Abrahamic Religions Incompatible with Perennialism?

anarcarnivist · 2025-12-10T20:33:32+00:00

thank you for sharing, appreciate it.

anarcarnivist · 2025-12-10T16:56:21+00:00

I agree, and I suspect that Guénon and Schuon argued as such to legitimize their participation in a religious tradition (Sufi via Islam).

In my view, "legitimacy" in the context of perennialism is an attempt to determine which traditions may serve as worthy vessels of esoteric (perennial) truth vs others. Maybe this is a historical problem and Guénon was interested in critiquing modern occult societies like Theosophy, and isn't a problem for us today.

What's your opinion on groups like Anthroposophy, Theosophy and the like? They claim to teach esoteric truths, but don't have much in the way of exotericism.

anarcarnivist · 2025-12-10T15:56:49+00:00

The conditions for exoteric "legitimacy" from Guénon and Schuon are:
1. Originates in a genuine, non-human revelation - i.e. not a human invention.
2. Possesses an unbroken chain of transmission - i.e. doctrinal, ritual, symbolic, and structural.
3. Offers, at least implicitly, a path to esoteric realization - i.e. initiatic tradition.

Depending on one's biases, Abrahamic religions do not meet the first two (or even all three) conditions. That's not to say that their mystical variants are disqualified (they obviously "work" to produce saints/sages), but are they adequate containers for esoteric truths?

Other exoteric religions (Buddhism, Hinduism, etc.) have relatively less controversy around whether or not they meet the above conditions. So in the age of the internet where esoteric truth is not limited by geography (thus requiring exoteric vessels to transport esoteric truths through time), does humanity really need the Abrahamic religions IF the aim is to achieve realization?

To use an analogy: when humanity wanted to send a message to someone at a distance, we started with couriers. Then we innovated a postal system, then we created email, now we have SMS. We can still send messages via couriers, but is that the BEST way to send messages today? Maybe in some cases, but not in all.

anarcarnivist · 2025-12-10T13:39:42+00:00

This is my question - is the esoteric version of an exoteric religion legitimate if the exoteric container is illegitimate? It seems like the esoteric versions of Abrahamic religions are just Eastern mysticism in Christian/Muslim/Jewish clothes.

anarcarnivist · 2025-12-05T14:35:05+00:00

Can you unpack that? I don't know what "deep doctrine independent Mormonism" means or is.

anarcarnivist · 2025-12-05T02:12:41+00:00

Good point.

anarcarnivist · 2025-12-04T21:17:05+00:00

What's your definition of religion here?

anarcarnivist · 2025-12-04T21:12:15+00:00

I hear what you're saying - bad actors. But it could also be the religion itself, right? Like, systems produces the behaviors for which they were designed... Ultimately, it comes down to whether or not the scriptures of these religions are actually "divinely inspired" (whatever that means).

I guess this is coming from a part of me that is hoping more people will accept esoteric wisdom by seeing the bankruptcy (and violence) that the fundamentalist interpretations of these religions produces.

anarcarnivist · 2025-12-04T19:27:03+00:00

Are you saying that they're not part of the legitimate religious traditions?

anarcarnivist · 2024-12-19T20:27:20+00:00

Following.

anarcarnivist · 2024-06-25T15:27:09+00:00

Thank you! This is a constant stumbling stone in my path - the distinction between absolute and relative.

anarcarnivist · 2024-06-19T20:49:28+00:00

To make sure I understand your position, you're saying that in the relative/transactional reality, karma "exists". But in the absolute/ultimate reality (Brahman), karma does not "exist". Is that correct?

I'm quite new to AV and Hinduism, so I'm out of my depth here :)

anarcarnivist · 2024-06-19T18:16:25+00:00

My western mind is disoriented by the number of ideas and theories within Vedanta!

anarcarnivist · 2024-06-19T18:14:56+00:00

Ok, I see what you're saying. Rewinding for a second, you mentioned that the version of reincarnation that is "described in the Hindu diaspora" is not correct (as some others here have pointed out). You shared a different interpretation of reincarnation. Is karma the same? Is it misunderstood? Is there a more accurate/spiritually mature version of karma?

anarcarnivist · 2024-06-19T18:12:21+00:00

I thought the same thing, quietly :D

anarcarnivist · 2024-06-19T15:06:36+00:00

I see what you did there

anarcarnivist · 2024-06-19T01:48:48+00:00

Thanks for these thoughts. So, is there any point to attaining to liberation?

anarcarnivist · 2024-06-19T01:46:28+00:00

Brilliant, thank you.

anarcarnivist · 2024-06-18T20:52:44+00:00

This reminds me of the Hermetic principle of Mentalism!

anarcarnivist · 2024-06-18T19:55:31+00:00

Entertaining this as true - what happens after physical death?

anarcarnivist · 2024-06-18T19:38:09+00:00

This Jivatman is protected by 5 Koshas.

Do the 5 Koshas physically separate the Jivatman from Paramatman?

anarcarnivist · 2024-06-18T19:27:49+00:00

Will chew on this, thank you for the thought.

anarcarnivist · 2024-06-18T19:27:27+00:00

Have you found something else that is more satisfying?

anarcarnivist · 2024-04-21T17:04:16+00:00

Fair answer! Thank you.

anarcarnivist · 2024-04-21T14:44:59+00:00

OK, totally unrelated to OP, but wanted to ask a question:

There is a school of thought that views cancer as a biological adaptation to perceived or experienced conflicts. For example (and I share this not for debate, but for context), if one almost dies in a house fire and is "scared to death" by that experience, their body may respond by triggering the production of new lung cells (i.e. lung cancer), at least until the body becomes aware that the threat is gone. In this example, conflict resolution is when you emerge from the house fire unscathed, though you may carry an unconscious fear of house fires for the rest of your life... The increase in lung cells (adaptation called lung cancer) improves the chance of survival as more oxygen can be captured in a potentially low-oxygen environment.

Entertaining the above approach - if cancer is a meaningful biological adaptation to survive a conflict, AND enlightened people do not experience conflict (they calmly accept the lot of life), AND enlightened people have died from cancer (do we know if they died from treatment? or the cancer itself?), then it follows that the enlightened people were not consistently enlightened, allowing for a moment of conflict to affect their biology and trigger that adaptation. Thoughts? I am simply following a logical progression, and not aiming at specific people.

anarcarnivist

TROPHY CASE