Is Perennial Philosophy the same as Universalism?

[StarryNightshade]

I've been reading up on Perennial Philosophy and am struck by just how much I agree with it. However, some people (especially more New Age-y and "spiritual, not religious" individuals) take Perennial Philosophy to be another form of, or even to be just another name for, Universalism.

Do you find this to be a fair comparison?

I personally don't.

From what I know (which is very little), Universalism implies that all religions are "the same" or "teach the same thing". Whereas Perennial Philosophy says that there is an underlying unity in the world's different religious traditions; implying that the different rites, rituals, and philosophies are the different culture's ways of seeking the Source of all of existence. Especially when comparing mystical traditions of the world's religions.

So basically: Universalsim = it's all the same. Perennial Philosophy = Different methods and teachings, more or less similar goals.

Would you say this is basically correct? Or am I way off in my assessment?

 

[Quintessence]

It's my understanding that "universalism" was a response to claims about salvation within Christian traditions, and specifically, a rejection of exclusivist approaches (i.e., there is only one right way to achieve salvation) and replacing it with pluralism (i.e., there are many ways to achieve salvation), if not the notion of universal salvation (i.e., everybody is "saved" regardless of their path). But in other contexts, the term "universalism" carries different meanings. Broadly, it just means something has universal applicability or meaning (such as the idea that everybody is saved).

"Perennial philosophy" on the other hand is a claim that all religions are somehow "one/same" or share some common truth in spite of the fact that they have significant, obvious, and important differences from one another. The spirit of the philosophy is admirable - it was an attempt to engender inter-religious dialogues - but I find the manner in which it does this to be intellectually bankrupt and personally offensive. Prothero's "God is Not One" goes over this better than I could; copies are easily found in a local public library.

 

[StarryNightshade]

It's my understanding that "universalism" was a response to claims about salvation within Christian traditions, and specifically, a rejection of exclusivist approaches (i.e., there is only one right way to achieve salvation) and replacing it with pluralism (i.e., there are many ways to achieve salvation), if not the notion of universal salvation (i.e., everybody is "saved" regardless of their path). But in other contexts, the term "universalism" carries different meanings. Broadly, it just means something has universal applicability or meaning (such as the idea that everybody is saved).

"Perennial philosophy" on the other hand is a claim that all religions are somehow "one/same" or share some common truth in spite of the fact that they have significant, obvious, and important differences from one another. The spirit of the philosophy is admirable - it was an attempt to engender inter-religious dialogues - but I find the manner in which it does this to be intellectually bankrupt and personally offensive. Prothero's "God is Not One" goes over this better than I could; copies are easily found in a local public library.

Thanks for the input.

Interesting how I inferred the (possible) opposite meaning of both phrases. Oh well, you live and learn, eh?

 

[Quintessence]

I don't know if I'm right on this either. The understanding of "universalism" is just what I remember being taught at UU fellowships, and the perennialism from Prothero's book.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

I found Prothero's attacks on perennialism to be quite shallow. Indeed, they almost seemed tagged on to make a general work covering different religion more controversial. His arguments tended to rely, (1) on the very fact there is such a diversity in religion without really considering attempts at unity seriously; (2), to rule out different traditions emphasising different aspects of truth, and there being any schema that can give order to these different perspectives.

Perennial Philosophy can mean different things. For example, Neo-Scholastics often use it to refer to versions of Aristotelianism and Platonism that share similar philosophical beliefs. There are rifts on this sort of Perennial Philosophy that se the Perennial Philosophy as more Platonist and/or mystical than the Neo-Scholastics. Some of these focus more on the Western tradition of what is sometimes called esoterica - so Platonism, Pythagoreanism, Hermatica, Kabbala, etc. Joscelyn Godwin, R. A. Schwaller de Lubicz, Evola, and Henry Corbin, though very different, spring to mind. Then there are more New Age kinds of Perennialism, such as Aldous Huxley's. These talk about the Perennial Philosophy as the shared spiritual goals and ideas of world religions, but they are often a little vague about what the unity consists of and how the differences are to addressed. This kind of Perennialism tends to avoid serious philosophy. Then there is the Perennialism and Traditionalism of Guenon, Coomaraswamy, and Schuon, which is far more philosophical and has a far more developed answer to the questions about religious diversity.

Prothero, as far as I recall, focuses almost entirely on the New Age Perennialism. He mentions Huxley and Huston Smith (the latter was also involved by Guenon and Schuon, but is not really a philosopher in his own right, and fits as much in the New Age tradition as the other).

 

[Quintessence]

Fair enough. I didn't think Prothero's treatment was hugely detailed either, but the main point of "no, all religions are not one" still stands. "New Age" perennialism is what one is going to encounter on the whole though, and it's all I've seen represented in common discourse. What ticks me off about it is that it performs erasure of diversity by constructing narratives that disregard how adherents understand their religion. Instead of listening to a polytheist talk about their experiences with the gods, they overwrite that narrative with "but all those gods are really just parts of the One Source." It's disrespectful, and a few of them get really evangelical with it.

 

[George-ananda]

I've been reading up on Perennial Philosophy and am struck by just how much I agree with it. However, some people (especially more New Age-y and "spiritual, not religious" individuals) take Perennial Philosophy to be another form of, or even to be just another name for, Universalism.

Do you find this to be a fair comparison?

I personally don't.

From what I know (which is very little), Universalism implies that all religions are "the same" or "teach the same thing". Whereas Perennial Philosophy says that there is an underlying unity in the world's different religious traditions; implying that the different rites, rituals, and philosophies are the different culture's ways of seeking the Source of all of existence. Especially when comparing mystical traditions of the world's religions.

So basically: Universalsim = it's all the same. Perennial Philosophy = Different methods and teachings, more or less similar goals.

Would you say this is basically correct? Or am I way off in my assessment?

I think 'Perennial Philosophy' and 'Universalism' come from the same thinking. Even in your discussion above they sound on the same page.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Fair enough. I didn't think Prothero's treatment was hugely detailed either, but the main point of "no, all religions are not one" still stands. "New Age" perennialism is what one is going to encounter on the whole though, and it's all I've seen represented in common discourse. What ticks me off about it is that it performs erasure of diversity by constructing narratives that disregard how adherents understand their religion. Instead of listening to a polytheist talk about their experiences with the gods, they overwrite that narrative with "but all those gods are really just parts of the One Source." It's disrespectful, and a few of them get really evangelical with it.

Perhaps. One can be shallow in both directions. One can look at the diversity and just assume it can never been brought under some kind of unity, without considering sophisticated attempts. And one can be shallow and blithely assume all religions are one and can be easily reduced to a simple unity. I recall reading someone arguing against the Schuon variety of Perennialism because they couldn't see how its Platonic-Non-Dualist basis of Perennialism could give as much space to the spiritual qualities of Pascal's fideism or Kierkegaard's existentialism as it does Meister Eckhart's Christian Platonism. It didn't seem to occur to this person to consider that it is possible for Perennialism to evaluate different kinds of spirituality and to give different treatment and priorities to different kinds - to suggest that Kierkegaard is, in fact, ultimately metaphysically and spiritually further from the truth than Meister Eckhart, and therefore there is no need to make the basis of unity equally existentialist and Platonism.

A sophisticated attempt is, though, I feel possible. Whether it would ultimately succeed, I don't know. But I don't think it is necessarily illegitimate for such a project to have a standard against which to measure faiths, to make judgments about different faiths, to sort them out, to assess whether particular claims about a faith are in a sense a degeneration (whether, for example, true polytheism is but a degeneration from what such a faith originally meant), whether differences can be seen as more a case of different emphasis or different aspects of the truth, and so on. The ultimate question, of course, is whether a unity can be found that doesn't completely compromise the real distinct qualities of these faiths. Prothero doesn't really consider any more sophisticated approach to the issue.

I'm not sure how sophisticated the approach of Huxley was.

 

[Baladas]

No, I don't view them as the same thing at all.

Perennialism (in my understanding) says that there is an underlying unity to all paths.
This unity lies in the way that all peoples have sought ways to explain similar (sometimes virtually identical) perceived spiritual mysteries.

Typically, perennialists are also panentheists, but I am not sure that one must necessarily be both.
I hold a pantheistic worldview, but I don't see anything as just a part of an overall unity.

Animals (including us), plants, mountains, rivers...each has it's own distinct individuality.
Gods have their individuality too.

I think that treating any one's individuality as unimportant or illusionary is abhorrent.
I view everything as a part of a pantheistic whole, but I do not belittle the individuality of beings.

 

[Aupmanyav]

But I don't think it is necessarily illegitimate for such a project to have a standard against which to measure faiths, to make judgments about different faiths, to sort them out, to assess whether particular claims about a faith are in a sense a degeneration (whether, for example, true polytheism is but a degeneration from what such a faith originally meant), whether differences can be seen as more a case of different emphasis or different aspects of the truth, and so on. The ultimate question, of course, is whether a unity can be found that doesn't completely compromise the real distinct qualities of these faiths.

I have not Western philosophies. I differ with you on legitimacy. We have 10,000 Gods and Goddesses. You can have unity with no comprome on quality of a faith. We in India have been happy with so many faiths for Centuries.

 

[George-ananda]

I don't believe so. There is similarity, but, there are differences that present themselves as very stark differences, in discussion, etc. They aren't 'on the same page, in other words. Now, in a practical sense, say I as a non-exclusivist, is going to have my beliefs 'compared' to a Universalist, and then, dunno, some other belief system, then there should be more ''similarity'', between my beliefs and the Universalists. The tricky part is determining how much importance one might put on the differences. I personally would put, from a practical point of view, enough inference of difference to make them distinct. It is interesting, though, because they do seem to correlate to similar modes of logical thought. I have thought about this question before, and it is interesting.

Well, the OP was asking me to compare 'Perennial Philosophy' to 'Universalism'. I am not clear what you are saying is a significant difference between those two belief systems.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

to assess whether particular claims about a faith are in a sense a degeneration (whether, for example, true polytheism is but a degeneration from what such a faith originally meant)

Polytheism came first. Animistic polytheism is the oldest approach to religion - a "perennial" faith if there ever was one. I'm not at all fond of approaches that try to subsume polytheistic and nontheistic religions into a monotheist context.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Polytheism came first. Animistic polytheism is the oldest approach to religion - a "perennial" faith if there ever was one. I'm not at all fond of approaches that try to subsume polytheistic and nontheistic religions into a monotheist context.

This is one perspective. I'm not sure it is correct. Some argue that monotheism was first, some polytheism, and some an animism or polytheism with recognition of the ultimate unified divine reality (though perhaps though of most like the Tao or Brahman than the God of monotheism). I'm not sure where the truth lies. My only point is that someone trying to argue for the unity of traditional faiths can argue some faiths existing now or in the past are degenerate, and can differentiate between different expressions of the same faith. To use an extreme example, they wouldn't have to accept Mega Church Christianity and Greek Orthodoxy as equal expressions of the truth of the Christian faith.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Yahweh was originally one god in a Hebrew pantheon featuring many others, including Yahweh's wife Asherah. Sumer, the first city-state in Eurasia, was polytheistic The evolution of monotheism is pretty clearly documented. In any case, it's extremely insulting and not at all ecumenical to call polytheism "degenerate".

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Firstly, what you are talking about is highly controversial. It is theorised Yahweh may have been one God in a pantheon, but this is not proven. A lot of the speculation, either way, depends upon one's prior assumptions. Besides, the religions of ancient Mesopotamia were already highly developed and may themselves have been degenerate. Also, you are ignoring other possibilities than monotheism in its Abrahamic incarnations and a polytheism that sees no unified divine force behind the gods, such as the Tao. It is not proved, certainly, that polytheism without any unifying divinity was the primal belief system.

As for ecumenical, I'm not sure why anyone attempting to find a unified standard must be ecumenical in the sense of making all believers in all faiths happy. It really will depend on your metaphysics, you philosophy, and how you make sense of the proliferating diversity of religions. I don't know if it is possible, but I am certainly not convinced that seeing certain aspects of faiths, such as pure polytheism, as degenerate, and making evaluation between faiths and their different expressions, means one necessarily compromises a sophisticated and meaningful unity of important, global religious traditions.

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

Here's a couple sources on Yahweh's wife Asherah:

http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/god-wife-yahweh-asherah-110318.htm
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/...herah-and-the-asherim-goddess-or-cult-symbol/

There are two other examples of monotheism emerging out of polytheism, including one that failed (Akhenaten). And technically Zoroastrianism believes that there are two gods, just that one is entirely evil and will be justly destroyed at the end of time. You saying that hard polytheism doesn't count among "important, global religious traditions" is really parochial - there are millions of polytheists in the world.

btw the Tao is not a god, or anything anthropomorphic.It is the natural flow and pattern of being. Tao precedes the gods.

 

[Unification]

I've been reading up on Perennial Philosophy and am struck by just how much I agree with it. However, some people (especially more New Age-y and "spiritual, not religious" individuals) take Perennial Philosophy to be another form of, or even to be just another name for, Universalism.

Do you find this to be a fair comparison?

I personally don't.

From what I know (which is very little), Universalism implies that all religions are "the same" or "teach the same thing". Whereas Perennial Philosophy says that there is an underlying unity in the world's different religious traditions; implying that the different rites, rituals, and philosophies are the different culture's ways of seeking the Source of all of existence. Especially when comparing mystical traditions of the world's religions.

So basically: Universalsim = it's all the same. Perennial Philosophy = Different methods and teachings, more or less similar goals.

Would you say this is basically correct? Or am I way off in my assessment?

I would say close to the same, but outward religion is the hindrance that divides. The texts all metaphysically mean the same things with the same goals, just different names and representation of symbols for the mind, brain, and inner self. Taking the myths literally, fundamentally, historically rather than the metaphysical meanings. As we all have the same inner parts and experiences. We all are seeking the same things, most are searching outside and externally rather than inside and internally. Most have reliance upon another(s) to teach, rather than within themselves. We are our own worst enemies. The source of all existence rests hidden within ourselves, and the texts of all different cultures teach this metaphysically. What unites us is what we all have in common.

 

[Jeremy Taylor]

Here's a couple sources on Yahweh's wife Asherah:

http://news.discovery.com/history/religion/god-wife-yahweh-asherah-110318.htm
http://www.biblicalarchaeology.org/daily/ancient-cultures/ancient-israel/asherah-and-the-asherim-goddess-or-cult-symbol/

There are two other examples of monotheism emerging out of polytheism, including one that failed (Akhenaten). And technically Zoroastrianism believes that there are two gods, just that one is entirely evil and will be justly destroyed at the end of time. You saying that hard polytheism doesn't count among "important, global religious traditions" is really parochial - there are millions of polytheists in the world.

btw the Tao is not a god, or anything anthropomorphic.It is the natural flow and pattern of being. Tao precedes the gods.

The Yahweh stuff is largely down to interpretation, much like the claims certain NT texts must be written after the fall of the temple because they seem to predict it. It is depends on your assumptions prior to the investigation. Besides, it doesn't get to the bottom of whether any Canannite polytheism itself was not a degeneration. There is certainly no evidence that Jewish monotheism was an evolution of polytheist thought rather than an inspired or revealed reaction.

I am well aware of what the Tao is. If you pay attention, at no point did I limit what I was saying to monotheism or claim that the Tao was monotheist.

Zoroastrianism doesn't believe in two Gods. The majority opinion has always been the Ahriman is not a god in the same sense as Ahura Mazda.

That it is parochial to rule out proper polytheism is just what you are supposed to be showing. After all polytheism has great philosophical problems, such as the fact the gods are in separate beings and cannot be the ultimate source and explanation of all things. Metaphysically, it is absurd.

But my point is simply that it may well be possible to unify the traditional religions of the world without having to afford equal weigh to each tradition and, especially, of each expression of a tradition. I don't think a perennialist need always give equal accord to the feelings of each and every believer. The question is whether much of the richness of the world's traditions can remain uncompromised in this way. I don't see, though, why it needs to necessarily be compromised by evaluation, sortation, and judgment.

 

[Unification]

I would say close to the same, but outward religion is the hindrance that divides. The texts all metaphysically mean the same things with the same goals, just different names and representation of symbols for the mind, brain, and inner self. Taking the myths literally, fundamentally, historically rather than the metaphysical meanings. As we all have the same inner parts and experiences. We all are seeking the same things, most are searching outside and externally rather than inside and internally. Most have reliance upon another(s) to teach, rather than within themselves. We are our own worst enemies. The source of all existence rests hidden within ourselves, and the texts of all different cultures teach this metaphysically. What unites us is what we all have in common.

“You may remember the story of how the devil and a friend of his were walking down the street, when they saw ahead of them a man stoop down and pick up something from the ground, look at it, and put it away in his pocket. The friend said to the devil, “What did that man pick up?” “He picked up a piece of Truth,” said the devil. “That is a very bad business for you, then,” said his friend. “Oh, not at all,” the devil replied, “I am going to let him organize it."

 

[vaguelyhumanoid]

That it is parochial to rule out proper polytheism is just what you are supposed to be showing. After all polytheism has great philosophical problems, such as the fact the gods are in separate beings and cannot be the ultimate source and explanation of all things. Metaphysically, it is absurd.

The gods aren't supposed to be "the ultimate source and explanation of all things". Polytheism is a qualitative, not quantitative difference. Reliance on creation arguments is actually a major weakness of monotheism and a contributing factor to why it's often viewed as conflicting with natural science. Some polytheistic cultures view the universe as preceding the gods. For example, the Norse cosmology views the universe as beginning with the collision of two worlds floating in a void. One is pure ice, the other is pure fire. The steam and liquid water created by the collision begets the earliest life. It's not science, but it comes strikingly close to scientific explanations compared to an anthropomorphic God shaping the heavens by hand. Polytheism also completely sidesteps the problem of evil, the atheist's wager and the conflict between omniscience and free will.