The Problem and Unintended Irony of Perennialism | Jonathan Pageau (More Christ)

[@cuchulain55]

Perennialist writings are full of some of the strongest critiques of new age mush that you're ever likely to find. Look at all the perennialists we know -- there is nothing mushy about the way they live their lives, they are extremely serious practitioners. And perennialists around the world are also some of the strongest advocates of preserving the traditional arts and ways of life of old. The idea that they contribute to new age movements and globalism just doesn't make much sense to me. And God knows best. Shankar Nair

[@kenanwtube]

To me, one way of thinking about it is that traditional societies didn’t have the preponderance of choice and diversity that perrenialists live within.

[@cuchulain55]

@@kenanwtube welll this can be said of anyone in the world before the opening up to the degrree of humanity and modernity. or the europ[ean reniassance and onwards probably one of the greatest evils if not the most evil that western europe unleashed on themselves and on the world. (lovers of the sophia perrenis)(NOT a philophy and not a perrenioalits, type people are just lovers andseeing the beaiuty and infinate truth within many forms to the one within tradinal socities of peoples etc. are embrase tradiontialism in all forms. the better term is traditionalism and traditiopnalist NOT perrenialist. if the renaissance on not had happend to you think there would of bee the progression of METAL based fire arms and the same type degree of subjurgation of aboriginal native peoples, ora printing press Johann guten berg or nuclear bombs, or a protestant reformation. etc.. I some how doubt it. bad things would of happend like all things always have since the FALL, but it most certainly would of been alot DIFFEREN for sure. Traditionalism and being a lover of traditionist religio sophia perrenis wisdom is NOT religion and is NOT meant to be. and neither is a it a philosophy. if anything it about being a literall little kid and loving truth in beauty in all forms. a true traditionalist is inclusive of all without critisism of all inclluding relgious exclusivists.

[@joegibbskins]

@@kenanwtube right but that’s part of the world we live in now. You aren’t going to be able to live your life without knowing that sincere believers of other faiths exist, because technology has made the world irresistibly small

[@kenanwtube]

@@joegibbskins I think you're right that some level of comparative religion is unavoidable, but I think it's important not to see comparative religion as an end and and of itself. Religion is meant to transform us not inform us.

[@joegibbskins]

@@kenanwtube I’d agree broadly. I think it’s in the specifics where we would disagree and even then possibly only on a case by case basis

[@clebs1261]

Reading The crisis of the modern world when I was still a very lost 20yo atheist definitely smashed by worldview at the time, and sent me down an insane rabbit hole which ultimately led me to the revelation of Christ.

[@irodjetson]

Guenon was a Catholic that became a Martinist, a Gnostic a Freemason, later praised the Catholic Church yet died a Muslim... Their sincretist framework blinds them to see hierarchy between religions.

[@hristovalchev3689]

Showing the books and articles discussed, as well as other recommended readings on screen is great.

[@seryikrolik]

Please could they also be listed in the drop-down description for people like me who listen but don't watch.

[@garry_wshld]

Yes, it's awesome, especially for non-English speakers.

[@soaresdeazevedo4491]

Someone wrote this here: 'Schuon increasingly diverged from any tradition in order to create his own "non-tradition" tradition'. I have read all the twenty or so books by this author, and never found any single instance that would substantiate this statement. Never. He was a philosopher, a metaphysician, much so in the line of a Plato and a Plotino. These two masters of old had a powerful mind, much like Schuon, and they practiced the religion of their time and place. They were not above religion, individually speaking, they had a body and a soul like us, despite the fact that their minds were far above the mediocre around them. I would say the same of Schuon. He is a Plato for our time, a man that with his brilliant, really inspired from Above, mind is able to influence with his visions and insights various religious traditions. Plato, for instance, was greatly influential among his fellow Hellenists, but also among Jews, Christians and Moslems -- see in this respect St Augustine, St Albertus Magnus, and Master Eckhart, among others, in Christianity; Philo of Alexandria in Judaism; Ibn Arabi, Ibn Atai'llâh, and Rûmi in Islam. Schuon and Guénon have an analogous status.

[@jasonroberts2249]

Like Nasr said, ‘If only Schuon had read his own books!’

[@HoradrimBR]

Plato was a philosopher with imense contribution to human knowledge and a multitude of original ideais and transcendent of many aparent unsolvable dichotomies. What are the contributions, the real new ideas, of Schuon or Guénon? I'm not denying their status of very well read, and even genius, men, but I can't see a really relevant new knowledge, a real contribution to any tradition (be catholic, suni, hindu, etc). These traditions all have their own sages and doctrines, they are just fine with the two. To be just, they're very good critics of modernity, arts and culture in general, but they didn't add anything, just "rediscover" (for those deep in modern way of life) the old traditions. Besides that, ithey just try to build a high-brown version of new age.

[@mink1097]

@@HoradrimBR if you know anything about ancient teachings, you know that Plato wasn't the first in outlining and bringing forth the ideas he did, both written and unwritten doctines. In fact, it is believed that even the traditions which came earlier, such as Hinduism and other emanationist traditions of around the same period, were in themeselves not the first in possesing that wisdom. So, you see, to the greeks, in a way, Plato, Orpheus (perhaps symbolically), and others took on a simillar role to some of the philosophers of the Traditionalist, or Perrenial school today. P.S forgive me for any spelling mistakes since English is not my native language.

[@mink1097]

Also, crudely paraphrasing the words a wise sage once said: (true) Tradition can never be improved or added upon, the reason for the apparent gradual "improvement" of tradition is man's gradual deterioration of spiritual faculties.

[@adrummingdog2782]

Towards the end of his life Schuon formed a large religious group in Indiana which ended up becoming cult like, I know he supported a sort of ritual nudity which is strange, and by some accounts I've read his followers began to attribute some sort of divinity to him. This is probably what the commenter was talking about

[@initiateoftheplacenticmyst2625]

This seems to me like an evasive answer. Is it not incumbent on a Christian to be an evangelist, or at least to adequately address the questions of nonbelievers (1 Peter 3:15)? If so, then surely one of the questions he will encounter fairly often is why someone should choose to become a Christian to the exclusion of other possibilities. If the question "why be a Christian instead of something else?" is not to remain unanswered, then what is to be said? An appeal could be made to the need for adherence to the dictates of Church authority and orthodox doctrine, but if I am not a Christian and do not perceive myself to be beholden to this authority in the first place, then what is the reason why I should decide to accept it as legitimate, especially when it categorically rejects the legitimacy of other faiths with their competing claims to authority, and their claims of being divinely revealed or of providing alternative "ways" to salvation or to God? Jonathan may say that it is meaningless to question how to "get to the hospital", but what is there to stop me from being compelled to convert to a non-Christian religion after watching his highly enlightening videos on spiritual symbolism and metaphysics? If I am inclined to the Perennialist position from the beginning, then I may conceivably interpret his elucidation of Christian doctrine in a Platonic fashion and transpose the inner meaning as I see it onto some other faith that I happen to like better, unless he tells me why I should do otherwise. My questioning has likely already been responded to by others in such ways as by circularly quoting Scripture (John 14:6), which I have likewise interpreted in Perennialist fashion by assuming that Christ the Logos is not eternally delimited by his historical and temporal manifestation as Jesus of Nazareth (John 8:58). If put the question directly, will Jonathan refrain from telling me explicitly whether Christianity is indeed the only viable religion? Will Jonathan allow me to credit the exposition of his metaphysical worldview for my decision to become a Buddhist or a Muslim? Can I also "get to the hospital" by those routes, or not? Is Jonathan himself not taking the stance of a de facto Perennialist if he declines to provide the multitude of prospective converts who are listening to him with a reason to adhere to the one true faith rather than to be sidetracked into a supposedly false one? Where then do I begin investigating the claim to exclusive possession of the way to salvation and to God? Should I do a deep dive into the writings of the Protestant reformers? Or will I only gain adequate insight into the one true way by reading the great Eastern Orthodox saints, mystics and theologians on Jonathan's reading list? How many books do I have to read? Has Jonathan, who has apparently rejected the "universalist mush" of the Perennialist position, done a deep dive into rival belief systems, like Islam? Has he picked apart the Quran, the Hadith, Ibn Arabi, Ibn Rushd, Ibn Sina, Al Ghazali, Suhrawardi, and Rumi down to the last ambiguity, to the point where he can tell me that their faith is fundamentally false? What about Gautama and Lao Tzu, Plotinus and Shankara? Are the paths that these men followed, in spite of what admirable though imperfect and non-inspired wisdom they ostensibly possessed, in the last analysis deemed to be spiritually sterile? Surely if the Christian can object when an atheist who has half-heartedly read one or two books of theology decides to ostentatiously criticize the Christian faith, then the Christian must in good conscience have rationally ruled out by thorough investigation and logical argumentation the other systems that he himself has likewise rejected? All of this questioning assumes, of course, that the validity of the Christian monopoly on divine revelation and salvation is not immediately evident upon investigating various aspects of the Tradition, and in the case of Perennialists such as Guénon, Schuon, Coomaraswamy, Lings, Burckhardt, et al, who all had considerable knowledge of Christian Tradition as well as of other faiths, it apparently was not. Or is adherence to the Christian religion ultimately not a matter of reason, but of faith? Should I pray to God and hope to be led into the true way without there being any reason given as to why I, who may have some desire to become a Christian, would be commanded by my Christian authorities and by the standards of orthodoxy to categorically reject competing claims to religious authority and spiritual legitimacy and to denounce the views of the Perennialists as well?

[@micahmueller5186]

This is an evasive question. Which I am not against as the lines are both hard and soft

[@micahmueller5186]

Simple faith, deep understanding

[@abbasalchemist]

Perfectly articulated. Orthodoxy needs to transmute the potency of Reality as such. The Traditionalists also have their blind spots especially with regard to their accusations of "psychologism" levelled at Jung. Jean Borella also falls into this trap. I deeply admire all these wroters and thinkers but all their claims are subject to Partial Truth since the Part cannot comprehend the Whole.

[@VACatholic]

You accept Christianity for the simple reason that what it preaches is True. No other reasons are needed.

[@bradleyhenderson1198]

All is One. The One is All. All faiths have advantages and disadvantages. The One is beyond words or concepts, otherwise the One is just an overgrown monkey, one way or another. Christ is within you, the Father in heaven, but God is One.

[@robintropper660]

You might be a bit rough on those who ask "are the Moslems saved"? .... People get there because of their own confusions .... But I REALLY liked your answer. And also, how did CS Lewis put it? "Salvation comes only through Christ, but believing in Him or even knowing about Him does not determine who He will save" ..... Something like that.

[@jenniferflower9265]

My question is, how is Christianity also not apart of globalism. Go, and spread the message and make desiples across all nations. To me, its two sides of the same coin. We get there which ever path we take, or are offered.

[@jayzee7467]

"Perrenialism is the universalist, new age mush that it attempts to criticize, because it sees wisdom in all traditions." (paraphrased) Ok, unless you are willing to assert that your tradition is the correct one over and against the others, perrenialism is the only game in town.

[@AluminiumT6]

Goofy ahh midwit hippies be like:

[@candaniel]

​@@AluminiumT6Cheap caricatures be like:

[@tfyoutalmbout]

​@@AluminiumT6is a bible onlyist... I guarantee it. Bible only. . .oh and KZbin too.

[@AluminiumT6]

@@tfyoutalmbout So according to you, criticizing perennialism (like any remotely normal Orthodox or Catholic would) = Bible onlyism. Gotcha. You're so dumb 🤣💀

[@heftymagic4814]

He does assert his worldview over all though

[@Christianity_and_Perennialism]

All critiques against perennialism from an exoteric religious point of view start with the same assumption: they take duality, the separation of the subject and object, the perceiver and his perception, for granted, and jump straight to the question of which object is the ‘true’ one and argue from there. Perennialism is based on the point of view, held by the esoteric doctrines of the multiple religions, that ultimately there is no real line between subject and object, and thus the qualities of the unique subjects are going to be reflected by their objects, up to and including the religious forms.

[@originalpastaman5470]

I'm not very knowledgable on perennialism, but if I understand it right, don't they profess the importance of the religions themselves? Like the fact that there are perennial "lessons" that are brought up in religions throughout history is not a discredit to said religions but rather a form of legitimacy of said religions?

[@MrBAD2THEBONE03]

Not a duality, a non-dual Trinity which allows for the One and the many.

[@dustash1578]

Great comment right here. Thanks for posting.

[@priapsus]

"Are Muslims saved?" You say that's a very strange question. No, it's not. I think it's a very good question. They want to know how you interpret "“I am the truth, the way, and the life; no one comes to the Father, but through Me.” Does this mean that you believe Christianity is the ONLY way to God or one of several ways? It seems like a fair enough question. Maybe it just makes you uncomfortable. This rejoins your critique of the Perennialists who did not advocate syncretism, as we see in New Age stuff, but believe that exoterically the great religions are different but the core esoteric teachings are the same. Guenon completely dismantled the New Agers of his time (the Theosophists). Maybe I misunderstand what you're saying but I really don't understand the critique you make of the Pereniallists.

[@leonardotorres8829]

I agree. It is a perfectly reasonable question and it is nothing comparable to asking for a different way to the hospital for no reason.

[@koffeeblack5717]

"Let me speak as someone who actually engages in interfaith dialogues at, I like to think, a fairly sophisticated level. All I can say is that I have found it wonderfully productive to engage in discussions with, say, practitioners of Vedanta and Bhakti in the metaphysical and spiritual studies, repeatedly discovering remarkable conceptual and practical similarities and enlightening conceptual and practical differences, and proceeding all the while under the assumption that both those similarities and those differences indicate a horizon of transcendent truth that is approachable from the vantages of our several traditions but that, in its very transcendence, allows for a limitless variety of expressions: eternal truth, sanatana dharma." - David Bentley Hart. If this is what you mean by perennialism, then perennialism will surely outlive all forms of sectarianism and anti-ecumenism. Schuon and Geunon in no way fell victim to the imminentizing and mechanizing of the Transcendent, that is the idolatry of Theosophical syncretism. Rather, they paved a way for the metaphysical and contemplative rejuvenation of religion by direct connection with the Spirit. To be religious is to be a mystic, and to be a mystic is to climb to what is truly Transcendent/Universal/Necessary/Metaphysical, both by Grace and our own efforts (our own effort is really the sail that grace carries us forward by).

[@mink1097]

Well said

[@criticaloptimist7961]

I agree. Perennialism is the religion of the future. Just as Krishna says in the Gita "abandon all religion and just surrender unto me". This is the will of our Father, the transcendent truth. I say this as a Christian Perennialist. Btw, what book of D.B.H. is that quote from?

[@gabedepaul5407]

God bless

[@luccaarmacollo2042]

“To be a religious is to be a mystic?” Have you guys never seen a merciful person that never even know what perennialism is? I say this by being among regular catholic people! They don’t have any idea about any of the mystic ways and enjoy the blessings and love of God just as much. Perennialism is not religion FFS.

[@candaniel]

👌

[@RogerTheil]

You're absolutely right about Perennialism accelerating globalism. But that point is acknowledged and fully embraced, not by Guennon, but Evola, in his "ride the tiger" metaphor. And it's indeed embraced emphatically by the "accelerate" meme, as it was directly inspired by Evola's concept of draining the beast by contributing to it, but staying detached and independent from it, in order to eventually crash and kill it once and for all.

[@dustash1578]

Wow, that's interesting. I didn't know Evola is the origin point of ACCELERATE

[@eduardorecife9143]

Being an admirer of Jonathan's ideas, this was very upsetting. The reduction of Perennialism to the likes o Prince Charles (or Bono Vox) is nothing short of ignorant of the subject. Shallow views that all religions are true, is not what Perennialism is all about. The Perennial Philosophy actually tries to bring forth the unity in the most fundamental aspect of all true religions, which is the re-union with God; It’s the mystery that Paul beautifully explains in Colossians: Christ in us. The mystery that we all have “christ” or Atman or the Self, within ourselves, but are veiled from us by our own Ego’s. This is a universal pattern in most religions. The true perennialism is simple, it does not worship scriptures in themselves like we often see in theologians that are so caught up with words, stories, details, that they miss their inner salvation. It’s like having a map out of a maze, but falling in love with the map. All stories point out to the mystery, under different names, stories and arrangement of words. To associate Perennialists to Globalism and New Age sounded like a poor joke. This does not bring down my admiration for Jonathan’s incredible knowledge, but nonetheless this was a very incongruent view of the matter.

[@matheusmotta1750]

Christianity is not about "getting out of the maze through the map", it's about transforming yourself from inside out, and thus transforming the "maze", which doesn't actually exist, because there's not a way out of this life except death. Only through transforming yourself, you can transform the way, the journey, the path, and also the people who walk with you, who can lead in and follow your steps. You either choose to live Heaven or Hell in this life, so Eternal Life will be the same as you've chosen. That's the difference from other religions, such as Buddhism and Hinduism, who seek a "way out" of life and existence.

[@jiqian]

Pageu is simply being cautious, which is a perfectly reasonable attitude to have.

[@telvanniretainer2274]

There is no union of religions, there might for non-christians, but not for us, for us there is Christ and there are false religions. We might be nice and spend time finding the NATURAL truths found by people who happened to believe in other saviours, but there is only ONE CHRIST, ONE CHURCH AND ONE FAITH. And this is not an exoteric thing, nor esoteric, this is DOGMATIC and binding for Christians.

[@candaniel]

I'd like to shortly reply to the idea that Jonathan put forth here, that a perennialist has to assume that he can stand above the traditions and judge them. Is this not true for _anyone?_ Jonathan himself was born to parents who used to be Catholics and then converted to Protestantism, in a genuine attempt to find a faith that is authentic, to paraphrase what Jonathan said in some interviews. He himself then converted to Orthodox Christianity later in his life. When you are born into a religion and then decide to reject it to convert to another religion / denomination of that religion, are you not excercising some kind of judgement and also assume that your judgement is fair and valid? Are you thus not also assuming that you somehow stand above Protestantism, Catholicism and Orthodox Christianity, since you can apparently reject one and embrace the other? I do not see how this is any different from a person studying different religions and then rejecting some while embracing another. I also remember how Jonathan in a Q&A recommended to someone to go to any traditional church, no matter if it is Catholic or Orthodox, but that is just important to go to a traditional church irrespective of the denomination. So he is not a radical Orthodox Christian exclusivist who believes that Catholics cannot be saved either. In that is a certain perennialist / ecumenical spirit - seeing that, although he found Orthodox Christianity the most fitting for himself, he acknowledges that Catholicism is not totally invalid necessarily. Again, how is this different from a perennialist who sticks to a tradition, but encourages others to follow their own tradition, as long as they pick one? Being such a convert _assumes_ you can look at and compare the denominations, study their similarities and differences, und ultimately judge which is close enough to bring you towards salvation (traditional denominations like Catholicism and Orthodoxy according to Jonathan) - this is eerily similar to what perennialists do to religions as a whole. It uses the same faculties of reason, intuition and judgement. How can you use these faculties to decide where you stand within Christianity, and then pretend like they are of no use for someone using them to figure our where to stand in a more general sense? I used to find this point of Jonathan compelling, but the more I think about it, the more I think it is somewhat non-sensical. I am not standing 'above' all religions because I study and compare them anymore than you are standing above denominations by picking and choosing which speaks to you the most.

[@AbdullahMikalRodriguez]

Has Jonathan even read Guénon? By his description of Perrenialism I would say he hasnt. This is why, when referring to Guénonian thought alone and not the subsequent school of thought (i.e. Perrenialism/Traditionalism) that Guénon founded, I like to use the word that he used to refer to his worldview, Traditionalism. Guénon was not a universalist in any sense. His understanding of what a true Tradition (capitalized) consisted of was very specific. He was not a martinist his entire life, he was initiated into Sufi Islam since the young age of 24. He was a Muslim, hence Jonathan's heaitation about his peculiar "associations". Jonathan uses the word Universalism as synonymous with Perrenialism, and even referenced Schuon's Perrenialism to back it up. This is where someone makes the common mistake of lumping Guénon in with the later Perrenialists... he was a TRADITIONALIST. He did not believe in this Universalism that is commonly attributed to him. His diagnosis of the degredation of the western world was and still is the most potent criticism of modernity ive ever read. People like Jonathan Pageau just dont like that his solutions were the Islamization of the west. Your theological Christian sycritism is showing Jonathan...

[@jasonroberts2249]

Perennialism is totally different from new age syncretism. He doesn’t understand what it actually is. We participate in our own traditions with devotion equal to any normative religionist. If a Perennialist engages in the behavior he describes then they are not perennialists; they are new agers. Prince Charles is not at all a Perennialist. He is not religious in the slightest. Religion is obviously not a significant part of his life.

[@asdfasdf3989]

Is it reasonable for a Perennialist Christian to say that Islam is wrong?

[@CScott-wh5yk]

His point is that perennialists are still modernists, since they attempt to stand outside of any one tradition in order to decide what is of value in each, but where do they get the criteria by which to judge? Criteria come from your worldview, which has traditionally been based in religion. If you stand above religions to judge them, you are not expressing a traditional worldview but are instead applying modernist tendencies to inform your perspective.

[@Bokescreek]

My initial response to this video was that stated by Jason Roberts in his first paragraph. Most of the perennialists I've read are emphatic about the importance of following closely a particular faith tradition. You can see this in James Cutsinger, Harry Oldmeadow, and others.

[@jasonroberts2249]

@@asdfasdf3989 No.

[@jasonroberts2249]

@@CScott-wh5yk you need to consider your view on a longer timeline. The notion that only one group on earth possesses an exclusive correct view of reality is actually the modern view. Not the other way around.

[@HenrikVierula]

Dear Jonathan, you omitted the fact that both Guénon and Schuon, rather than "float above", embraced Islam, the final formulation of Divine Revelation. The term perennialism harkens back to perennial flowers, such as the tulip. While we might nostalgically appreciate the tulips of past seasons, the only flower before me today is this year's tulip. Islam is this year's tulip, the religion for the end of items, and both Guénon and Schuon were clear about this.

[@As-fs6qd]

No they didnt...even as a muslim i will admit this.Schuon was a nudist,syncretist ,who married other peoples wives and was as bad ,if not worse than all the other new age gurus he thought he was above.What a tragic stain on the traditionalist legacy.

[@IThinkItsDark]

Neither Guenon nor Schuon taught this.

[@patriciafrantz8833]

That's true. Guenon was a Muslim.

[@Modus07]

@@IThinkItsDark Nasr, their intellectual and spiritual heir, certainly did. He asserted Islam’s unique providential role in the End of Days.

[@tairo1092]

@@Modus07 Nasr is only an academic philosopher, not an esoteric master. He is a man of abstraction and devotion, not of Gnosis/Knowledge. Islam is only an exoteric way among the others, tariqas todays are mostly pathetic and devotional, without real effective spiritual connections. They are open to anyone, aren't selective, they are like christian devotional groups. Alchemists f.ex., gentiles, christians or muslims, were completely indipendent from any exoteric authority. Taoist masters were not submissive to confucian authorities etc. Guénon was deeply wrong with his idealization of the 'eastern man', he didn't understand the corruption of China f.ex., or of islamic exotericism (wahhabism, salafism etc.). Julius Evola was way more realistic on that crucial point.

[@Akimcanna]

If you distinguish between belief and knowledge in the sphere of perennialism you will see that perenialism is not a new movement of faith but a new way of knowledge leading to faith, and this faith is not poly-religionism but a single religion proper to any specific man, maybe Christian, Muslim... There is nothing like globalism but perenialism shows a new way to old faith.

[@telvanniretainer2274]

There is only ONE proper religion FOR ALL MEN BY DIVINE DECREE

[@williamkoscielniak7871]

I just recently started to buy and read books from Guenon and Schuon. The doorway to the traditionalists for me happened many years ago with Evola. I kept having these dreams where I was reading books that gave away the metaphysical/historical secrets of ancient days, and every time in the dream I knew somehow it was Julius Evola that I was reading. So I went out and bought a bunch of his books, being both enamored and repulsed by much of it. As a result of Evola being influenced by Guenon I decided to get some of his books, and then I looked into Schuon and bought "The transcendent unity of religions". That has been one of the most stimulating books I've read in quite some time. The traditionalist school of perennalism has leveled some of the most powerful arguments against modernity that I have ever heard. In fact they are THE most powerful critiques of the modern world I have ever heard. Intuitions that I had but which I hadn't given much conscious thought to were brought up out of the shadows and into the light in their writings. This fact has made for an excellent foil against the likes of Ken Wilber and other progressive perennialists who agree that there are wisdom traditions that transcend time and place, but who also believe that he world is progressively getting better in a sort of historical dialectic Ala Hegel. These two opposite movements in the context of spirituality and the modern world has given me much food for thought. EDIT - the answer to the question "can Muslims be saved?" is; if the individual needs Christian medicine then no, they cannot be saved. If they need Muslim medicine then OF COURSE they can be saved, and a Christian in that context could not be saved.

[@sirkamyk9886]

What does being "saved" mean here?

[@TheLibran1]

I think the problem with Guenonian Traditionalists is while they tried to account for the universal, they responded with compensation mechanisms & concerns keyed to the MODERN trends of mind, and didn't anticipate Post-Modernism. Guenon et al, where clear on the need to be within a Tradition as a scaffolding and that the actual experiential meaning of the "inner content" could only be apprehended through a practice with its sequence that includes a "Exoteric" element. Which has its own great value and place and is not a derision. There is also the sense in a lot of people nowadays. They say "well I just want the truest concept or best system etc right away". Part of this is pure impatience, part is misunderstanding the nature of Learning. Because: Like in OTHER areas of learning besides the religious/metaphysical etc, sometimes the things you do or concieve on the way to learning "the true truth" or what have you in a domain are important not because they are "better representations" or "here, you are deemed worthy of this new practice" but that the representations & practices change the person and do so in such away that enables the accurate inner apprehension of the inner content in a way that accords with reality and is not merely "an idea among ideas".

[@As-fs6qd]

No one predicted post modernism more accurately than Guenon..that is precisely what marks him as a genius.?The compensation mechanisms and concerns are precisely what religious systems offer , the fact that they alternately save and alienate is also a feature of relgious traditions ,but that does not make them invalid as such does it?

[@TheLibran1]

​@@As-fs6qd If you think I said that religious traditions are invalid, or don't offer compensation mechanisms. Then you didn't read my comment closely enough. Less your fault, the meaning behind "anticipate" I should clarify: I don't mean predict in a general way or a trajectory - which Guenon certainly did. I mean in the sense that in a debate one anticipates specific responses several orders down. Post-modernism per se simply wasn't on the radar in enough resolution to be replied to as such. Guenon replied to the errors of Modernism and its logical path of degeneration, so he addresses Post-Modernism somewhat by extension in the latter, but primarily in the framework of a response to Modernism.

[@Flammenhagel]

complete word salad

[@As-fs6qd]

@@Flammenhagel Somewhat unavoidable when talking about the more complex aspects of guenon .try reading the' multiple states of being' haha.....however just because i dont understand it ..yet..i dont dismiss it as meaningless...especially when when i consider what i do understand of Guenon is profoundly life altering.

[@Flammenhagel]

@@As-fs6qd no i mean there are grammatical errors in his comment

[@tensevo]

I think the point of books, is to break open your closed world view. The trick is, to keep reading.

[@maryamsharief7345]

You don’t understand the Perennialist perspective, because you’re firmly wedged behind your strictly confessional point of view! For you, the Eternal can only take one unique historical form, and can only have one salvation plan, for all mankind, even if it comes - alas - only at the very last stage of world history! Thus the religious forms that came before or after this historical form cannot be taken seriously as Divine forms! One can only say that your position is not to be taken seriously, if one wishes to do justice either to the infinity of the Eternal or to the diversity of mankind! Your position can only be understood on its own level, but not when you think you can define or dismiss other positions from its vantage point! What your position can’t accept is really the principle of the “relatively absolute”, which allows the Eternal One to take many different historical forms when addressing different epochs or different sectors of humanity. What is at stake for Perennialism is the Necessity of the Eternal, as well as the essentiality of religion as such for all human times and all human contexts! You sacrifice both of these things to maintain your own unique form of the Eternal as the only one possible, for your own ‘lucky’ sector of humanity! With your strictly confessional perspective, one cannot in all seriousness expect you to have a truly intellectual perspective! This is why you venture to assimilate the rigorous metaphysics of Perennialism to the “amalgam without principle” that is the New Age religions!

[@jiqian]

That a lot of perennialism lends itself to new age stuff is just a fact, in part, that is why I prefer to refer to Guénon as a "traditionalist. But that is just a fact part of a larger one in the current age, which is that everything that is expressed even if true is a double edge sword that favours some and harms others. I think this is why Pageau specifically mentions how some of the things said may be "problematic" - even if not necessarily wrong, and why he emphasised people should worry about the people near them and themselves first rather than someone who they do not know at all, something that would be true even if everyone in the world were a Christian.

[@porteal8986]

These questions that you put down as dishonest or subversive are important because their answer depends on the nature of God, as does the spiritual choices of the person asking. To mock these questions is nothing but a dishonest deflection itself

[@tensevo]

Such a brilliant analogy about asking whether there is another way to the hospital.

[@Flammenhagel]

not really

[@shivabreathes]

I agree. I’ve found perennialism to be useful but to not be deeply and truly satisfying.

[@RydSpyn]

Wow, good stuff, especially the discussions in the comment section. This seems to be a divisive issue, and therefore worthy of further elaboration. From what I can gather, one ultimately has to embrace the paradox that the metaphysical system, as Orthodox Christianity describes it according to Jonathan, is universal (i.e. the story of stories), while at the same time being a (somewhat) singular system of beliefs.The claim that it is universal must automatically place it above other, competing systems of belief, while at the same time relating it to them. In other words, if Christianity's teachings are metaphysically universal, they must stand in some form of relation with other systems of belief, for if there was any one system that it does not contain/explain, its universality would be compromised. Alternatively, and this is the Perennialis/Traditionalist position, Christianity is just one expression of a higher, more ancient, more complete, perfectly ideal tradition/ metaphysical system, a status it shares with many others like Hinduism and Buddhism, for example. There is a danger that presents itself here, namely that, by adopting this latter stance, one is tempted to place oneself above any of the incarnations of this higher metaphysical intuition, but as a result, one leaves the realm of tradition. That's what happened to Schuon, who increasingly diverged from any tradition in order to create his own "non-tradition" tradition. Guénon himself did not embody this, and instead was content to live life as a Sufi, although some sources say that he looked favorably upon Schuon's gathering of a following. Be that as it may. Nobody can reveal Guénon's true feelings about this, who, incidentally, was far more inclined towards the Vedanta Hinduist school of thought than any other. In conclusion, this second approach leads to a sort of "non-traditionalist" syncretism, which chooses its beliefs arbitrarily, as the individual sees fit, losing the main appeal of the Traditionalist perspective. Perhaps, one can resolve this paradox to a degree by acknowledging the fact that, all systems of belief are in constant flux and development, and hence, imperfect, non-universal. Even a Traditionalist "I am above all other traditions" perspective does not alter that fact, since it will always be just another instance of the postulated ideal system. Perhaps we should acknowledge that there is a profound relationship between the different systems of belief, while at the same time admitting that there are also some stark differences and incommensurabilities. The devil is in the detail, after all. One can see the post-modern condition re-emerge here as well, I feel. It is principally difficult to determine where one should go in life, what one should commit to. Why should it be different at the level of religions? If reality is truly fractal, we should see the same problems of post-modernity emerge here. I know that this constitutes a kind of paradox in itself, and I do ask myself, is it because Baudrillard was correct in his assessment that ours is the age of the schizophrenic? In some sense, Perennialism is a Baudrillardian simulacrum, referring only to other religions to receive its meaning, while not being grounded in anything real. It is first and foremost a theoretical school of thought, whose terms are constructed from other terms, a man-made model that someone like Schuon incarnated into reality. Nonetheless, Perennialism has a case, and Jonathan needs the Perennialist method to argue for the universality of Christianity in a post-modern age. Just some of my thoughts. At the end of the day, this is one of those problems that cannot be resolved definitively.

[@Iamwrongbut]

Brilliant comment.

[@MicahMicahel]

It depends how you define universal. I'm not sure how Johnathan Pageau defines it but I can explain standard Christian thought. the universality of Christianity is perhaps how it's open to everyone at the drop of a hat. I can't become a Hindu. You have to be born into it. A woman can't achieve transcendence in Buddhism. Women are worth half as much as a man in Islam, It's a lot of work to become a Jew. Most other big religions you have to be born into or initiation is a long process. Other religions cost money such as Scientology. Christianity just takes a moment for any person on the planet. No holy person such as a priest or IMam is even required to help you. Another example of the universality of Christianity is contained in dietary rules. Paul states a Christian can eat meat that is blessed by Pagan Gods or false Gods. I think the other religions would have a problem with that. Christians can eat whatever they want. There's a universality in that. HIndus can't eat meat. Jews and Muslims can't eat pork and they need their meat to be blessed by their own holy men. It doesn't matter to the Christian because the Christian is told with God all things are possible.

[@jalander8817]

A Muslim woman is NOT worth half of a Muslim man and a holy man does not need to bless meat. If a man believes in the 5 pillars of Islam then they are a Muslim and will be judged as a Muslim on the Day of Judgement. It is however, highly recommended that if you come to the faith that you announce this fact in front of the community. You will not find a flatter hierarchy than that of Islam. I hope you are more accurate in the area of your faith than you are with the faith of others. 🤠

[@zainkhorasanee1684]

In our Tradition, The Scripture repeatedly describes two fundamental Attributes of The Divinity as (Approx. Translation) Infinitely Beneficent and Ever Most Merciful. Beginning from this standpoint, The Perennial outlook is completely consistent with both The Divine Reality and the human condition. If we objectively examine the different human collectivities specially in their varying languages, ethnicities and mental tendencies, it is clear that the specific aspects of The One Truth that may resonate to a high degree within one collectivity may well differ from those aspects that resonate powerfully within another collectivity. Therefore, it is total logical and highly consistent with The Infinitely Beneficent and Ever Most Merciful Divine Intention to “re-turn” the maximum number of human beings back to acknowledging and believing in The One Transcendent and Infinite Truth (thereby being enabled to reach salvation) that different manifesting forms (being the various Orthodox Traditions) of these aspects would be required to reach and provide effective Saving Ways for these differing human groups…

[@Crime_Mime]

Perhaps perennialism is also an off-shoot of the materialist/scientific assumption that we can "remove" ourselves from reality to objectively judge it. That we can successfully remove ourselves from tradition to pass judgement on them all (while in the process putting an enormous amount of faith on the reliability of our individual judgement). I struggle to see how it ends up being different from a build-a-bear of a religion. Maybe I'm missing something, just thought I'd put my thoughts down.

[@mburumorris3166]

This video does a bad job of explaining what perennialism is. Perennialists do not advocate a rejection of one's tradition at all , I would even say they are the biggest defenders of tradition. Perennialism is in itself not a religion and it rejects syncretism. I would advise you to understand perennialism from actual perennialist thinkers. I would recommend "Seyyed Hossein Nasr's books or lectures here on YT" an islamic scholar , a descendant of the prophet himself, and the greatest living scholar of perennialism in this day. I do not know many christian perennialist thinkers atm who I can point you to sadly but I will make an edit if I discover them.

[@arturoperez2241]

@@mburumorris3166 although the majority of thinkers from the traditionalist school tend to be Muslims; Wolfgang Smith, Jean borella and James Cutsinger are some Christian perennialists to begin with. Among them, Wolfgang Smith is a super-high-level Christian scholar, physicist, mathematician and philosopher of science.

[@Benjamin-ew3hk]

I clicked on your video out of curiosity (I accepted the bait) to see what you thought (just passing through essentially. I've never heard of your channel before). I think you bring up some good comparisons and valid insights. I think perennialism ends up being convenient for people. They can try to use it as an argument for postmodernism and to display they are political correct by being accepting of all religions citing perennialism. I may be totally incorrect but my perception is that you value loyalty and so perennialism is inherently uninviting because you aren't inherently affiliating yourself with anything and to some degree you are discounting affiliations by standing above all the religions so to speak. Which is a valid concern assuredly. People who try to use that to excuse all religions are doing a disservice and that perpetuates the problems of modernity surely. That doesn't mean perennialism itself is contributing to it, it's more like it's being exploited by people who probably don't understand it's deeper meaning and truth which is more like the philosophical underpinnings of religion. To throw away religion because it has a philosophical underpinning is to throw out the baby with the bathwater and that doesn't need to happen and it doesn't always happen right. There are people happily in traditions in both the east and the west that value what perennialism has to offer for their spiritual growth. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

[@soaresdeazevedo4491]

Every truth comes from the Spirit, says Scripture. If Guénon and Schuon are saying the Truth, with a capital "T", their teachings come from the Spirit -- which moreover blows everywhere, as Scripture also says. The Old Testament ends with a mention to the returning of the Prophets Elias and Elijah, at the end times. They will bring the hearts of the children to the hearts of their parents. That is the meaning of Tradition, Tradition which Schuon and Guénon were the most resolute and intelligent defenders in the whole of the XX century (the most anti-traditional epoch there has even been, so far...). So I would advise much prudence in criticising sages that brough incredible light to us. Without their visions and insights we wouldnt even be here discussing these matters... Have you heard of the sin against the Spirit?

[@GVSHvids]

can you point to where in the bible it says that every truth comes from the spirit? I genuinely don't know.

[@matheusmotta1750]

Elias and Elijah are same person. Scripture says that Elijah will come before the day of the Lord.

[@timottes334]

Just getting into Guenon, but I see already that his work ( Reign of Quantity & The Sign of the Times ) is confirming my own intuition(s. ) I was lead to him by my reading... As I continued studying philosophies and religions... it became clear to me that one's personality determined where one came down on the " dogmas " of any religion or philosophy. For instance, I just cannot agree with the God in human form aspect of Christianity, but I really like a lot of the ritual aspects of Catholicism and Orthodoxy. I seem to lean to the strict Oneness of Judaism... It seems to me... that Guenon tells one to become initiated into one of the religions. I guess seeing truth in all of them, Guenon is claiming that one cannot go wrong by " officially " agreeing to become a member of, and abiding by one of them..

[@timottes334]

Father Rose was a great fan of Guenon, and claimed that following Guenon lead him to Orthodoxy... Furthermore, Fr. Rose claims Orthodoxy to be for western man as a Tradition... I'd not strictly agree with that, but he sort of confirms from his journey... my opinion that personality has a lot to do with the Tradition that one whom seeks Transcendent Truth leans toward... Fr. Rose concluded Orthodoxy from walking into a Russian church.... I think that I have concluded Judaism from its Oneness conception of God... That is, upon entering into the metaphorical synagogue, like Fr. Rose entering into the Russian church... I have seemingly concluded that this is what I was searching for in Transcendence... I think that reading people that encourage initiation like Guenon, and whom do not condemn you for what you have particularly concluded about Transcendence... is a great and even incalculable service to people that aren't able to pigeonhole or shoehorn themselves into a Tradition that they've been brought up in... but whom also cannot abide Materialism/Atheism... And... this seems true to me, and is what I interpret Guenon as saying: To come to a transcendent ( Essential/Qualitative ) conclusion by the mere piling up of empirical/numerical data ( Quantity ), is to emulate the error of the modern world! It is to be the bean counting, non thinking ( in the guise of thinking ) robot ( Quantitative Machine ) of the modern, industrial, numerically, quantitatively driven world. And is, in fact, a contradiction or worse... So, if yer out there presenting DATA ( Quantity ) in debates to PROVE ( Quantitatively ) the validity of what you have SUBJECTIVELY ( Qualitatively/Essentially ) concluded concerning Transcendence ( Essence/ Quality )... you are, indeed, a sad specter and a prime example... of the wrongness of the modern, numerically driven world...which says that DATA ( Quantity ) proves EVERYTHING... even the Qualitative! Data ( Quantity ) didn't give FR. Rose Orthodoxy, and Data didn't ( seemingly at this point ) give me Judaism... it's one's essence/quality/subjective experience that gives one their conclusion concerning Transcendence. It isn't the adding and subtracting of " facts, " it is what your essence tells you is the case concerning Transcendence... At no point would Fr. Rose, if I may be so bold... conclude other than Orthodoxy by 51% ( Quantity ) of the " facts " showing it to be deficient!!

[@Christianity_and_Perennialism]

I didn't understand what Christianity was before reading Guenon and going out and finding a real church.

[@k1mcheenoodle]

@@Christianity_and_Perennialism can i ask what are some real churches you have found?

[@Christianity_and_Perennialism]

@@k1mcheenoodle Melkite

[@jackzen4547]

Just a quick chime in because I have many obligations today. You raise good points about how perennialism can fuel the confused New-Age movement. But I think the entire point of these men and their works is to point out that at this stage in the Kali-Yuga, there is no such religious support than can furnish realization of the transcendent principle, at least not on an exoteric level. Thus, they stand above it as you said because there is no other option for the man “fully integrated” except to stand above the ruins of the myriad of religious forms, now devoid of any real meaning. A lot of these guys were hungry for some sort of initiatic “religious” group to attach themselves too, that is what I believe led Guenon to convert later in his life.

[@brain0nfire]

I take your point, but has a former atheist (strictly agnostic) believing in the mythology of most any religion it was always tough to buy when interpreted literally speaking. I mean if some of these events can somehow be reframed to fit the laws of physics (with some margin for what we don't yet know) I can handle it. For example: it's hard to believe that the ressurection of Christ is to be taken seriously if it couldn't be scientifically recognized in a hospital setting. I'm not saying scientists know everything nor that they are the authorities on the fabric of reality, but I have trouble, myself, giving that control away - my mapping of reality - and putting all the cards on a single human/civilizational event as a primary axiom to derive all my understanding of my worldview. It may have some sense in terms of ethics and praxiology, perhaps even for the pursuit of meaning, but the construction of a mental model of how the world operates from a mechanistic standpoint it seems bizarre to hang it on such an antropocentric singularity. I recognize it's hard to escape from our human perspective since it's how we engage with the world at large but it's hard to distinguish the importance of such an event from those of other civilizations and groups. For the west and the middle east it was a unique event but for the orientals it's hard to see how it was relevant past an indirect influence. See, as a European born in a (formerly?) heavily Roman Catholic culture, I can't just easily separate myself from that singular event, which was the resurrection of Jesus, but I can observe other people outside of my original culture and recognize that they don't centralize it in the same manner. As I've said, since many of these individuals have been imported to my culture thanks to the multiculturalism you've addressed, they are being influenced by Jesus. Now, multiculturalism may have pushed me out of Jesus and brought foreign cultures into "Jesus". But I wouldn't say that I endorse multiculturalism as much as it was forced on me and I have to somewhat run with it given it has become a western reality. I'm not interested in attacking these communities and I can't synthesize the importance of Christ in my identity, specially when it's the western culture that let itself be invaded and contaminated and not the other way around. The fact that Christianity is losing steam and losing not only legitimacy but losing cultural and demographic ground is evidence of its very weakness. Christianity doesn't integrate evil. It tries to expiate it and guilt trip and that seems unfitting for the nature of human predicament. We can't escape that our inadequacies and insufficiencies turn us evil. We may try to project or dissipate this evil elsewhere but we can't simply partition this side of ourselves and cast it out as if it wasn't an essential element to our identities. In fact, it's this very contrast that gives us insight to the very problem of evil and solution brought by good. And I argue that Buddhism, Taoism, maybe even Judaism and Islam (and other tribalistic ancient world religions) have a much more healthy relationship with evil - without poisoning themselves. As I see it, the depression and self-flagelation that comes from expiating evil that Christianity proposes is self-destructive and essentially anti-human. I won't argue that that other religions don't have a scapegoating motive but they are sure coming on top as time goes on and as the west succumbs to higher deities like money, the state, status and being self-efficatious in the eyes of the populace. Guenon made me see God past a positivist and materialistic outlook. I couldn't even fathom God. It's still unfathomable but I least now I know that He might be in my biological blindspot - my human limitations. God is the whole. That much seems sensible, which is why it seems hard to downgrade this realization into a specific religious mythology. As Eliade and others would argue, these mythological events celebrate, reenact and become the prima causa once again. It's hard to argue against this. But I see your point that it may promote multiculturalism and so on. But I don't think all religions are equal. I think each has their strong suits and so they must be supported over others when it's appropriate. I still think Chistianity is one of the most important religions, I'd follow it with Buddhism (which more like a practice), Taoism (more like a philosophy) and then I fell in love with Islam's conception and relationship with God (I don't buy sharia law though). So it's a tough job managing all the specificities and how to stratify them to promote a productive and ethical inner algorithm but I feel better with my conscience and have less stress (ironically) in dealing with all the cognitive dissonance that the Christian narrative and dogmas brought to me. I never thought we could stop multiculturalism, even when I was an atheist, but I began thinking that we can at least delay it. Now, I don't know. I feel like I have little control. Sometimes, I'm against the islamic footprint on western countries, other times I look at the hedonism and narcissism in the west and think they needed some of the insights of the Islamic sages like Al-Ghazzali or Avicenna. In fact, I think Christians no longer understand God. Most do see it as Zeus like God. In Portugal, a country infected with Socialism, and very much Catholic, you see how much people have accept both and reconciled them. Many even say Christ was a communist. That's my problem. Maybe you're correct in your assessment but from my position I feel much more peaceful and solid as a person and influence as Perennialist. Perhaps if I lived in Canada or the US I'd be more influenced and open to different sects of Christianity more aligned with God. But here in Europe there is no room to accept Catholicism. It's dying and every character around it is repulsive and mixed in with the psychopathic elites and pederasts. Islam is here to stay and I rather make an ally of it because Catholics and even Protestants can't handle Islam. Maybe Orthodox and Evangelics might but I don't understand the Orthodox church very well and Evangelics seem sufffocating and sticky. It's certainly interesting to see how Putin accomodates Islam and Orthodox Church both but I have a feeling that he still is an atheist and is just doing anything to maintain power. As I see it, I feel less alone with God alone than with all these groups that try to climb on top of each other to claim rights to God.

[@neththom999]

Asking whether or not M*slims are saved is a completely valid question, regardless of the intention of the questioner. Under the Christian rubric the answer is obviously "no". The question is subversive to the game of hide and seek many Christians play with the logical consequences of their beliefs. Salvation is universally available provided you become a Christian, right?

[@papercut7141]

Matthew 25:31-40 NKJV "When the Son of Man comes in His glory, and all the holy angels with Him, then He will sit on the throne of His glory. [32] All the nations will be gathered before Him, and He will separate them one from another, as a shepherd divides his sheep from the goats. [33] And He will set the sheep on His right hand, but the goats on the left. [34] Then the King will say to those on His right hand, 'Come, you blessed of My Father, inherit the kingdom prepared for you from the foundation of the world: [35] for I was hungry and you gave Me food; I was thirsty and you gave Me drink; I was a stranger and you took Me in; [36] I was naked and you clothed Me; I was sick and you visited Me; I was in prison and you came to Me.' [37] "Then the righteous will answer Him, saying, 'Lord, when did we see You hungry and feed You, or thirsty and give You drink? [38] When did we see You a stranger and take You in, or naked and clothe You? [39] Or when did we see You sick, or in prison, and come to You?' [40] And the King will answer and say to them, 'Assuredly, I say to you, inasmuch as you did it to one of the least of these My brethren, you did it to Me.' Christ is not bound by our conceptions of Christianity. God is sovereign, God is merciful. He will save whom he wills. Why do you require that I judge my brothers? That's not my place.

[@neththom999]

@@papercut7141 I mean, that's an interesting point theologically, but I have never heard it from any other Christian and in fact quite the opposite. I can't imagine a bunch of Christians agreeing that Muslims are saved and can go to heaven. Your point seems to be that in principle anyone can go to heaven by God's grace if He so chooses, and okay, but like, what percentage do you think if you had to wager a guess? It would be an exceptional case no? Generally speaking there are certain preconditions for going to heaven and non-Christians quite obviously do not fulfil those requirements if you're going to be consistent and honest about your beliefs. I'm not asking you to be the judge of any person, just honest in principle.

[@papercut7141]

@@neththom999 there are many Christians with many sayings, I can only speak for mine and what I've discerned And ah but you _are_ asking me to judge, in fact every time someone looks at another and tells themselves "oh they aren't saved" they are passing the ULTIMATE judgement. We're talking about what it takes to be rejected by the God of infinite love, at least that's what we claim he is in our prayers and our holy books, and then we look at our brothers and sisters and say "you are not worthy." So do we really believe the words? Do we understand what's coming out of our mouths? Have we really recognized what we're claiming to worship? What we're meant to _become_? I think in most cases, the answer is no. There's a story I really resonate with. A Russian monk, Saint Silouan of Athose, was speaking with a hermit who confidently said ‘God will punish all atheists. They will burn in everlasting fire.’‬ Obviously upset, the Staretz (spiritual teacher) said:‬ ‘Tell me, supposing you went to paradise and there looked down and saw somebody burning in hell-fire-would you feel happy?’‬ ‪‘It can’t be helped. It would be their own fault,’ said the hermit.‬ ‪The Staretz answered him with a sorrowful countenance:‬ ‘Love could not bear that,’ he said. ‘We must pray for all.’‬ This is what I see and what I want. I don't want to cultivate judgement, or I will grow in judgement. I would rather cultivate prayer, so that I could grow in love. I understand that you're trying to hold people to account for what they say, that's a good thing, and I understand that I might look to you like I'm trying to weasel out in a similar way to what you're used to, but it's not my intent. I don't want to give you a simple answer, because I don't think we've framed the question properly. Most of this I think is poisoned by a very particular dogma around "belief" that's developed in the west, but we can get to that later First I have a question for you (partly so that I don't just bore you by writing out _my_ answers in what's already a long reply). And that is, what does it even mean to "be saved" to you? What is the process, and what are the "certain preconditions" you have in mind?

[@neththom999]

@@papercut7141But we're not looking at anyone and judging them. We're having an abstract argument. Again the exception doesn't prove the rule. Just because God can in principle save anyone regardless of religion and that it's not up to us to judge individuals doesn't mean that the question of whether or not the majority or even a sizable proportion of non-Christians will go to heaven under a Christian rubric. Like which Christians believe that the majority of Pagans will go to heaven provided they live good lives? It's absurd to imagine any Christian doctrine in which that is the case. Dude, I appreciate the charitable moral sentiments you're putting forward, but keeping it real is just as important. I'm not advocating that we look at individuals in a judgmental way, giddy for their decent into hellfire because they chose the wrong religion or something. In fact, I may have misled you into thinking that I'm a signed-on-the-dotted-line Christian. I'm really coming at this more from the perspective practical mysticism if that makes sense. The fact that I grew up Catholic means that Christianity is a large part of my spiritual heritage and an esoteric current into which I've been initiated as well as a sort of home base. Personally I believe that anyone from any religion can go to heaven which is a non-physical reality that you end up in because you resonate with it, and you resonate with it because of your intentions, deeds etc. which give your soul a certain character at the time of death i.e. state of grace. If you're an Aztec priest in the middle ages practicing human sacrifice you'll likely end up in some kind of hell, but not because you don't believe the right doctrine. As you can now see I was basically playing accuser troll and it's not I that I myself think that all or most non-Christians go to Hell but just that I want people who subscribe to beliefs which logically imply that to admit it, dammit, lol. Virtuous stuff. By certain preconditions I just meant that all Christian doctrines that I'm aware of have, at the very least, the belief that you need to be a Christian to go to Heaven, i.e. "saved", which is a word which came to mind because it's one my Reform Presbyterian friends use to describe themselves since they believe in salvation by faith alone. Kind of the polar opposite of what I believe since I don't think acceptance of certain beliefs is what does it but rather the quality of your soul or consciousness merited by your free will choices.

[@As-fs6qd]

There is i suspect , an alarming failure to read between the lines here as to what Jonathon is saying.

[@jasonroberts2249]

You have to ask yourself the question of whether people of other faiths are saved, because if the answer is no, then it is your critical duty to try to convert them, especially if they are your family or friends. But if the answer is yes......

[@liseb.4485]

Try and make your "critical duty to convert everyone around you" and observe the damage. Conversion of others is not your job, the best way you can "convert" anyone without being a heartless tyrant is by being an authentic inspiration (and minding your own business in the first place). Jonathan has a point on this one.

[@bradleyheissmann4538]

Convert them to what, though. Convert them into wanting and understanding theosis?

[@GITAHxgCoo]

Meanwhile they are perhaps asking themselves if you are saved in their religion and consider it their duty to convert you. This is the problem with particularism that perennialism solves.

[@kyledonahue9315]

@@liseb.4485 Read Matthew 28:16-20. Christ commands us to do precisely the opposite of what you are espousing.

[@MicahMicahel]

@@liseb.4485 what about your spouse or children? Wouldn't you love some people so much that you'd be disturbed that they would go to Hell? Also, being an inspiration is kind of a false answer. Who can do that? and if I'm inspirational, how does that prove God is real? It would promote a virtue signalling as well, or show what looks like desperate fear over your soul. What could you do to be an inspiration? People of any religion can be pleasant or benevolent as well. I think it really matters what a person's personality is. If a person is gruff or grumpy even, their evangelizing will just turn people away.

[@processrauwill7922]

I think the catholic church has a good solution to this in Vatican 2. Other faiths can participate in Christ in fragmentary ways, because all things find their beginning and end in the God, but the fullness of the participation is in the catholic church. It's a good compromise. I also don't think he was necessarily giving the question the full respect it deserves. I think it comes from a real love for other people. Before I'd heard the Vatican 2 answer I was so depressed that others who I couldn't share the faith with would be damned because they weren't part of the church. Like that was probably the one moment in my life where I was actually depressed, but knowing that it may be possible gave me hope. It was the hope I needed to continue in the faith to where I am now.

[@fernymina8731]

Become Orthodox :)

[@processrauwill7922]

@@fernymina8731 I think right now at least I've been called to stay in the catholic church, though I must admit most of the theology I find satisfying comes from the east. (But then there's always the eastern Catholics, so it's not that my tradition is lacking there). Do the orthodox have an equivalent view to this Vatican 2 notion I just brought up?

[@zanemccomas5599]

@@processrauwill7922 From my understanding the orthodox more or less hold the same view. It's possible that non-christians may be in heaven by God's grace and love of mankind, but obviously nobody can definitively know who's going to heaven. Also, I think he's talking about the "gotcha" type of questions that people ask Christians to try and flex their moral superiority, not people asking who are genuinely concerned or curious.

[@SeekingUltimateSynthesis]

I think there’s a better answer to the other religions question because not everyone asks this question as a way to get you to question yourself. I think automatically interpreting them asking this as having bad intention points to a weakness in your faith in God that your own faith would some how be less if there were other ways of being saved. So the better answer in my view is: “maybe”. Provided what the person is honestly learning truly leads to living in love and truth with all their heart then yes they are saved. But that doesn’t mean you just choose which ever path you want or start mixing them together in your mind. The reason for pursuing only one path despite there being other paths is the same reason that if your pursuit is the highest truth in the context of language then you should spend all your life maximizing your ability to speak in your native language with forays into other languages only to the extent that it deepens your understanding of your mother tongue. Why? Because unless you are planning to move to another country and abandon your old life， which itself is a kind of a fall, there’s not much use for Japanese in North Dakota and spending all your time and energy in Japanese culture necessarily puts a barrier between you and those you are actually around you that you are supposed to commune with. The other thing is the way the symbolism and stories work together within a religion are different and can mess you up if you start mixing them. So in the same way that it’s obnoxious to start mixing French and English together non-stop so that there’s no border between them and the hearer can’t make heads or tails of what you are saying, it’s also going to be the same if you start taking other religious symbols and mixing it into your symbology while talking to people who only understand one symbolic system. i.e. In Japan there’s a white snake god with red eyes that brings luck, protection, and fortune…. If you start including the white snake in your Christian symbolism you might end up creating something that really is more fragmentary than unitary because snakes don’t have this meaning and would be a force of possibly negative force when taken out of it’s Shinto context. That said if you just love exploring multiple religions and that’s your thing, go ahead, but do it with the understanding that you might not reach the heights of English(or Christianity) if you spend half your time learning Chinese(or Buddhism). And I said that as someone who is doing exactly that, and as a good easy to understand example, I have felt my command of English slipping as I improve my Chinese because it’s so difficult to maintain a higher command of English if I am not spending all of my tome in English.

[@liseb.4485]

The 'language metaphor' is the best I have found so far to make practical choices about what to focus on, what to study. Also religion is not all about books and metaphysical concepts… It’s also about old buildings that are all around your town, ceremonies of birth and death that your family practice half-consciously, days and habits that remain special even in a secular world, etc. It’s a matter of understanding the culture you live in. Just as travelling the world can enrich the way you perceive your neighbors, your family, and yourself, so is studying openly other religions and religious languages. It’s a good thing. But ultimately you cannot bypass your roots and the fact that you come from somewhere (just like you have a DNA). To me that’s just practical. Not really a matter of "what is the best religion on Earth". There obviously is a problem with Christianity because it is at its core a form of universal language. But maybe as Jonathan said (if I remember), it can tend towards the universal precisely as long as it respects particularism and singularity. It’s not a matter of "which religion is going to win over other religions" like in a secular war. At least I don’t think so, it’s not where the power of the "Christian narrative" is…

[@SeekingUltimateSynthesis]

@@liseb.4485 I agree, you put this very nicely.

[@ExtraMediumRegular]

Perennialists carry the torch, the reverence for the higher, not the name of fire, but the fire itself.

[@ruslpit2615]

“…as if they float above these religions..”. I like that

[@CyberwaveStudios]

I think perhaps a bigger unintended irony is the fact that Jonathan doesn’t see that the question about whether or not other faiths are included in the story of salvation (the question Jonathan referred to as “the devil”) actually typically comes from a place of loving one’s neighbors.

[@Ehennings10]

I think Jonathan was referring to the question when it comes from those who pose it as a challenge (why he refers to the questioner sitting back smugly). There are those who would ask: "but what about the Asian girl who died long before Christ? How can it be fair if she was never given the chance to accept Christ? Clearly your religion cannot be true."

[@CyberwaveStudios]

@@Ehennings10 I think Jonathan made it very clear that he was referring to that question in general irregardless of its purpose. Hence why he kept emphasizing “what is your purpose of even asking that? What is the point and why is it my problem?” So it’s clear that he is talking about someone who’s purpose for asking that question is unclear to Jonathan - not people who’s purpose is to challenge. He may have mentioned people being “smug” about it, but he definitely didn’t reduce it to only encompass smug people. Not even in the most charitable interpretation of his words possible.

[@AluminiumT6]

The one who loves his neighbor is the one who shows the way to the hospital, not the one who, after the fact, asks "if they don't go this way can they still be saved?"

[@CyberwaveStudios]

@@AluminiumT6 sure, but I strongly disagree with the idea that this is analogous to the question of whether or not salvation is inclusive to practitioners of other faiths. A better analogy would be “hey, the road you told me to use to get to the hospital is under construction and closed off; so if I take this street instead, will it lead to the hospital as well?” If we are to adopt your and Jonathan’s attitude toward this question, we would just question this person’s motives and morally impugn him rather than actually help him get to the hospital. If you don’t know of any other ways to the hospital, the more honest answer would then be “I do not know.”

[@CScott-wh5yk]

@@CyberwaveStudios But the road isn’t under construction.

[@Ashurbanipal7446]

They are good at diagnosing problems but not curing them. Know this before going in (specifically Guenon and evola) and you can gain a-lot of value. Go in without knowing it and you will fall into mysticism and obscurity. For me i was able to separate the wheat from the chaff and my faith remained stronger.

[@jiqian]

Guénon was explicitly critical of mysticism and occultism (obscurity). Anyone who may read him and fall into those things has not read him attentively at all! But I agree he himself did not offer a cure, what he said is you should go and find, and where it would be possible to find it.

[@Ashurbanipal7446]

@@jiqian Yes you are absolutely correct and so did evola. Part of the problem with these thinkers is that you really need to read all of their works in order to form a judgment and a praxis. With evola especially, you need to read not only his entire library but you also need to be very familiar with pre and counter enlightenment political philosophy in order to not arrive at a point of confusion. But this does not jive well with our limited attention spans. So many people i have seen read the crisis of the modern world or revolt against the modern world and basically stop there and think they have the universe figured out. Many so-called evolians especially fall into the category of altright (leftistic racial collectivists) neo-spiritualists. This is hilarious because he absolutely condemned these ideas thoroughly and explicitly.

[@glaucon7337]

"The perennialists act as if they stand above all religions". What a lame take.

[@taryn2736]

Do you have a better take? What precisely about that take is lame?

[@glaucon7337]

@@taryn2736 Its lame because its a huge strawman. Perennialism has an academic origin, not a religious one. A theologian studies God yet he is never above him. Why would any field of study be different? Can you be above math just because you study it? Thats so lame. Furthermore, Jonathan is chucking a lot of people and schools under a single basket. I can hardly see Evola or Guenon advocating for world government or the merging of all religions, they werent universalists. Perennial studies are a great gateway into a religious life. Thats the better take.

[@taryn2736]

@@glaucon7337 I've also noticed the recurring "from where do you stand to judge your/any religion" thought from Jonathan and am not sure what to make of it for the reason you mention (re math). Thanks for the response.

[@AndrewB21]

@Glaucon Yeah, the more you think about it, the more ridiculous it becomes. I usually enjoy JP's content, but this would have to be one of the weakest answers I've seen him give. He's accusing the perennialists of being modern in their outlook, but his misinterpretations come from his own modern outlook. He's treating the idea that there can be multiple paths to the transcendent as a postmodernist invitation for all and sundry to come and eat at a global religious smorgasbord, but a. Both Guenon and Evola warn that one has to choose a single tradition and stick to it, as mixing traditions doesn't work, and b. Both are arguing about how a potential elite spiritual vanguard can reinvigorate the West with a transcendent spirit by personally mastering one of the spiritual paths that still has a fully intact esoteric tradition, and modifying it to fit western needs and tastes. This is made explicit in Guenon's book East and West. Neither argue that the West should (or realistically, even could) turn religion into a picknmix of whatever the individual wants. They're looking for someone to become a Chakravartin for our cursed age, not for everyone in Europe to suddenly start worshipping Hanuman on Mondays and meditating to an image of Vairocana on Tuesdays. JP is viewing this from a modern democratic perspective, while Guenon and (particularly) Evola were really writing to what they hoped would become a new aristocracy. This is why they're so down on the exoteric faces of religions. They're ultimately totemic in nature, and while they do offer a form of transcendence, it's back down into the totem rather than up towards to absolute, particularly in a civilization without an elite class who have mastered the esoteric elements of their spiritual tradition. There's also an implicit assumption of different populations having broadly different natures which predispose them to certain forms of worship. All paths (provided they have that complete esoteric element) ultimately lead to the same place, but the differences are there to make the path more easily navigable for the specific nature of the group in question. In other words, any legitimate path can potentially save anyone, but everyone except for the spiritually gifted have so many priors based on the circumstances of their birth that following the tradition their native civilization follows is realistically the only path that will suit them. The Christian denunciation of other paths only really makes sense in the context of the bounded intellectual world it works within, as a means of fighting off the lesser gods within the same contingent and bounded political unity. Once you expand your view to include outgroups as well, you are asking a fundamentally different question. Can an Islamic person be saved? Of course they can, and they are more likely to find salvation through Islam due to the contingent circumstances of their birth. I'd write more but it's late and my brain's shutting down. Pageau in his need to defend the idea that Christianity is the only way to salvation (a claim that is not made by the spiritual paths with the most well-developed esoteric systems) can only provide evasive answers like "why are they even asking that?" It'll satisfy the faithful, but very few others I think.

[@As-fs6qd]

@@AndrewB21 This is very uncharitable and also partly untrue. Evola never followed any tradition himself. The elite spiritual class also exist within the peasantry ,in fact more so as they uphold the world from the bottom up , not the top down .In fact they make the voluntary descent .JP has alluded many times to his perrenialist sympathies and the influence it has had on his conversion to orthodoxy.He underscores it to realise the greater purpose of serving the christian community and rightly so.If you take perrenialism as your axiom , in practise you are in great danger of losing the centre which you think you have found.Schuon is the best proof of what perennialism leads to in practise. Schuon always emphasised the superiority of the metaphysic over the theological but the metaphysical is an abstraction that has no salvific calue of itself and acts as a veil not a key ultimately .The existential reality of the transcendent unity comes from within the loci of orthodox relgious practise not from some intellectual adherence to a metaphysic of transcendence.Perrenialism is something to should become peripheral or even discarded once its served its usefulness otherwise it tricks the neophyte in thinking he is already there when he has just started and causes a chasm between the embodied and hypothetical realities..I have met sufi masters who espouse a perrenilism when they have never heard of it as an intellectual school of thought and many who came into islam through it ,who at least outwardly reject or admonish it for the very same reasons JP does.

[@actually_a_circle]

Being familiar with perrinial thought and having knowledge on comparative religious beliefs is an important part of apologetics, and it seems like a counter paradox to the paradox of perenniallism furthering globalism

[@tairo1092]

Apologetics isn't necessary in esoteric ways, they put themselves only on an exoteric plane. Esotericism is independent from exoteric authorities (churches, fiqhs etc.), if not in contrast (= the Templars etc.).

[@MoiLiberty]

Seems that these kind of Rene G thinkers are a kind of bridge to identifying the foot steps to follow but not the path itself.

[@fairykingoberon]

Guenon spoke about this problem while he absolutely smashed theosophy as attempt to be a global religion. Prince Charles is a form of spiritual materialism/narcissism, just as trying to create a new global religion is. My interpretation of schuon is that the key lies in submissing oneself to Traditional religions, instead of thinking that you are above them.

[@MARVIBOAS]

you should look after Olavo de Carvalho, he was a great philosopher who took a look at this matter, he was part of Schuon Turuq in some moment of his life, but he turned back to catholicism and taught about esoterism and the many trapdoors within the reading of Schuon and Guénon books, not to mention Evolas, Coomarasawamy and many others.

[@dustonpath]

This video is grossly misleading perennial school. Take any leading figures of this school, e.g. Dr. Syed Hussein Nasr, who are devout and religious people.

[@dustonpath]

Perennial school is not for everyone. And, this knowledge is not necessary for individual salvation.

[@levitonin7345]

It's amazing how everyone with prudence says to read guenon with caution.

[@jiqian]

Well, if you read him, it seems even he himself would advise to read his work and the work of anyone with caution. And at least as far as his intention allowed, he behaved cautiously himself.

[@albertbissada6284]

I don't know if your analogy is quite right. It's more like, you tell them where the hospital is and they point out that hospital doesn't accept certain kinds of people. And so maybe the question is more like, how can I go myself to a hospital that isn't open to all kinds of people. It seems to me not a subversive question at all but a sincere one.

[@jiqian]

But Christianity _is_ open to all... But I wouldn't say Christianity alone is the only making an universal claim (Buddhism certainly does), so, this is a worse analogy, really.

[@bensonbrett30]

Separation between humans leads to war.

[@johnisaacfelipe6357]

forcing them together leads to war.

[@Shotzeethegamer]

Perennialism is great if you can explore it from within your tradition.

[@askellabsalon7737]

I have strong perennialist leanings and this hit me very hard. I have always had a massive problem with modernists having this idea of themselves as enlightened centrists, as if their ideas are just objective and neutral and untainted by the world. It's a fundamentally superstitious mindset that leads to the most misplaced superiority complex possible. After hearing this, I now see that this same superstition is also present in much of the perrenialist attitude and that I am guilty of it. Thank you for showing me this blindspot. Is seems Christ is correct, as always.

[@setsen337]

I guess you didn't notice that this is more true of Christians than anyone else. Christianity is truly the absolute peak of irony.

[@lucasbrandaopelucio3454]

Christianity is not like that. The real religion says that there is only one way, while perennealists says that there’s lots ways. So => Christianity defends the real and metaphisical truth, while perennealists defens modern coexist thinking with a more intellectual cover

[@setsen337]

@@lucasbrandaopelucio3454 can you elaborate on "real and metaphysical truth"?

[@johnonah5178]

The reason for asking a universalist question is obviously the atheists main critique : faith is arbritrary, if I happened to be born in country x I would be a y.. well that's a good critique, if God was real , one would expect continuity of the same messages essence which is what thinkers like guenon point to

[@telvanniretainer2274]

If someone is saved outside orthodox Christianity (catholic here, popist) then it is Christ doing it, if all are saved or the "savage" who never knew the Bible then it is Christ. Simple as thar "I am the truth, the way and the light". If you want to have a common point then refer to nature. For example, you both want hapiness, you both are rational and scientific, etc, etc.

[@DanHowardMtl]

Jonathan you recommend so many books which I don't find on audible. Could you please narrate some of them and get them on audible?

[@jaydwy8069]

Lol

[@OffbeatRefrigerator]

Those aren't really the type of books you can listen to while doing something else.

[@Graplernapler]

Bro you can’t listen to these books. That would be an abomination. These books shatter worldviews, they are to be SLOWLY ingested line by line.

[@arimagoo4687]

Maybe a good self reflection is needed, what is claimed against perennialists here seems to apply, and quite fittingly, to Christian fundamentalists and religious fundamentalists of all types.

[@cuchulain55]

of course for myself personally, I dont even view it as perrenialism. I dont even personally view myself a s perrenialist or a perrenial philsopher whatever the hell that is. But simply as a little kid like i was when i was kid as a personal eclectic lover (and defender of all native peoples cultures religions time s periods (preferibly pre renaissance or very little renaissance influcend etc) cuisines languages life weays wasy of life etc.. like my love of samurai ninja native americnas shamns pirate viking Norsemen in general. san bushman turkic tribes mongols, australian aborginal, life ina citercian abbey. sufi lode zen monestary etc.... myths and legends folklore fairy tales (which i personally literall beive all in) the love of the beauty of truh for beauty is the splendor of truth. and the LOVE of wisdom of all peoples times periods even the bits and pieces of the old wisdom of the anients at ONE time for its time like the wisdom of odin etc.... I Ive always liked role playing and playing all manner of these tradion life ways and people s even as a kid. like a iranian village with different people of of different faiths or a old roman catholic medival Knight lordly families with play mobiles just to name a few. I was always the defender of the UNDERDOG no matter who that peoples were (especially of native american and other shamnic and aboriginal peoples of any form etc..) so if i had to say about myself I am an orthodox tradionists inclusivistic exlclusivist, who is an eclectic personal lover of all these different things and the RELIGO SOPHIA PERRENIS, and definately not some new age wishy washy universalist type or liberal modern minded / post renaissance western minded type but neither am i a perrenialist or a perennial philospher either.(whatever the hell that is.???

[@adamf.4823]

You seem pretty crazy, tbh.

[@cuchulain55]

@@adamf.4823 NO im just a little child at heart. and an eclectic lover of all native cultures time periods religions ways of life language etc...... its not just the christians(any denomination) who have amonopoly on the TRUTH of the REAL.

[@cuchulain55]

@Electro_blob 2 no the only thing is i dont includ or rgard certain faiths as true and divnely revealed faiths like joseph smith and mormonism or jehvahs witness who like smacking thier kids in the restrooms during meting hall meetings or scientology and l ron hubbard or the church of satan to name a few obvious fake ones

[@ruslpit2615]

How do you spell the author’s name?

[@orthobro4806]

Rene guenon.

[@roselotusmystic]

ThereIs . . . NO 'Superior' 'Collective' 'Path' to the TransDual . . . Perennialist . . . IndividualCollective . . . Mystic 🙏 Individual vs Collective Fallacy TransDual IndividualCollective 🙏 TheDeepShallowParadoxicalMysteryOf . . . TheAllThatIs(Not) 🙏 ☯

[@frank327]

Where's this full discussion?

[@SeekingUltimateSynthesis]

Random question does anyone know if there is any relationship between Atom and Adam? It’s kind of interesting that Atom means un-cut and an un-cut Adam is Adam before he was divided into Adam and Eve….bothers me that there would be such a coincidence where the pronunciation is the same, they both represent something from material that is fundamental and can determine the essence of things but is informed by a higher principle… they both have a core and a periphery and if the periphery partakes on the essence of other material it falls or transforms and binds together… like… I looked at the etymology and didn’t find anything linking the two words but it bothers me that they seem to fit so well… Also funny that the image that is displayed when Atom the programming tool boots up is what looks like a kind of small church with an antennae that looks like a cross in some ways with a rocket ship…. Like the symbolism in that makes me wonder if they made the same connection as I am above…

[@Galvvy]

Adam comes from Adamah meaning earth in hebrew.

[@polymathing]

Before the Hebrew "adamah" you have the Sumerian "adamu". Before the Sumerian "adamu" you have the Egyptian "atum/atem". [Atum's name is thought to be derived from the verb tm which means 'to complete' or 'to finish'. Thus, he has been interpreted as being the "complete one" and also the finisher of the world, which he returns to watery chaos at the end of the creative cycle. As creator, he was seen as the progenitor of the world, the deities and universe having received his vital force or ka.]

[@pointofrevelation]

Who is this guy speaking with Jonathan? Want to connect with him.

[@mannytps9986]

Also interested

[@Lucas4wordtees]

Thank you!

[@ranger-uw3gw]

Universalism shoots towards the saving of all..not that all are saved presently.. This "saving" in my way of thinking involves a process of purification in the afterlife.. Purification by a kind of eternal fire..but not experiencing the fire eternally..could be that God is a consuming fire and each person experiences a degree of it.. Every mans work shall be tested by fire..he himself shall be saved..yet so as by fire.. Love in its highest sense is fiery I don't think we know much about this kind of Love..yet

[@matheusmotta1750]

"Will muslims be saved?" One can genuinely asks this question with a concern, especially in our times, when they're uneasy about what to follow, and if they should follow a path at all, in the first place. But first of all, the question shouldn't be "will Muslims be saved", it should rather be: can Muslims be saved? Because it is clear even from Scripture that there are some Christians who won't be saved: "Not every one that saith unto me, Lord, Lord, shall enter into the kingdom of heaven; but he that doeth the will of my Father which is in heaven" (Matthew 7:21). So can Muslims be saved? One key point here that everybody's been missing to answer this question is: the Church. The Church is the Body of Christ (Head of the Church), the God-Man that perfectly unites humanity with the Divine. The Church is the continuation of the presence of Christ in the world, really, where all Christians are called to be christs (the salt, the light of the world), and are the people of God on Earth. There is no Salvation outside of the Church. But even some people from inside the Church won't be saved. But at the same time, the Spirit blows wherever it wants, i.e. He acts outside of the Church. So, yes, people from outside the Church can be saved through the Church in the Holy Spirit, either on this life or on the next (whosoever will be saved, will be part of the Church in Heaven). So, in Christianity, the People of God (the Church) plays a key and unique role in the Salvation of the world (whoever it may be) that no other religion has.

[@jiqian]

At the end of the day the best possible answer one can give regarding the salvation of _anyone_ is just "maybe":

[@Joxxol]

Bart Erhman makes a similar point about trying to harmonize the 4 Gospels - when you do so you denying the message of each particular one, and creating your own 5th gospel.

[@greenchristendom4116]

Not really they were all intended as a written version of Apostolic preaching as commissioned by the Lord (the oral version of which preaching and teaching is still going on, and is the more immediately proper cause of faith) after his Resurection and as St. Paul testifies in Corinthians 15 which contains an agreed on account of the Resurection, probably going back to within a year of the event. As he says they agreed on the essential message the "Gospel" (a word drawn from Isaiah's prophecy of God's comming salvation) of God's saving action action in Jesus's cross and Resurection presaging the defeat of sin and death, the resurection of the flesh and the renewal of heaven and earth.

[@dmjones1956]

I wonder what Jonathan thinks of Swedenborg. I find his Christian perennial spiritualism quite inspiring and elucidates modern NDE experiences.

[@heftymagic4814]

It does not

[@kengemmer]

Lost me at “That’s the devil.”

[@pauljames9711]

Cheap analysis. It’s hard to work out where these ideas come from. A deeper reading of these texts would help a great deal.

[@Walrus_333_]

Perrenialists have entered the chat

[@dustash1578]

Comments are better than the video lol

[@vasilymartin4051]

If I'm not mistaken, the perennialists taught that creation was a reflection of the infinite, and therefore had to be indefinite, having much diversity, including in religion. The problem with this is how any true religion - which in Orthodox Christianity is the very body of God Himself - could be likened more to trees, cats, rivers etc. That's ridiculous. The religion/body of God is higher than other things in the material world, just as Christ incarnate is higher than other things in the material world. You can not therefore teach, as the perennialists did, that on the one hand, Orthodox Christianity is true, and on the other, it's just one of many true religions; for it must be one or the other; and because Orthodox Christian theology and philosophy is very much able to establish itself as true, there can only be one true religion: Orthodox Christianity. The proper 'formula' is therefore one infinite God, one religion/body for that God and then many different people, nations, trees, cats, etc

[@patriciafrantz8833]

Guenon was Muslim

[@notloki3377]

there's a heirarchy of universalism in much the same way that there is a heirarchy of christian beliefs. blaming universalism for globalism or new age mush is quite like blaming the salem witch trials or the westboro baptist church on jesus. every movement will be misinterpreted, and some of those misinterpretations will be more catastrophic than others. this is the first time i've seen you more distressed than frustrated, and i don't mean to presume, but i think it might be because orthodox christian traditions clash with the notion of universal cosmic patterns unearthed within the christian text. i suppose the question is, do those christian texts point to human values or do they point to christian values? to the extent that the values of the patterns uncovered in christianity are available to humans, and to the extent that humans are the product of the universe, then i would imagine that the values in christianity are universal. the only real problem i have with christianity and the christians who follow it is when they start claiming to be the gatekeepers of the only path, the only way, the only truth. i understand it is not for us as people to know, and i wouldn't expect anyone to know where the boundaries of the narrow gate lie. i think what you said about people worrying about their own salvation is extremely relevant, and smug globalists put a bad taste in my mouth as well. it's the same taste i get from a christian who guards the narrow gate, and assumes it can only be reached in a way familiar to their sensibilities.

[@TheAirSchool]

No opposition between Perenialists and Christ. Go deeper. Perenialists don’t contain Christ but Christ contains the Perenialists.

[@RoyalProtectorate]

This is how I have always seen the traditionalist school

[@cuchulain55]

ooh another thing i thought of was thats probably the wrong way of even asking that question. I know my own self if i asked that question I would say some thing more like Do you beleive that other relgions like Islam are valid paths up the mountain like your own. and not whether or not if one belkeie s whether or not they re saved or not. because you are 110 percent right NONE knows chritian orhtodox or other wise buddhist native american faith jewihs muslim etcc.. are truely saved or not or what will or wont happen to one regardless fo ones fait tradion in the end or when ever. One should just live as a good person within one personall faith tradions mindfull at all times and let the surpreme creator decide who is or is not not or will or will be not saved including one s own self.h

[@CScott-wh5yk]

Hey, my worldview was smashed by Guenon, followed by a year of depression. Fun stuff.

[@processrauwill7922]

what did he say that caused a depression?

[@CScott-wh5yk]

@@processrauwill7922 His writing helped break me out of my materialism, which is good, but I didn’t have a worldview to replace it at the time, so I was left in a sea of chaos and nihilism for a time being.

[@processrauwill7922]

@@CScott-wh5yk would you recommend reading him then if you're not a materialist, because I'm very interested in The Crisis of the Modern World.

[@CScott-wh5yk]

@@processrauwill7922 Definitely worth reading, especially as a counterpoint to modern mindsets.

[@processrauwill7922]

@@CScott-wh5yk okay I’m convinced it’s on my reading list

[@roselotusmystic]

😹 'IT' . . . is simply an Interpretation of a Perennial Individual, Subjective TransDual . . . TransClusive . . . 'StateOfConsciousness' This is just 'Dualistic' 'Mush' 😹 AndOrNot 😻 🙏

[@zanyarraouf5770]

what you are saying is complete nonesense.

[@janeproctor5542]

I'm interested in the of the Christ idea, itself. I know that it predates christianity for thousands of years and has influenced many cultures/religions. For instance the ancient greeks used to consult with their high priestesses/oracles and they were accepting (or had to be-I'm not sure, but I think they were referred there by the community to

[@janeproctor5542]

Where or when in history was the divide between a "christ" concept and the idea in Judaism of a Messiah, since they were deeply monotheistic? I read a modern thinker (maybe a contemporary of Jacques Mauritain) who said that St Paul of Tarsus grasped Jesus significance via some larger truth/insight that applied universally, say to all people for all ages, in contrast to the "law" that might be applied to or have been applied to a situation restricted to one people (under the domination and or the threat of it) by an outside power like Rome, or by insurrection from certain so-called or radical elements (from within). (As an example). So my question is, did the concept of the Christos contain a reasoned idea of an authority or power of what is "right" or rightious in a overarching moral sence? If so, was that most embodied in the influence of the Greek philosophers? Was St Paul's teaching style and thinking re-inforced by that thinking so that the bible and New Testament was given far greater credence due to the influence of the concept of the "Christos" as (if) Paul realized it overlapped the 'messenger- of -god' notion of a messiah and what sort of trouble he could be expected to ease? How were these seen then and how did Jesus advertently or inadvertently end up in the middle of what might be seen as an approaching clash?

[@numinous_neccesities]

Is Christ a religion or a reality? Revelation 21:22 And I saw no temple therein: for the Lord God Almighty and the Lamb are the temple of it. I am a follower of the Way. I have no problem calling myself a Christian. But no denomination will ever hold Christ. Ever. The New Jerusalem is made up of those born again of the Spirit.

[@ruslpit2615]

You would never mix medical treatment either. Either you get acupuncture or pharmaceuticals or whatever. You don’t get a little treatment from each. You don’t take half your antibiotics and half the acupuncture

[@whatsinaname691]

More dog piling on AA? I love it

[@viniciusbortoloso4678]

As melhores críticas ao que existe de Guenon é Olavo de Carvalho que fez

[@servus_incognitus]

Coitado...

[@theseventh7865]

Simone Weil

[@kimfreeborn]

Guenon's universalism suffers from the idea of the one good. Being a traditionalist there is an anti-individualist strain. Being an anti-materialist all three pile up to become a platonic wall of unchanging forms. Such views seem to over value consistency and coherence and are incapable of change or of valuing it.

[@cuchulain55]

as far as about who is or is NOT saved Ill tell you this as a devote buddhist, that ALL are already saved everyone and thing is already taken care of and attained accomplished. in the highest. shojun bando and marco pallis were devote sole tradionist buddhists. who were also just simple lovers of the religio sophia perrenis wisdom. like i said before even as a kid i was in love with a true traditionist mind set of all different cultures religions etc.. and (this is probably a libra thing0 but ive always had a strong thing about always defending the underdog. when it came to anything in life with other relgions versus other cultures native people around world and time periods eve. I even as a i kid firmly believed and still do that the ancient old time relgions at one tiem for thier time were fully complete and salvific. fully. befor e they lost the deeper essence of the ONE and it died out fully and need a new path like chritianity etc.. to bring the people back to the full TRUTH. I approach all this NOT as a new age universalist wishy washy moron type. but a a little kid i once was and still am type. like how i loved and still do pirates and viking and s and shamanic native americans etc......... or samurai to name a few.

[@marymolloy562]

All these deep discussions are very interesting but the reality is that no individual or organization really knows what the truth is. It also seems to be impossible to know from this plane of existence. And our challenge is how to live with that.

[@micahmueller5186]

No truth, no point.

[@marymolloy562]

@@micahmueller5186 a person can operate in constructive ways while still understanding that there is still much mystery. I understand that a person who has a shortage of "hapiness" hormone or has no creativity might need very specific instructions all their life. But if you ask any religious authority what heaven is or any other challenging question they will admit they don't know. That is if they are honest.

[@jonmkl]

@@marymolloy562 How do you know your claim “no individual or organization really knows what the truth is” is true if no individual or organization really knows what the truth is?

[@marymolloy562]

@@jonmkl I'm an old lady not an extreme intellectual so these riddles baffle me. When my Father was sick I asked the priest who came to anoint him what heaven was like a and he said he didn't know because he hadn't been there. I was thinking more along those lines.

[@micahmueller5186]

@@marymolloy562 there is much mystery. That does not mean there is no truth, it does mean we need much faith, of which I have little lol. We have a responsibility to the grace and truth we have received. I think I agree in the sense we must always be aware of how little we know and how open we are to self delusion. Anyway keep doing God's work Grandma!

[@cuchulain55]

you do relize! that NOT all people are meant to practice christianity.

[@RomanDobs]

This is actually very helpful because Evola revolted against the modern world and ended up becoming a spearhead for misguided and totalitarian authoritarianism wannabes. I like the spice analogy of These thinkers as a side dish to real actual Christian dinner. Heidegger and Jung were both into guenon and Evola. Both have left me swimming in a mess of being and becoming when Xpuctoc was the one and only way to salvation from the very beginning. Glad to be going back to my Byzantine church with wife and grandmother. Thank you

[@As-fs6qd]

Well you should have listened to Guenon from the off ,not people who read him and diverged fundamentally from his core premises with regard to orthodox practise.

[@cuchulain55]

all beings are already fully saved no matter what, everything is fully attained perfected and acomplished for all sentiant beigns.( Of course this statement is by no means an excuse to officialy say this in that way to the massses and and for people to simply beleive and act and do anything they want. I was perrenist loooong beofre I even knew what that was. more importantly Im a tradionalist and a lover of wisdom beauty and truth and tradional folk lorde moths and legends cultures people s and tradional life way mind sets, versus say the renaissane and post renaissane and modern and western modern man. and am opposed to anything new age wishy washy universalist tripe. Sent from Outlook

[@thefrogkinghenry]

First

[@asdfasdf3989]

Downvoted.

[@roselotusmystic]

'Rose' AbraHAMic . . . 'SpiritualWarGames' 🥲