The Transcendent Unity of Religions

Dear Reader

Is it possible that so many religious wars have been fought not because one side was more right but because each side was based on misunderstandings of a transcendent unity that exists at the origin of religions. As fallen Man it would be a natural devolution.

The book: “The Transcendent Unity of Religions” by Frithof Schuon, tackles this question suggesting such a unity.

monasticdialog.com/a.php?id=151

He traces the great traditions from our common perceptions of them to the point at which their exoteric appearance in life switches to their esoteric origin outside of life with their unity as transcendent. He contends that what is sometimes considered as the unity is very overestimated since the unity is transcendent for us.

Thomas J. McFarlane posts a brief article on this idea including a useful diagram.

integralscience.org/unity.html

The great traditions are on the right and gradually they move in quality through their exoteric appearance and into their esoteric inner existence as part of each man, as professor Needleman suggests, as a “microcosm.”

As you can see the broken line suggesting the division between exoteric and esoteric is quite a distance from the base at the right.

If this is true then the conclusion: “Thus, while there is one and only one Truth, there are many expressions of it.” is true also. Each path at its base would be a degenerated facet of the truth.

Suppose a person feels this normal attraction known in philosophy as the “love of wisdom” where this transcendent truth exists, what should be their attitude?

For me it requires admitting that I am separate from it and as Plato suggests, in the Cave. So my choice is to defend cave life making myself as content with it as possible or admit my nothingness in relation to this transcendent unity suggested in this book that is the source of human “meaning.” What do I want?

There is no right or wrong but very personal decision. Becoming open to life outside the cave means seeing ourselves as we are and not in our imagination which we do not want to do.

But, if the author is correct, even though this level of truth is transcendenent for us, it is something that attracts a certain minority. It is up to each person to decide if they wish to strive to be part of this minority. As Plato and Simone Weil amongst others suggest, it is very annoying to those living and defending exoteric societal standards as a primary importance.

It is of course your choice but whatever your choice, I wish you the best.

There may be a spiritual unity, and I’m convinced there is, but religious unity? You HAVE to be kidding! Religion is exclusive, not inclusive. All the ecumenical blathering is is just blathering. You like the term PC, “unity of religions” is the best definition of PC I can think of.

Ideal and real. Hard to face up to the difference. Excuse my cynicism, but just the words ‘unity of religions’ is laughable.

Shia and Sunni, a gazillion Christian sects, Hindu and Buddhist ‘schools’ by the dozens. Unity? Bring on the flying pigs…

I have to agree with tentative, though it sounds like hog-heaven to me. Religion is characterized by division and strife when you compare one against the other- and so much the better for that!
Just to take the example of Jesus, He screwed up the entire notion of cosmic religious Unity simply by existing. He appeared here and not there, now and not before and later, He said this and not that. By making Himself a particular Being, He created the insistance of a particular religion that admits some things and not others. It’s not, and can never be ‘all good’, man.
Even rejecting the message of Jesus doesn’t get one off the hook- since Christianity is so damned influential and popular right now, a person really can’t lay claim to anything like unity if they exclude it- and you must not just exclude it, but also Judaism, Islam, and any other faith that claims specific things happened to specific people (and not others), since they all bring this problem about. You want to proclaim against every excluvisit religion? Welcome to a tiny, controversial, exclusionary sect of your own.
The devision, the war? Bah. All signs that we’re human, that we’re alive, and that we care. War is hell, and war is unfortunate. But to be honest, I can’t think of any change to the human condition powerful and sweeping enough to bring an end to war that would be a change for the better overall.

The spirit cannot be found in the world,
And yet the religion is found in the world.

The spirit defies, is within, but cannot control the world.
The world defies, is around, but cannot control the spirit.

To give to the world – is to become the world.
You are only what you have done, and what has been done to you.

Cast out the world, it is fading away.

Well I’ve got to give you guys credit for honesty. You don’t hold back your punches.

Tentative, you may have missed the intent of the book. It claims that this unity exists at a higher level of being then that of exoteric secular life. Naturally then a secular teaching is limited to exclusivism since it has lost its source.

The idea of transcendent to me means initiating at a conscious level which touches the esoteric or inner life of Man urging him towards consciousness and the realization of the chaotic human condition we find ourselves in. This conscious influence gradually becomes adopted by the exoteric (outer) life of man and its influence becomes distorted and primarily one of social custom. The initial conscious understanding is lost to degeneration and habitual preconception.

A religion initiating with a conscious source becomes layered. It exists at levels that cover the entire span along the vertical line of “being” between awakened conscious Man and unconscious Man asleep. At the conscious level, its truths are synonymous with wisdom. I appreciate the way Jacob Needleman describes this level of wisdom:

So the Transcendent truths of religion as I believe them to be, refer to the divine pattern of the cosmos or as I’ve become accustomed to express them as “universal laws.”

There is no conflict at this transcendent conscious level if it exists because these cosmic patterns are objective truths and do not exist as man made subjective interpretations. This is why they are transcendent for us. Lacking sustained consciousness, we are limited to subjective interpretations. Over time, these subjective interpretations have cohesed into these separate teachings which we agree are double edged often doing as much harm as good in the secular or exoteric world.

Uccisore

But from the transcendent point of view, universal laws dictated Jesus opportunity for appearance. He taught re-birth and gave people the opportunity for it through his sacrifice which enabled the spiritual energy of the Holy spirit to enter into man’s “being” that had previously become hardened to it. You are referring to Christendom or"man made Christianity which is just a subjective shell or exoteric secular devolution of the original.

This is the hard thing to remember when considering these questions. We have to begin with the attitude that we have become asleep to a greater reality. So it is impossible to do justice to this idea of transcendence from sleep but instead must admit to it being the case and try to awaken to it.

This is really what Socrates meant when he said I know nothing."

It seems from this that Socrates came to believe that these transcendent realties existed beyond the limits of what was being said that could only give indications which suggests to me the attempt to awaken to them rather then continually attempting to reduce them to our degenerated capacity for understanding.

So the question IMO is one of attitude. I can deny and argue or admit my nothingness in relation to them and the need to awaken to them. Naturally if this is accepted as the case, a new enemy appears; self deception. Transcending this most ingenious foe has always been the goal of the esoteric schools associated with the great teachings.

Each religion has its own tolerance-level.

There have been Jainist monks[?] – known to help take care of other religious organizations. They try to smooth-over and reduce tensions between organizations and peoples.

I dunno about the Xian faith-based, but the Jian compassion-based can’t hurt me.

It all depends on which religion we are talking about.

Neo-Nazi may actually be a “religion”…

Nick,

For me there is a HUGE separation from that which is spiritual and that which is religion. It may be semantics, but I have no desire to associate anything I’m thinking or doing with “religion”.

To me, religion is the great pacifier that in many ways, prevents people from considering their spiritual lives.

You have way too much structure for the metaphysical realm, which I have no taste for, anymore than religion. Too many words create too many walls that lead away from, not to, understanding. Seeing is really quite simple. One does not need a dozen pair of glasses…

More than just semantics, i think; a bit of justice that involves you, perhaps. I think an argument can be made for the word ‘religion’ to have roots all the way back to the scribes that moulded the epic of gilgamesh, and it might involve midrash the meditative process. Although, if i take ‘religion’ to mean ‘dogmatic sect,’ then i can see your point.

Having said that, i can agree with this:

but i’d relate it to this:

The dogmatic record (the ground for the dogmatic sect) is given for those who would try to see. Most people, because they’re not inclined to try, can see just fine. The problem can then be seen as that of growing confusion, for various reasons; the most predictable of which is the individuality introduced by the association of Christ with the Sun.

Give me a world where there is but one religion, it would be much less exhausting. Give me a world where politics is a myth, I would dance for joy. Give me a world, where philosophy was fact not calculated. I would be heady with euphoria. Give me a world where everyone is the same and I would die of loneliness. Give me the same beliefs as my brother and he will no longer be my brother. Give me a god that wants me to remain a child then I shall surely run. Give me a God, then I know it was all a lie.Give me a father and I shall grow. Give me a mother and I shall succeed. Give me an omnipotent entity that is both mother and father to us all and I shall be me.

They only reason why anybody has to search for God is because they don’t have him, and they can’t find very much, either.

It’s a sad situation, but believe-me-you, someday a mad scientist is gunnu make a scanner that can “see” stuff like angels and ghosts, then the whole “science is a religion” thing will get started.

It’s gunnu be great!

isnt religion bascially an explaination for the unexplainable? so logically wouldnt you consider a believer to be an insecure person? religion comforts us all and provides peace of mind.

Tentative:

It is obvious that the word "Religion"has a bad connotation with you. Theoretically though, it is only an organization of people dedicated to the mutual purpose of profiting spiritually. It asserts that a person’s spirituality by themselves more often than not devolves into self justification so loses its potential karmic benefit. Somehow it rarely works out that way which raises the interesting question if it is religion that corrupts people or people that corrupt religion.

But there is another side of this that was made rather vivid for me by Simone Weil. Marx had said that religion was the opiate of the masses to which she retorted that revolution was the opiate of the masses.

This brilliant observation suggests to me the illusion of progress. It fails to see that the problem is us. This illusion of progress is what collectively supports our denial of the human spiritual condition.

Laws are the same everywhere. It’s not the dharma that is dangerous but our tendency to take it out of context doing ourselves more harm than good, This is why a true Buddhist teacher makes his students see themselves before verifying it intellectually.

I believe that seeing is far from simple and part of a person admitting to their own nothingness is in the realization that they do not see. I believe that John Ruskin was quite right in his observation that:

One needs eyes to see.

“Seeing” may be underestimated.

Young 1

Perhaps much of religion has degenerated to this but theoretically it is a school for awakening where a person is secure in their experiential knowledge that life does not provide the experience of meaning their soul needs so the purpose of the religion is to teach you how to prepare the spiritual nutrition to allow the soul its experience of “meaning.” and to help others in the same pursuit. But of course you are right to see that it is not the case in secular practice. This degeneration I believe is the lawful effect of fallen human “being” on religion.

The whole idea of the thread and quoting from the book is to suggest that there are greater transcendent truths at the essenceof all religins that do exist for man but impossible to experience and become open to as long as we defend the lies in ourselves. To defend the lies is to stay at the bottom of whatever path which may bring societal satisfactions and peaceful fantasies but cannot provide the spiritual nutrition the soul needs to grow.

young1,

Religion, in it’s worst forms, is a drug that takes away insecurity and replaces it with “God is on our side” knowing. That said, religion is capable of helping the person with good intent find their spiritual place in the world. Like all swords, religion has two edges.

Tentative writes:

This is true for secular religion but in its essence form it provides for the ontological experience of ourselves connecting a person with their origin

Nick,

Religion is a human construct. ALL religion is secular despite the lofty spiritual ideals it may proclaim. For most, following the “users manual” is as much as they are willing to do. A small minority may continue examining their spirituality, and for that, religion may provide a base from which to begin their seeking out. But there is nothing inherently spiritual inside of any religion.

Humanity doesn’t need religion, it’s just convenient. Whether as a platform to begin examining our personal spirituality or as a comforting drug, it remains a construct of mind. Any connection between religion and reality is serendipitous and rests heavily on the intent of the individual.

Tentative

We have a legitimate disagreement. As I see it, our normal existence is horizontal and reactive on one level of being: that of the earth and organic life.

The Holy spirit, not of the earth, provides consciousness of a person’s vertical existence or the quality of the moment itself expressed by the quality of the connection between the higher and lower within a person’s “being.” It is what allows a person the separation to “Know thyself.”

The essence of religion understands this and seeks to awaken man to this vertical relationship. It cannot come from the energies of the earth which for us refer to the emotional and physical but can only appear from the finer more subtle energy of the spirit that can enter into our being awakening consciousness for us.

From this perspective, without the essence of religion, man is doomed to continue life on the wheel of samsara or, as is said, on the cycles of dust to dust.

The great knowledge of this perspective, that is beyond knowledge associated with our normal horizontal existence, is what I believe to be within the vertical transcendent unity of religions.

The conscious evolution resulting from efforts associated with this vertical direction, though only of interest to a small minority, is essential for man’s evolution since it retains a contact between man asleep and man awakened providing part of the help from above essential for conscious evolution.

Nick,

That we disagree has been more than obvious over a long period of time. You speak of duality in horizontal and vertical, in levels and layers, and it is all a construct. That you find it useful is fine by me, but it has absolutely nothing to do with anyone else’s pov. For me, it isn’t the unprofound awareness that there is duality. That doesn’t take a great deal of understanding. It is in seeing that the divisions are illusion and attending to the oneness that gives understanding. Understanding oneness isn’t a ‘level’, it is releasing the concept of levels and hierarchies, and all the attendent barriers we erect as we construct castle spires into the heavens. Spiritual awareness and understanding isn’t to be found in our constructs, but in stripping away those impediments of mind and ego until we see the The.

Tent

If you mean on ILP I would say not that I know of but new people appear all the time so I don’t know for sure.

However in real life, there is a minority of intelligent spiritual scientific people that do strive to unite science and religion
as it is done through cosmology. I’ve used Jacob needleman as an example. His book “Sense of the Cosmos” which I’ve linked here before, gives enough of an introduction for those who may be interested in such ideas.

rawpaint.com/library/intro.ht

Oneness doesn’t exist for us as absolute since we are part of the diversity that exists inside the absolute oneness. This diversity is related by universal laws both along the horizontal line of action and reaction and the vertical line of “being” or “isness”.

The fact that you do not acknowledge it does not mean no one does.

Nick,

And the fact that some are willing to construct an abstract full of ups and downs and sideways doesn’t mean that everyone does - or has any need to do so.

True. A person must value their path. What I need may not be the same as what another needs. My needs are met through my path and I cannot speak for another.

I can write on the concept of Plato’s cave or the Buddhist Burning House as analogous to the human condition but anyone is free to deny it