Welcome home! Please contact lincoln@icrontic.com if you have any difficulty logging in or using the site. New registrations must be manually approved which may take several days. Can't log in? Try clearing your browser's cookies.
I'd also note that there's nothing wrong with staying in one tradition and getting the most out of it, as well as engaging them from their own side. If I'm talking about Buddhism from the Buddhist POV, for example, I use the language of the suttas, arahants, and Buddhist masters. If I'm talking about Christianity, I use the language of the Bible, saints, and Christians masters. But I also like to talk about them together and in a more syncretistic way when possible in order to break down sectarian barriers to dialogue and understanding.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:
"No tradition monopolizes the truth. We must glean the best values of all traditions and work together to remove the tensions between traditions in order to give peace a chance".
THAY-Living Buddha, Living Christ- page 114
I was going to post this in the quote thread but it felt at home here.
This thread had me thinking in a similar direction. I'm wondering if what TNH is talking about here is more syncretism than perennialism. Though I don't know enough to say if there is an actual difference I kind of think of syncretism as sort of a selective synthesis and perennialism as sort of saying they're all paths to the same peak.
I think (but am not entirely sure) the difference is that with syncretism two or more schools of thought blend to sort of make one school out of all. Taoism and Buddhism blending to create Zen is a good example I think. With
perennialism there is a common thread running through all schools implied. The Golden Rule comes to mind. I think the Dalai Lama makes a good point in that all beings would choose to be happy and useful rather than the alternatives.
2
DavidA human residing in Hamilton, Ontario, Canada. Ancestral territory of the Erie, Haudenosaunee, Huron-Wendat, Mississauga and Neutral First NationsVeteran
@David said:
"No tradition monopolizes the truth. We must glean the best values of all traditions and work together to remove the tensions between traditions in order to give peace a chance".
THAY-Living Buddha, Living Christ- page 114
I was going to post this in the quote thread but it felt at home here.
Definitely want to second this sentiment.
Agree. All too often I hear Buddhists in certain traditions state that their tradition is the "true dhamma but that we should respect all traditions" (through gritted teeth!)
But in the extreme you get folks like our friend Omar who proclaims his tradition is the one and only and that everyone else is wrong. I always feel like people like this are trying to convince themselves more than others...
The problem begins with the line: ‘Listen Shariputra, because in emptiness, there is no form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations, and consciousness’ (in Sanskrit: TasmācŚāriputraśūnyatayāmnarūpamnavedanānasamjñānasamskārānavijñānam). How funny! It was previously stated that emptiness is form, and form is emptiness, but now you say the opposite: there is only emptiness, there is no body. This line of the sutra can lead to many damaging misunderstandings. It removes all phenomena from the category ‘being’ and places them into the category of ‘non-being’ (no form, feelings, perceptions, mental formations or consciousness…). Yet the true nature of all phenomena is the nature of no being nor non-being, no birth and no death. The view of ‘being’ is one extreme view and the view of ‘non-being’ is another extreme view. It is because of this unskillfulness that the novice monk’s nose is still sore.
It is the same with the belief in "nothing" and the usage of dukkha as a dharma seal in The Heart of the Buddha's Teachings. He wants his students to understand how those differences are key but beyond that, he advocates a non-attachment to views as a deep practice and teaching in itself.
The First of the Fourteen Mindfulness Trainings
Aware of the suffering created by fanaticism and intolerance, we are determined not to be idolatrous about or bound to any doctrine, theory, or ideology, even Buddhist ones. We are committed to seeing the Buddhist teachings as a guiding means that help us learn to look deeply and develop understanding and compassion. They are not doctrines to fight, kill, or die for. We understand that fanaticism in its many forms is the result of perceiving things in a dualistic or discriminative manner. We will train ourselves to look at everything with openness and the insight of interbeing in order to transform dogmatism and violence in ourselves and the world.
2
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
edited August 2021
After discussing this with a few people and considering it for a while I'm coming back on what I wrote in my original post, to a more nuanced view. What Sam Harris wrote about the perennial philosophy is persuasive but it's like when you take a layered view, initially things are similar, then things are not similar, but when you really go far things become similar again. So I think it's more true to say that the religions are similar than they are not.
And... my heart tells me in dialogue with friends of other religions that the similarities are more important than the differences. It helps to have a bridge to them, to come together in sharing and to not focus on what sets us apart.
0
Fosdickin its eye are mirrored far off mountainsAlaska, USAVeteran
Perhaps it could be said that all religions - the practitioners of those religions - are indeed seeking one thing - a mind that is balanced and at peace.... the devil is in the details.
2
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
edited August 2021
I’ve come across a particularly tricky case to fit into the perennial philosophy. A friend of mine follows this American New Age channeler who calls herself E’Asha Ashayana, who has come up with a kind of science fiction backstory involving ascension, stargates, black hole planets, good and bad extraterrestrials and a lot of semi-scientific talk. You can read about it here. So I’ve asked my friend what she actually does, what her practice is, to which the answer was “prayers, journeys, singing and working with codes”.
Now I gather that one of the eventual goals that you have in this system is to become incarnated as a star. Which is somewhat far removed from the usual spiritual goals of a cozy spot in heaven. It’s left me at a bit of a loss about where the good sides are of this religion, how does this eventually lead up the mountain? It seems a bit of an ego and power trip.
Did not think this needed to be said, but perennialism doesn't say that every religion, or everything within those religions, are equally true and equally good. The underlying idea is that there is a universal truth or reality, humans tend to seek out that truth, and that truth underlies the foundation of most spiritual traditions in some shape or form. That's not to say that every spiritual idea is equally valid or reflective of the truth by nature of simply being 'spiritual.' We also need to investigate and practice discernment when judging what within a particular spirituality is valuable, skillful, and accords with truth.
2
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
edited August 2021
Well yes, I agree, and I had gotten to that point, indeed. But for tne sake of this friend I’m trying to find some good points in her spirituality. I don’t want to hurt her feelings by saying it’s all a load of delusion and not likely to lead her up the mountain at all.
But I have read some diaries of this channeler woman’s practices, and I’m finding it hard to be kind, especially when she has gone to such lengths to create a deep backstory which is all shadows and illusion.
It should be a classic case of “a bad teacher is better than no teacher at all” but I’m honestly beginning to think this stuff is worse than Scientology, and that is saying something.
I agree with not trying to hurt your friend's feelings and attack something they're interested in, because that will likely just alienate them. At the same time, there are ways to express concern without being condescending or cruel. Not every road goes up the proverbial mountain. Some go to other places, often meandering to nowhere in particular; while some lead to places that are actually dangerous. And if you believe this to be the latter, there's no need or reason to fit it into perennial philosophy and every reason to express your genuine concern.
2
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
I may try to put that into words when the time is right, it’s a delicate matter because she is both very defensive about it and very committed. She also has a number of other friends who are into this material and I think she is afraid she will lose them if she’s anything other than 100% in.
I’ve just gotten her to share some of this material for the first time, so I’ve gotten a peek under the tarpaulin, but she’s firmly in denial about what this actually is.
I tried reading some of it, but just couldn't. It's really bad, boarding on nonsense, and geared towards selling books and workshops and I hope you can eventually point your friend in a better direction. I don't think that particular road leads anywhere worth going.
@Kerome what is a friend and what a deluded friend seeker? People are easily manipulated by their need for company, guidance, belonging, stimulation, excitement, feelings of exclusive or unique access.
For example you still feel that 0-sho-w (aka Bhagwan the Buddha Fielded) the well known base camp sexy boy was a mountain top. You are deluded.
So perhaps you can use this delusion to wake others or dream of [insert fantasy of choice]?
Truth requires integrity and choices to face ourselves in the reality open to us …
1
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
edited August 2021
@Jason said:
I tried reading some of it, but just couldn't. It's really bad, boarding on nonsense, and geared towards selling books and workshops and I hope you can eventually point your friend in a better direction. I don't think that particular road leads anywhere worth going.
Thanks for the effort @Jason it’s appreciated. I agree if it’s a road up the mountain at all, it gets stuck in the very low foothills. The kind of semi-sciency language that’s used intentionally obfuscates the material, and makes some people think there is something there when there is in fact very little of any value.
Now my friend does do a little Buddhism on the side as well, she has some books by Lama Surya Das, so I may leave the E’Asha woman aside and instead try to encourage her to go further along the Buddhist path.
But as a concrete example of where the perennial philosophy has limits this is not bad. It clearly shows that a prospective religion can provide so many delusions that any benefit derived from the minimal amount of prayer that you do is totally overwhelmed.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
@lobster said:
For example you still feel that 0-sho-w (aka Bhagwan the Buddha Fielded) the well known base camp sexy boy was a mountain top. You are deluded.
Friend @lobster, how can I explain? Osho had his flaws, but he pointed people to meditation, he talked about many other religions in such a way as to inspire, he talked about the problems of conditioning and how society makes use of people. His personal presence was clean like the full moon, a wonderful breath of love and clarity.
As a path up the mountain Osho was pretty good…
Truth requires integrity and choices to face ourselves in the reality open to us …
Truth certainly requires a commitment to personal honesty. In the end other people cannot truly be persuaded, they can only be shown the truth when they are receptive to it. But I’m afraid trying to show my friend the truth will only create a rift between us, she said the other day to me, “for me this material and these teachings define what I am”.
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
It is slightly similar in that it is a sort of UFO religion on the fringes of the New Age. There aren’t that many people who follow it, if you look at the number of views of the few video’s on youtube. I’m just glad they are geographically dispersed and unlikely to engage in mass suicide.
@Kerome said:
Now my friend does do a little Buddhism on the side as well, she has some books by Lama Surya Das, so I may leave the E’Asha woman aside and instead try to encourage her to go further along the Buddhist path.
I think that would be the best approach.
1
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
Yes, on further consideration I came to the conclusion that a world view like this is like a conceptual layer colouring one's vision of the planet and its inhabitants. It's a bit akin to what happens with language, that what you learn influences what you see. Once you learn a particular tree is an oak, you tend to see "oak" and not the beautiful manifold of individual leaves and branches.
Many real spiritual teachers teach that these layers are delusional, that they stop you from seeing what's really there and that one should make an effort to remove them. So a religion which encourages you to add another layer (or two) is actually rather a menace, it is a form of conditioning which is quite distorting.
For now, I've thanked her for sharing it with me but told her it isn't a good fit for me, and I'd rather not examine it further.
I only had to read to #2, about Rajneesh, to realise how suspect such lists are when written from the rightwing cultural viewpoint. Bhagwan had use of the 93 rolls royces mainly to point out to other people how crazy their expectations were, how focused our culture is on having, while his rolls royces were owned by the Rajneesh Rolls Royce Foundation, and they were all sold and the money and a small profit returned to the original investors when Bhagwan left the United States.
Anyway....
0
federicaSeeker of the clear blue sky...Its better to remain silent and be thought a fool, than to speak out and remove all doubtModerator
Oh well that's ok then. 🙄
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
edited August 2021
@Kerome said:
After discussing this with a few people and considering it for a while I'm coming back on what I wrote in my original post, to a more nuanced view. What Sam Harris wrote about the perennial philosophy is persuasive but it's like when you take a layered view, initially things are similar, then things are not similar, but when you really go far things become similar again. So I think it's more true to say that the religions are similar than they are not.
And... my heart tells me in dialogue with friends of other religions that the similarities are more important than the differences. It helps to have a bridge to them, to come together in sharing and to not focus on what sets us apart.
Especially on a Sunday morning this comes back to me, when I just look around the television channels and enjoy various religious programmes... there's various Christian programmes on Sunday morning tv here, of a few different denominations. Also some non-denominational faith based programmes such as I Miss You, where the interviewers go with people to the graveyards and visit the ones they have lost.
When I watch little fragments of these things I am reminded we all come from a common source, that life is ultimately all one, and that these religious streams also express that. I guess perennialism suits me after all.
I've found it difficult to put my spiritual/religious beliefs into words, often relying on the words of others to articulate them. Recently, for example, I've been delving into Spinoza's Ethics (especially through the Seekers of Unity series), and I find myself very drawn towards this work, as many others before me have been.
I'd definitely say that I'm a believer in panentheism, i.e., the idea that what we call God, the One, Truth, Nature, Substance, Universe, Dhamma, Brahman, etc. and the world are interrelated and that, ultimately, they are of the same substance. What we perceive to be distinctions between things like mind and body, for instance, are merely distinctions between modes, attributes, or appearances of phenomena that arise and cease through the complex causality that our individual minds conceptually perceive. We see the movement of the parts but not the whole. But just as the individual waves of the ocean — due to things like the movements of winds and currents and the gravitational pull of the moon — appear to be unique and isolated phenomena distinct from each other and the world of the ocean they inhabit, they are in reality all of the same substance, i.e., water, out which they arise from, return to, and are but modes of being of. In much the same way, our individual selves appear to be unique and isolated phenomena distinct from each other and the world we inhabit. And while the water itself can be said to have inherent existence, needing nothing else to exist or be conceived, the modes or properties of the waves cannot and need the substance of water to exist and be perceived.
From the perspective of the human mind, the world is one thing and we are another, and so too is 'God' or that which transcends it all. We are in the world, and ultimate reality lies outside even that. However, in truth, we are more like the waves of the ocean, passively unaware of our essence and the substance that makes our modes of being possible, an essence which is empty of inherent existence yet the same essence as the world as well as that which both lies beyond it and underlies it (or maybe better, contains it all). From the Buddhist POV, I think this idea is mirrored in Nagarjuna's line, "Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana. Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara" (Verses from the Center, 25:19). Samsara represents the world and nirvana represents that which transcends the world. And while from our human POV there are noticeable distinctions between samsara and nirvana, conditioned and unconditioned, world and God, mind and body, us and others, or anything else, from the ultimate POV there's not the slightest distinction between them; the distinctions are illusory.
Interestingly enough, Buddhism also defines 'the world' or 'the all' in terms of our individual, sensory experience of it, i.e., "the eye and forms, ear and sounds, nose and aromas, tongue and flavors, body and tactile sensations, intellect and ideas" (SN 35.23). What we know is constrained in many ways by the nature of the human mind and where/how consciousness "lands and grows" due to where "there is passion, delight, and craving for the nutriment of consciousness" (SN 12.64). But these sensory experiences locked into the apprehension of the modes of expression, being, or appearance of phenomena are illusory and comparable to a glob of foam floating down the Ganges, a bubble, a mirage, a hollow banana tree, a magic trick—i.e., empty and void (SN 22.95). It's as if our minds are conditioned to grasp the attributes of the waves, whose individual existence are inconstant, imperfect, unsatisfactory, empty and void because they do not exist from their own side, and not the substance they are an attribute or mode of. Nevertheless, understanding the causality of the conditioned world can act as a cause for the human mind's understanding of the reality of things as they are, thereby touching the deathless element by ceasing the mental processes of craving and clinging and 'I-making and my-making.' Clinging to the waves is unsatisfactory and stressful; letting go of the clinging to the waves 'unbinds' one and opens them up to experiencing the waterness on the waves.
The true reality, on the other hand, is one that can be said to be unborn, unmade, unconditioned, existing from its own side, stable, eternal. Spinoza reasons that this reality is analogous to God or substance, "that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception" (Ethics, I, Def. III). In Buddhism, this is akin to nirvana, the "unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated" (Ud 8:3). This reality or substance or whatever you want to call it is akin to the primordial water that's modified into all the various waves the we conceive of and that form the basis for our subject-object dualism and the illusion that we are one wave distinct from all the others and the ocean we all inhabit, when in fact everything that we see, hear, taste, touch, feel, and cognize is of the same substance or reality that comprises what sees, hears, tastes, touches, feels, and cognizes. Its true essence is oneness, while its attributes or expressions are infinite. And where the Buddha demonstrates that the human can cognize nirvana, the unconditioned, the deathless element, etc. making the mind the mind of enlightenment characterized by 'consciousness without feature,' Spinoza goes even further to argue that "the human mind is part of the infinite intellect of God; thus when we say, that the human mind perceives this or that, we make the assertion, that God has this or that idea, not in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he is displayed through the nature of the human mind, or in so far as he constitutes the essence of the human mind; and when we say that God has this or that idea, not only in so far as he constitutes the essence of the human mind, but also in so far as he, simultaneously with the human mind, has the further idea of another thing, we assert that the human mind perceives a thing in part or inadequately" (Ethics, II, Prop XI, Corollary).
(I realize the above analogy breaks down in the sense that the wind and gravity which represent the causal conditions that shape the waves are not themselves water, as well as the fact that the element of water is comprised of atoms that in turn are further divided, while these laws of nature and all the particles within it are but part of nature itself, whose reality is singular, self-contained, one infinite substance. But I think it conveys the general idea clearly enough, especially if we compare the wind to the passions of the mind, which when stilled give rise to peace and end the wave's rounds of rebirth.)
That leads me to also say that I'm a perennialist in the sense that I strongly believe this reality — whether we call it God, the One, Truth, Nature, Substance, Universe, Dhamma, Brahman, etc. — is a unity that paradoxically contains or is capable of infinite modes of expression, being, or appearance. And I see in each spiritual tradition a sincere search for and genuine understanding of this unity through a combination of imagination, reason, and intuition, with the first two arising from our dualistic awareness, and the latter achieved through nondual consciousness. The human mind is the experience of samsara; the mind of God is the experience of nirvana. And they are one. We are ultimately one with all of the things we seek to know, understand, and love.
Our salvation or enlightenment is achieved in overcoming our ignorance of reality by releasing our mind's grasping of the appearances and letting go of our self-identity view, thereby opening ourselves up to an intellectual understanding and/or love of God, the One, Truth, Nature, Substance, Universe, Dhamma, Brahman, etc. and realizing our own nature, or as Ruksana put it in The Circle, "real recognizing real." In Buddhism, one is encouraged to develop selflessness in regards to the aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications, and sensory consciousness in order to achieve this realization. In Christianity and Islam, one is encouraged to die to yourself or 'die before you die.' Another method involves love, effectively doing the same thing. In Buddhism, for instance, metta or loving-kindness can also be salvific. And this method seems even more dominant in Christianity. Jesus says to love God and love others as ourselves (Mt 22:37-39). Loving others as ourselves is also loving ourselves. And John goes further, saying God is love (John 4:7-8), which we can see as the positive form of selflessness. So ultimately we are left with God loving God, which in reality is just the act of loving itself—an identical, loving or unbound state of consciousness, free from misperceptions and passions and sense of self.
In Christianity, I see the inheritor of the Greek Mystery cults and Platonic philosophy that, in the ancient world, used both ecstatic and rational means to point practitioners towards the One, God, the Form of the Good, Logos. And in Jesus, I see a person who had such mystical experiences and intuitive realizations, seeing himself in God and God in himself, unifying his individual mode of being with the substance underlying it, reflecting and pointing towards this constant and eternal state of consciousness. And just as John states that love is God and one who does not love does not know God, Spinoza states that, "The intellectual love of the mind towards God is that very love of God whereby God loves himself, not in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he can be explained through the essence of the human mind regarded under the form of eternity; in other words, the intellectual love of the mind towards God is part of the infinite love wherewith God loves himself" (Ethics, V, Prop XXXVI).
There was a time when I was the biggest Sam Harris fanboy, believing he was the champion of reason against dogma and superstition.
But that was before I grew up, learnt about the world and realised that he was basically just swallowing neo-conservative dogma, painting the West as the saviours of civilisation and the Middle East as savages and barbarians. He even agrees with the characterisation of the United States as a "benevolent giant"...!
Harris discounts the role of Western foreign policy in creating Islamic terrorism solely because of the argument that if the same Western violence had happened to the Jains, they would've responded with pacifism and non-violence. Yet he says this in the same book where he argues against pacifism and non-violence in response to Islam, makes an argument for torturing suspected Muslim terrorists, and even outlines a scenario where a nuclear first-strike on the Middle East might be justifiable.
It's all this sort of thinking that is now inspiring hate speech and violence towards Muslims in Western countries (like the Christchurch mosque attack here in NZ). Which then leads to radical groups like ISIS calling for retaliation, which further promotes the stereotype of Muslims as terrorists, which promotes more violence against Muslims, and around and around we go.
This is not "reason," it is madness. I'll take the perennial philosophy over this any day.
5
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
The Madhyamaka school of Indian thought taught by Nagarjuna and his student Chandrakirti, that the Tibetan Gelug school follow disagrees with your general point of view on the topic.
I can't do it any justice but I think the crux of it is that there are two truths, that of the waves (conventional) and that of the water (ultimate), so far pretty similar. I think the disagreement comes regarding their relationship and their nature. It isn't so much that the waves arise from the fundamental reality of water, its that both are interdependent and ultimately empty. The emptiness of emptiness being the main distinction.
Other Tibetan schools disagree with them and much of the argument may come down to philosophy vs experience.
My main point in bringing it up though is that if you're making an effort to understand something it can be useful to get a contrary point of view in order to bounce your own ideas off of and test them to some degree.
I don't think Spinoza would disagree that the wave and water, world and God, conventional and ultimate, or however you label these 2 truth are interdependent. I'm pretty sure that I used the term interrelated in referring to them. And I also realize that most will likely disagree with how I'm trying to connect all these ideas. I'm mainly trying to figure out if it makes sense as I have an idea based on an experience that I'm trying to put into words but I still don't think I'm explaining it well and I figured tbis thread would work as it's partially about perennialism.
In addition, I do think there are versions of this that accord well with traditional Buddhist concepts and teachings. For example, from the western philosophical POV, what we call mind and matter may ultimately be groups or structures of events arising from a substance that's neither mental nor material, but in between the two a la neutral monism. As far as this might apply to Buddhism, the idea is that neither mind nor matter has any inherent reality or substance, which in turn means that neither has an intrinsic locality, i.e., they can't be viewed in terms of extended or non-extended, physical or non-physical, finite or infinite, existing non-existing, etc. I see a great deal of similarity between the Buddha and Hume in this regard. Both rejected the idea of mental substance in favour of what Hume called association of ideas and bundle of perceptions, and what the Buddha called heaps (khandha). As Bertrand Russell summerizes Hume's empiricism, "Ideas of unperceived things or occurrences can always be defined in terms of perceived things or occurrences, and therefore, by substituting the definition for the term defined, we can always state that we know empirically without introducing any unperceived things or occurrences." Thus, "all psychological knowledge can be stated without introducing the 'Self'. Further, the 'Self', as defined can be nothing but a bundle of perceptions, not a new simple 'thing'" (History of Western Philosophy, 603). This, I think, is consistent with most Buddhist schools' views of emptiness.
1
personDon't believe everything you thinkThe liminal spaceVeteran
@Jason said:
I see a great deal of similarity between the Buddha and Hume in this regard. Both rejected the idea of mental substance in favour of what Hume called association of ideas and bundle of perceptions, and what the Buddha called heaps (khandha). views of emptiness.
Ah ha! Defining the indefinable. Welcome to the impossible.
Nagarjuna's line, "Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana. Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara" (Verses from the Center, 25:19).
I knew it! However only the Nirvanic are distinguished.
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
Indeed @Jason thanks a lot for your thoughts on the perennial philosophy. I have looked up the seekers of unity on YouTube, very inspiring.
Some things that seem to be becoming clear to me are about the importance of unity of mind and of purpose on a personal level. The perennial philosophy is a cornerstone of unity in the spiritual mind, and deserves respect and careful study with heart and soul. It is a question of feeling and intuition, whether you make it a central tenet or not.
I think as time passes and you learn more about the worlds religions you become more vulnerable to seeing it all as a puzzle to be inter connected and “solved”, and this is not the path that I want to take. I’ve come around to seeing the perennial philosophy as key, as a central framework through which other religions can be approached.
But I think it is important to approach these other religions through the heart. See what about it you love, what speaks to you, not like a mental puzzle of what corresponds to what.
I don't see it as a puzzle so much as you start to see how others are heading in the same direction from other places, so their directions aren't the same as yours but you begin to realize that they're trying to get to the same place and some of the roads you take intersect.
Here's the final version of my thoughts for anyone interested:
I've found it difficult to put my spiritual/religious beliefs into words, often relying on the words of others to articulate them. Recently, for example, I've been delving into Spinoza's Ethics (especially through the Seekers of Unity series), and I find myself very drawn towards this work, as many others before me have been.
I'd definitely say that I'm a believer in panentheism, i.e., the idea that what we call God, the One, Truth, Nature, Substance, Universe, Dhamma, Brahman, etc. and the world are interrelated and that, ultimately, they are of the same substance. What we perceive to be distinctions between things like mind and body, for instance, are merely distinctions between modes, attributes, or appearances of phenomena that arise and cease through the complex causality that our individual minds conceptually perceive. We see the movement of the parts but not the stillness of the whole. But just as the individual waves of the ocean — due to things like the movements of winds and currents and the gravitational pull of the moon — appear to be unique and isolated phenomena distinct from each other and the world of the ocean they inhabit, they are in reality all of the same substance, i.e., water, out which they arise from, return to, and are but modes of being of. In much the same way, our individual selves appear to be unique and isolated phenomena distinct from each other and the world we inhabit. And while the water itself can be said to have inherent existence, needing nothing else to exist or be conceived, the modes or properties of the waves cannot and need the substance of water to exist and be perceived.
From the perspective of the human mind, the world appears as one thing and we as another, and so too does 'God' or that which transcends it all. We are in the world, and ultimate reality lies outside even that. This ultimate reality or what we call God is something that seems alien to us and beyond our grasp. However, in truth, we are more like the waves of the ocean, passively unaware of our essence and the substance that makes our modes of being possible, an essence which is empty of inherent existence yet the same essence as the world as well as that which both lies beyond it and underlies it, or maybe better, contains it all. From the Buddhist POV, I think this idea is mirrored in Nagarjuna's line, "Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana. Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara" (Verses from the Center, 25:19). Samsara represents the world and nirvana represents that which transcends the world and lies outside of ordinary human experience. And while from our human POV there are noticeable distinctions between samsara and nirvana, conditioned and unconditioned, world and God, mind and body, us and others, or anything else we can differentiate, from the ultimate POV there's not the slightest distinction between them; the distinctions are illusory.
Interestingly enough, Buddhism also defines 'the world' or 'the all' in terms of our individual, sensory experience of it, i.e., "the eye and forms, ear and sounds, nose and aromas, tongue and flavors, body and tactile sensations, intellect and ideas" (SN 35.23). What we know is constrained in many ways by the nature of the human mind and where/how consciousness 'lands and grows' due to where "there is passion, delight, and craving for the nutriment of consciousness" (SN 12.64). But these sensory experiences locked into the apprehension of the modes of expression, being, or appearance of phenomena are illusory and comparable to a glob of foam floating down the Ganges, a bubble, a mirage, a hollow banana tree, a magic trick—i.e., empty and void (SN 22.95). It's as if our minds are conditioned to grasp the attributes of the waves, whose individual existence are inconstant, imperfect, unsatisfactory, empty and void because they do not exist from their own side, and not the substance they are an attribute or mode of. Nevertheless, understanding the causality of the conditioned world can act as a cause for the human mind's understanding of the reality of things as they are, abusing us of our notions of separateness and inherent selfness, thereby touching the deathless element through ceasing the mental processes of craving and clinging and 'I-making and my-making.' Clinging to our identity as an independent wave is ultimately unsatisfactory and stressful because it traps us within the causal modality of arising and ceasing, birth and death; letting go of that clinging 'unbinds' one and opens them up to experiencing the waterness of the waves.
The true reality, on the other hand, is one that can be said to be unborn, unmade, unconditioned, existing from its own side, stable, eternal. Spinoza reasons that this reality is analogous to God or substance, "that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception" (Ethics, I, Def. III). In Buddhism, this is somewhat comparable to nirvana, the "unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated" (Ud 8:3). This reality or substance or whatever you want to call it is akin to the primordial water that's modified into all the various waves the we conceive of and that form the basis for our subject-object dualism and the illusion that we are one wave distinct from all the others and the ocean we all inhabit, when in fact everything that we see, hear, taste, touch, feel, and cognize is of the same substance or reality that comprises what sees, hears, tastes, touches, feels, and cognizes. Its true essence is eternal oneness, while its attributes or expressions are infinite.
The Buddha demonstrates that through the practice of virtue, concentration, and discernment, the human mind can cognize nirvana, the unconditioned, the deathless element, etc. making the mind into the mind of enlightenment characterized by 'consciousness without feature.' Spinoza, on the other hand, argues that "the human mind is part of the infinite intellect of God; thus when we say, that the human mind perceives this or that, we make the assertion, that God has this or that idea, not in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he is displayed through the nature of the human mind, or in so far as he constitutes the essence of the human mind; and when we say that God has this or that idea, not only in so far as he constitutes the essence of the human mind, but also in so far as he, simultaneously with the human mind, has the further idea of another thing, we assert that the human mind perceives a thing in part or inadequately" (Ethics, II, Prop XI, Corollary) and that "the clear and distinct ideas of the mind are as necessarily true as the ideas of God" (Ethics, II, Prop. XLIII), suggesting a rational means of achieving the same type of knowledge: "The knowledge of the eternal and infinite essence of God which every idea involves is adequate and perfect. The human mind has an adequate knowledge of the eternal and infinite essence of God" (Ethics, II, Prop. XLVI&XLVII).
I realize that the analogy of waves and water breaks down in the sense that the wind and gravity which represent the causal conditions that shape the waves aren't themselves water, as well as the fact that the element of water is comprised of atoms that in turn are further divided, while these laws of nature and all the particles within it are but part of nature itself, whose reality is said to be singular, self-contained, one infinite substance. But I think it conveys the general idea clearly enough, especially if we compare the wind on the analogy to the passions of the mind fuelled by ignorance and greed, hatred, and delusion churning the water of the ocean into waves, and which when stilled give rise to an experience of peace and an ending to the wave's rounds of rebirth.
That leads me to also say that I'm a perennialist in the sense that I strongly believe this reality — whether we call it God, the One, Truth, Nature, Substance, Universe, Dhamma, Brahman, etc. — is a unity that paradoxically contains or is capable of infinite modes of expression, being, or appearance. And I see in each spiritual tradition a sincere search for and genuine understanding of this unity through a combination of imagination, reason, and intuition, with the first two arising from our dualistic awareness, and the latter achieved through nondual consciousness. The human mind, as a dependently arisen product of causes and conditions, is the experience of samsara; the mind of God is the experience of nirvana (the deathless element often alluded to in Buddhism = Spinoza' one eternal substance). And they are one. We are ultimately one with all of the things we seek to know, understand, and love. The human mind, in so far as it is characterized by its particular mode of being, much like the temporal wave in the ocean, is finite and limited, and our ignorance of things are as they are blocks the light of this understanding from illuminating our mind. But the human mind, in so far as it shares its substance with God, strives to understand itself and seek truth in its existence.
Our salvation or enlightenment is achieved through the process of overcoming our ignorance of reality by releasing our mind's grasping of the appearances and letting go of our self-identity view, thereby opening ourselves up to an intellectual understanding and/or love of God, the One, Truth, Nature, Substance, Universe, Dhamma, Brahman, etc. and realizing our own nature, or as Ruksana put it in The Circle, "real recognizing real." In Buddhism, one is encouraged to develop selflessness in regards to the aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications, and sensory consciousness in order to achieve this realization. In Christianity and Islam, one is encouraged to die to yourself or 'die before you die.' Another method involves love, effectively doing the same thing. In Buddhism, for instance, metta or loving-kindness can also be salvific. And this method seems even more predominant in Christianity. Jesus says to love God and love others as ourselves (Mt 22:37-39). And we are all interconnected, so loving others as ourselves is also loving ourselves. And John goes even further, saying God is love, and it's that act of unconditional love which becomes the positive form of selflessness that equally removes the mental passions and clinging that cloud our vision and prevent us from truly seeing things as they are. So ultimately we're left with God loving God, which in reality is just the act of loving itself—a singular, loving or unbound state of consciousness free from misperceptions and passions and sense of self.
While I've spent a lot more time with Buddhism, I've also found myself drawn strongly towards Christianity in recent years. In Christianity, I see the inheritor of the Greek Mystery cults and Platonic philosophy that, in the ancient world, used both ecstatic and rational means to point practitioners towards God, the One, the Form of the Good, Logos. And in Jesus, I see a person who had such mystical experiences and intuitive realizations, seeing himself in God and God in himself, unifying his individual mode of being with the substance underlying it, reflecting and pointing towards this constant and eternal state of consciousness. And just as John states that God is love and whoever is without love doesn't know God (John 4:7-8), Spinoza states that, "The intellectual love of the mind towards God is that very love of God whereby God loves himself, not in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he can be explained through the essence of the human mind regarded under the form of eternity; in other words, the intellectual love of the mind towards God is part of the infinite love wherewith God loves himself" (Ethics, V, Prop XXXVI).
What I find eminently important in all of this, however, is how each of these traditions and ways of talking about experience and reality agree on the reality and power of interconnectedness. Whether in terms of causality (such as in the focus of actions and dependent co-arising in Buddhism) or the oneness of reality (such as in the relational nature of the trinity), each of these approaches make interconnectedness a centerpiece. As Clare Carlisle puts it in an article for the Guardian: "Spinoza's world view brings to the fore two features of life: dependence and connectedness. Each wave is dependent on the sea, and because it is part of the sea it is connected to every other wave. The movements of one wave will influence all the rest. Likewise, each being is dependent on God, and as a part of God it is connected to every other being. As we move about and act in the world, we affect others, and we are in turn affected by everything we come into contact with." And this understanding not only gives us insight into the nature of our world, but in how to live a life characterized by virtue, freedom, and happiness through our knowledge of causality and, ultimately, love of God. Because the more still we, as waves, can make ourselves, the closer we are able to come to experiencing our own waterness.
@DairyLama said:
I'm not a fan of perennialism because it often involves misrepresenting individual traditions in order to make them sound similar. And trying to compare the Abrahamic and Dharmic traditions is fraught with difficulty, IMO, because the underlying assumptions are quite different.
So I think it is better to acknowledge and respect the differences.
I am completely agree with you. Rene Guenon, Schuon and Coomaraswamy misinterpreted dharmic religions to prove that all the religions actually the same and came from Manu the lord of the universe. Do you imagine Guenon claimed that there is not reincarnation in Sanatan Dharma/ Hinduism.
Yes, I'm a Buddhist and not the fan of perennialism even sufism. (I'm from Turkey and I have a sufi background)
0
JeroenLuminous beings are we, not this crude matterNetherlandsVeteran
Hmmm. Spinoza’s God as ‘substance’ is somewhat opaque to me. It makes more sense to me to say that the universe is God, there is no difference.
You should really just read Ethics. It's essentially the logical framework of mystical experiences. I'm surprised I didn't get into Spinoza much earlier.
And for the record, Spinoza uses God and Nature interchangeable, which is why Einstein consider himself a Spinozist and a believer in the God of Spinoza.
Also the Seeker of Unity series is great, and there's some great gems in the episode The Case for Spinoza's Mysticism, especially around the 30min mark that connects the dots between his ideas and things found in Buddhism and Christian contemplativism.
Comments
I'd also note that there's nothing wrong with staying in one tradition and getting the most out of it, as well as engaging them from their own side. If I'm talking about Buddhism from the Buddhist POV, for example, I use the language of the suttas, arahants, and Buddhist masters. If I'm talking about Christianity, I use the language of the Bible, saints, and Christians masters. But I also like to talk about them together and in a more syncretistic way when possible in order to break down sectarian barriers to dialogue and understanding.
I think (but am not entirely sure) the difference is that with syncretism two or more schools of thought blend to sort of make one school out of all. Taoism and Buddhism blending to create Zen is a good example I think. With
perennialism there is a common thread running through all schools implied. The Golden Rule comes to mind. I think the Dalai Lama makes a good point in that all beings would choose to be happy and useful rather than the alternatives.
Thay is not really above claiming he has the correct view over others (Heart Sutra
https://plumvillage.org/about/thich-nhat-hanh/letters/thich-nhat-hanh-new-heart-sutra-translation/) but he explains exactly why.
It is the same with the belief in "nothing" and the usage of dukkha as a dharma seal in The Heart of the Buddha's Teachings. He wants his students to understand how those differences are key but beyond that, he advocates a non-attachment to views as a deep practice and teaching in itself.
After discussing this with a few people and considering it for a while I'm coming back on what I wrote in my original post, to a more nuanced view. What Sam Harris wrote about the perennial philosophy is persuasive but it's like when you take a layered view, initially things are similar, then things are not similar, but when you really go far things become similar again. So I think it's more true to say that the religions are similar than they are not.
And... my heart tells me in dialogue with friends of other religions that the similarities are more important than the differences. It helps to have a bridge to them, to come together in sharing and to not focus on what sets us apart.
Perhaps it could be said that all religions - the practitioners of those religions - are indeed seeking one thing - a mind that is balanced and at peace.... the devil is in the details.
I’ve come across a particularly tricky case to fit into the perennial philosophy. A friend of mine follows this American New Age channeler who calls herself E’Asha Ashayana, who has come up with a kind of science fiction backstory involving ascension, stargates, black hole planets, good and bad extraterrestrials and a lot of semi-scientific talk. You can read about it here. So I’ve asked my friend what she actually does, what her practice is, to which the answer was “prayers, journeys, singing and working with codes”.
Now I gather that one of the eventual goals that you have in this system is to become incarnated as a star. Which is somewhat far removed from the usual spiritual goals of a cozy spot in heaven. It’s left me at a bit of a loss about where the good sides are of this religion, how does this eventually lead up the mountain? It seems a bit of an ego and power trip.
Did not think this needed to be said, but perennialism doesn't say that every religion, or everything within those religions, are equally true and equally good. The underlying idea is that there is a universal truth or reality, humans tend to seek out that truth, and that truth underlies the foundation of most spiritual traditions in some shape or form. That's not to say that every spiritual idea is equally valid or reflective of the truth by nature of simply being 'spiritual.' We also need to investigate and practice discernment when judging what within a particular spirituality is valuable, skillful, and accords with truth.
Well yes, I agree, and I had gotten to that point, indeed. But for tne sake of this friend I’m trying to find some good points in her spirituality. I don’t want to hurt her feelings by saying it’s all a load of delusion and not likely to lead her up the mountain at all.
But I have read some diaries of this channeler woman’s practices, and I’m finding it hard to be kind, especially when she has gone to such lengths to create a deep backstory which is all shadows and illusion.
It should be a classic case of “a bad teacher is better than no teacher at all” but I’m honestly beginning to think this stuff is worse than Scientology, and that is saying something.
I agree with not trying to hurt your friend's feelings and attack something they're interested in, because that will likely just alienate them. At the same time, there are ways to express concern without being condescending or cruel. Not every road goes up the proverbial mountain. Some go to other places, often meandering to nowhere in particular; while some lead to places that are actually dangerous. And if you believe this to be the latter, there's no need or reason to fit it into perennial philosophy and every reason to express your genuine concern.
I may try to put that into words when the time is right, it’s a delicate matter because she is both very defensive about it and very committed. She also has a number of other friends who are into this material and I think she is afraid she will lose them if she’s anything other than 100% in.
I’ve just gotten her to share some of this material for the first time, so I’ve gotten a peek under the tarpaulin, but she’s firmly in denial about what this actually is.
I tried reading some of it, but just couldn't. It's really bad, boarding on nonsense, and geared towards selling books and workshops and I hope you can eventually point your friend in a better direction. I don't think that particular road leads anywhere worth going.
It reminds me of Heavens Gate at a glance.
@Kerome what is a friend and what a deluded friend seeker? People are easily manipulated by their need for company, guidance, belonging, stimulation, excitement, feelings of exclusive or unique access.
For example you still feel that 0-sho-w (aka Bhagwan the Buddha Fielded) the well known base camp sexy boy was a mountain top. You are deluded.
So perhaps you can use this delusion to wake others or dream of [insert fantasy of choice]?
Truth requires integrity and choices to face ourselves in the reality open to us …
Thanks for the effort @Jason it’s appreciated. I agree if it’s a road up the mountain at all, it gets stuck in the very low foothills. The kind of semi-sciency language that’s used intentionally obfuscates the material, and makes some people think there is something there when there is in fact very little of any value.
Now my friend does do a little Buddhism on the side as well, she has some books by Lama Surya Das, so I may leave the E’Asha woman aside and instead try to encourage her to go further along the Buddhist path.
But as a concrete example of where the perennial philosophy has limits this is not bad. It clearly shows that a prospective religion can provide so many delusions that any benefit derived from the minimal amount of prayer that you do is totally overwhelmed.
Friend @lobster, how can I explain? Osho had his flaws, but he pointed people to meditation, he talked about many other religions in such a way as to inspire, he talked about the problems of conditioning and how society makes use of people. His personal presence was clean like the full moon, a wonderful breath of love and clarity.
As a path up the mountain Osho was pretty good…
Truth certainly requires a commitment to personal honesty. In the end other people cannot truly be persuaded, they can only be shown the truth when they are receptive to it. But I’m afraid trying to show my friend the truth will only create a rift between us, she said the other day to me, “for me this material and these teachings define what I am”.
It is slightly similar in that it is a sort of UFO religion on the fringes of the New Age. There aren’t that many people who follow it, if you look at the number of views of the few video’s on youtube. I’m just glad they are geographically dispersed and unlikely to engage in mass suicide.
I think that would be the best approach.
Yes, on further consideration I came to the conclusion that a world view like this is like a conceptual layer colouring one's vision of the planet and its inhabitants. It's a bit akin to what happens with language, that what you learn influences what you see. Once you learn a particular tree is an oak, you tend to see "oak" and not the beautiful manifold of individual leaves and branches.
Many real spiritual teachers teach that these layers are delusional, that they stop you from seeing what's really there and that one should make an effort to remove them. So a religion which encourages you to add another layer (or two) is actually rather a menace, it is a form of conditioning which is quite distorting.
For now, I've thanked her for sharing it with me but told her it isn't a good fit for me, and I'd rather not examine it further.
This might be helpful
https://people.howstuffworks.com/10-infamous-cults.htm
I only had to read to #2, about Rajneesh, to realise how suspect such lists are when written from the rightwing cultural viewpoint. Bhagwan had use of the 93 rolls royces mainly to point out to other people how crazy their expectations were, how focused our culture is on having, while his rolls royces were owned by the Rajneesh Rolls Royce Foundation, and they were all sold and the money and a small profit returned to the original investors when Bhagwan left the United States.
Anyway....
Oh well that's ok then. 🙄
Especially on a Sunday morning this comes back to me, when I just look around the television channels and enjoy various religious programmes... there's various Christian programmes on Sunday morning tv here, of a few different denominations. Also some non-denominational faith based programmes such as I Miss You, where the interviewers go with people to the graveyards and visit the ones they have lost.
When I watch little fragments of these things I am reminded we all come from a common source, that life is ultimately all one, and that these religious streams also express that. I guess perennialism suits me after all.
Does this make any sense?
I've found it difficult to put my spiritual/religious beliefs into words, often relying on the words of others to articulate them. Recently, for example, I've been delving into Spinoza's Ethics (especially through the Seekers of Unity series), and I find myself very drawn towards this work, as many others before me have been.
I'd definitely say that I'm a believer in panentheism, i.e., the idea that what we call God, the One, Truth, Nature, Substance, Universe, Dhamma, Brahman, etc. and the world are interrelated and that, ultimately, they are of the same substance. What we perceive to be distinctions between things like mind and body, for instance, are merely distinctions between modes, attributes, or appearances of phenomena that arise and cease through the complex causality that our individual minds conceptually perceive. We see the movement of the parts but not the whole. But just as the individual waves of the ocean — due to things like the movements of winds and currents and the gravitational pull of the moon — appear to be unique and isolated phenomena distinct from each other and the world of the ocean they inhabit, they are in reality all of the same substance, i.e., water, out which they arise from, return to, and are but modes of being of. In much the same way, our individual selves appear to be unique and isolated phenomena distinct from each other and the world we inhabit. And while the water itself can be said to have inherent existence, needing nothing else to exist or be conceived, the modes or properties of the waves cannot and need the substance of water to exist and be perceived.
From the perspective of the human mind, the world is one thing and we are another, and so too is 'God' or that which transcends it all. We are in the world, and ultimate reality lies outside even that. However, in truth, we are more like the waves of the ocean, passively unaware of our essence and the substance that makes our modes of being possible, an essence which is empty of inherent existence yet the same essence as the world as well as that which both lies beyond it and underlies it (or maybe better, contains it all). From the Buddhist POV, I think this idea is mirrored in Nagarjuna's line, "Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana. Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara" (Verses from the Center, 25:19). Samsara represents the world and nirvana represents that which transcends the world. And while from our human POV there are noticeable distinctions between samsara and nirvana, conditioned and unconditioned, world and God, mind and body, us and others, or anything else, from the ultimate POV there's not the slightest distinction between them; the distinctions are illusory.
Interestingly enough, Buddhism also defines 'the world' or 'the all' in terms of our individual, sensory experience of it, i.e., "the eye and forms, ear and sounds, nose and aromas, tongue and flavors, body and tactile sensations, intellect and ideas" (SN 35.23). What we know is constrained in many ways by the nature of the human mind and where/how consciousness "lands and grows" due to where "there is passion, delight, and craving for the nutriment of consciousness" (SN 12.64). But these sensory experiences locked into the apprehension of the modes of expression, being, or appearance of phenomena are illusory and comparable to a glob of foam floating down the Ganges, a bubble, a mirage, a hollow banana tree, a magic trick—i.e., empty and void (SN 22.95). It's as if our minds are conditioned to grasp the attributes of the waves, whose individual existence are inconstant, imperfect, unsatisfactory, empty and void because they do not exist from their own side, and not the substance they are an attribute or mode of. Nevertheless, understanding the causality of the conditioned world can act as a cause for the human mind's understanding of the reality of things as they are, thereby touching the deathless element by ceasing the mental processes of craving and clinging and 'I-making and my-making.' Clinging to the waves is unsatisfactory and stressful; letting go of the clinging to the waves 'unbinds' one and opens them up to experiencing the waterness on the waves.
The true reality, on the other hand, is one that can be said to be unborn, unmade, unconditioned, existing from its own side, stable, eternal. Spinoza reasons that this reality is analogous to God or substance, "that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception" (Ethics, I, Def. III). In Buddhism, this is akin to nirvana, the "unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated" (Ud 8:3). This reality or substance or whatever you want to call it is akin to the primordial water that's modified into all the various waves the we conceive of and that form the basis for our subject-object dualism and the illusion that we are one wave distinct from all the others and the ocean we all inhabit, when in fact everything that we see, hear, taste, touch, feel, and cognize is of the same substance or reality that comprises what sees, hears, tastes, touches, feels, and cognizes. Its true essence is oneness, while its attributes or expressions are infinite. And where the Buddha demonstrates that the human can cognize nirvana, the unconditioned, the deathless element, etc. making the mind the mind of enlightenment characterized by 'consciousness without feature,' Spinoza goes even further to argue that "the human mind is part of the infinite intellect of God; thus when we say, that the human mind perceives this or that, we make the assertion, that God has this or that idea, not in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he is displayed through the nature of the human mind, or in so far as he constitutes the essence of the human mind; and when we say that God has this or that idea, not only in so far as he constitutes the essence of the human mind, but also in so far as he, simultaneously with the human mind, has the further idea of another thing, we assert that the human mind perceives a thing in part or inadequately" (Ethics, II, Prop XI, Corollary).
(I realize the above analogy breaks down in the sense that the wind and gravity which represent the causal conditions that shape the waves are not themselves water, as well as the fact that the element of water is comprised of atoms that in turn are further divided, while these laws of nature and all the particles within it are but part of nature itself, whose reality is singular, self-contained, one infinite substance. But I think it conveys the general idea clearly enough, especially if we compare the wind to the passions of the mind, which when stilled give rise to peace and end the wave's rounds of rebirth.)
That leads me to also say that I'm a perennialist in the sense that I strongly believe this reality — whether we call it God, the One, Truth, Nature, Substance, Universe, Dhamma, Brahman, etc. — is a unity that paradoxically contains or is capable of infinite modes of expression, being, or appearance. And I see in each spiritual tradition a sincere search for and genuine understanding of this unity through a combination of imagination, reason, and intuition, with the first two arising from our dualistic awareness, and the latter achieved through nondual consciousness. The human mind is the experience of samsara; the mind of God is the experience of nirvana. And they are one. We are ultimately one with all of the things we seek to know, understand, and love.
Our salvation or enlightenment is achieved in overcoming our ignorance of reality by releasing our mind's grasping of the appearances and letting go of our self-identity view, thereby opening ourselves up to an intellectual understanding and/or love of God, the One, Truth, Nature, Substance, Universe, Dhamma, Brahman, etc. and realizing our own nature, or as Ruksana put it in The Circle, "real recognizing real." In Buddhism, one is encouraged to develop selflessness in regards to the aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications, and sensory consciousness in order to achieve this realization. In Christianity and Islam, one is encouraged to die to yourself or 'die before you die.' Another method involves love, effectively doing the same thing. In Buddhism, for instance, metta or loving-kindness can also be salvific. And this method seems even more dominant in Christianity. Jesus says to love God and love others as ourselves (Mt 22:37-39). Loving others as ourselves is also loving ourselves. And John goes further, saying God is love (John 4:7-8), which we can see as the positive form of selflessness. So ultimately we are left with God loving God, which in reality is just the act of loving itself—an identical, loving or unbound state of consciousness, free from misperceptions and passions and sense of self.
In Christianity, I see the inheritor of the Greek Mystery cults and Platonic philosophy that, in the ancient world, used both ecstatic and rational means to point practitioners towards the One, God, the Form of the Good, Logos. And in Jesus, I see a person who had such mystical experiences and intuitive realizations, seeing himself in God and God in himself, unifying his individual mode of being with the substance underlying it, reflecting and pointing towards this constant and eternal state of consciousness. And just as John states that love is God and one who does not love does not know God, Spinoza states that, "The intellectual love of the mind towards God is that very love of God whereby God loves himself, not in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he can be explained through the essence of the human mind regarded under the form of eternity; in other words, the intellectual love of the mind towards God is part of the infinite love wherewith God loves himself" (Ethics, V, Prop XXXVI).
There was a time when I was the biggest Sam Harris fanboy, believing he was the champion of reason against dogma and superstition.
But that was before I grew up, learnt about the world and realised that he was basically just swallowing neo-conservative dogma, painting the West as the saviours of civilisation and the Middle East as savages and barbarians. He even agrees with the characterisation of the United States as a "benevolent giant"...!
Harris discounts the role of Western foreign policy in creating Islamic terrorism solely because of the argument that if the same Western violence had happened to the Jains, they would've responded with pacifism and non-violence. Yet he says this in the same book where he argues against pacifism and non-violence in response to Islam, makes an argument for torturing suspected Muslim terrorists, and even outlines a scenario where a nuclear first-strike on the Middle East might be justifiable.
It's all this sort of thinking that is now inspiring hate speech and violence towards Muslims in Western countries (like the Christchurch mosque attack here in NZ). Which then leads to radical groups like ISIS calling for retaliation, which further promotes the stereotype of Muslims as terrorists, which promotes more violence against Muslims, and around and around we go.
This is not "reason," it is madness. I'll take the perennial philosophy over this any day.
The Madhyamaka school of Indian thought taught by Nagarjuna and his student Chandrakirti, that the Tibetan Gelug school follow disagrees with your general point of view on the topic.
I can't do it any justice but I think the crux of it is that there are two truths, that of the waves (conventional) and that of the water (ultimate), so far pretty similar. I think the disagreement comes regarding their relationship and their nature. It isn't so much that the waves arise from the fundamental reality of water, its that both are interdependent and ultimately empty. The emptiness of emptiness being the main distinction.
Other Tibetan schools disagree with them and much of the argument may come down to philosophy vs experience.
My main point in bringing it up though is that if you're making an effort to understand something it can be useful to get a contrary point of view in order to bounce your own ideas off of and test them to some degree.
I think this is the article I remember that I thought made the argument well.
https://emptinessteachings.com/2014/09/11/the-two-truths-of-buddhism-and-the-emptiness-of-emptiness/
I don't think Spinoza would disagree that the wave and water, world and God, conventional and ultimate, or however you label these 2 truth are interdependent. I'm pretty sure that I used the term interrelated in referring to them. And I also realize that most will likely disagree with how I'm trying to connect all these ideas. I'm mainly trying to figure out if it makes sense as I have an idea based on an experience that I'm trying to put into words but I still don't think I'm explaining it well and I figured tbis thread would work as it's partially about perennialism.
In addition, I do think there are versions of this that accord well with traditional Buddhist concepts and teachings. For example, from the western philosophical POV, what we call mind and matter may ultimately be groups or structures of events arising from a substance that's neither mental nor material, but in between the two a la neutral monism. As far as this might apply to Buddhism, the idea is that neither mind nor matter has any inherent reality or substance, which in turn means that neither has an intrinsic locality, i.e., they can't be viewed in terms of extended or non-extended, physical or non-physical, finite or infinite, existing non-existing, etc. I see a great deal of similarity between the Buddha and Hume in this regard. Both rejected the idea of mental substance in favour of what Hume called association of ideas and bundle of perceptions, and what the Buddha called heaps (khandha). As Bertrand Russell summerizes Hume's empiricism, "Ideas of unperceived things or occurrences can always be defined in terms of perceived things or occurrences, and therefore, by substituting the definition for the term defined, we can always state that we know empirically without introducing any unperceived things or occurrences." Thus, "all psychological knowledge can be stated without introducing the 'Self'. Further, the 'Self', as defined can be nothing but a bundle of perceptions, not a new simple 'thing'" (History of Western Philosophy, 603). This, I think, is consistent with most Buddhist schools' views of emptiness.
You might find this interesting. Its a well written piece on the historical connection between Hume and Buddhism.
https://www.theatlantic.com/magazine/archive/2015/10/how-david-hume-helped-me-solve-my-midlife-crisis/403195/
Yes. Not that it has to …
Ah ha! Defining the indefinable. Welcome to the impossible.
I knew it! However only the Nirvanic are distinguished.
Great post @Jason. Many thanks.
Indeed @Jason thanks a lot for your thoughts on the perennial philosophy. I have looked up the seekers of unity on YouTube, very inspiring.
Some things that seem to be becoming clear to me are about the importance of unity of mind and of purpose on a personal level. The perennial philosophy is a cornerstone of unity in the spiritual mind, and deserves respect and careful study with heart and soul. It is a question of feeling and intuition, whether you make it a central tenet or not.
I think as time passes and you learn more about the worlds religions you become more vulnerable to seeing it all as a puzzle to be inter connected and “solved”, and this is not the path that I want to take. I’ve come around to seeing the perennial philosophy as key, as a central framework through which other religions can be approached.
But I think it is important to approach these other religions through the heart. See what about it you love, what speaks to you, not like a mental puzzle of what corresponds to what.
I don't see it as a puzzle so much as you start to see how others are heading in the same direction from other places, so their directions aren't the same as yours but you begin to realize that they're trying to get to the same place and some of the roads you take intersect.
Here's the final version of my thoughts for anyone interested:
I've found it difficult to put my spiritual/religious beliefs into words, often relying on the words of others to articulate them. Recently, for example, I've been delving into Spinoza's Ethics (especially through the Seekers of Unity series), and I find myself very drawn towards this work, as many others before me have been.
I'd definitely say that I'm a believer in panentheism, i.e., the idea that what we call God, the One, Truth, Nature, Substance, Universe, Dhamma, Brahman, etc. and the world are interrelated and that, ultimately, they are of the same substance. What we perceive to be distinctions between things like mind and body, for instance, are merely distinctions between modes, attributes, or appearances of phenomena that arise and cease through the complex causality that our individual minds conceptually perceive. We see the movement of the parts but not the stillness of the whole. But just as the individual waves of the ocean — due to things like the movements of winds and currents and the gravitational pull of the moon — appear to be unique and isolated phenomena distinct from each other and the world of the ocean they inhabit, they are in reality all of the same substance, i.e., water, out which they arise from, return to, and are but modes of being of. In much the same way, our individual selves appear to be unique and isolated phenomena distinct from each other and the world we inhabit. And while the water itself can be said to have inherent existence, needing nothing else to exist or be conceived, the modes or properties of the waves cannot and need the substance of water to exist and be perceived.
From the perspective of the human mind, the world appears as one thing and we as another, and so too does 'God' or that which transcends it all. We are in the world, and ultimate reality lies outside even that. This ultimate reality or what we call God is something that seems alien to us and beyond our grasp. However, in truth, we are more like the waves of the ocean, passively unaware of our essence and the substance that makes our modes of being possible, an essence which is empty of inherent existence yet the same essence as the world as well as that which both lies beyond it and underlies it, or maybe better, contains it all. From the Buddhist POV, I think this idea is mirrored in Nagarjuna's line, "Samsara does not have the slightest distinction from Nirvana. Nirvana does not have the slightest distinction from Samsara" (Verses from the Center, 25:19). Samsara represents the world and nirvana represents that which transcends the world and lies outside of ordinary human experience. And while from our human POV there are noticeable distinctions between samsara and nirvana, conditioned and unconditioned, world and God, mind and body, us and others, or anything else we can differentiate, from the ultimate POV there's not the slightest distinction between them; the distinctions are illusory.
Interestingly enough, Buddhism also defines 'the world' or 'the all' in terms of our individual, sensory experience of it, i.e., "the eye and forms, ear and sounds, nose and aromas, tongue and flavors, body and tactile sensations, intellect and ideas" (SN 35.23). What we know is constrained in many ways by the nature of the human mind and where/how consciousness 'lands and grows' due to where "there is passion, delight, and craving for the nutriment of consciousness" (SN 12.64). But these sensory experiences locked into the apprehension of the modes of expression, being, or appearance of phenomena are illusory and comparable to a glob of foam floating down the Ganges, a bubble, a mirage, a hollow banana tree, a magic trick—i.e., empty and void (SN 22.95). It's as if our minds are conditioned to grasp the attributes of the waves, whose individual existence are inconstant, imperfect, unsatisfactory, empty and void because they do not exist from their own side, and not the substance they are an attribute or mode of. Nevertheless, understanding the causality of the conditioned world can act as a cause for the human mind's understanding of the reality of things as they are, abusing us of our notions of separateness and inherent selfness, thereby touching the deathless element through ceasing the mental processes of craving and clinging and 'I-making and my-making.' Clinging to our identity as an independent wave is ultimately unsatisfactory and stressful because it traps us within the causal modality of arising and ceasing, birth and death; letting go of that clinging 'unbinds' one and opens them up to experiencing the waterness of the waves.
The true reality, on the other hand, is one that can be said to be unborn, unmade, unconditioned, existing from its own side, stable, eternal. Spinoza reasons that this reality is analogous to God or substance, "that which is in itself, and is conceived through itself: in other words, that of which a conception can be formed independently of any other conception" (Ethics, I, Def. III). In Buddhism, this is somewhat comparable to nirvana, the "unborn, unbecome, unmade, unfabricated" (Ud 8:3). This reality or substance or whatever you want to call it is akin to the primordial water that's modified into all the various waves the we conceive of and that form the basis for our subject-object dualism and the illusion that we are one wave distinct from all the others and the ocean we all inhabit, when in fact everything that we see, hear, taste, touch, feel, and cognize is of the same substance or reality that comprises what sees, hears, tastes, touches, feels, and cognizes. Its true essence is eternal oneness, while its attributes or expressions are infinite.
The Buddha demonstrates that through the practice of virtue, concentration, and discernment, the human mind can cognize nirvana, the unconditioned, the deathless element, etc. making the mind into the mind of enlightenment characterized by 'consciousness without feature.' Spinoza, on the other hand, argues that "the human mind is part of the infinite intellect of God; thus when we say, that the human mind perceives this or that, we make the assertion, that God has this or that idea, not in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he is displayed through the nature of the human mind, or in so far as he constitutes the essence of the human mind; and when we say that God has this or that idea, not only in so far as he constitutes the essence of the human mind, but also in so far as he, simultaneously with the human mind, has the further idea of another thing, we assert that the human mind perceives a thing in part or inadequately" (Ethics, II, Prop XI, Corollary) and that "the clear and distinct ideas of the mind are as necessarily true as the ideas of God" (Ethics, II, Prop. XLIII), suggesting a rational means of achieving the same type of knowledge: "The knowledge of the eternal and infinite essence of God which every idea involves is adequate and perfect. The human mind has an adequate knowledge of the eternal and infinite essence of God" (Ethics, II, Prop. XLVI&XLVII).
I realize that the analogy of waves and water breaks down in the sense that the wind and gravity which represent the causal conditions that shape the waves aren't themselves water, as well as the fact that the element of water is comprised of atoms that in turn are further divided, while these laws of nature and all the particles within it are but part of nature itself, whose reality is said to be singular, self-contained, one infinite substance. But I think it conveys the general idea clearly enough, especially if we compare the wind on the analogy to the passions of the mind fuelled by ignorance and greed, hatred, and delusion churning the water of the ocean into waves, and which when stilled give rise to an experience of peace and an ending to the wave's rounds of rebirth.
(1/2)
That leads me to also say that I'm a perennialist in the sense that I strongly believe this reality — whether we call it God, the One, Truth, Nature, Substance, Universe, Dhamma, Brahman, etc. — is a unity that paradoxically contains or is capable of infinite modes of expression, being, or appearance. And I see in each spiritual tradition a sincere search for and genuine understanding of this unity through a combination of imagination, reason, and intuition, with the first two arising from our dualistic awareness, and the latter achieved through nondual consciousness. The human mind, as a dependently arisen product of causes and conditions, is the experience of samsara; the mind of God is the experience of nirvana (the deathless element often alluded to in Buddhism = Spinoza' one eternal substance). And they are one. We are ultimately one with all of the things we seek to know, understand, and love. The human mind, in so far as it is characterized by its particular mode of being, much like the temporal wave in the ocean, is finite and limited, and our ignorance of things are as they are blocks the light of this understanding from illuminating our mind. But the human mind, in so far as it shares its substance with God, strives to understand itself and seek truth in its existence.
Our salvation or enlightenment is achieved through the process of overcoming our ignorance of reality by releasing our mind's grasping of the appearances and letting go of our self-identity view, thereby opening ourselves up to an intellectual understanding and/or love of God, the One, Truth, Nature, Substance, Universe, Dhamma, Brahman, etc. and realizing our own nature, or as Ruksana put it in The Circle, "real recognizing real." In Buddhism, one is encouraged to develop selflessness in regards to the aggregates of form, feeling, perception, mental fabrications, and sensory consciousness in order to achieve this realization. In Christianity and Islam, one is encouraged to die to yourself or 'die before you die.' Another method involves love, effectively doing the same thing. In Buddhism, for instance, metta or loving-kindness can also be salvific. And this method seems even more predominant in Christianity. Jesus says to love God and love others as ourselves (Mt 22:37-39). And we are all interconnected, so loving others as ourselves is also loving ourselves. And John goes even further, saying God is love, and it's that act of unconditional love which becomes the positive form of selflessness that equally removes the mental passions and clinging that cloud our vision and prevent us from truly seeing things as they are. So ultimately we're left with God loving God, which in reality is just the act of loving itself—a singular, loving or unbound state of consciousness free from misperceptions and passions and sense of self.
While I've spent a lot more time with Buddhism, I've also found myself drawn strongly towards Christianity in recent years. In Christianity, I see the inheritor of the Greek Mystery cults and Platonic philosophy that, in the ancient world, used both ecstatic and rational means to point practitioners towards God, the One, the Form of the Good, Logos. And in Jesus, I see a person who had such mystical experiences and intuitive realizations, seeing himself in God and God in himself, unifying his individual mode of being with the substance underlying it, reflecting and pointing towards this constant and eternal state of consciousness. And just as John states that God is love and whoever is without love doesn't know God (John 4:7-8), Spinoza states that, "The intellectual love of the mind towards God is that very love of God whereby God loves himself, not in so far as he is infinite, but in so far as he can be explained through the essence of the human mind regarded under the form of eternity; in other words, the intellectual love of the mind towards God is part of the infinite love wherewith God loves himself" (Ethics, V, Prop XXXVI).
What I find eminently important in all of this, however, is how each of these traditions and ways of talking about experience and reality agree on the reality and power of interconnectedness. Whether in terms of causality (such as in the focus of actions and dependent co-arising in Buddhism) or the oneness of reality (such as in the relational nature of the trinity), each of these approaches make interconnectedness a centerpiece. As Clare Carlisle puts it in an article for the Guardian: "Spinoza's world view brings to the fore two features of life: dependence and connectedness. Each wave is dependent on the sea, and because it is part of the sea it is connected to every other wave. The movements of one wave will influence all the rest. Likewise, each being is dependent on God, and as a part of God it is connected to every other being. As we move about and act in the world, we affect others, and we are in turn affected by everything we come into contact with." And this understanding not only gives us insight into the nature of our world, but in how to live a life characterized by virtue, freedom, and happiness through our knowledge of causality and, ultimately, love of God. Because the more still we, as waves, can make ourselves, the closer we are able to come to experiencing our own waterness.
(2/2)
I am completely agree with you. Rene Guenon, Schuon and Coomaraswamy misinterpreted dharmic religions to prove that all the religions actually the same and came from Manu the lord of the universe. Do you imagine Guenon claimed that there is not reincarnation in Sanatan Dharma/ Hinduism.
Yes, I'm a Buddhist and not the fan of perennialism even sufism. (I'm from Turkey and I have a sufi background)
Hmmm. Spinoza’s God as ‘substance’ is somewhat opaque to me. It makes more sense to me to say that the universe is God, there is no difference.
You should really just read Ethics. It's essentially the logical framework of mystical experiences. I'm surprised I didn't get into Spinoza much earlier.
And for the record, Spinoza uses God and Nature interchangeable, which is why Einstein consider himself a Spinozist and a believer in the God of Spinoza.
Also the Seeker of Unity series is great, and there's some great gems in the episode The Case for Spinoza's Mysticism, especially around the 30min mark that connects the dots between his ideas and things found in Buddhism and Christian contemplativism.