem to have no ability to access it at all. Why does that happen?

Part of the problem of course is our culture's obsession with scientism, and the constantly repeated assertions that such experiences are "hallucinations." But I suspect a lot of it also has to do with these constantly repeated warnings on the part of the spiritual gatekeepers that it's "wrong" or "dangerous" to try to develop these abilities. We're even told to ignore them when they happen spontaneously!

I don't know much about the Australian aborigines, but one thing I'm positive about: When they are growing up, they are NOT constantly subjected to all these nervous-Nellie prohibitions. That's one big reason they can "do it" consistently and we can't!

Love and Light,
Linda

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

Elitism is pretty well inevitable. Whether we're talking about esoterica or exoterica, the conversation can't be continually restarted to accommodate newbies and pedestrians. I understand that there are ring-pass-nots to higher levels of awareness and knowledge. I think that there is a good deal of ceremonial puffery that goes with the socio politics of academic and liturgical pecking orders, though.

Chris

 

[Raksha]

Elitism is pretty well inevitable.

I suppose, but it's SOOOO annoying! And it doesn't have to be encouraged, much less sanctified.

Whether we're talking about esoterica or exoterica, the conversation can't be continually restarted to accommodate newbies and pedestrians.

Of course not, but what I object to is when someone ass-umes (based upon nothing) that I'm a newbie or pedestrian when I'm not.

I understand that there are ring-pass-nots to higher levels of awareness and knowledge.

Of course, but those gates can take care of themselves with no need for self-appointed gatekeepers. It happens all the time...you read something and think to yourself, "Well, that was clear as mud." Then a few months or a year later, or maybe many years later, you read the same thing and it makes perfect sense! It's so clear and self-evident you have no idea why you didn't understand it the first time.

That can only mean you've somehow acquired the maturity and insight to enter the gate, where you were turned away before. Why can't people who claim to trust the process put their money where their mouth is, and actually trust it?

--Linda

 

[China Cat Sunflower]

All the information is out there now, so Gatekeeper is pretty much a ceremonial office. OTOH, the best information is now in subscription only professional and academic journals, though it's still accessible for a price. There is a market for authors who can translate the intricacies of science and metaphysics into accessible language. Elitism may be inevitable, but if you want to sell books you'd better dispense with the ego and make it accessible. We don't need no stinkin' gurus!

Chris

 

[Thomas]

Of course, but those gates can take care of themselves with no need for self-appointed gatekeepers.

The actuality of gatekeepers is founded in Scripture ...
"And he cast out Adam; and placed before the paradise of pleasure Cherubims, and a flaming sword, turning every way, to keep the way of the tree of life." (Genesis 3:24)

"And she (Mary Magdalene) saw two angels in white, sitting, one at the head, and one at the feet, where the body of Jesus had been laid." (John 20:12)

"And I will give to thee (Peter ... and his successors) the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matthew 16:19)

The fact that you don't like is is your problem, no-one else's.

It happens all the time...you read something and think to yourself, "Well, that was clear as mud." Then a few months or a year later, or maybe many years later, you read the same thing and it makes perfect sense! It's so clear and self-evident you have no idea why you didn't understand it the first time.

And by the same token, some never understand it, and some get it completely wrong, others get it right but never understand what it means ... and everyone promotes their own opinion, mostly from the standpoint of ignorance ... so you end up with a Tower of Babel ... and truth becomes something of a lottery.

It's the equivalent of a shepherd letting his flock roam where it will, and counting the survivors at the end of the day.

That can only mean you've somehow acquired the maturity and insight to enter the gate, where you were turned away before. Why can't people who claim to trust the process put their money where their mouth is, and actually trust it?

Ask yourself the same question ... If you believe in Christ, why don't you trust in that which He put in place?

Thomas

 

[Dream]

I'm on the edge of my seat to hear what anyone has to say about the cherubim.

The word 'Cherubim' is very difficult to figure out, although I have a working theory. Aside from the Garden of Eden, the word only appears in descriptions of the Ark of the Covenant and in Ezekiel. There are rumors and artwork that represent the cherub as a winged creature, but these do not explain what the cherub was and why it used a flaming sword. The word for flame in the flaming-sword is the same as the word used for the fiery or poisonous bite of the serpents in the wilderness. In Christianity, the poisoned bite is called 'Death's sting', and the cherub may be a representation of death. The word cherub is rarely used, but its appearance in Ezekiel is significant as it parallels a vision given to Isaiah in which appear two Winged Seraphaim who guard the glory. The word for Seraphaim is the same word used for serpent in the wilderness. So I see a strong tie between the Cherubim with the flaming sword, death's sting, and the fiery serpents in the wilderness. Here is the way to the tree of life. Here is the key to death, hell, and the grave.

Since Christianity has been brought into the discussion: I keep in mind that Jesus always said "He that has ears let him hear," which was the real rub between him and the priesthood of his day. His correction to them was that they should be reading the text for themselves instead of viewing it through thick lenses of previous interpreters. He was saying the opposite of "Listen to me, or listen to a certain appointed individual." In effect a man's gatekeepers are his ears, according to Jesus. From that standpoint, his statement of 'Way, truth, and the life' gives Christians a radical reason to consider viewpoints from other religions, since it is not the speaker but the hearer who is the gatekeeper.

 

[Raksha]

"And I will give to thee (Peter ... and his successors) the keys of the kingdom of heaven. And whatsoever thou shalt bind upon earth, it shall be bound also in heaven: and whatsoever thou shalt loose upon earth, it shall be loosed also in heaven." (Matthew 16:19)

Thomas,

I should have seen this coming...the most self-vouching passage in the entire New Testament! Catholics just LOVE to quote this one in defense of the traditional power structure, but...what if the person you're addressing isn't Catholic? I consider myself eclectic, the influences being mostly Jewish/Gnostic/Pagan. Nowadays the Pagan influence is the one in the foreground, but the other two are never inoperative.

Judaism is my birth religion. I am not, never have been, and never intend to be a member of the Roman Catholic Church! So what makes you think this blatantly self-vouching text will impress me any more than it did the first 100 times someone quoted it at me?

The disciples said to Jesus:
We know that thou wilt go away from us. Who is it
who shall be great over us? Jesus said to them:
Wherever you have come, you will go to James the righteous
For whose sake heaven and earth came into being.
--The Gospel of Thomas, Logion 12

It is my belief that the Gospel of Thomas was omitted from the NT canon mostly on the basis of this passage, for obvious reasons. But given my background, is there some reason I should NOT take it as the more authentic and authoritative text?

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

Ask yourself the same question ... If you believe in Christ, why don't you trust in that which He put in place?

Thomas,

Two objections here. First of all, I DON'T "believe in Christ," not in the way you mean anyway. I just explained that in my last post.

Second of all, in the immortal words of that great Jewish prophet Robert Zimmerman, aka Bob Dylan: "You ain't him."

I said, "they refused Jesus too."
He said, "you ain't him."

Oh yeah, and one other thing: You're not the angel with the flaming sword either. We are ALL destined to eat from the Tree of Life sooner or later, and many already have.

--Linda

 

[Raksha]

We don't need no stinkin' gurus!

Chris,

That's for damn sure! Sometimes they do more harm than good, and this time I'm not referring to their self-appointed "gatekeeper" function.

Last night I received an e-mail from an old friend I lost track of many years ago. It brought home to me vividly how much damage can be done when two self-proclaimed gurus get into a turf war over a promising student, who may be too young and inexperienced to protect himself. The student can end up psychically dismembered in the tug-of-war between them, almost literally torn to pieces. It's all couched in very "spiritual" and even esoteric terms, but in reality it's no more "spiritual" than two wolves fighting over a fresh kill.

I was an eyewitness to a situation like this a long time ago. I actually saw it happen, but didn't understand WHAT I was seeing until many years later--not until last night, in fact. Absolutely HORRIBLE!

--Linda

 

[Vajradhara]

Namaste Raksha,

thank you for the post.

In a serious attempt to be fair, I just did a search on his name and spent the last several hours reading interviews with him. I found a great deal to agree with, a lot of real insight and wisdom. But again I detected that irritating note of paternalism, and again I experienced the same negative response.

may i ask why paternalism produces a negative emotional response for you?

It's especially noticeable when he talks about shamanism. For example: He freely admits that the Australian aborigines are telepathic and that this is a normal ability with them,...
And yet for all that he admires and defends aboriginal cultures, he STILL feels compelled to issue the standard Western knee-jerk paternalistic warnings against focusing on the development of the "siddhis" or paranormal abilities, because that can result in ego inflation and so on. The "do-not-try-this-at-home" attitude. Well, sometimes you don't even HAVE to try because it happens on its own.

whilst it is true that the development of the supramundane abilities are part and parcel of progression within the Path the idea being communicated is that to use the siddhis as the goal or measurement of ones progress is going to create obstacles rather than remove them. his view, however, is not particularly western in this regard as this is the same teaching which the Buddha Shakyamuni gave regarding the way in which Buddhists should regard these phenomena. i have a feeling that Dr. Smith was paraphrasing this teaching.

I know perfectly well when I am experiencing telepathy, and so do you and so does everyone.

i'd imagine it would take some time to sort it out if it happened to me. i suspect that such a thing would be quite unusual and i'd not be really sure that what i experienced was an accurate understanding of another sentient beings consciousness.

Part of the problem of course is our culture's obsession with scientism, and the constantly repeated assertions that such experiences are "hallucinations."

do i understand you to be saying that the problem with not being able to use telepathy on a consistent basis is a cultural grounding in scientific objectivism?

i would tend to think that such would not have very much to do with it given that the development of such abilities is consonant with ones progress upon the Path of Awakening.

metta,

~v

 

[seattlegal]

I'm on the edge of my seat to hear what anyone has to say about the cherubim.

The word 'Cherubim' is very difficult to figure out, although I have a working theory. Aside from the Garden of Eden, the word only appears in descriptions of the Ark of the Covenant and in Ezekiel. There are rumors and artwork that represent the cherub as a winged creature, but these do not explain what the cherub was and why it used a flaming sword. The word for flame in the flaming-sword is the same as the word used for the fiery or poisonous bite of the serpents in the wilderness. In Christianity, the poisoned bite is called 'Death's sting', and the cherub may be a representation of death. The word cherub is rarely used, but its appearance in Ezekiel is significant as it parallels a vision given to Isaiah in which appear two Winged Seraphaim who guard the glory. The word for Seraphaim is the same word used for serpent in the wilderness. So I see a strong tie between the Cherubim with the flaming sword, death's sting, and the fiery serpents in the wilderness. Here is the way to the tree of life. Here is the key to death, hell, and the grave.

Since Christianity has been brought into the discussion: I keep in mind that Jesus always said "He that has ears let him hear," which was the real rub between him and the priesthood of his day. His correction to them was that they should be reading the text for themselves instead of viewing it through thick lenses of previous interpreters. He was saying the opposite of "Listen to me, or listen to a certain appointed individual." In effect a man's gatekeepers are his ears, according to Jesus. From that standpoint, his statement of 'Way, truth, and the life' gives Christians a radical reason to consider viewpoints from other religions, since it is not the speaker but the hearer who is the gatekeeper.

I would venture that it is probably related to the fruit of the tree of the knowledge of good and evil. Perhaps it might be blind attachment to what we perceive as good (obsessive-compulsive, addictive behavior in extreme), and blind aversion to what we percieve as bad (blind emnity and hatred in extreme.) Both obsessive-compulsive, addictive behavior and emnity/hatred could be described as "fiery" in their action and the way they propagate.

Even Raksha's aversion to gatekeepers fits in with this possible explanation.

Please proceed to punch as many holes as possible in this theory. I'm really interested in testing this perspective. {I promise that I won't start spitting venom out of spite over it, either. }