Tattva-viveka
Perennialism
Swami - November 18, 2008 9:54 pm
In this thread I would like to explore the notion that we, as Gaudiya Vaisnavas, are included within the broader category of Perennialism. I believe that there is a distinct advantage to identifying ourselves with and understanding the basic thrust of Perennialism, both in terms of outreach and practice.
Those interested in this discussion should read the following article and then read Huston Smith’s “Beyond the Postmodern Mind.” This is a good book that takes a hard look at the downside of Modernism and Postmodernism in the context of advocating a transcendent, purposeful ultimate reality.
Please do not comment before reading this initial article.
Madhavendra Puri Dasa - November 19, 2008 12:04 pm
Thank you Maharaja for this link, very interesting article. I am just in the middle of reading Jaiva Dharma, and few days ago I finished Sri Prema Pradipa, so this topic is quite fresh on my mind. Reading Bhaktivinod Thakur's books and this article I think he was the first Vaisnava who was able to make GV philosophy understandable and acceptable by the rest of the world. He was able to see the world that is extending behind the frontiers of India and being educated in modern, western philosophy he explained Lord Chaitanya's teachings in such a way that modern intelectualists, searching for universal truths were able to see these truths in Bhagavata's philosophy.
While reading this article few questions came to my mind:
- How much Bhaktivinoda Thakur's stress on universalism (could we consider universalism and perennialism synonims?) and similarity between GV and Christianity was his tactic to establish GV in the world that had rejected Bhagavata, and how much was it his personal conviction?
- According to perennial philosophers, religion is a natural propensity of the soul and therefore we can see so many similarities between spiritual ideas in different areas of the world. Bhaktivinod Thakur also was using this argument. Still do GV share this idea? Does it not differ from the concept that spiritual knowledge comes from above; not that religions are fruits of humans' longing for God? (Personally I think it's both- soul as spiritual beings is searching for something higher, and in the same time God is giving us a hand in the form of scriptures, gurus etc. but I never managed to strenghten this conviction with sastra)
- Personally I feel really enlivened seeing different expressions of God's mercy in different religions, and it makes me inspired to follow my own path of GV. I was was wandering however how are to discriminate which religions could be accepted under the term of perennialism. Any religion we examine from the point of view of GV will have some discrepancies in theology or practise, that will not fully satisfy us. How should we look at it? Of course there are some clear cases, like I will never accept that Scientological Church has some Krishna Consciousness in it, but when we take for example Christianity, as Bhaktivinod Thakur did, we can see that there is some Krishna Consciousness. Do we accept that? Or rather we make clear line between real religion (that was touched by Krishna's swarupa sakti) and rest of religions that may have some moral merit, but will not get us to the "other side". And if the later was truth would we be allowed to consider ourselves perennialists, or would idea of perennialism have any meaning to us?
Grant Upson - November 19, 2008 6:45 pm
I am struck by the degree to which BVT's articulation of a perennialist position appears very modern -- if not progressive -- even by today's standards. Indeed, Fuller makes the point that the perennial position is itself perennial in character, as it has come up in many contexts over many centuries. Perhaps in that way it is ever-fresh, as the word connotes.
Although BVT spoke to a specific populace at a time of rapid technological, intellectual, and social change, one needn't look far to identify contemporary parallels. I do think that there is a large class of people (more diverse than the bhadralok) who are calling into question extremes of both scientism and relativism, and for whom the perennialist view might have great appeal. In a lot of ways, I think that many hearts and minds are "up for grabs," much like those of Calcutta's intelligentsia who were shaken from Hindu tradition and awkwardly embraced British influence.
Of all world religions scholars, none is perhaps better known to the public and beloved than Huston Smith. (This alone might support the notion of couching GV as an expression of the perennial philosophy.) Some years ago, I had the pleasure of attending a symposium led by Smith. What was most compelling, I recall, was not necessarily the contributions of Smith's guests (most of them Native American mystics), but the way in which he mined his knowledge of myths and traditions to draw connections between specific ontologies, practices, and spiritual aims and more universal expressions of those phenomena. This went over big with a very diverse and very international audience.
Of course, it gets tricky (although I think BVT deftly handles this point -- at least for his audience) when a specific expression of the perennial philosophy is put forth as being the purest or most complete. Thus, I think the challenge when evoking perennialism in the contemporary context is to somehow get from "All paths are an expression of a universal philosophy" to, "but, the fullest expression can be found in GV."
Swami - November 19, 2008 10:05 pm
Madhavendra Puri dasa' asked:
BVT was personally convinced about the universality of love of God, evidence for which he considered the ubiquity of the intuitive human sense that human life culminates in absolute, transcendent love. In other words he felt that while personal intuition is not always very credible, the extent of the human intuition concerning the ideal of love and love of God was compelling and that counter intuitive notions such as scientism were suspect.- How much Bhaktivinoda Thakur's stress on universalism (could we consider universalism and perennialism synonims?) and similarity between GV and Christianity was his tactic to establish GV in the world that had rejected Bhagavata, and how much was it his personal conviction?
He was a perennialist with the caveat that for BVT perennialism involves bhakti and a personal God. This may seem to distance him from the broader idea of perennialism that clearly includes gnosticism. Indeed, in the article he does not include monism in his perennialist worldview. But as his follower I would take a different approach here, one centered on love that included monistic ideals and their sadhanas as part of perennialism describing them as abstract expressions of love or negative theology as opposed to positive theology. The idea being that absolute love is central to perennialism. As Pujyapada Sridhara Maharaja says, we can do without grandeur or power but not love. So the extent to which one's pursuit of transcendence is aimed at and involves ego effacing love one is a perennialist.
-
According to perennial philosophers, religion is a natural propensity of the soul and therefore we can see so many similarities between spiritual ideas in different areas of the world. Bhaktivinod Thakur also was using this argument. Still do GV share this idea? Does it not differ from the concept that spiritual knowledge comes from above; not that religions are fruits of humans' longing for God? (Personally I think it's both- soul as spiritual beings is searching for something higher, and in the same time God is giving us a hand in the form of scriptures, gurus etc. but I never managed to strenghten this conviction with sastra)
The idea is that the self is endowed with a propensity to love (serve). This does not preclude the need for grace.
- Personally I feel really enlivened seeing different expressions of God's mercy in different religions, and it makes me inspired to follow my own path of GV. I was was wandering however how are to discriminate which religions could be accepted under the term of perennialism. Any religion we examine from the point of view of GV will have some discrepancies in theology or practise, that will not fully satisfy us. How should we look at it? Of course there are some clear cases, like I will never accept that Scientological Church has some Krishna Consciousness in it, but when we take for example Christianity, as Bhaktivinod Thakur did, we can see that there is some Krishna Consciousness. Do we accept that? Or rather we make clear line between real religion (that was touched by Krishna's swarupa sakti) and rest of religions that may have some moral merit, but will not get us to the "other side". And if the later was truth would we be allowed to consider ourselves perennialists, or would idea of perennialism have any meaning to us?
I think these questions are answered in the article, but in perennialism we are talking about the world's wisdom traditions and its mystics, not new age spirituality. Naturally we will think our tradition is best, otherwise why would we have joined it? Wherever and to whatever extent we see love of God in a tradition or an individual we acknowledge it.
Robertnewman - November 19, 2008 10:22 pm
Of course, it gets tricky (although I think BVT deftly handles this point -- at least for his audience) when a specific expression of the perennial philosophy is put forth as being the purest or most complete. Thus, I think the challenge when evoking perennialism in the contemporary context is to somehow get from "All paths are an expression of a universal philosophy" to, "but, the fullest expression can be found in GV."
"Tricky" is an understatement. Even if a preacher were equally well-versed in multiple traditions, no such ranking could ever have the character of a mathematical proof that must be admitted by everyone as valid; there is too much subjectivity involved. But even that hurdle would seldom arise as a practical issue simply because nothing is more rare than a preacher who is expert in more than one tradition. For example, I know of only one person in the world whom I would consider really qualified to compare and contrast Christianity and GV as "competing" bhakti traditions (his conclusion, by the way, is that they are equally sublime but with different emphases). From the standpoint of practical preaching, I believe the best approach would be to point out that philosophical basis of GV is fully compatible with the perennial philosophy, and then simply present it as it is, without volunteering any comparison or ranking. Its excellences will be apparent to those who are receptive.
Swami - November 19, 2008 10:29 pm
I am struck by the degree to which BVT's articulation of a perennialist position appears very modern -- if not progressive -- even by today's standards. Indeed, Fuller makes the point that the perennial position is itself perennial in character, as it has come up in many contexts over many centuries. Perhaps in that way it is ever-fresh, as the word connotes.
Yes, but at the same time perennialism itself offers a scathing critique of modernism. This does not come out much at all in this particular article. But we have to consider the climate of BVT's times, characterized as it is in the article thus,
"With an emphasis upon historical method and linear conceptions of time,the privileging of “science” and quantitative analysis, and the doubting, questioning disposition born of an Enlightenment objectivist sensibility, the nineteenth century witnessed a transformation of Hindu thought where new idioms and modes of establishing the truth value of received wisdom came to the fore."
All of the above is seriously questioned in perennialism, as it is in GV. The above signals a departure from traditional thought; a departure that began 17th century Europe and was just coming to India; a departure ultimately from a worldview that includes the supernatural. BVT was up to date while balancing modernism with tradition. Our task is the same. However, modernism is not on the rise as it was then even while postmodernism seems infested with with it.
Grant Upson - November 19, 2008 11:50 pm
Yes, but at the same time perennialism itself offers a scathing critique of modernism. This does not come out much at all in this particular article. But we have to consider the climate of BVT's times, characterized as it is in the article thus,
"With an emphasis upon historical method and linear conceptions of time,the privileging of “science” and quantitative analysis, and the doubting, questioning disposition born of an Enlightenment objectivist sensibility, the nineteenth century witnessed a transformation of Hindu thought where new idioms and modes of establishing the truth value of received wisdom came to the fore."
All of the above is seriously questioned in perennialism, as it is in GV. The above signals a departure from traditional thought; a departure that began 17th century Europe and was just coming to India; a departure ultimately from a worldview that includes the supernatural. BVT was up to date while balancing modernism with tradition. Our task is the same. However, modernism is not on the rise as it was then even while postmodernism seems infested with with it.
Thank you for the clarification. I think I was being far too loose with my use of the term "modern" to describe BVT -- who indeed is not a modernist. I guess I was trying to imply that BVT was modern (i.e. contemporary-sounding) insofar as many present day thinkers who embrace perennialism are (still) taking to task the intellectual legacies of the Enlightenment, scientism, etc.
One reason I find BVT's approach so compelling is that he was obviously familiar and conversant with the intellectual and technological impacts of British influence, but at the same time he did not embrace such influence with reckless abandon (as was very much the trend, I gather), nor did he reject it wholesale.
Nitaisundara Das - November 20, 2008 5:27 am
I just concluded the article and I must admit ambivalence. It seems like a maneuvering of GVism into a certain form while in actuality it is just the changing the form to fit it (GVism that is). What I mean is that it does not seem congruent with the popular usage of the term perennialism, and therefor in the attempt to establish GVism as a perennial tradition there is some adjustment of what exactly perennialism is. The author somewhat admits as much in the closing paragraph.
As I have understood it, perennialism proposes that various traditions have formally nuanced practices but a singular goal. This goal has always seemed monistic. I am inclined to think that a discriminating adherent to the perennial philosophy (the popular version that is) would not fully embrace this article. At points Fuller emphasizes the complete universality of these principles, but then repeatedly presents GVism as best. I suppose that yes, you could say it is best at these principles, but this gradation of goals does not seem like classical perennialism as I understand it.
I do not however think it is this simplistic, that we are simply not perennialists. For we fully embrace the idea that Bhakti is not dependent upon material circumstances, such as time, place, race, etc.
I am thinking perhaps the most fruitful interfacing of GVism with perennialism would be to attempt to demonstrate that the underlying spiritual hankering that is thought to give rise to these (essentially) identical spiritual truths is actually more completely fulfilled in Vaisnavism and GVism even moreso. Furthermore, if, as GM has said, we take that underlying motive to be love, we include not only perennialists, but everybody else as well. But as soon as you move to gradation, your status as "perennial" is called into question, as Grant has pointed out
These initial thoughts are leading me to think the actual attempt include GVism within Perennialism is only possible by semantic maneuver. In some ways, if viewed as a sort of conglomeration of monistic paths, perennialism seems even insidious. It looks like it creates harmony (of both religious traditions and spiritual goals), but if it is indeed monism, it is not harmony but singularity. Eternal, content-less, singularity. 
I am interested what others think especially of this last point...
Perhaps a new school of thought is in order. We will call it:
The REAL Perennialism
Swami - November 20, 2008 3:16 pm
I just concluded the article and I must admit ambivalence. It seems like a maneuvering of GVism into a certain form while in actuality it is just the changing the form to fit it (GVism that is). What I mean is that it does not seem congruent with the popular usage of the term perennialism, and therefor in the attempt to establish GVism as a perennial tradition there is some adjustment of what exactly perennialism is. The author somewhat admits as much in the closing paragraph.
As I have understood it, perennialism proposes that various traditions have formally nuanced practices but a singular goal. This goal has always seemed monistic. I am inclined to think that a discriminating adherent to the perennial philosophy (the popular version that is) would not fully embrace this article. At points Fuller emphasizes the complete universality of these principles, but then repeatedly presents GVism as best. I suppose that yes, you could say it is best at these principles, but this gradation of goals does not seem like classical perennialism as I understand it.
I do not however think it is this simplistic, that we are simply not perennialists. For we fully embrace the idea that Bhakti is not dependent upon material circumstances, such as time, place, race, etc.
I am thinking perhaps the most fruitful interfacing of GVism with perennialism would be to attempt to demonstrate that the underlying spiritual hankering that is thought to give rise to these (essentially) identical spiritual truths is actually more completely fulfilled in Vaisnavism and GVism even moreso. Furthermore, if, as GM has said, we take that underlying motive to be love, we include not only perennialists, but everybody else as well. But as soon as you move to gradation, your status as "perennial" is called into question, as Grant has pointed out
These initial thoughts are leading me to think the actual attempt include GVism within Perennialism is only possible by semantic maneuver. In some ways, if viewed as a sort of conglomeration of monistic paths, perennialism seems even insidious. It looks like it creates harmony (of both religious traditions and spiritual goals), but if it is indeed monism, it is not harmony but singularity. Eternal, content-less, singularity.
I am interested what others think especially of this last point...
Perhaps a new school of thought is in order. We will call it:
The REAL Perennialism
I think it is important to note that the term "perennial philosophy" originally comes from a Catholic, a monotheist. Esoteric Catholicism and Sufism, both of which claim to be monotheistic, are also both included within perennialism by modern day perennialists.
Let me also quote Huston Smith from another book: "Perhaps traces of self identity will persist [in transcendence]. Perhaps in some kind of everlasting rhythm we will be able to oscillate between total attention to God [oneness] and periodic returns to the realization that it is we, we finite souls, who are attending [difference]."
Elsewhere Smith replies to the the charge that perennialism is lacking in that it posits an impersonal Absolute by explaining (more or less) that the perennialist notion of transcendence could be said to posit a more-than-a-person Absolute, as opposed to an impersonal Absolute. In other words he concedes that the absolute may be personal but not in the limited sense that we are persons, limited by our environment. To quote him again from "Primordial Truth and Postmodern Theology," " To begin with, persons always seem to be set within environments with which they interact. These environments are, by definition, other then the persons themselves, and in ways resist, while at the same time sustaining, them. This otherness with its resistance limits the persons' expanse and power. But a perfect God—for perennialists there is no other—transcends limitations, so God cannot be personal in the sense of having an environment." Note that in Gaudiya Vaisnavism Krsna is nondifferent from or not other then his abode (his environment), aradhya bhagavan vrajesa tanaya tad dhama vrndavanam.
Grant Upson - November 20, 2008 3:25 pm
As I have understood it, perennialism proposes that various traditions have formally nuanced practices but a singular goal. This goal has always seemed monistic. I am inclined to think that a discriminating adherent to the perennial philosophy (the popular version that is) would not fully embrace this article. At points Fuller emphasizes the complete universality of these principles, but then repeatedly presents GVism as best. I suppose that yes, you could say it is best at these principles, but this gradation of goals does not seem like classical perennialism as I understand it.
I very much agree that perennialism, as it is popularly conceived, is most often aligned with monism. This, however, is due in large part to the influence of thinkers who put forth advaita-vedanta as not only the essence of Hinduism, but as the paradigm of universal and primordial religion itself (sanatana dharma). Perennialist-like notions were also advanced by Vivekananda, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, and others who devised a kind of monistic "neo-vedanta" to position Hinduism as a world religion on par with (if not surpassing) Judeo-Christian traditions in terms of theological elegance, morality, inclusivity, etc. These legacies have very much endured.
Still, I am not convinced that there is an essential connection between perennialism and monism. It has been argued that advaita and neo-vedanta recieves a disapprotionate amount of attention in general, and in no way actually typifies Hinduism or sanatana dharma, which in both its exoteric and esoteric dimensions is very often monotheistic.
Swami - November 20, 2008 6:29 pm
I see that as of today, Thursday 11.20.08 at 10:20 AM PST 25 devotees have downloaded the original article posted on this thread. I hope you will all read Beyond the Postmodern Mind as well. I did not think the the article was particularly insightful but more informative. The book, however, offers much to chew on and brings out the intellectual ground of perennialism (Smiths's version), much of which we can also stand on. I would like to go through it chapter by chapter.
Otherwise I am all for continuing the present discussion largely based on but not limited to Fulller's article.
Syama Gopala Dasa - November 20, 2008 6:37 pm
Nitai,
the article quotes Huxley who defined philosophia perennis as:
“the metaphysic that recognizes a divine Reality substantial to the world of things and lives and minds; the psy-chology that finds in the soul something similar to, or even identical with,
divine Reality; the ethic that places man’s final end in the knowledge of the
immanent and transcendent Ground of all being; the thing is immemorial
and universal. Rudiments of the perennial philosophy may be found among
the traditional lore of primitive peoples in every region of the world, and in
its fully developed forms it has a place in every one of the higher religions.”
This definition does leave room to interpret it as having different levels of development in my opinion.
Guru Maharaj, you wrote: "I believe that there is a distinct advantage to identifying ourselves with and understanding the basic thrust of Perennialism, both in terms of outreach and practice." I would like to know what this distinct advantage is.
Nowadays, many people unfulfilled with postmoderism say they do not need a religion but pick and choose among the universal truths, so to speak. To have a purposeful life that seems freed from a strict framework. Is this what you are addressing with perennialism? The need to establish that these different universal truths can be found in Vaisnavism?
Babhru Das - November 21, 2008 1:48 am
I don't think we need to orbit too closely around Huxley's definition. Nor so we need to worry too much about other definitions of perennialism. A couple of the interesting points in Fuller's piece is the strategic approach he sees in Bhaktivinoda's appeal, and his perspective that sambandha, abhideya, and prayojana are the essence of what we may call perennialism.
Smith's approach may prove to bear the most interesting fruit. I haven't read Beyond the Postmodern Mind yet, but I'll look for it in Gainesville tomorrow. I do remember seeing a video when I lived in Hawaii of Smith talking about it. The show was Thinking Allowed (cute, eh?). I haven't found the video free yet, but I did find a transcript. I haven't gone through the transcript yet, but that may get us going a little until more of us can read the book.
Nitaisundara Das - November 21, 2008 4:32 am
This is quite interesting. it is from an entry in the stanford online ecyclopedia of philosophy for "mysticism", section 4, "perennialism:
Various philosophers, sometimes dubbed “perennialists,” have attempted to identify common mystical experiences across cultures and traditions (for the term ‘perennialism,’ see Huxley, 1945). Walter Stace's perennialist position has generated much discussion (Stace, 1960, 1961). Stace proposes two mystical experiences found “in all cultures, religions, periods, and social conditions.” He identifies a universal extrovertive experience that “looks outward through the senses” to apprehend the One or the Oneness of all in or through the multiplicity of the world, apprehending the “One” as an inner life or consciousness of the world. The Oneness is experienced as a sacred objective reality, in a feeling of “bliss” and “joy.” Stace's universal extrovertive experience (or the experienced reality, it is not always clear which) is paradoxical, and possibly ineffable (Stace, 1961, 79).
Secondly, Stace identifies a universal, “monistic,” introvertive experience that “looks inward into the mind,” to achieve “pure consciousness,” that is, an experience phenomenologically not of anything (Stace, 1961, 86). Stace calls this a “unitary consciousness.” Some have called this a “Pure Conscious Event” or “PCE” (Forman, 1993b and 1999. See section 6 below). A PCE consists of an “emptying out” by a subject of all experiential content and phenomenological qualities, including concepts, thoughts, sense perception, and sensuous images. The subject allegedly remains with “pure” wakeful consciousness. Like his extrovertive experience, Stace's universal introvertive experience involves a blissful sense of sacred objectivity, and is paradoxical and possibly ineffable. Stace considers the universal introvertive experience to be a ripening of mystical awareness beyond the halfway house of the universal extrovertive consciousness.
Stace assimilates theistic mystical experiences to his universal introvertive experience by distinguishing between experience and interpretation. The introvertive experience, says Stace, is the same across cultures. Only interpretations differ. Theistic mystics are pressured by their surroundings, says Stace, to put a theistic interpretation on their introvertive experiences. Ninian Smart also maintained the universality of the monistic experience, arguing that descriptions of theistic mystical experiences reflect an interpretive overlay upon an experiential base common to both theistic and non-theistic experiences (Smart, 1965).
Stace has been strongly criticized for simplifying or distorting mystical reports (For a summary, see Moore, 1973). For example, Pike criticizes the Stace-Smart position because in Christian mysticism union with God is divided into discernable phases, which find no basis in Christian theology. These phases, therefore, plausibly reflect experience and not forced interpretation (Pike, 1992, Chapter 5).
In contrast to Stace, R. C. Zaehner identified three types of mystical consciousness: (1) a “panenhenic” extrovertive experience, an experience of oneness of nature, one's self included, (2) a “monistic” experience of an undifferentiated unity transcending space and time, and (3) theistic experience where there is a duality between subject and the object of the experience (Zaehner, 1961). Zaehner thought that theistic experience was an advance over the monistic, since the latter, he thought, expressed a self-centered interest of the mystic to be included in the ultimate.
William Wainwright has described four modes of mystical extrovertive experience: a sense of the unity of nature, of nature as a living presence, a sense that everything transpiring in nature is in an eternal present, and the Buddhist unconstructed experience. Wainwright, like Zaehner, distinguishes two mystical introvertive experiences, one of pure empty consciousness, and theistic experience marked by an awareness of an object in “mutual love” (Wainwright, 1981, Chapter 1).
It looks like our discussion from earlier today takes place in the academic realm as well.
I looked up Zaehner on wikipedia and it was quite interesting and offers some further explanation of what is in the above article about him. It says he actually opposed Huxley, but nonetheless his points have some validity (regarding the differences among spiritual paths).
Nitaisundara Das - November 21, 2008 4:54 am
Even better!
Here is an article by Huston Smith called "Is There a Perennial Philosophy?" from Journal of the American Academy of Religion
I really encourage everyone to read the article but perhaps the most relevant part is this:
This Infinite both includes and transcends everythingelse, which everything is (in categorical contrast) finite and relative.
The way the Absolute transcends the relative is to integrate the rela-
tive into itself so completely that even the Absolute/relative distinc-
tion gets annulled: form is emptiness, emptiness form. (This separates
perennialism from the monism it is sometimes (mis)taken for; it is,
rather, a-dvaita or non-dual.) How the opposition is resolved we can-
not, of course, imagine or even consistently conceive, which is one rea-
son the Absolute is ineffable.
I am a bit unclear here, what is difference between monism and non-dual that he is proposing?
Guru-nistha Das - November 21, 2008 5:40 am
I have to agree with the notion that the idea of the perennial philosophy doesn't seem to exclude a personal absolute in any way. I think its main premise is more about the connection between the material experience and the transcendent than about the nature of transcendence. It's a way of seeing the material world in my opinion, and then according to the seeker's taste, s/he chooses a tool/path to start finding out about the nature of that transcendence.
Historically it makes sense to me that people like Huxley were more attracted to Advaita Vedanta than Vaishnavism because of centuries of sectarian oppression from the church in the West. Monism seems more inclusive at its face, and since the spirit of the first part of the 19th century seemed to be a strong search for a universal ideology that would bring humanity together, Huxley's preference is not surprising. As time passes and we get some distance from the collective trauma that the Christian church has caused I think it will be easier for people to appreciate theism more and see its universality.
About the advances of connecting with the perennialists in our outreach and own practice, I think the pros would be huge.
It good to join forces with other like-minded people who are sick of the ultra-relativism and meaninglessness of today's world. Especially the younger folks in our group have been born into a postmodern environment and it's very hard to sort all that out by yourself. If we can feel "okay" and even proud of standing behind an idea of a transcendental reality and not feel like some antiquated lunatics but well-thought out reasonable mass of people, I say we should go for it.
Robertnewman - November 21, 2008 9:26 am
I am a bit unclear here, what is difference between monism and non-dual that he is proposing?
Perhaps by "monism" he means the kevaladvaita of Shankara, whereas by "non-dual" he's hinting at acintya bhedabheda. At least, that's the only way I can make sense of the distinction.
I find the following quote from the same essay even more interesting: "Perennialists are persons who are exceptionally sensitive to the commonalities that similarities disclose; they are drawn toward unity as moth to flame. Sensitized by its pull, they find tokens of unity profligate; they see similarities everywhere." Later on he speaks of the so-called "esoteric" personality type that generally displays this attitude, contrasted with the "exoteric" type that tends to give greater significance to differences. This sounds like a psychological definition of perennialism, separate from (but related to) the religious definition. As the subtitle of this thread is "Are we perennialists?", I think we need to be clear as to what we mean by the term.
Bhrigu - November 21, 2008 11:27 am
I don't think he is that specific, Robert, but rather points towards the philosophical possibility of not being a dualist while also not being a monist. Of course, we would fit into this slot, but many others as well, depending on how you define dualism. Most forms of theistic mysticism would belong here as well, such as that of many Christian saints.
As far as aligning with perennialists, who are the perennialists today? I attended a panel on religions and hbt-issues yesterday. The others were three Christians and a Buddhist. Everyone respected each other and the idea and reality of plurality (big surprise!), and I think at least two of them would have called themselves perennialists if I had read them Huxley's definitions, but they were preoccupied with very different issues.
Syama Gopala Dasa - November 21, 2008 2:22 pm
As far as aligning with perennialists, who are the perennialists today? I attended a panel on religions and hbt-issues yesterday. The others were three Christians and a Buddhist. Everyone respected each other and the idea and reality of plurality (big surprise!), and I think at least two of them would have called themselves perennialists if I had read them Huxley's definitions, but they were preoccupied with very different issues.
That was exactly my point, I’m not sure how much perennialism itself is a current debate. The issue it speaks about, yes, but under the guise of perennialism, I’m not sure.
Bijaya Kumara Das - November 21, 2008 2:56 pm
Thank you Guru Maharaja for this article.
I liked it very much and what a praise of BVT and his battle to bring GV to the for front of leading religious tradtions.
It is well summed up in at the end of the article:
"And finally, he argued that, of
the two, the religion of Sri Krishna Caitanya and the Ûrîmad Bhågavatam most
closely adhered to the ultimate Truth expressed perennially in the world’s
great religions. Bhaktivinoda affirmed the ideas of Divine Love and Love of
the Divine as the highest theological and philosophical principles inherent in
the true religions of mankind
he nevertheless
ably made the point that Gau∂îya Vaishnavism had a legitimate claim
to match and out-do Christianity and all of the world’s great religions when it
came to Love of the Divine."
Grant Upson - November 21, 2008 3:57 pm
Historically it makes sense to me that people like Huxley were more attracted to Advaita Vedanta than Vaishnavism because of centuries of sectarian oppression from the church in the West. Monism seems more inclusive at its face, and since the spirit of the first part of the 19th century seemed to be a strong search for a universal ideology that would bring the humanity together, Huxley's preference is not surprising. As time passes and we get some distance from the collective trauma that the Christian church has caused I think it will be easier for people to appreciate theism more and see its universality.
I really like this point. From the hasty reading I've been doing on the various iterations of the perennial position, I find that it has very often been used as a strategy or tactic to reclaim real, accommodating, and essential spirituality away from the hegemony of the "the church" (or temple!), which by contrast is characterized more by dogma, exploitation, and authoritarianism. Thus, however it might be defined, I think perennialism in its various forms has been a refuge for persons who might be disenchanted with religious institutions and sectarianism.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - November 21, 2008 4:05 pm
I don't think he is that specific, Robert, but rather points towards the philosophical possibility of not being a dualist while also not being a monist. Of course, we would fit into this slot, but many others as well, depending on how you define dualism. Most forms of theistic mysticism would belong here as well, such as that of many Christian saints.
As far as aligning with perennialists, who are the perennialists today? I attended a panel on religions and hbt-issues yesterday. The others were three Christians and a Buddhist. Everyone respected each other and the idea and reality of plurality (big surprise!), and I think at least two of them would have called themselves perennialists if I had read them Huxley's definitions, but they were preoccupied with very different issues.
Another thing is how GM identifies GV with "theistic monism"; so GV can be identified both as dualistic and monistic.
Nitaisundara Das - November 21, 2008 5:29 pm
GV can be identified both as dualistic and monistic.
...simultaneously
Guru-nistha Das - November 21, 2008 5:33 pm
Thus, however it might be defined, I think perennialism in its various forms has been a refuge for persons who might be disenchanted with religious institutions and sectarianism.
I totally agree. This is exactly why it's great to use it in our outreach. It gives people a chance to approach a spiritual tradition without a baggage of prejudice towards organized religion.
Another thing that came to my mind while reading BVT's article was that Gaudiyas really have to update their view of how GV fits into perennialism. BVT obviously was in a completely different political and spiritual climate and that affected his interpretation of GV's place inside perennialism. Today Christianity doesn't have much influence on the intelligentsia at all, whereas the so-called wisdom traditions seem to have gained much more ground. It really makes sense in this connection that GM is making a strong separation between Christianity and GV when preaching and emphasizing that GV stands on the firm ground of Vedanta and non-dualism, although its expression is more diverse than that.
I personally think that it's not in our interest to redefine perennialism to mean devotion. I think the term perennialism should be reserved for the very basic similarities between different spiritual traditions and then let the traditions go further from there. After all, perennialism is not a spiritual discipline, but a banner under which transcendentalists can gather.
Fuller lists the following characteristics as the fundamentals of perennialism:
1. the greatest philosophical insights recur in different cultures and in different times
2. all human beings possess the potential to realize universal truths
3. in order for a being to perceive ultimate truths, a being must in some ways participate essentially in the nature of Truth or God
Bijaya Kumara Das - November 21, 2008 10:44 pm
Another thing is how GM identifies GV with "theistic monism"; so GV can be identified both as dualistic and monistic.
good point acintabedabed Rhada-Krsna, Lord Chaitanya
Swami - November 22, 2008 2:08 am
Everyone taking part in this discussion should read the article posted by Nitaisundara. (Homework)
Babhru Das - November 22, 2008 2:48 pm
I just started reading that article, which is more relevant to this specific discussion than the Thinking Allowed interview. Even though that interview's title is "Beyond the Postmodern Mind," its focus seems to be the problem of scientism, which is a topic that I've been interested in since being exposed to Snow's "Two Cultures" idea in college in 1965. I'll make this a side project for myself.
I've always been impressed by the breadth and depth of Smith's exploration. I used his Religions of Man (or at least a couple of chapters) in a course I taught at San Diego State University years ago. I remember hearing a radio interview (probably Fresh Air) his response to a question about his own religious identity. His response was something like, "My body was born a Methodist and will be buried a Methodist, but I'm the soul." The guy seems pretty darned cool.
I still haven't tracked down a copy of Beyond the Postmodern Mind. I guess I'll try the university's book store. Otherwise, I'll have to order it.
Babhru Das - November 22, 2008 3:10 pm
One thing that came to mind as I began the article was that I really like the term Smith prefers: primordial.
Swami - November 22, 2008 3:31 pm
I just started reading that article, which is more relevant to this specific discussion than the Thinking Allowed interview. Even though that interview's title is "Beyond the Postmodern Mind," its focus seems to be the problem of scientism, which is a topic that I've been interested in since being exposed to Snow's "Two Cultures" idea in college in 1965. I'll make this a side project for myself.
I've always been impressed by the breadth and depth of Smith's exploration. I used his Religions of Man (or at least a couple of chapters) in a course I taught at San Diego State University years ago. I remember hearing a radio interview (probably Fresh Air) his response to a question about his own religious identity. His response was something like, "My body was born a Methodist and will be buried a Methodist, but I'm the soul." The guy seems pretty darned cool.
I still haven't tracked down a copy of Beyond the Postmodern Mind. I guess I'll try the university's book store. Otherwise, I'll have to order it.
Smith's Books are not easy to find and usually need to be ordered. Ordering online from Amazon is probably the most expedient route.
Here at Audarya we watched the Thinking Allowed interview you mentioned last summer. It really only scratches the surface of Smith's entire argument, much of which is an eye opening look at scientism. The article Nitaisundara posted is somewhat technical in that its audience is not necesarily one that disagrees with the perennialist perspective on modernism, scientism, etc. It is a defense of Perennialism (Smith's version mostly) that in my opinion deals effectively with Katz's arguments, arguments that are not very substantial. Since first beginning to write about mysticism in the late 1970's, Katz has been received as a skeptic who explains away mystical experiences by reducing them to epiphenomena of mystics' cultural conditioning. Through research into the complete body of his writings both inside and outside the study of mysticism, several thinkers have demonstrated his view to be poorly reasoned.
Bijaya Kumara Das - November 23, 2008 8:38 am
Even better!
Here is an article by Huston Smith called "Is There a Perennial Philosophy?" from Journal of the American Academy of Religion
I really encourage everyone to read the article but perhaps the most relevant part is this:
I am a bit unclear here, what is difference between monism and non-dual that he is proposing?
After reading the article as Guru Maharaja suggested I think Smith is saying Katz is trying to quantify experience to equalize them.
Smith I think is trying to say the it is to difficult for us to actually understand the infinite and is defending perenialism with this discussion.
"There is an Absolute, which is like- wise Infinite. This Infinite both includes and
transcends everything else, which everything is (in categorical contrast) finite and
relative" oh so true.
thus the need for Sadhu, Sanga and Shastra
Bijaya Kumara Das - November 23, 2008 8:48 am
Just some thoughts after reading the article Nitaisundara posted.
"The legitimacy of a metaphysical truth, evident to the intellect, does not depend on
samadhi or gifts of "infused grace." Nowhere does the Brahma Sutra, e.g., appeal to
mystical experience to support its meta- physical claims and arguments. The drift is
the opposite. Ontological discernments are enlisted to elucidate or validate the yogas
and the experiences they deliver." I do not follow what Smith is trying to elicit here.
"To understand that 2+2=4 does not require access to higher realms of either
consciousness or being" as it is to the perenialist
Smith discussing Katz "but he adds induction to deduction by marshalling differences that turn up in mystical
reports. Mystics in different traditions, and to some extent in different pockets of
the same tradition, "see" different things." I think Katz misses the point here on
pereniallism universality by trying to quantify experience to equalize them. I think
perenialism refers to the truths as they are ( as it is)
Doesnt the tibetan story does show perenialism in the context of dualism and monoism?
"To the bank (a dualist), a hundred frank note was a hundred frank note. Not so to the
Tibetan (a monoist) who had been reared in a barter economy wherein every item of
exchange was unique."
This is certainly mostly true "The perennialist arrives at the ubiq- uity of his/her
outlook more deductively than inductively"
Oh but he is so wrong with this "Not simple-mindedly. That "it is raining" is true in
Berke- ley doesn't make it true everywhere. But it does make it true every- where that
it is at this moment raining in Berkeley.13"
With this statement " That "it is raining" is true in Berke- ley doesn't make it true
everywhere.(this assumes that your focus is raining) But it does make it true every-
where that it is at this moment raining in Berkeley.(and this assumes that discussion
is at that moment in Berkely and everywhere at that moment it is raining in Berekely
but at the moment we are reading this so the statement is false.) " doesnt the
perenialist understand that raining is raining no matter where it takes place and the
underlying perenialist thought would be rain is rain and rain in Berekely is rain
anywhere it occurs, so once again pernialism prevails.
"There is an Absolute, which is like- wise Infinite. This Infinite both includes and
transcends everything else, which everything is (in categorical contrast) finite and
relative" oh so true.
thus the need for Sadhu, Sanga and Shastra
Vrindaranya Dasi - November 23, 2008 6:39 pm
As Robert quoted earlier, "Perennialists are persons who are exceptionally sensitive to the commonalities that similarities disclose; they are drawn toward unity as moth to flame. Sensitized by its pull, they find tokens of unity profligate; they see similarities everywhere." This is one way in which a Gaudiya sees: Yes, says the Gaudiya, all genuine spiritual paths have a common goal. In tattva they are one.
But the Gaudiya sees simultaneously from the perennialist vantage point and the vantage point of rasa. That makes us a little more complex than our suddha perennialist compatriots. A little hard to understand. How can we be perennialists and talk about a gradation of spiritual attainment? To the Gaudiya, the perennialist vision (at least as defined in the quote above) is diffuse, capturing not the highest limit of spiritual attainment but rather its lowest common denominator.
So why focus on the lowest common denominator? Why announce our presence in that camp? One compelling reason is to regain balance at a time when difference has been so overstressed that people think that their tradition, their particular mission, their guru is the only way. When external differences are so overemphasized that people think there is only one right way to have a morning program or one right shade of cloth or exactly one bona fide number of rounds that will take you to transcendence.
Another reason is that it gives us something bigger to align ourselves with in a time when our tradition is being crashed on the rocks of modernism, post-modernism, and, worst of all, fanatics of our own tradition.
Swami - November 24, 2008 4:08 am
Here is an example of what constitutes Christian Perennialism.
“I am Brahma”
by “Elie Lemoine”
This is the first publication in English of a chapter from Doctrine de la Non-Dualite et Christianisme, by an anonymous Cistercian Trappist monk influenced by the traditionalist writings of Rene Guenon. The article examines and analyses the Vedantic doctrine of Supreme Identity proposed by the Hindu formula Aham Brahmasmi, and is interspersed with spiritual insights from a traditionalist Christian perspective.
Rene Guenon is a famous perennialist who became a Sufi. Sufism is esoteric Islam heavily influenced by Vedanta. Many Sufis insist that to be a Sufi one must observe vegetrainism and such Sufis (such as Bawa Muhaiyaddeen) also acknowledge the doctrine of reincarnation. Guenon and Frithjof Schoun both of whom were Sufi Prennialists openly stated that Vedanta offers the most concise explanation of the perennial philosophy.
Citta Hari Dasa - November 24, 2008 4:47 pm
It would be interesting to see how the idea of nonduality (philosophy) is reconciled with the religious ideals of Christianity. Do they have a concept analagous to acintya bhedabheda?
Here is an example of what constitutes Christian Perennialism.
“I am Brahma”
by “Elie Lemoine”
This is the first publication in English of a chapter from Doctrine de la Non-Dualite et Christianisme, by an anonymous Cistercian Trappist monk influenced by the traditionalist writings of Rene Guenon. The article examines and analyses the Vedantic doctrine of Supreme Identity proposed by the Hindu formula Aham Brahmasmi, and is interspersed with spiritual insights from a traditionalist Christian perspective.
Rene Guenon is a famous perennialist who became a Sufi. Sufism is esoteric Islam heavily influenced by Vedanta. Many Sufis insist that to be a Sufi one must observe vegetrainism and such Sufis (such as Bawa Muhaiyaddeen) also acknowledge the doctrine of reincarnation. Guenon and Frithjof Schoun both of whom were Sufi Prennialists openly stated that Vedanta offers the most concise explanation of the perennial philosophy.
Swami - November 24, 2008 5:11 pm
It would be interesting to see how the idea of nonduality (philosophy) is reconciled with the religious ideals of Christianity. Do they have a concept analagous to acintya bhedabheda?
Perhaps Meister Eckhart comes close (not sure). He posited a form of panentheism (not to be confused with pantheism). In panentheism God is one with the world and beyond it as well. But overall what I find is that the more Christianity or Islam become mystical, the more they become Hindu (Vedantist). And Buddhism of course grew out of Hinduism and is very similar to Advaitavada. If perennialism is Sanatana Dharma, as they say . . .
Syama Gopala Dasa - November 24, 2008 5:28 pm
I may be very postmodern in my approach to understanding perennialsim, so I am trying to phantom how relevant perennialism as a movement/term is in contemporary society. (It sort of comes across as a movement of days gone by to me...) While doing so, I came across Ananda Coomaraswamy who is said to be one of the founders of perennialism. He's an advaita vedantist as far as I understand.
Some sources and articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananda_Coomaraswamy
http://www.tamilnation.org/hundredtamils/coomaraswamy.htm
One thing I'm wondering too is how do we plan to align ourselves with perennialism?
Swami - November 24, 2008 6:11 pm
I may be very postmodern in my approach to understanding perennialsim, so I am trying to phantom how relevant perennialism as a movement/term is in contemporary society. (It sort of comes across as a movement of days gone by to me...) While doing so, I came across Ananda Coomaraswamy who is said to be one of the founders of perennialism. He's an advaita vedantist as far as I understand.Some sources and articles:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ananda_Coomaraswamy
http://www.tamilnation.org/hundredtamils/coomaraswamy.htm
One thing I'm wondering too is how do we plan to align ourselves with perennialism?
I think the answers to your questions are in Smith's book. You really need to read it. The difference between Smith and perennialists like Anandacoomarswamy is basically decades. Thus through writings of contemporary perennialists one can better understand its relevance. After all Smith is obviously advocating that Perennialism is the future to the pause/doubt and deification of ambiguity that is postmodernism. Perhaps the best thing one can get from contemporary perennialist thought is its critique of modernism and postmodernism. From your post I do not think you understand postmodernism that well, especially with regard to how poorly it fits with Gaudiya Vaisnavism and how much it is remains influenced by modernism n spite of its being a critique of it.
Smith is not a lightweight by any means. When you see a man of this stature by Western academic standards spelling out the implications of things you have read in Vedanta, spelling them out in terms of how much the apply to the plight of our present times, you will feel encouraged to know how well thought out by highly educated standards of today the Vedantic worldview is.
Here is a short piece by Smith from a separate article that illustrates my point.
Perennialism offers, it seems to me, the most promising
alternative there is to the premise that gave modern philosophy its lease,
which lease seems now to have expired.
To be specific: Philosophy entered the modern world as the handmaiden of
theology, but modern science displaced Revelation (and with it theology) as
truth's oracle. Empiricists like Bacon were prepared simply to change the
socket-unplug philosophy from theology and replug it into science-but
there were things that science still could not get its hands on, so philosophy
took off on its own. Why assume that it needs a master?-Let reason, its
instrument, stand on its own feet. In according it that opportunity, Descartes
fathered modern philosophy. If reason is the lever by which ideas are moved,
modern philosophy committed itself to the prospect that that lever possesses
an built-in archimedean point. What that point is-Descartes' innate ideas?
Kant's categories? The positivists' sense impressions?-would be hotly
debated, but that reason has a foundation was not seriously questioned.
The predicament philosophy finds itself in today derives from the fact that
that assumption now has been questioned. The going name for the assumption
is foundationalism, and Isaac Levi speaks for the majority of his colleagues
when he contends that "opposition to foundationalism ought to be
the philosophical equivalent of resistance to sin." The repudiation of the
premise on which it has staked its existence leaves modern philosophy hardpressed
for a raison d'etre. A recent anthology, After Philosophy, shows
ranking philosophers divided as to whether to prospect for new oil or simply
shut down their pumps. They agree, though, that the wells of modern philosophy
have run dry.
The point of mentioning all this here is to suggest that the serious soul searching
in current philosophy-one (to repeat) occasioned by the collapse
of faith in autonomous reason-gives the perennial philosophy more chance
for a hearing than it has had since modern philosophy began. For, never
having agreed that reason is autonomous, it provides at least one model of
how philosophy can proceed without that claim.
Note the Vedanta's tarko 'pratisthanat (reason alone get's one nowhere), and the Gaudiya idea of sastra-yukti as opposed to kevala-yukti (see Jiva Goswami in Brs.) It is kevala-yukti or autonomous reason that Smith, and apparently the academic tradition of philosophy itself, has lost faith in. Reason and philosophy must be grounded in revelation. Something we have been saying all along, but very well said above.
Connecting with Smith as I have is like Bhaktivinoda Thakura desiring to connect with Emerson Thoreau and the Boston Brahmins. And you ask, "how does that make sense?" (??)
Syama Gopala Dasa - November 24, 2008 6:38 pm
Connecting with Smith as I have is like Bhaktivinoda Thakura desiring to connect with Emerson Thoreau and the Boston Brahmins. And you ask, "how does that make sense?" (??)
Thanks for clarifying that, Guru Maharaj. I was asking why it makes sense, not so much because I think the idea itself is wrong, but because I did/do not understand it. As you've pointed out, I need to read Smith's book and will try to get a copy.
Grant Upson - November 24, 2008 6:48 pm
Everyone taking part in this discussion should read the article posted by Nitaisundara. (Homework)
Although Katz very much misfires in his critique of perennialism, Smith notes the ubiquity of criticisms in the very same vein. Thus I think there is value in comprehending Katz's argument (and similar permutations), however lacking it may be in philosophical merit.
Essentially, Katz argues that every experience (even of a mystical variety) is mediated or conditioned by culture- and context-specific epistemologies. Accordingly, Katz cannot accept claims of experiential (or "phenomenological") commonality across space and time, for such claims assume experience "unmediated" by cultural and conceptual baggage.
Since in Katz's view no account of an experience is without a "cultural tint," typologies that identify universals of any kind are faulty for two reasons. Firstly, such typologies point to similarities where there are actually none to be found, and secondly, all typologies (and facts and theories, I might add) are themselves conditioned by the epistemological worldview in which they originate.
I am probably not making Katz's position any more clear. Nevertheless, I do think that less extreme or diluted versions of Katz's view are not uncommon. For example, at a time when globalization is erasing certain languages, traditions, and means of knowing, I can imagine somebody making a thoughtful argument for why cultural differences and distinctions should be highlighted. Of course, perennialism does not advocate leveling or eliminating those differences, but I suppose one could make the claim that it does downplay difference in favor of sameness -- perhaps in detrimental ways depending upon how it is presented. (Anyway, I very much await the arrival of Smith's book -- which was very cheap on Amazon -- and certainly speaks more to what perennialism stands for.)
Swami - November 24, 2008 7:05 pm
I do think that less extreme or diluted versions of Katz's view are not uncommon. For example, at a time when globalization is erasing certain languages, traditions, and means of knowing, I can imagine somebody making a thoughtful argument for why cultural differences and distinctions should be highlighted. Of course, perennialism does not advocate leveling or eliminating those differences, but I suppose one could make the claim that it does downplay difference in favor of sameness -- perhaps in detrimental ways depending upon how it is presented. (Anyway, I very much await the arrival of Smith's book -- which was very cheap on Amazon -- and certainly speaks more to what perennialism stands for.)
But where does perennialism as a philosophy stand with regard to globalization and its tendency to eradicate cultural differences? Perennialism embraces difference and means of knowing that lie beyond the limits of reason and empiricism and makes the point that these means of knowing found in the wisdom traditions of antiquity lead us to a unity of comprehensive knowing (enlightenment), as opposed to a reason ruled course to nowhere.
Swami - November 24, 2008 7:43 pm
Syama Gopala,
I think the idea here is that identifying with perennialists is like identifying with postmodernists in that such identification is not about joining a group but acknowledging a larger philosophical framework that Gaudiya Vaisnavism fits well within, one that is in contrast to premodernism, modernism, or postmodernism. Identifying oneself as a postmodern thinker is not about joining a group. Similarly identifying oneself as a perennialist need not be about joining a group. The fact is that those who understand these isms would likely classify Gaudiya Vedntins as perennialists. So I am merely bringing our attention to this and the virtues of a well reasoned perennialist position.
Swami - November 25, 2008 4:36 am
Here are some thoughts on perennialism as opposed to postmodernism as the cultural corollary to a global economy/civilization. Note that here I am referring to contemporary postmodern globalization, a hybrid syndrome driven by postmoderns who envision an economic universalism without expecting a corresponding social and cultural uniformity worldwide.
In today’s world global markets and technology tend to unify the global village, while minority ethnicities and differences tend to pull it apart. The obvious problem here is that the unification derived from global markets and technology is nothing other than food for the fire of consumerism that it has created. Consumerism is one thing while the need to consume is another. The latter is a human necessity and the former an artificial creation, one that is from a spiritual point of view is harmful: fostering greed.
When this greed-fest is inhibited by ethnic religious minorities we try to educate them and invite them to the table. We (as postmodernists) are so kind (as opposed to modernists) in doing so as to allow them to continue with much of their rites and rituals as long as they understand them to be less than what they thought they were. Indeed, we may even see fit to fight for them and even partake of them and celebrate them as much as we find them useful in the here and now. This to me is a sham in the name of preserving diversity.
The heart of these religious traditions that often escapes many of their adherents also escapes their liberators. But it is their transcendent heart that offers a much deeper unifying force, one that in no way dismisses the traditions diverse approaches to it. The perennialist position is to unify the globe around the transcendent heart of the world’s religious traditions.
A Vedantist sees the culture of greed as a"displacement reaction," to use a psychological term. A displacement reaction occurs when a normal need cannot be met and something else is substituted in its stead. Blanketing ourselves in consumerism add-ons obscures a deeper underlying malaise of an unfulfilled yearning that things and even thoughts cannot cure. This underlying need derives from the fact that we are three dimensional beings at present: physical, psychic, and ultimately spiritual. Consumerism is a displacement reaction that derives from a culture that underestimates our psychic and denies our spiritual dimensions.
Our displacement reaction of consumerism is fueled also by our anthropocentrism, the idea that individual human well-being is taken the measure of all things. But humans are not the center of all meaning and the source of all value, and material consumption is not all that being human is about. As different as it is from modernism, anthropocentrism and consumerism are the nonetheless the agenda of postmodernism’s new world order (or disorder), and this has been explained convincingly by a number of postmodern philosophers themselves. So here again Gaudiya Vedanta’s perennialism comes to our aid in its advocacy of a center-centered life rather than on off-center-centered life. And once the actual center is established, there is room for a broad circumference. To use Prabhupada’s analogy, if many stones of different shapes are thrown into a pond in the exact same place, the result is a broad and harmonious rippling effect.
Robertnewman - November 25, 2008 2:43 pm
Spectacularly well put, Maharaja! You made my day.
Swami - November 25, 2008 7:46 pm
Three types of Perennialism to consider:
VARIETIES OF PERENNIALISM
I. BASIC
The first, and most simple form of perennialism, maintains that there is only one path and one goal for spiritual development. According to this model, spiritual paths and goals are everywhere the same, and descriptive differences either reflect an underlying similarity or are the result of the different languages, religious doctrines, and cultural backgrounds. The point here is, then, that although mysticism is phenomenologically the same, non-experiential variables may affect its interpretation and description (e.g., Huxley, 1945, Smart,1980).
2. ESOTERICIST
The second form of perennialism, while admitting many paths, holds that there is only one goal common to all spiritual traditions. As in the previous model, this goal, although universal, may have been differently interpreted and described according to the specific doctrines of the various mystical traditions. . . this view is (the) claim that the spiritual unity of humankind can only be found in the esoteric or mystical core of religious traditions, and not in their exoteric or doctrinal forms. The guiding root metaphors of this model are the images of different rivers reaching the same ocean, different pathways leading to the peak of the same mountain, or different cascades of water issuing from a single spring.
3. TYPOLOGICAL
Closely related to universal perspectivism is the postulation of a limited number of types of paths and goals that run across the different mystical traditions, for example, Otto's (1932) outward and inward, Stace's (1960) extrovertive and introvertive, or Zachner's (1970) nature, monistic, and theistic. This model is also perennialist insofar as these types of mysticism are claimed to be independent of time, place, culture, and religion. Typological universalism often takes a perspectivist stance and affirms that the different types of mysticism are diverse expressions or manifestations of a single ultimate spiritual reality."
I think that if we identified ourselves with perennialism we would fall into the third type above with emphasis on Zahner's version that includes a trans cultural theistic ultimate reality/experience as well as a monistic one. Zahner wrote a good commentary on the Gita and clearly favored Ramanuja over Sankara.
Furthermore I think Smith's presentation of perennialism assumes the existence of a universal spiritual reality which is the ground of being, and of which the contemplative traditions are an expression, but in spite of his insistence on the ineffable and unqualifiable nature of this ground, he consistently characterize it as monistic. Thus far from being a neutral and truly unqualifiable ground, he represents it as supporting a nondual monistic metaphysics. Smith falls into number two above.
Vrindaranya Dasi - November 26, 2008 2:40 pm
I was glad to hear these categories of perennialism (due to my twin urge for difference, perhaps?). Although I really liked several of Huston Smith's refutations of Katz and enjoyed seeing a feisty side of him, I wasn't inspired by his angle on perennialism (which sounded monistic). I look forward to reading more of Zahner's take on perennialism, and I'm excited about the possibilities for you (Guru Maharaja) to add to the ongoing perennialism discussion. It will be interesting indeed to see how people respond. There's obviously much more room for a lively discussion than in the general devotee community--the perennialist articles I have read thus far has been intellectually engaging, something the current stream of devotee articles are decidedly not. I also have to echo Robert's appreciation of your globalization post. Superb!
Swami - November 26, 2008 3:47 pm
I see this discussion on perennialism as an introductory level yet well reasoned, educated orientation to Vedanta, in that it leads to an in depth exploration of the modern and postmodern mindsets by way of contrasting them with that of a spiritual worldview like ours. This will come out more as we get into Smith's book (get your copy). Remember, another term for perennialism is sanatana dharma.
Nitaisundara Das - November 26, 2008 11:32 pm
This excerpt should help clarify:
Zaehner formulated his own definitions of mysticism, whichare of crucial importance for all his writings. Basic to mysticism
is the search for union, but it is interpreted in very different ways
according to the views of the expositor. Nature mystics, and
those who say that "all is one and one is all" are not teaching
pan-theism but pan-en-hen-ism, a word which Zaehner coined
to mean "all-in-one-ism." Then there is pan-theism, "all-God-
ism," which is illustrated by great sayings of the Upanishads
like "thou art That," "this self is Brahman," and "I am Brah-
man." Third, there is theism, "the normal type of Christian
mystical experience in which the soul feels itself to be united with
God by love."17
-"Robert Charles Zaehner (1913-1974)"
Author: Geoffrey Parrinder
Nitaisundara Das - November 26, 2008 11:40 pm
other interesting quotes from the same article:
Zaehner put forward atheory that Suifi pantheism came through Abii Yazid, who had
a teacher called al-Sindi (who may have come from Sind in India),
and several parallels are suggested between Indian and Sufi
imagery. These examples have been criticized by Islamic scholars,
though the wider question of more vaguely Indian influence, at
later periods, on Sufism remains open, or partially so.
In "this wonderful work" it becomes clear that the wholepurpose of the Gita was to demonstrate the "love of a personal
God" which was the crown of mystical experience rather than a
pantheistic absorption. Zaehner claimed, with some reason, that
many commentators had ignored this distinction, being pantheists
at heart, and he interpreted the Gita in the tradition of the theistic
Ramanuja rather than the monistic Sankara.
For this he has been criticized, and he would admit to being selective, but could also
claim to be expounding the Gita in its own light and in accordance
with much Indian theism.
Robertnewman - November 26, 2008 11:42 pm
A quote from Zaehner's book Our Savage God: "There is indeed a sharp division between those religions whose characteristic form of religious experience is prayer and adoration of Pascal’s God of Abraham, God of Isaac, God of Jacob on the one hand, and religions in which sitting postures designed to find the God within you are thought to be the most appropriate way of approaching the Deity."
Nitaisundara Das - November 27, 2008 6:07 am
3. TYPOLOGICALClosely related to universal perspectivism is the postulation of a limited number of types of paths and goals that run across the different mystical traditions, for example, Otto's (1932) outward and inward, Stace's (1960) extrovertive and introvertive, or Zaehner's (1970) nature, monistic, and theistic. This model is also perennialist insofar as these types of mysticism are claimed to be independent of time, place, culture, and religion. Typological universalism often takes a perspectivist stance and affirms that the different types of mysticism are diverse expressions or manifestations of a single ultimate spiritual reality."
I just wanted to point out that although this author puts these three people (Otto, Stace, and Zaehner) in the same category, Zaehner's concepts are what most aptly applies to GV. Zaehner was a Christian and thus predisposed somewhat to theism but it seems like he made significant contributions to his field.
Bijaya Kumara Das - November 27, 2008 6:55 am
Consumerism is a displacement reaction that derives from a culture that underestimates our psychic and denies our spiritual dimensions.
This is so true.
Materialism at its core fostered by the globalist passion for greed.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - November 28, 2008 10:27 pm
This excerpt should help clarify:-"Robert Charles Zaehner (1913-1974)"
Author: Geoffrey Parrinder
I would say even Ramanuja's philosophy and GV is panentheistic though the trascendent aspect is stressed more than the immanent. So I don't know why he distinguishes between panentheistic and theistic traditions. A more developed theistic conception will be panentheistic according to me. I think his panentheism includes people like Emerson or the Saiva school(they are not so negative about the world as the advaitins of the sankara fame are).
I don't think that the advaitins actually can say that brahman is contenless after deriving brahmananda. It is a source of imperishable happiness according to B.G so it maybe formless but not contentless. Contentless understanding may have come due to Buddhist influence.
Nitaisundara Das - November 29, 2008 3:45 am
So I don't know why he distinguishes between panentheistic and theistic traditions.
He doesn't. He never even says panentheistic:
Nature mystics, andthose who say that "all is one and one is all" are not teaching
pan-theism but pan-en-hen-ism, a word which Zaehner coined
to mean "all-in-one-ism." Then there is pan-theism, "all-God-
ism," which is illustrated by great sayings of the Upanishads
like "thou art That," "this self is Brahman," and "I am Brah-
man." Third, there is theism, "the normal type of Christian
mystical experience in which the soul feels itself to be united with
God by love."
The word he coined is "pan-en-hen-ism". I understand his three distinctions to be as follows:
"all-in-one-ism" is a soul-less unity, Prakrti Nirvana
"pantheism" is, as it says, Brahma Nirvana
And the third is self explanatory.
We of course have both the second and third in Gaudiya siddhanta.
GM just mentioned that Ramanuja is normally considered in the west pantheistic, because the world and the jiva are called attributes of Bhagavan.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - November 29, 2008 6:00 am
He doesn't. He never even says panentheistic:
The word he coined is "pan-en-hen-ism". I understand his three distinctions to be as follows:
"all-in-one-ism" is a soul-less unity, Prakrti Nirvana
"pantheism" is, as it says, Brahma Nirvana
And the third is self explanatory.
We of course have both the second and third in Gaudiya siddhanta.
GM just mentioned that Ramanuja is normally considered in the west pantheistic, because the world and the jiva are called attributes of Bhagavan.
There can be soulful unity also. 
paramatma sayugya. I think soulless unity is negative while Plato, Plotonis, Sufis etc have an idea about soulful unity which does not have the concept of emptyness.
Swami - December 2, 2008 8:59 pm
I think it is time to move on to a discussion of Smith's book, chapter by chapter. I am en route to Madhuvan at the moment and will arrive there tonight. Unfortunately we are again having problems with out inverter and it may take a few days before we get our electricity back. So I will be off line for a few days, maybe a week.
All of the Audarya-vasis have the book and have been reading it and I am bringing a copy for the devotees at Madhuvan. I would like to know who else has or has ordered the book. So please sound off on that here. It is quite an interesting book; much to agree with that is well said and from many angles; some things to disagree with as well.
Syama Gopala Dasa - December 2, 2008 9:18 pm
I've ordered it but am still awaiting its arrival.
Robertnewman - December 2, 2008 9:42 pm
I have it; so far I have read two chapters.
Grant Upson - December 2, 2008 10:10 pm
I've ordered it but am still awaiting its arrival.
Same here, although I haven't checked today's mail.
Bhrigu - December 3, 2008 10:18 am
I've added it to my list to Santa. 
Gandiva Dasi - December 3, 2008 1:53 pm
I just checked it out from the central library here in HK !
Robertnewman - December 3, 2008 8:58 pm
While we are waiting to start detailed discussion of Smith's book, attached is an interesting essay on materialism by Rene Guenon, whose writings are considered the main inspiriation for the 20th century Perennialist movement.
Robertnewman - December 4, 2008 1:07 pm
Here's another interesting essay on the Perennial Philosophy, this one focusing on the role of the feminine.
Robertnewman - December 4, 2008 1:34 pm
Here's another essay that I couldn't resist posting. By the way, these essays and many others, as well as many relevant books on PP, are available at the following site: http://www.worldwisdom.com.
Tadiya Dasi - December 4, 2008 6:17 pm
I've added it to my list to Santa.
And perhaps I can borrow it from you once you've read it 
Robertnewman - December 5, 2008 9:11 pm
The following essay is rather long and very dense, but I found it extremely rewarding. It is an overview of the thought of Frithjof Schuon, the preeminent exponent of PP in the 20th century, and a major influence on Huston Smith.
http://cutsinger.net/pdf/knowledge_that_wo..._our_nature.pdf
Bijaya Kumara Das - December 7, 2008 6:23 am
Beyond the Postmodern Mind
is this the book we need to get ?
Robertnewman - December 7, 2008 9:16 am
Yes, Beyond the Postmodern Mind.
Robertnewman - December 7, 2008 9:22 am
This one is short (and sweet, in a way).
Bijaya Kumara Das - December 8, 2008 6:15 am
Yes, Beyond the Postmodern Mind.
thank you
Gaura-Vijaya Das - December 10, 2008 6:22 pm
Also advaita of sankara is not synonymous with pantheism; it is more like transcendental monism.
Swami - December 13, 2008 2:44 pm
I find Guenon, Schoun and their contemporaries burdensome to read. Their writing borders the archaic. That is why I have suggested Smith's writing. It is much more contemporary in style and substance. Cutsinger, who I have corresponded with, like Smith tends write better, but the article of his Robert posted was more Schoun-like in style perhaps because it was written for his pleasure.
At any rate, this is a good sampling of perennialist writers, although for the most part not up to date. Again, that is why I chose Smith: the value of guru parampara. Overall perennialist writing can be a bit boring in that its scope is largely a critique of modernism and an advocacy of tradition (by tradition they really mean an on going living spiritual heritage). Theologically it is a bit of a zero and it is gnostic rather than devotional. It would be interesting to launch a theistic perennialist thrust along the lines of Thakura Bhaktivinoda.
Still I think Smith's book is very useful. So we should begin discussing it. The first chapter is pretty easy to read, while others are more intellectually challenging, especially chapter two as Smith himself mentions.
Any comments or questions on chapter one?
Gaura-Vijaya Das - December 13, 2008 4:32 pm
I find Guenon, Schoun and their contemporaries burdensome to read. Their writing borders the archaic. That is why I have suggested Smith's writing. It is much more contemporary in style and substance. Cutsinger, who I have corresponded with, like Smith tends write better, but the article of his Robert posted was more Schoun-like in style perhaps because it was written for his pleasure.
At any rate, this is a good sampling of perennialist writers, although for the most part not up to date. Again, that is why I chose Smith: the value of guru parampara. Overall perennialist writing can be a bit boring in that its scope is largely a critique of modernism and an advocacy of tradition (by tradition they really mean an on going living spiritual heritage). Theologically it is a bit of a zero and it is gnostic rather than devotional. It would be interesting to launch a theistic perennialist thrust along the lines of Thakura Bhaktivinoda.
Still I think Smith's book is very useful. So we should begin discussing it. The first chapter is pretty easy to read, while others are more intellectually challenging, especially chapter two as Smith himself mentions.
Any comments or questions on chapter one?
Does gnostic here refer to esoteric spiritual knowledge required to get out of our material condition. Actually gnosis may have roots in the word jnana: "like B.G there is nothing as sublime as transcendental knowledge the mature fruit of all mysticism the gnosis may be feeling similarly". But is the perennialist writing gnostic in its spiritual practise or metaphysics or both.
Robertnewman - December 14, 2008 11:55 am
At any rate, this is a good sampling of perennialist writers, although for the most part not up to date. Again, that is why I chose Smith: the value of guru parampara.
One side point that I find interesting is that the biggest names in the Perennialist camp (Gueron, Schuon, Burkhardt) were all initiated into a Sufi order. All the Perennialist authors have stressed that for real spiritual growth and experience it's not enough to study and accept the Perennial Philosophy; initiation into a bona fide tradition is indispensable. In other words, they confirm the necessity and efficacy of guru parampara, and they were practitioners and not merely scholars.
Swami - December 14, 2008 12:40 pm
Does gnostic here refer to esoteric spiritual knowledge required to get out of our material condition. Actually gnosis may have roots in the word jnana: "like B.G there is nothing as sublime as transcendental knowledge the mature fruit of all mysticism the gnosis may be feeling similarly". But is the perennialist writing gnostic in its spiritual practise or metaphysics or both.
Gaura-vijaya
Yes, gnosis means jnana. Perennialist's such as the one's we are discussing tend to be gnostic in practice and in their metaphysics. This of course is not the case with Bhaktivinoda Thaura.
Robert,
Yes, good point. They were all initiated and they all stress the necessity for initiation. Thus again, for them the word tradition means a sacred order, not merely times and customs gone bye.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - December 14, 2008 4:38 pm
Gaura-vijaya
Yes, gnosis means jnana. Perennialist's such as the one's we are discussing tend to be gnostic in practice and in their metaphysics. This of course is not the case with Bhaktivinoda Thaura.
Robert,
Yes, good point. They were all initiated and they all stress the necessity for initiation. Thus again, for them the word tradition means a sacred order, not merely times and customs gone bye.
Don't sufis talk about devotion also?
Swami - December 14, 2008 6:20 pm
Don't sufis talk about devotion also?
I believe Sufism is as devotional as devotional sects of Advaita Vedanta.
Guru-nistha Das - December 14, 2008 6:43 pm
Thoughts on Beyond the Postmodern Mind:
What caught my attention while reading the 1st chapter was how important it is to know the progression of thought up to the present in order to understand why the world thinks and perceives the way it does right now. Smith explains it very lucidly in the Preface and the beginning of the chapter how easy it is to be unaware of the main assumptions and their origins that our societies and communities are based on. In some regards it seems like postmodernism as a culture is more aware of itself and its assumptions than the preceding cultures and it seems to be freer to explore its foundations more due to freedom from tradition and authority, but it seems to me like that kind of a freedom brings a new kind of self-unawareness, the unawareness of the "higher self".
Would it be too simplistic to say that the postmodern mind's unquestioned assumption is faith in disorder? It seems like they have to have faith in the world being disordered and random in order to have at least some kind of a conception of how reality is– which again can be seen as trying to bring order to it on some level.
Robertnewman - December 14, 2008 11:33 pm
I believe Sufism is as devotional as devotional sects of Advaita Vedanta.
That's my understanding as well, but my curiosity has been piqued. I intend to do some in-depth research.
Robertnewman - December 14, 2008 11:46 pm
Would it be too simplistic to say that the postmodern mind's unquestioned assumption is faith in disorder? It seems like they have to have faith in the world being disordered and random in order to have at least some kind of a conception of how reality is– which again can be seen as trying to bring order to it on some level.
I came to a slightly different conclusion. During the Modern period, the traditional (spiritual) world view was gradually supplanted by naturalism or materialism, largely due to the activities and accomplishments of science and technology. In recent decades, however, the shortcomings of the Modern world view have become glaringly apparent and there is really nothing new to take its place. Although there are many Postmodern world views, none are really dominant in the way their predecessors were. If there is a dominant world view in intellectual circles today, I would say that it's not disorder exactly, but relativism, which is really just another way of saying that people simply don't know what to believe.
Guru-nistha Das - December 15, 2008 3:29 am
I came to a slightly different conclusion. During the Modern period, the traditional (spiritual) world view was gradually supplanted by naturalism or materialism, largely due to the activities and accomplishments of science and technology. In recent decades, however, the shortcomings of the Modern world view have become glaringly apparent and there is really nothing new to take its place. Although there are many Postmodern world views, none are really dominant in the way their predecessors were. If there is a dominant world view in intellectual circles today, I would say that it's not disorder exactly, but relativism, which is really just another way of saying that people simply don't know what to believe.
Nice point. Postmodernists seem to only agree on what they don't believe in. This kind of ties into another interesting thing that Smith mentioned: the first time in 2500 years philosophers agree on metaphysics. That none of it is true.
It's mind blowing to think what a unique and profound change of orientation that is in the history of thought.
Swami - December 15, 2008 3:04 pm
Although there are many Postmodern world views, none are really dominant in the way their predecessors were. If there is a dominant world view in intellectual circles today, I would say that it's not disorder exactly, but relativism, which is really just another way of saying that people simply don't know what to believe.
Postmodern philosophers have a worldview: their is no objective worldview but rather reality is subjective and local as opposed to being objective and universal. Many have acknowledge, however, that this has lead only to relativism and consumerism—absolute relativism.
Gurunistha,
Yes, you have caught my idea as to why it is important to discuss these topics. Among other things it involves understanding where we are within the material world at this time in terms of dominant trends of thought that inform action and determine values.
Grant Upson - December 15, 2008 4:35 pm
Thoughts on Beyond the Postmodern Mind:
What caught my attention while reading the 1st chapter was how important it is to know the progression of thought up to the present in order to understand why the world thinks and perceives the way it does right now. Smith explains it very lucidly in the Preface and the beginning of the chapter how easy it is to be unaware of the main assumptions and their origins that our societies and communities are based on. In some regards it seems like postmodernism as a culture is more aware of itself and its assumptions than the preceding cultures and it seems to be freer to explore its foundations more due to freedom from tradition and authority, but it seems to me like that kind of a freedom brings a new kind of self-unawareness, the unawareness of the "higher self".
Part of what makes Smith so compelling here is that he does not particularly romanticize the paradigms or worldviews of the past. At the same time, he is able to contain his enthusiasm (to put it mildly) for the consequences of a vast intellectual trajectory that has rendered the world “out of focus.”
Smith believes that humanity is currently poised for a seismic (but not instantaneous) shift in its intellectual orientation (or “dominant assumptions”), such as has occurred three or four times in recorded history. Speaking to the imminence (if not necessity) of such a shift, he writes, “either it is possible for man to live indefinitely with his world out of focus, or it is not.”
Although Smith is no doomsday preacher, I think that this statement can be taken at face value. Indeed, there are intellectual, social, and environmental, etc. ramifications of Modernity and Post-Modernity which are not necessarily sustainable. How the fallout of the current paradigm is negotiated is no small matter, and Smith purports to have a new perspective in mind that isn’t actually “new” at all. “Back to the future,” very possibly.
What I find exciting about Smith’s vision (to the extent that it has come across in Chapter 1) is that there seems to be an opening or opportunity for re-introducing a kind of thinking, feeling, and knowing that has been very much eclipsed by the current paradigm. So, a big question going forward is how can GV take advantage of that opportunity.
Syama Gopala Dasa - December 16, 2008 7:09 pm
I read the preface and chapter one last night and much appreciated Smith's words. My ideas on modernism and postmodernism had become somewhat rusty and Smith's approach was refreshing. More or less as a side note, having studied American history and economic history, it was interesting how modernism reminded me of Benjamin Franklin (deism) and how postmodernity of the yuppies of the late eighties.
One sentence in the preface stood out: "the mistake of postmodernism is to assume that human beings look out on the world through windows so befogged that it would be unwise to assume that what they see is in the world itself"
The very fact whether postmodernism will realize its windows are befogged will allow it to see beyond it. I think these cracks are surfacing in contemporary society and am interested to read how Smith further deals with this idea of a transitional period.
Vrindaranya Dasi - December 20, 2008 10:55 pm
The points that stood out the most to me were that our present worldview isn't as objective as we may think it is and the idea that Syama quoted about the window to reality not being so befogged that we can't see anything at all. Taking postmodern insight, Smith turns it on postmodernism itself and then points out that we shouldn't apply this insight in an extreme way. Often we will learn some new vantage point, look at everything from that vantage point, and run the risk of getting too enamored with it and losing perspective. Many trends of Western philosophy seem to exemplify this trap.
Guru-nistha Das - December 21, 2008 3:34 am
I found the sections on about the effect of postmodernism on theology and arts really interesting.
First I'd be interested to discuss postmodernism in theology.
To me it seems like the influence of modernism is still strong, not having crumbled down because of postmodernism. It's totally common to hear educated people disregard religion on the basis of its being "irrational". Smith was talking about the dethroning of reason, but it's still the highest author in the secular world, albeit with a disclaimer "this is not the ABSOLUTE truth". Human reason and science is what most people seem to believe in, though.
A nice point in the Theology section was the part about awe having its place in religion again, just because even scientists are starting to realize the amazing complexity and vastness of the material world. Modernism made reality intelligible and easy to handle and control, postmodernism surrenders to the chaos and admits that we can't understand reality. I think a spiritual world view really brings these two opposites together: we have a cohesive world view and a kind of a "handle" on things, but at the same time, as Smith points out, awe and the feeling of smallness is an integral part of a spiritual world view, and it reminds us that we can never be in control.
Nitaisundara Das - December 21, 2008 4:43 am
Ive been thinking that without an appeal to revelation of some sort (which is considered a "logical fallacy") any attempt to debunk reason will actually just be an attempt to establish a better reasoning. Postmodernism tries to logically show us the shortcoming of logic but then simply begs the question... Acknowledging that logic is inconclusive is only as useful as it will lead to conclusive-ness. But postmodernism stops short. Like GM says "absolute relativism", but the only source of this (hidden) absolutism is again reason. It seems like it really does not practice what it preaches, and when it does, not having any revelation to dictate how one ought to deviate from reason, by default the senses determine how one will deviate. From that angle postmodernism can feel like one big rationalization, the philosophy being secondary to desires.
Just some thoughts from what GN said.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - December 21, 2008 6:23 pm
I found the sections on about the effect of postmodernism on theology and arts really interesting.First I'd be interested to discuss postmodernism in theology.
To me it seems like the influence of modernism is still strong, not having crumbled down because of postmodernism. It's totally common to hear educated people disregard religion on the basis of its being "irrational". Smith was talking about the dethroning of reason, but it's still the highest author in the secular world, albeit with a disclaimer "this is not the ABSOLUTE truth". Human reason and science is what most people seem to believe in, though.
A nice point in the Theology section was the part about awe having its place in religion again, just because even scientists are starting to realize the amazing complexity and vastness of the material world. Modernism made reality intelligible and easy to handle and control, postmodernism surrenders to the chaos and admits that we can't understand reality. I think a spiritual world view really brings these two opposites together: we have a cohesive world view and a kind of a "handle" on things, but at the same time, as Smith points out, awe and the feeling of smallness is an integral part of a spiritual world view, and it reminds us that we can never be in control.
I agree the modernism still has not crumbled completly because of its ability to gratify the senses of humans so wonderfully. Modernism credits itself for removing baises against homosexuals, women, transgendered people who would be treated as witches in the christian or even the recent vedic era. These tangible things give rise to a feeling of progress in humans society compared todark ages of the christian religous wordview. So the modern worldview will not be so easy to replace as long as we depend on science and technology for our needs and sense gratification. For example if you are suffering in pain with penile cancer or a serious disease, what does the modernist viewpoint say. Take best advantage of technology and get better. Christian viewpoint or vedic moralist viewpoint says don't disturb them, they have to suffer as it is their karma or they are devils or they are witches. Similarly modernist can say that they can relieve pain by sanctioning euthanasia which is not acceptable by Christian and Vedic viewpoint. Advances in medicine and technology makes it impossible to turn the tide on modernism. That is why I feel there was a need for mystic yogis who can live without takign anything from modern technology and have the freedom to laugh at them and say that " I can live without your technology happily". Only then their arrogance can be broken.
i
Swami - December 21, 2008 9:49 pm
Ive been thinking that without an appeal to revelation of some sort (which is considered a "logical fallacy") any attempt to debunk reason will actually just be an attempt to establish a better reasoning. Postmodernism tries to logically show us the shortcoming of logic but then simply begs the question... Acknowledging that logic is inconclusive is only as useful as it will lead to conclusive-ness. But postmodernism stops short. Like GM says "absolute relativism", but the only source of this (hidden) absolutism is again reason. It seems like it really does not practice what it preaches, and when it does, not having any revelation to dictate how one ought to deviate from reason, by default the senses determine how one will deviate. From that angle postmodernism can feel like one big rationalization, the philosophy being secondary to desires.
Just some thoughts from what GN said.
The "logical fallacy" you refer to is "appeal to authority." But this involves merely replying to an argument by citing an authority. In other words just because the Gita says such and such, this does not make it true in a logical debatenot tied to revelation. However, one can quote authority like the Gita in terms of its logic in particular verse. By presenting the logic of a scriptural statement one does not commit the logical fallacy of appeal to authority. One can also present the logic of the necessity of revelation for comprehensive knowing (which underscores the limits of logic) without committing this fallacy. You must use logic to dethrone logic, but such logic itself comes from revelation. Revelation is not illogical but rather transrational.
Swami - December 21, 2008 10:15 pm
I agree the modernism still has not crumbled completly because of its ability to gratify the senses of humans so wonderfully. Modernism credits itself for removing baises against homosexuals, women, transgendered people who would be treated as witches in the christian or even the recent vedic era. These tangible things give rise to a feeling of progress in humans society compared todark ages of the christian religous wordview. So the modern worldview will not be so easy to replace as long as we depend on science and technology for our needs and sense gratification. For example if you are suffering in pain with penile cancer or a serious disease, what does the modernist viewpoint say. Take best advantage of technology and get better. Christian viewpoint or vedic moralist viewpoint says don't disturb them, they have to suffer as it is their karma or they are devils or they are witches. Similarly modernist can say that they can relieve pain by sanctioning euthanasia which is not acceptable by Christian and Vedic viewpoint. Advances in medicine and technology makes it impossible to turn the tide on modernism. That is why I feel there was a need for mystic yogis who can live without takign anything from modern technology and have the freedom to laugh at them and say that " I can live without your technology happily". Only then their arrogance can be broken.i
Modernism must be credited for some improvements, but it cannot be credited for improving the human race overall. The last century was the bloodiest in history. With every improvement derived from modernism there is also a downside. It is not a formula for ongoing improvement forever by any means.
We should take that which is useful from modernism but not buy into the idea that modenism is the answer to everything or that it has rendered everything about premodernism useless, disproving the premodern sense of the transcendent. It has not disproved this at all and overall it has not made humanity happier. Indeed, it has caused great existential angst.
Are you reading the book?
Gaura-Vijaya Das - December 21, 2008 11:13 pm
I have the book from the library but due to christmas they will not release the book to me till December 29.
I think people have debated whether the last century was the bloodiest in terms of percentage of people killed, compared to say the Christian Dark Ages and Crusades. But I think existential crisis is something which modernism has created. Then the modernist ask: which will you prefer -- confidence of a faith like in Christian Dark Ages or lack of confidence and doubt like in postmodernism.
I personally like the idea of living in a situation where I use minimum technology for myself (though it may be used for krsna's service) so that I don't have to hear the modernist saying that my life is impossible to be lived without their technological gifts.
Meanwhile I think I will not write more till I get the book in my hand.
Swami - December 21, 2008 11:43 pm
I have the book from the library but due to christmas they will not release the book to me till December 29.
I think people have debated whether the last century was the bloodiest in terms of percentage of people killed, compared to say the Christian Dark Ages and Crusades. But I think existential crisis is something which modernism has created. Then the modernist ask: which will you prefer -- confidence of a faith like in Christian Dark Ages or lack of confidence and doubt like in postmodernism.
I personally like the idea of living in a situation where I use minimum technology for myself (though it may be used for krsna's service) so that I don't have to hear the modernist saying that my life is impossible to be lived without their technological gifts.
Meanwhile I think I will not write more till I get the book in my hand.
We are really discussing modernism as a woldview and what is the logical implication that it leads to. This is much different from isolating some of the benefits that humanity has achieved with the help of science through increased knowledge of the natural world, be they social, medical, etc., and comparing them to problems of premodern times that resulted from lack of this knowledge.
Bhrigu - December 25, 2008 9:34 pm
Apparently I haven't been all bad, since Santa did bring me the book! I've read the preface and chapter one, and am very curious as to where Smith will go from here. I found much of what he said to be very interesting. His analysis of postmodernism and art, for example, was quite good, though I think he may have gone a little too far when it comes to music. Popular music today may be many things, but just random tones... As for the main question, whether there is a great shift coming up, I am not so convinced (at least yet).
I personally like Zygmunt Bauman's term "liquid modernity" for what is going on today. The term postmodernism seems to imply that modernism is a phase completely passed. Bauman makes the point that it hasn't: yes, the "big narrative" has been lost, but many other modern ideals stand strong, such as the importance of money, the ideal of humans as rational self-determining subjects, etc. Rather, he is saying, modernity is changing, and increased mobility (in almost all ways) is the hall-mark of its new phase. Hence the term "liquid". But not all of it has melted down -- some sections of society stand solidly behind their big narratives, whether atheist, Christian or whatever.
Still, one doubt I have with Smith, Bauman and others is whether they really know what they are speaking about, or if they just look at their academic and intellectual friends and then take them as the yardstick of what society is about. But I look forward to chapter two and the rest!
(And yes, Tadiya, you can borrow the book. Just give me a call.)
Guru-nistha Das - December 25, 2008 11:41 pm
Still, one doubt I have with Smith, Bauman and others is whether they really know what they are speaking about, or if they just look at their academic and intellectual friends and then take them as the yardstick of what society is about.
This arouse my curiosity. Could you say something more about it?
Bhrigu - December 26, 2008 10:16 am
I just mean that I'm not sure how much empirical study really is behind these theories. Much if not almost all of the academic discourse is far removed from the rest of society, basically scholars speaking to other scholars. Even when they write for a "popular" audience this often times carries over.
Swami - December 26, 2008 3:24 pm
I just mean that I'm not sure how much empirical study really is behind these theories. Much if not almost all of the academic discourse is far removed from the rest of society, basically scholars speaking to other scholars. Even when they write for a "popular" audience this often times carries over.
Empirical study? Smith and the entire intellectual community and beyond acknowledge that something happened in the 17th century that changed the world. Call it the scientific revolution. This changed the world. This change has been labeled "from premodernism to modernism." Modernism is a fact, and the fact that it, as an answer to all of life's questions (as opposed to religion during the premodern period), has come up short leaves us in times after the fall of modernism. Call that postmodernism or liquid modernism or whatever you like, but I fail to see how this analysis of history is far removed from the rest of society. It is an analysis historical events that affect everyone, their habits, thought patterns, etc. This is what such intellectuals do. They think about the times in which we live and seek to understand and describe them. Of course they could misunderstand them, but the terms and distinct periods of history under discussion are pretty broad and widely acknowledged. Exactly what postmodernism is, well, that is open to a lot of debate, but that modernism has failed in terms of initial promise is hard to debate (although some hard headed naturalists do debate it.)
Bhrigu - December 26, 2008 4:39 pm
I don't think that anyone disagrees about something happening in the 17th century that it led up to modernism. I only wanted to say that some theories of the present moment (and after one chapter I cannot yet say what I think of Smith) seem not grounded in what really is going on "out there". The resurgence of Islam and religion overall is a good example of something that is hard to fit into "classic" theories of postmodernism, secularisation, etc.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - December 26, 2008 4:53 pm
I don't think that anyone disagrees about something happening in the 17th century that it led up to modernism. I only wanted to say that some theories of the present moment (and after one chapter I cannot yet say what I think of Smith) seem not grounded in what really is going on "out there". The resurgence of Islam and religion overall is a good example of something that is hard to fit into "classic" theories of postmodernism, secularisation, etc.
Everything should be seen from the perspective of the West because as much as we disagree that is the place where human life has maximum value. It is not not a mistake to see everything revolving round development in western europe, US and australia. Africa and South America catch up on the philosophical cycles after a significant gap. So if we see france, germany, england scandinavian countries secularization is almost complete and God is dead there almost. Religion cannot make a comeback in france, sweden and australia so that is what matters. The masses in Africa, South America will not be the main target for any media or any philosophical coverage. So even though it seems unfair we have to accept the reality. Even in India, in educated circles religion is on the downside. More educated one becomes less is the influence of religion especially the ritualistic, organized and regimented version of religion.
Swami - December 26, 2008 8:27 pm
I don't think that anyone disagrees about something happening in the 17th century that it led up to modernism. I only wanted to say that some theories of the present moment (and after one chapter I cannot yet say what I think of Smith) seem not grounded in what really is going on "out there". The resurgence of Islam and religion overall is a good example of something that is hard to fit into "classic" theories of postmodernism, secularisation, etc.
Is the "resurgence of Islam and religion overall" an empirically verified fact, to use your term? It is a funny term, incidentally, in consideration of the topic under discussion. But if there is an increase in religious interest, such interest could surely be attributed to the failure of modernism to deliver on its promise—a post modern response. There are also always plenty of people who do not bother to see if their life makes sense. For example, they embrace modeernism in all respects but but believe in God without realizing that modernism, if taken to its logical conclusion, has no place for God. Again, there is no shortage of such people. But what about the people that want to live a life that makes sense. I think these are the people Smith is writing about/to.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - December 26, 2008 10:21 pm
Is the "resurgence of Islam and religion overall" an empirically verified fact, to use your term? It is a funny term, incidentally, in consideration of the topic under discussion. But if there is an increase in religious interest, such interest could surely be attributed to the failure of modernism to deliver on its promise—a post modern response. There are also always plenty of people who do not bother to see if their life makes sense. For example, they embrace modeernism in all respects but but believe in God without realizing that modernism, if taken to its logical conclusion, has no place for God. Again, there is no shortage of such people. But what about the people that want to live a life that makes sense. I think these are the people Smith is writing about/to.
Like you pointed out GM, the proportion of people who want to live a life that makes deep sense will be less than 1% of the population, what can be done? Manusyanam sahestresu ....
I think what Bhrigu said is relevant to most of the masses, they hardly have been left with time to think. Working hours are going up more and more now in china, india or US and even in places where they have decreases(like in France) they are replaced with cultural sophistication as the end goal like of sophists in greece.
Robertnewman - December 27, 2008 1:15 am
The resurgence of Islam and religion overall is a good example of something that is hard to fit into "classic" theories of postmodernism, secularisation, etc.
Islam has certainly become a much more potent force in the world lately, but I question whether there has been a genuine religious resurgence in terms of the proportion of sincere believers and practitioners in the general population. I would say the same for Christian groups like the "religious right" in America. Perhaps what seems to be a religious resurgence among these groups is actually due to the rise of violent fundamentalism among a tiny minority of each faith; itself maybe a Postmodern phenomenon.
Swami - December 27, 2008 12:26 pm
If there are pockets of premodernism still around, such as the Taliban, should we call our times "liquid premodernism?" Even then, the Taliban are as much a product of modernism and postmodernism as anything else. They are a political force divorced from any real sense of transcendence, all in the name of religion.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - December 27, 2008 3:11 pm
If there are pockets of premodernism still around, such as the Taliban, should we call our times "liquid premodernism?" Even then, the Taliban are as much a product of modernism and postmodernism as anything else. They are a political force divorced from any real sense of transcendence, all in the name of religion.
Maybe because of forces like Taliban it is easier for modernists like Dawkins to feel good about science and modernism not realizing that they feed the problem.
Grant Upson - December 27, 2008 3:51 pm
Maybe because of forces like Taliban it is easier for modernists like Dawkins to feel good about science and modernism not realizing that they feed the problem.
Yes, I see that too. What a Dawkins-esque view like that fails to acknowledge is that radicalism and fundamentalism are actually invigorated (if not directly created) by modernism/post-modernism. Movements like the Taliban gain “strength” precisely because they purport to be antagonistic to the dominant paradigm, when in fact they are of the very same soil.
Surely, each one of the paradigms that Smith describes had its detractors who rejected or resisted the rise of a new way of thinking. But voices of dissent are also, in a way, direct products of a paradigm shift, just in the way that fundamentalism is one side of the post-modern coin. I don’t think you can have one without the other.
Thus to isolate contemporary radical movements and claim that these are somehow “pre-modern” elements enduring in modern/post-modern times (and moreover that these elements can be entirely rooted out by pushing the current paradigm) is quite a fantasy.
Bhrigu - December 27, 2008 4:34 pm
All I was trying to say is that many old theories of the development of postmodernism when it comes to religion have proved false (e.g. secularisation leading to a loss of interest in spirituality), and that I suspect one reason for that is that their authors were not connected to the world out there. As for liquid modernity, I only mentioned it as an interesting theory that I know a little of. I have no interest in preaching it or defending it, I just thought it might be of interest in the discussion.
Robertnewman - December 27, 2008 5:23 pm
...old theories of the development of postmodernism when it comes to religion have proved false (e.g. secularisation leading to a loss of interest in spirituality)...
Are you saying that secularization has not contributed to a loss of interest in spirituality? If so, please explain what you mean.
Bhrigu - December 27, 2008 6:21 pm
No, that is not what I am saying. The interest is perhaps less than before, but at least here in Finland, an extremely secularised country, polls consistently report high percentages of belief in God, angels, reincarnation etc. Institutionalised religion is weak, but that does not mean that religion in general is dying out, as many scholars previously believed. Religion takes new forms (often lumped under the term "spirituality").
Nitaisundara Das - December 27, 2008 7:00 pm
My experience indicates to me that most are people are certainly not of the Dawkins breed (i.e disgustingly arrogant), BUT, at least in California it seems like religion is appreciated very much in an allegorical sense, when at all. The methods that people approach them with are also the methods of the secular world, and the goal they seek from them is secular as well, specifically, human interest. Additionally, many people voice the opinion that mythology, for example, is all about deriving personal truths. Very postmodern. So while postmodernism leaves room for religion (since reason is not conclusive) it completely mutilates religion from anything that it has ever been. Religions offer a way to understand the world, a metanarrative, to deprive it of that is, in my opinion, to abuse language. If you want to so drastically change the meaning of something, you ought have the dignity to use a different word.
Like Karen Armstrong for example. She is a total advocate of religion..."because all religions have as their core the 'golden rule'" (paraphrased). Well, I think that is a pretty tricky way to put it. As I see it, religions have a metaphysical core that filters down and applies itself in the world as the golden rule (when done right [rare]). To take the metaphysics away is to cut off the head of spiritual life, a pretty dubious way to embrace religion. Somewhere I read Smith say that it is irrelevant whether or not Religion has caused more bloodshed than atheism, the strength of spirituality (or whatever) is that it is true. Conversely, Armstrong comes across to me as saying "look, ok, it is pretty silly, but people like it and if we can emphasize the 'golden rule' part we could really help humanity. So dont give up on it, because it can be good for you." (This is somewhat speculative because I don't really know a huge amount about her). Plenty of religious people have a view like this (at least that it's merit is human benefit, not that it is silly), and if we lump them under the heading of spirituality, we must use the term spirit differently than it has previously been used (independent of matter). The soul has become the passions of the mind (or body).
So I think that secularization is no myth by any means, but, like smith said in the first chapter in regards to the transition to modernism, such shifts are always gradual, anything less "would have entailed a break with the past more violent than history allows". So it is not just that gradually more and more people will check the 'secular' box in some survey, but the mindset and culture is slowly replaced, brick by brick (for the most part). The result is, at times, an awkward mix (like postmodern theology for example). So people say they believe in God, or reincarnation, or whatever, but the implications never creep into their mind. Their lives are practically speaking, secular.
Robertnewman - December 27, 2008 9:48 pm
The interest is perhaps less than before, but at least here in Finland, an extremely secularised country, polls consistently report high percentages of belief in God, angels, reincarnation etc. Institutionalised religion is weak, but that does not mean that religion in general is dying out, as many scholars previously believed. Religion takes new forms (often lumped under the term "spirituality").
One of the interesting things about the most important scholars of the perennial philosophy and perennial religion is that they stress the importance of revelation and the bona-fide revelatory traditions; Christianity, Islam, Buddhism, "Hinduism", etc. As God's outreach to humanity, such traditions are self-contained and sufficient for the salvation of their sincere adherents; i.e. those who understand and practice them purely. However, the majority of people (at least in the West) who consider themselves religious or spiritual today subscribe to an eclectic hodgepodge of ideas taken from these traditions (and all kinds of other sources), but do not fully embrace the world view and practices of any one of them. Their so-called religion is really another form of sense gratification, the worse for being cloaked in spiritual language. The religious institutions themselves are not the essential thing, but the authentic traditions they mediate cannot be whimsically mixed and matched. People can certainly explore these traditions and choose to follow the one that speaks to them most strongly, but they can't invent their own religion and expect it to yield the same results.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - December 27, 2008 11:03 pm
My experience indicates to me that most are people are certainly not of the Dawkins breed (i.e disgustingly arrogant), BUT, at least in California it seems like religion is appreciated very much in an allegorical sense, when at all. The methods that people approach them with are also the methods of the secular world, and the goal they seek from them is secular as well, specifically, human interest. Additionally, many people voice the opinion that mythology, for example, is all about deriving personal truths. Very postmodern. So while postmodernism leaves room for religion (since reason is not conclusive) it completely mutilates religion from anything that it has ever been. Religions offer a way to understand the world, a metanarrative, to deprive it of that is, in my opinion, to abuse language. If you want to so drastically change the meaning of something, you ought have the dignity to use a different word.
Like Karen Armstrong for example. She is a total advocate of religion..."because all religions have as their core the 'golden rule'" (paraphrased). Well, I think that is a pretty tricky way to put it. As I see it, religions have a metaphysical core that filters down and applies itself in the world as the golden rule (when done right [rare]). To take the metaphysics away is to cut off the head of spiritual life, a pretty dubious way to embrace religion. Somewhere I read Smith say that it is irrelevant whether or not Religion has caused more bloodshed than atheism, the strength of spirituality (or whatever) is that it is true. Conversely, Armstrong comes across to me as saying "look, ok, it is pretty silly, but people like it and if we can emphasize the 'golden rule' part we could really help humanity. So dont give up on it, because it can be good for you." (This is somewhat speculative because I don't really know a huge amount about her). Plenty of religious people have a view like this (at least that it's merit is human benefit, not that it is silly), and if we lump them under the heading of spirituality, we must use the term spirit differently than it has previously been used (independent of matter). The soul has become the passions of the mind (or body).
So I think that secularization is no myth by any means, but, like smith said in the first chapter in regards to the transition to modernism, such shifts are always gradual, anything less "would have entailed a break with the past more violent than history allows". So it is not just that gradually more and more people will check the 'secular' box in some survey, but the mindset and culture is slowly replaced, brick by brick (for the most part). The result is, at times, an awkward mix (like postmodern theology for example). So people say they believe in God, or reincarnation, or whatever, but the implications never creep into their mind. Their lives are practically speaking, secular.
Yes I agree what do they do with their belief in God, reincarnation etc in finland or any other country. They just live a secular life. I also think for an outsider GV in its present form will look like taliban in some way.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - January 3, 2009 11:30 pm
http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=5723928558446879967
It is a pretty good video from Huston Smith.
He accepts the need for a good teacher.
Babhru Das - January 4, 2009 1:34 pm
Nice interview. Thanks for pointing us to it. He makes that point about the value of good teachers especially clearly between 15:00 and 16:00. I also appreciate his characterization of mystics as those who see that there in nothing but God, who encompasses everything.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - January 4, 2009 7:01 pm
Nice interview. Thanks for pointing us to it. He makes that point about the value of good teachers especially clearly between 15:00 and 16:00. I also appreciate his characterization of mystics as those who see that there in nothing but God, who encompasses everything.
Thanks. Although certainly I don't agree with him on certain things there is one good thing he said "part of the goal of religious life should be to be uncomfortable with yourself" that is exactly what GM said today in the Call. The Guru's role is to challenge the disciple.
Guru-nistha Das - January 8, 2009 5:16 pm
Should we go forward with Beyond the Postmodern Mind?
Swami - January 8, 2009 8:03 pm
Should we go forward with Beyond the Postmodern Mind?
Yes, by all means. Worldviews anyone?
Swami - January 28, 2009 2:22 pm
The second chapter is a bit difficult to read without being familiar with the various philosophers discussed, as Smith himself points out. It has been quite some time since I read the book, but if memory serves me well I think Smith has done a good job of finding a way to see how each of these precursor philosophers to postmodernism have left some room for the notion of a worldview/metaphysiscs even while contributing significantly to dispensing with such notions, which is so central to postmodernism. Postmodernists will not take this chapter seriously, but in my opinion it is good scholarship and contributes significantly to Smith’s overall argument.
Guru-nistha Das - January 29, 2009 5:40 pm
I'm about half way into the chapter, and so far it's been edifying to learn about the gradual dissolving of metaphysics in western philosophy: from Kant, who said that the noumenal world exists but cannot ever be known as it is, through Kierkegaard, Nietzsche and Heidegger to Wittgenstein who said that all mental constructs (metaphysical systems included) are just products of societies.
Bhrigu - January 29, 2009 8:15 pm
I liked this chapter, though I also thought it was rather difficult reading. I thought Smith's summaries of some of the most prominent critiques of metaphysics excellent (there was a good diagram as well, which I am sure Kamalaksa would have appreciated). I do wonder if it had been possible to be a little more aggressive, though. Defining metaphysics as "a worldview that provides a sense of orientation" seems rather far from more classical definitions such as trying to explain the ultimate nature of being and the world.
Otherwise, the one objection against metaphysics that I found most interesting is Kirkegaards: metaphysics dehumanises. To view the world "as it is", we must step back from it. As Smith, I do feel this is a real problem. A good example is the law of karma, a superficial understanding of which can be used to justify a very cold and callous behaviour toward human suffering. Of course, a person with a deeper understanding will avoid this pitfall by not letting knowledge blot out compassion.
Nitaisundara Das - January 29, 2009 9:39 pm
Otherwise, the one objection against metaphysics that I found most interesting is Kirkegaards: metaphysics dehumanises.
This is not any substantial address of the issue but I like this quote from Fritjof Schoun: "If ones aim is to save mankind, one must first know what it means to be a man". So similarly the dehumanization Kirkegaard is reffering is presumably based on an inadequate concept of humanism. I am not proposing this is by any degree a developed point, but it is part of a larger point. It certainly does not negate the fact of sub-human behavior in the name of metaphysics. Converesly we could say metaphysics is the only way to become human.
I have not read the chapter so I should just shut up there.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - January 30, 2009 2:05 am
This is not any substantial address of the issue but I like this quote from Fritjof Schoun: "If ones aim is to save mankind, one must first know what it means to be a man". So similarly the dehumanization Kirkegaard is reffering is presumably based on an inadequate concept of humanism. I am not proposing this is by any degree a developed point, but it is part of a larger point. It certainly does not negate the fact of sub-human behavior in the name of metaphysics. Converesly we could say metaphysics is the only way to become human.
I have not read the chapter so I should just shut up there.
Really good point though.
Guru-nistha Das - January 31, 2009 5:46 pm
Inspired by the section IV (moral objections) of the second chapter, I came to the conclusion that mysticism is needed to keep metaphysics relevant. Here's some thoughts:
According to Derrida, claims of Absolute Truth marginalizes other ideas and alienates us from others who don't share our world view. It makes us blind to alternative ways of understanding. There's definitely some truth to this. The remedy, however, is not to throw the metaphysical baby out with the bath water in order to be open-minded, but to rely on people whose metaphysics are not only informed by logic and reasoning, but by genuine mystical experience.
A natural conclusion of Derrida's theory would be that the more a person bases his/her life on a metaphysical world view, the more closed, marginalized and antagonistic towards differently thinking people he must be. But obviously this is not the case with mystics. They are in many ways much more connected to the nature, more conscious and clear-minded of what's going on around them, kinder to other living beings and very flexible in their thinking –more so than most postmodernists–while basing their lives completely on a "metaphysical" foundation.
Institutionalized religion often serves as an example of what Derrida is warning about. When an institution is based on metaphysical principles but there are no members who would embody the theory of their metaphysical system the problems with absolute claims become very obvious. When religion becomes only a philosophical or theological belief-system with no one to clarify and validate the construct with their mystical experience of it, people start "dragging transcendence to their level", as Guru Maharaja puts it. To make matters worse, even if there is such a person, institutions often turn against members that actually embody the true spirit of the institution. The realized person's flexibility is seen as a deviation because it doesn't fit the conditioned and literal understanding of the institution's metaphysics. Truth has to be as the institution delineates it, otherwise it will crumble the whole foundation the members have built their lives on.
It could be argued that true metaphysical world views, that have lasted the tear of time, have originated as a side-product of the mystical experience. The experiencers have put their experiences into words, and from that philosophical systems have developed.The mystical experience is afforded to a fortunate few by revelation, so even metaphysics in the ultimate case would be a descending form of knowledge. This is why reason should never be separated from the mystical experience and given independence. The only solution to keep metaphysics from either turning into totalitarianism or into meaningless relativism (as a reaction to totalitarianism) is to have a continuous stream of new revelation and a chain of saints who can provide that.
Of course it's a whole other discussion of how to decide who is a real saint and which saint's vision is the correct, but I won't get into that here.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - January 31, 2009 6:03 pm
Inspired by the section IV (moral objections) of the second chapter, I came to the conclusion that mysticism is needed to keep metaphysics relevant. Here's some thoughts:
According to Derrida, claims of Absolute Truth marginalizes other ideas and alienates us from others who don't share our world view. It makes us blind to alternative ways of understanding. There's definitely some truth to this. The remedy, however, is not to throw the metaphysical baby out with the bath water in order to be open-minded, but to rely on people whose metaphysics are not only informed by logic and reasoning, but by genuine mystical experience.
A natural conclusion of Derrida's theory would be that the more a person bases his/her life on a metaphysical world view, the more closed, marginalized and antagonistic towards differently thinking people he must be. But obviously this is not the case with mystics. They are in many ways much more connected to the nature, more conscious and clear-minded of what's going on around them, kinder to other living beings and very flexible in their thinking –more so than most postmodernists–while basing their lives completely on a "metaphysical" foundation.
Institutionalized religion often serves as an example of what Derrida is warning about. When an institution is based on metaphysical principles but there are no members who would embody the theory of their metaphysical system the problems with absolute claims become very obvious. When religion becomes only a philosophical or theological belief-system with no one to clarify and validate the construct with their mystical experience of it, people start "dragging transcendence to their level", as Guru Maharaja puts it. To make matters worse, even if there is such a person, institutions often turn against members that actually embody the true spirit of the institution. The realized person's flexibility is seen as a deviation because it doesn't fit the conditioned and literal understanding of the institution's metaphysics. Truth has to be as the institution delineates it, otherwise it will crumble the whole foundation the members have built their lives on.
It could be argued that true metaphysical world views, that have lasted the tear of time, have originated as a side-product of the mystical experience. The experiencers have put their experiences into words, and from that philosophical systems have developed.The mystical experience is afforded to a fortunate few by revelation, so even metaphysics in the ultimate case would be a descending form of knowledge. This is why reason should never be separated from the mystical experience and given independence. The only solution to keep metaphysics from either turning into totalitarianism or into meaningless relativism (as a reaction to totalitarianism) is to have a continuous stream of new revelation and a chain of saints who can provide that.
Of course it's a whole other discussion of how to decide who is a real saint and which saint's vision is the correct, but I won't get into that here.
I could not agree more. But there are managers and not mystics in today's times. that is the problem
Gaura-Vijaya Das - January 31, 2009 6:21 pm
The problem though is that in GV tradition only one kind of mystic is respected. Atleast this seems to be trend since BSSt and SP that makes it very difficult. For instance SP mentions how jnanis,yogis etc should be avoided as there are just envious serpents. This can create an unnecessary antagonism in people practicing one view whether it be GV or Christianity. But I think GM is bringing dignity to GV and he is actually doing much to enhance the reputation of SP and BSST. Rather than them being seen as just sectarian, people will see how they thought that their transcendental experience is the best and in that feeling everything else looked meaningless to them.
Otherwise there is no need to actually too strongly criticize other paths for people just starting out on the path.
Like VCT points out in Madhurya kadimbini and the prevention of the fourth offence:
"If one commits this offense one obtains relief when one has the fortune to understand from a knowledgeable person that the srutis mercifully help the most blind, unqualified and independent people to come to the path of bhakti. Commission of the fourth offense can be nullified by using the same mouth that criticized the scriptures (such as the srutis, propounding karma and jnana) to praise the same scriptures, and to praise the practitioners of those scriptures ( eg. performers of karma and jnana), and by performing loud chanting of the Holy Name."
Swami - February 1, 2009 1:31 am
Inspired by the section IV (moral objections) of the second chapter, I came to the conclusion that mysticism is needed to keep metaphysics relevant. Here's some thoughts:
According to Derrida, claims of Absolute Truth marginalizes other ideas and alienates us from others who don't share our world view. It makes us blind to alternative ways of understanding. There's definitely some truth to this. The remedy, however, is not to throw the metaphysical baby out with the bath water in order to be open-minded, but to rely on people whose metaphysics are not only informed by logic and reasoning, but by genuine mystical experience.
A natural conclusion of Derrida's theory would be that the more a person bases his/her life on a metaphysical world view, the more closed, marginalized and antagonistic towards differently thinking people he must be. But obviously this is not the case with mystics. They are in many ways much more connected to the nature, more conscious and clear-minded of what's going on around them, kinder to other living beings and very flexible in their thinking –more so than most postmodernists–while basing their lives completely on a "metaphysical" foundation.
Institutionalized religion often serves as an example of what Derrida is warning about. When an institution is based on metaphysical principles but there are no members who would embody the theory of their metaphysical system the problems with absolute claims become very obvious. When religion becomes only a philosophical or theological belief-system with no one to clarify and validate the construct with their mystical experience of it, people start "dragging transcendence to their level", as Guru Maharaja puts it. To make matters worse, even if there is such a person, institutions often turn against members that actually embody the true spirit of the institution. The realized person's flexibility is seen as a deviation because it doesn't fit the conditioned and literal understanding of the institution's metaphysics. Truth has to be as the institution delineates it, otherwise it will crumble the whole foundation the members have built their lives on.
It could be argued that true metaphysical world views, that have lasted the tear of time, have originated as a side-product of the mystical experience. The experiencers have put their experiences into words, and from that philosophical systems have developed.The mystical experience is afforded to a fortunate few by revelation, so even metaphysics in the ultimate case would be a descending form of knowledge. This is why reason should never be separated from the mystical experience and given independence. The only solution to keep metaphysics from either turning into totalitarianism or into meaningless relativism (as a reaction to totalitarianism) is to have a continuous stream of new revelation and a chain of saints who can provide that.
Of course it's a whole other discussion of how to decide who is a real saint and which saint's vision is the correct, but I won't get into that here.
Thank you for this thoughtful post.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - February 7, 2009 6:18 pm
I finally got hold of the book and the read the first two chapters. One thing which strikes me is that Huston Smith wants to build a generic metaphysical structure based on human experience and logic which at the same time acknowledges the limitations of a human like Kant i.e, the amorphous structure underneath our fantasy stories
Robertnewman - February 8, 2009 6:38 pm
A natural conclusion of Derrida's theory would be that the more a person bases his/her life on a metaphysical world view, the more closed, marginalized and antagonistic towards differently thinking people he must be.
One thing that the perennialists emphasize strongly is the difference between pure metaphysics and the metaphysical doctrines (or dogmas) found in the revealed religions. Doctrine is the human (or religious) expression of metaphysical truth, and as such is bound to be limited, partial, and productive of antagonisms between groups. Pure metaphysics, on the other hand, is all-inclusive, beyond reason and limitation. As such it is not knowable by everyone; the concept of adhikara comes into play here just as it does in bhakti. But those who are qualified and have realized metaphysical truth in its purity have antagonism only toward outright error, not toward the apparently contradictory but really complementary doctrines expressed by the various religions.
Robertnewman - February 8, 2009 6:43 pm
One thing which strikes me is that Huston Smith wants to build a generic metaphysical structure based on human experience and logic which at the same time acknowledges the limitations of a human like Kant i.e, the amorphous structure underneath our fantasy stories
There could be nothing more absurd than a project to "build a generic metaphysical structure based on human experience and logic". Metaphysics is by definition beyond the human level and can only be revealed. Experience and logic come into play only secondarily in order to integrate and communicate revelation.
Gaura-Vijaya Das - February 9, 2009 2:28 am
There could be nothing more absurd than a project to "build a generic metaphysical structure based on human experience and logic". Metaphysics is by definition beyond the human level and can only be revealed. Experience and logic come into play only secondarily in order to integrate and communicate revelation.
I think it would be good to read the chapter and the context. He does acknowledge revelation as the means to the transcendent but still we have to acknowledge the human setting of the revelation.
Guru-nistha Das - February 13, 2009 2:32 am
I posted my writing about Mysticism and Metaphysics to my blog and Zvonimir replied. I wrote him back and I thought the exchange might be of interest for the devotees following this thread.
Zvonimir wrote:
IMHO, western mind doesn’t necessarily ‘think’ unlike eastern mind. Or vice versa. A post modern person may also think in all new ways, beyond east and west. Universal way, controversial way, etc.
I find eastern and western attributes to be a part of milieu of a pre-WWII world, with science and human society still deeply segregated and fragmented. We’re still dragging that world view in us, because it’s still instated through politics and economy, which dominate today’s life.
Thus we have an old economic system that is utterly inefficient in coping inside modern world, which causes multitude of crises, all augmented with political issues that sparkle constantly around the globe.
Some new bold moves on metaphysics are possible too; if you ever have a chance, take a look on “Every Thing Must Go: Metaphysics Naturalized”, by Ladyman, Ross, Spurrett and Collier. I’ll grab and excerpt from Amazon, which nicely summarises that work.
“Every Thing Must Go” is a bold attempt to replace our standard metaphysical picture of the world with a radically different view. The motivation for this change comes from taking science, and especially fundamental physics, seriously. The basic structure of the book is as follows.
1. The authors begin by calling into question the methodology of current “armchair” metaphysics. A new naturalistic methodology is proposed according to which the goal of metaphysics is to unify the various sciences.
2. Using this methodology, Ladyman et al proceed to argue for a version of ontic structural realism about fundamental physics. According to this view, our best physical theories tell us only about structure — not entities — because there are no entities. In other words, at the fundamental level, there are no things (hence the title).
3. Finally, the authors attempt to explain how the successful deploying of objects and causation in the special sciences can be justified when neither is found in fundamental physics nor is reducible to it.
4. The key to reconciling the special sciences with fundamental physics is an understanding of objects of the former in terms of Dennett’s real patterns. Essentially, objects (and causation) in the special sciences are real patterns that track important features of the structure of reality at a non-fundamental level of resolution.
Perhaps the most important role for philosophy of any sort is questioning the fundamental assumptions that underlie our thinking.
This book exemplifies this virtue by asking, “Is the world really made up of smaller and smaller things? Or is this merely a prejudice carried over from our experience with the world of everyday experience?”
So let’s go back again; we live in a world segregated by politics and economy, and it seems those two stubborn imposed ‘realities’ of our lives like us to believe world is meant to be like that, despite evidence that the opposite is actually true.
And I replied:
Thanks for your reply, Zvonimir. It gave me a good opportunity to further clarify my thoughts on the subject. Here’s what I thought:
You’re saying that the global community has transcended the east/west segregation and the distinction holds no meaning anymore since we live in a global village, but the way I see it is that actually the whole world has become westernized. Unity requires a similar world view, or a loose theoretical framework at least. And the modern world surely has one: value relativism, of which consumerism is a natural outcome. I see this very much as a product of the west. What I mean with the West in this context is the cultures that were part of the scientific/industrial revolution and turned into modernism and finally to postmodernism. If it wasn’t for these cultures, Middle-Europe I guess, the world would still be living in a pre-industrial setting. So to say that we have transcended the east/west thinking is very Western-centric IMHO. 
The current paradigm was first forced by the sword and later with promises of easy life and glamor. I think it’s an unarguable fact that the whole world is trying to follow the culture that set the title wave of modernity on its course.
Also, what the book “All Things Must Go” is advocating sounds very much like another Western project to me. We have to realize that believing in the superiority of science as a means of knowing is very much a culturally biased opinion, but it’s very hard to see as such because it’s OUR culture, and it’s so much harder to see your own cultural conditioning than others’.
Modern philosophy seems to be doubtful to the extreme and apparently totally open to new ideas, but at the same time strongly relies on empiricism and science. I find that to be a contradiction. [after thought: this statement seems to be too black-and-white]
The book “all things must go” seems to be relying on the same thing, that a comprehensive world explanation can only be arrived at through naturalistic means. This is a point I strongly disagree with. I believe that you do get accurate information about your surroundings through science (no, I don’t believe the world is flat, thank you very much) but it’s only one methodology of gathering knowledge, one view of looking at what’s happening. My personal conviction is that it just can’t touch the deeper understanding or knowing of reality, as it is experienced by the mystics. Why should I believe in the unproved background assumption of science that reality can be known by empiristic or naturalistic means? I’m very doubtful of that.
Another assumption that we westerners seem to take for granted is that in the final analysis all progression is elevating, or adds something more to the old. So we have to find NEW ways of thinking, NEW ways of commuting, sleeping, having sex, eating, playing, relaxing and so on. But I think we should also stop to consider that maybe we have lost some abilities that were inborn in the ancient cultures, and now we are trying to substitute that connection by feverishly trying to come up with new things.
What this really boils down to is a linear way of thinking, which is practically absent in the ancient cultures.
At the same time, this is not to say that everything was perfect in the “olden days”, but I do feel we have lost something that cannot be substituted with the brilliant innovativeness and intelligence of the modern mind (which actually is amazing in itself).
I do believe that the east and the west could come together in a profound way, but it’s not going to happen in the way the world is going at it right now.
I warmly recommend Huston Smith’s book to you, Zvonimir. It’s very refreshing and bold in its approach, but not fundamentalist at all.
Braja-sundari Dasi - March 23, 2009 1:14 pm
I read the forth chapter of Mr. Smith`s book and I find the book more and more interesting. Just one thing that recently catched my attention: speaking about the realms that are beyond the matter has been excluded from everyday life. It is so overpervding that we do not notice it anymore but there is really discrimination of such topics. God, demigods, parapsychological phenomena are allowed to appear in churches or New Age magazines. If you try to talk about them with common people or worse- with scientists you often may be considered fanatical or insane.