Esoteric unity of religion

[Sunstone]

Religions answer questions like that based on universal mystical experiences. I think the more you examine comparative mysticism, comparative mythology, and comparative religion, the more apt you are to conclude that all religions are esoterically related even when separated by time and space.

That's an unacceptable gloss that seems to be based on a few facts, but not on a thorough knowledge of the subject. For instance, there is no hard evidence that the most popular Christinan notions of the self are at all based on mystical experiences. To believe that is the case strikes me as wishful thinking. As for the Dakota, they seem to have had a radically different concept of the self before contact with Europeans. After contact, some syncretism seems to have taken place. And the Zen Buddhist notion of the self is so different from the Christian that most Christianns and former Christians simply do not accept it at face value, but attempt to interpret it and re-interpret it, and re-interpret it again -- until they have something similar to the Christian view.

When I began studying comparative mysticism over 35 years ago, I too was more or less of the opinion that (1) all religions were based on mysticism, and (2) that religions had a fundamental, esoteric unity. But that, based on what I've learned in the past 35 years, was a premature conclusion based on too little information.

 

[Quiddity]

No one? There are several people at least.

Poorly worded. I meant most.

Not sure what you mean by this. Standing on a mountaintop, you can see a harmony that a climber in the foothills can't yet see. Standing in the eye of a hurricane, you can see things that someone in the outer rainbands can't.

I'm just saying that what's on the outside is not without meaning or value.

I'm not sure what you mean by the whole mountaintop analogy.

 

[Student of X]

For instance, there is no hard evidence that the most popular Christinan notions of the self are at all based on mystical experiences.

What sort of 'hard evidence' do you think is reasonable for us to expect to find?

 

[Student of X]

I'm not sure what you mean by the whole mountaintop analogy.

Imagine standing on a mountaintop and seeing many paths on all sides of the mountain leading to the top. You would see that all the paths are connected by their unity at the top of the mountain. But a climber on one side of the mountain would not be in a position to see that. Subsequently he might think that his path is the only one that leads to the top.

 

[Faxecura]

Any religion can be interpreted on 2 separate levels, the exoteric (outer, surface) level, and the esoteric (inner, deep) level. On the exoteric level, religions appear as separate entities (christianity over here, islam over there, Buddhism over there etc etc), but on the esoteric level, all religions are saying the same thing, they are all essentially equivalent expressions of religious insight. The esoteric interpretation of Islam is equivalent to the esoteric interpretation of Christianity

An analogy for this idea - the separate religions are like different candy wrappers, which all contain one and the same candy bar

The pseudo-historical Moses, Mohammed, Jesus, and Buddha are at war against each other; while the esoteric/mythic Moses, Mohammed, and Buddha are one and the same being, in full agreement with himself. Just as individual people are esoterically the limbs of the transcendent One Being, so are the various exoteric religions secretly, on the esoteric level, all the one true religion.

The one false religion is the exoteric/Literalist/historicist/exoteric religions (plural); the one true religion is the Esoteric/allegorical/esoteric religion (singular)

It is easy to see some points where moral teachings coincide here and there. On the subject of worldviews in general, there remains a much bigger distance, especially in the realm of theology. If you work hard at it, you can reconcile the various theologies (which differ even among Christian denominations). Nevertheless, you can make the argument that many religions teach the same thing, but you still have to dig deep to find it.

Have you read anything by Ananda Coomaraswamy? He was one of the people who belonged to the group called the Traditionalist School, which advocated the Sophia Perennis, and the "transcendent unity of belief" at the esoteric level.

 

[Quiddity]

Imagine standing on a mountaintop and seeing many paths on all sides of the mountain leading to the top. You would see that all the paths are connected by their unity at the top of the mountain. But a climber on one side of the mountain would not be in a position to see that. Subsequently he might think that his path is the only one.

Ok, but I'm trying to apply this in a practical way, with real people and don't know if this necessarily applies. Even the most staunch fundamentalist will admit to similarities and that somehow these paths connect in some way or another. I don't know if you could get most people to subscribe that they are all one though. There is a real seperation within a unity.

 

[Student of X]

Ok, but I'm trying to apply this in a practical way, with real people and don't know if this necessarily applies. Even the most staunch fundamentalist will admit to similarities and that somehow these paths connect in some way or another. I don't know if you could get most people to subscribe that they are all one though. There is a real seperation within a unity.

Yeah. Most people will not subscribe in this lifetime.

I believe that people are led to the esoteric level when they are ready. Until then they are like spiritual babes on a spiritual diet of milk. There is nothing wrong with milk but sooner or later a spirit needs the 'solid food' of initiation by fire. So to speak.

 

[maxfreakout]

i loosely based the OP on Frithjof Schuon's book 'the transcendent unity of religions' but i am inclined to think of it slightly differently to the way he puts it in that book. He puts more emphasis on religions as equivalent expressions of divine oneness, whereas i agree with the poster 'Student of X', that the unifying principle behind religions is the universality of mystical experiences. Essentially, i think that religions are precisely equivalent to each other because human brain chemistry is universal, Mohammed's brain chemistry is exactly the same as Buddha and Jesus' brain chemistry, and specifically, the neurochemical underpinnings of mystical experiences are universal (something to do with serotonin chemistry). When viewed this way, the different religions can be seen as the varying reactions of different cultures in ancient history to the phenomenon of mystical experience, especially the experience of mystical death and rebirth/transcendence/enlightenment

 

[Quiddity]

Yeah. Most people will not subscribe in this lifetime.

I believe that people are led to the esoteric level when they are ready. Until then they are like spiritual babes on a spiritual diet of milk. There is nothing wrong with milk but sooner or later a spirit needs the 'solid food' of initiation by fire. So to speak.

Well, from the bottom of the mountain, one can't help but see the man at top as supercilious. Maybe that time will come, but the idea of seperation is simply a giant hurdle for most jump to over simply because it is that obvious?

 

[maxfreakout]

Exoteric and esoteric approaches to religion serve different purposes. Hence, neither method is categorically "false." But rather more or less true depending on what someone is using the myth to accomplish.

What are these different purposes that religion is used for? If one uses the myth for the purpose of accomplishing a vision of metaphysical truth, then the esoteric interpretation yields a coherent vision, whereas the exoteric interpretation only serves to obscure this vision

 

[maxfreakout]

Is reincarnation esoteric or exoteric?
Is heaven/hell esoteric or exoteric?

This ^ question gets it the wrong way round, the real questions to ask are:
What are the exoteric and esoteric interpretations of reincarnation?
What are the exoteric and esoteric interpretations of heaven and hell?

an exotericist interprets these concepts as things that are not yet experienced, but that will be experienced at the point of physical (bodily) death, and also, as experiences that were undergone by the prophets

an esotericist reads all of the above concepts in terms of experiential phenomena that are encountered in the mystical altered state of consciousness. The mystic experiences reincarnation, heaven and hell in the course of their mystical exploration

 

[Student of X]

Well, from the bottom of the mountain, one can't help but see the man at top as supercilious.

What about from the middle of the mountain?

Maybe that time will come, but the idea of seperation is simply a giant hurdle for most jump to over simply because it is that obvious?

We live in a time when the scholarship is out there. It just needs to be crammed down peoples throats. It's an exciting time to be alive. I think Joseph Campbell put it best when he said,

"No one, as far as I know, has yet tried to compose into a single picture the new perspectives that have been opened in the fields of comparative symbolism, religion, mythology, and philosophy by the scholarship of recent years. The richly rewarded archaeological researches of the past few decades; astonishing clarifications, simplifications, and coordinations achieved by intensive studies in the spheres of philology, ethnology, philosophy, art history, folklore, and religion; fresh insights in psychological research; and the many priceless contributions to our science by the scholars, monks, and literary men of Asia, have combined to suggest a new image of the fundamental unity of the spiritual history of mankind.

Without straining beyond the treasuries of evidence already on hand in these widely scattered departments of our subject, therefore, but simply gathering from them the membra disjuncta of a unitary mythological science, I attempt in the following pages the first sketch of a natural history of the gods and heroes, such as in its final form should include in its purview all divine beings—as zoology includes all animals and botany all plants—not regarding any as sacrosanct or beyond its scientific domain.

For, as in the visible world of the vegetable and animal kingdoms, so also in the visionary world of the gods: there has been a history, an evolution, a series of mutations, governed by laws; and to show forth such laws is the proper aim of science." (bold mine)

 

[maxfreakout]

The OP strikes me as a gross simplication of the facts. While there are many similarities between some religions, there are key differences -- even at the so-called "esoteric" level. For instance: at the estoteric level, union with deity is often a goal in Hinduism is a heresy that at times could get you burnt at the stake in both Christianity and Islam, and is, at most, entirely ignored in Shintoism. To say those three approaches to union with deity are esoterically the same is to ignore the truth.

'union with a deity' is interpreted esoterically as something that is sometimes experienced by mystics. For example the story of the crucifixion of christ can be interpreted as a story about a man experiencing/realising divine identity, just as the story of Arjuna's encounter with Krishna can be interpreted as a story about a man experiencing/realising divine identity. The fact that people have been burned at the stake for claiming to have had these experiences is an entirely separate issue

 

[Quiddity]

What about from the middle of the mountain?

Hmm......perhaps. If it's a progressive thing, I suppose you come to appreciate it. But like most things, until you are there......that's how most will be proned to perceive it.

We live in a time when the scholarship is out there. It just needs to be crammed down peoples throats. It's an exciting time to be alive. I think Joseph Campbell put it best when he said,

"No one, as far as I know, has yet tried to compose into a single picture the new perspectives that have been opened in the fields of comparative symbolism, religion, mythology, and philosophy by the scholarship of recent years. The richly rewarded archaeological researches of the past few decades; astonishing clarifications, simplifications, and coordinations achieved by intensive studies in the spheres of philology, ethnology, philosophy, art history, folklore, and religion; fresh insights in psychological research; and the many priceless contributions to our science by the scholars, monks, and literary men of Asia, have combined to suggest a new image of the fundamental unity of the spiritual history of mankind.

Without straining beyond the treasuries of evidence already on hand in these widely scattered departments of our subject, therefore, but simply gathering from them the membra disjuncta of a unitary mythological science, I attempt in the following pages the first sketch of a natural history of the gods and heroes, such as in its final form should include in its purview all divine beings—as zoology includes all animals and botany all plants—not regarding any as sacrosanct or beyond its scientific domain.

For, as in the visible world of the vegetable and animal kingdoms, so also in the visionary world of the gods: there has been a history, an evolution, a series of mutations, governed by laws; and to show forth such laws is the proper aim of science." (bold mine)

That's quite a task to take on. Very few people can make use of all this and truly understand them all.

 

[Student of X]

Hmm......perhaps. If it's a progressive thing, I suppose you come to appreciate it. But like most things, until you are there......that's how most will be proned to perceive it.


That's quite a task to take on. Very few people can make use of all this and truly understand them all.

When the few are ready they will be led to it. Until then, synchronicity will keep them from it. Or karma, or whatever. It might take a million lifetimes to reach the top. Or just one. Who knows. Everyone has a different path.

I was led to it by a mid-life crisis that sort of merged with a crisis of faith. I discovered scholarship that I didn't know was there and I started having mystical experiences. And now here I am, at the top of the mountain looking down in Awe.

 

[maxfreakout]

does it really do justice to all historical religious figures (or mythical) when I compare them all in order to have a unifying formula for world religions? why not understand the context of each and every one?

Ideally you would do both

one point i think you have missed, is that exoteric/esoteric are not merely 2 sides to religion, they are arranged in a hierarchy, esotericism transcends exotericism, you can't get to esotericism without first going through exotericism, you start of drinking milk before you are weaned onto proper food.

For example, the myth of Jesus Christ incorporates a sociopolitical strategy that is unique to the political circumstances of christian origins, Jesus the Godman depicted as a crucified rebel.

were Jesus and Muhammad actually discussing the same issues?

Jesus and Muhammad both had the same kinds of experiences, they both experienced divine revelation and transcendence.

 

[maxfreakout]

It's utterly meaningless if they truly are the same if no one see's it as such.

this is the way that mystics and esotericists have always seen it

 

[Caladan]

Jesus and Muhammad both had the same kinds of experiences, they both experienced divine revelation and transcendence.

Well that really solves you the problem of going through all the trouble to read about Jesus, Muhammad, early Christianity, and the birth of Islam.

 

[idav]

Any religion can be interpreted on 2 separate levels, the exoteric (outer, surface) level, and the esoteric (inner, deep) level. On the exoteric level, religions appear as separate entities (christianity over here, islam over there, Buddhism over there etc etc), but on the esoteric level, all religions are saying the same thing, they are all essentially equivalent expressions of religious insight. The esoteric interpretation of Islam is equivalent to the esoteric interpretation of Christianity

An analogy for this idea - the separate religions are like different candy wrappers, which all contain one and the same candy bar

The pseudo-historical Moses, Mohammed, Jesus, and Buddha are at war against each other; while the esoteric/mythic Moses, Mohammed, and Buddha are one and the same being, in full agreement with himself. Just as individual people are esoterically the limbs of the transcendent One Being, so are the various exoteric religions secretly, on the esoteric level, all the one true religion.

The one false religion is the exoteric/Literalist/historicist/exoteric religions (plural); the one true religion is the Esoteric/allegorical/esoteric religion (singular)

Even on the inside people are somewhat different but I agree that there are fundamental truths at many levels even despite our seeming differences.

 

[Sunstone]

'union with a deity' is interpreted esoterically as something that is sometimes experienced by mystics.

Not all mystics accept the notion there is such a thing as deity, let alone accept the notion there is union with a deity.

For example the story of the crucifixion of christ can be interpreted as a story about a man experiencing/realising divine identity...

Yes, but that would be a silly interpretaion, wouldn't it?

The fact that people have been burned at the stake for claiming to have had these experiences is an entirely separate issue

You either failed to understand the point, or you are pretending to fail to understand the point.