Christian Mindfulness & Emptiness

[Yggdrasil]

The Godhead is perfect, so I don’t see how desire to be in union with the Godhead does not involve a desire for the perfection of the Godhead. If you mean a union with the Godhead where you become one with the Godhead, that is not in line with orthodoxy. Catholicism is clear on the distinction between creator and creation, and that love is an intimacy between beings, not the dissolution of all beings into one being or anything like that.

Even on the human level, it is said that in the sacramental union “they are not two, but one flesh.” Similarly it goes with the mystical union: the soul is one with God. Note that the soul does not become God. But God and the soul are, as Meister Eckhart says, “one’d.” This is different from the Eastern concept of “that thou art,” in which the Hindu mystic can say “Atman is Brahman.” The Christian mystic cannot say “the soul is God.”

The difference ultimately boils down to the distinction between “union” and “unity.” The question becomes whether or not Eastern and Western writers are coloring essentially the same experience with different kinds of theology.

Ultimately the experiences and views of the mystics are not part of the deposit of faith and therefore are not a part of the universal revelation of God. I’m not saying that they are necessarily wrong, but it’s not as though mystics and mystical saints are infallible. Honestly I would have to study their writings more to judge them in relation to the deposit of faith, but the fundamental distinction between Christianity and Buddhism (and why Buddhist practices are not compatible with Christianity) is part of the deposit of faith.

Well, if we are only going to look at this from strictly a doctrinal conceit, then the differences between Christianity and Buddhism will no doubt overwhelm us. That’s the reason why Chesterton’s approach to the topic seems so provincial compared to Merton’s. This isn’t a happy hunting ground for the dogmatist. The OP, however, remains intriguing: suggesting that the commonality likely lies in the contemplative traditions of the two religions.

Dom John Chapman’s Abbot told him that “St. John of the Cross is like a sponge full of Christianity. You can squeeze it all out, and the full mystical theory remains.”

 

[Sarpedon]

Yes it is a problem. Essentially your question read: “Given that X is always changing, what happens if X stops changing.” That question is not answerable.

So you operate under a framework of logic. My initial question was whether such a question could be answerable at any time. If it cannot, as you seem to be saying here, then we have a universal that transcends time or applies to all of time. Is there any possible situation where that question is answerable, or is it universally a false question?

And they are also capable of using reason incorrectly. There in no guarantee that any particular piece of human reasoning is correct. Your reasoning tells you that God will not change moral law. You reasoning may not be correct.

Yes, but such an error is due to myself personally rather than logic as a whole. Reason itself is reliable, even though individual people can be unreasonable. This means that it is profitable to pursue correct reasoning as the way to truth. Even though I may not achieve perfect reasoning, I can still get pretty close and tie up any loose ends after this life. The central point is that we have a method that leads to truth, which allows us to productively pursue that method as the means to truth.

In contrast, Buddhism does not operate under universals (i.e. logic, although you seem to be saying the contrary- please explain). Therefore, reason itself cannot be viewed as a reliable means to truth. Whether or not I achieve correct reasoning is irrelevent if reason itself is not reliable in the first place. We can both spend our lives pursuing more perfect reasoning (which is why I come to these boards in the first place). If I achieve that perfection or come very close to it, then I can know fundamental truths. If you achieve perfect reason or come close to it, you stil can’t know those truths because reason itself is not reliable.

This is a huge difference. If I frame a perfectly reasonable argument, then the conclusion of that argument must be true. Of course, that’s not easy to do, and that’s why we need philosophy as the collective refining of those arguments in the human race. That’s why I’m debating you here, to more perfectly test my own understanding against the truthful standard of logic.

If you frame a perfectly reasonable argument, you still don’t know whether the conclusion is true. Therefore, reasoned dicussion and refinement of understanding is of no avail, because even a perfectly reasonable argument may not lead to truth. You have nothing to pursue in perfect reason, since perfect reason is not reliable.

We can know truths.

Is this capability universal, transcending time and place? Is it entirely reliable when applied perfectly?

They had committed exactly as many crimes as the Israelite babies yet only the Amalekite babies were killed and the Israelite babies left alive. How am I not to think that the decision was based on race?

Because pragmatic considerations may have a played a role.

How can human reason be a universal if there was a time when it did not exist? There was no human reason before the origin of the human race. Further, human reason can err, so it is not a sound basis for declaring the existence of a universal.

It is incorrect to speak of “human” reason as belonging to humanity alone. Reason itself transcends humanity and is rooted in the unchanging nature of God. Humans are allowed to participate in reason (i.e. being made in God’s image), but reason itself has always existed in the nature of God. Reason is not transient because God is not transient.

 

[Sarpedon]

Do you deny that Obama is President? Do you deny that Obama will no longer be President eight years from now? Transient things can be both true and useful.

I don’t, but that’s because I place confidence in human reason and our perception as means to pursuing truth. If reason is not reliable, then you can’t know whether these things are true even now. If you say that reason is temporarily reliable, you still have no certain knowledge to base that confidence off of. In contrast, I place rational acceptance and faith in my intellectual abilities, which makes everything else fall into place.

Cause and effect. Future time units have their causes in past time units. I observe you today so I know that at some time in the past you were born, even though I was not present. I know that at some time in the future we will both die. All of that is derivable from cause and effect.

But cause and effect is temporary, right? How do you know that cause and effect will still apply in the next time unit?

Again you appeal to a derivation of reason and logic in your defense of your epistemology. If reason is always applicable, this indeed answers my thought experiment, but then you have a universal. If reason and logic are not always applicable, then you have no way to know that cause and effect will operate at any future time unit.

I notice how you carefully treat Islam as a single religion, while Christianity, to which your remarks equally apply, is reduced to “Protestantism”.

My remarks only apply to Catholicism. Protestantism has a vastly different philosophical framework than Catholicism. In the commonly accepted terminology, though “Christian” is a blanket term that applies to both Catholic and Protestants, although my argument is emphatically Catholic. The main difference is that Protestantism views the Bible as the only revelation of God, whereas Catholicism also has recourse to tradition and has the effective authority structure I mentioned. Catholicism also tends to place a higher value on reason.

It is run by humans who can make mistakes. How can we rely on it? Humans make mistakes, and the hierarchy of the Catholic Church is not immune.

It is ultimately run by God through human servants. Infallibility means that God uses the human members of the Church as His voice that proclaims the universals. This link explains this more in depth:

newadvent.org/cathen/07790a.htm

Not all teachings or actions of the Church are infallible, as the link explains. There is a human and divine side to the Church. The human side can make mistakes and do dumb things, but the divine side does not.

 

[Sarpedon]

You will get a lot of argument about that from your Eastern bretheren. From what I have seen the “filioque” was added by the West after the Council of Toledo; it was never agreed by the East.

It was dogmatically defined by the Fourth Lateran Council in 1215. It is important to note what this means. It does not mean that the Church justs makes up stuff and adds it to the faith. It means that the Church settles doctrinal disputes that arise as the faith is studied to a greater degree. That’s the whole purpose of the Church, to arbitrate on theological matters and make the universals clear. The perogative for these decisions lies with Rome, and therefore the Orthodox were wrong to reject the ruling of Rome on this matter. The acceptance of the primacy of Rome as a long historical precedent, as I will quote momentarily.

As do the records of the Eastern Church. Your rhetoric is carrying you to far here. The Eastern and Western Churches were the same Church up until 1054. In 1053 the Pope and the Patriarch recognised each other as members of the same church, albeit with some disagreements.

“Since, however, it would be very tedious, in such a volume as this, to reckon up the successions of all the Churches, we do put to confusion all those who, in whatever manner, whether by an evil self-pleasing, by vainglory, or by blindness and perverse opinion, assemble in unauthorized meetings; [we do this, I say,] by indicating that tradition derived from the apostles, of the very great, the very ancient, and universally known Church founded and organized at Rome by the two most glorious apostles, Peter and Paul; as also [by pointing out] the faith preached to men, which comes down to our time by means of the successions of the bishops. For it is a matter of necessity that every Church should agree with this Church, on account of its preeminent authority, that is, the faithful everywhere, inasmuch as the tradition has been preserved continuously by those [faithful men] who exist everywhere.”
(St. Irenaeus, Against Heresies, 3:3:2, c. 180-190 AD)

“In the city of Rome the episcopal chair was given first to Peter, the chair in which Peter sat, the same who was head - that is why he is also called Cephas - of all the apostles, the one chair in which unity is maintained by all. Neither do the apostles proceed individually on their own, and anyone who would [presume to] set up another chair in opposition to that single chair would, by that very fact, be a schismatic and a sinner. . . .Recall, then, the origins of your chair, those of you who wish to claim for yourselves the title of holy Church”
(Optatus, The Schism of the Donatists, 2:2, c. 367 AD)

“[On this matter of the Pelagians] two councils have already been sent to the Apostolic See [the Bishop of Rome], and from there rescripts too have come. The matter is at an end; would that the error too might be at an end!”
(Augustine, Sermons 131:10, inter. 391-430 AD)

“We exhort you in every respect, honorable brother, to heed obediently what has been written by the most blessed Pope of the city of Rome, for blessed Peter, who lives and presides in his own see, provides the truth of the faith to those who seek it. For we, by reason of our pursuit of peace and faith, cannot try these cases on the faith without the consent of the Bishop of the city of Rome”
(Peter Chrysologus, Epistle to Eutyches, 25:2, 449 AD)

 

[Sarpedon]

Morality and charity are important as a base from which to build. Meditation works for me, though I only use simple meditations; I tried some of the more complex Tibetan methods of visualisation but they did not work for me. Mindfulness of Breathing and Observation of Feelings are my main methods.

Do any of these practices necessitate a belief in the whole Buddhist philosophy, such as the transient nature of everything?

 

[Sarpedon]

Dom John Chapman’s Abbot told him that “St. John of the Cross is like a sponge full of Christianity. You can squeeze it all out, and the full mystical theory remains.”

Is that a good thing?

 

[rossum]

My initial question was whether such a question could be answerable at any time.

You question had no internal logic, so the answer “a rhinoceros” is just as good as any other. You cannot logically show that my answer is wrong.

Yes, but such an error is due to myself personally rather than logic as a whole.

You have changed the topic from human reason to logic. It is obvious that human reason cannot exist in the absence of humanity so it is not a universal. You seem to have changed to logic in order to make the claim of a universal less obviously wrong.

Reason itself is reliable,

Which is of precisely zero use to me since for each individual example of human reason you produce I can point out that…

even though individual people can be unreasonable.

Any existing piece of human reasoning is possibly in error. Your claim about the Big Reason In The Sky always being accurate is of no practical use because all I can actually see is contingent ordinary human reasoning with a possibility of error. Again I reject your universal because we can never ever actually get to it.

In contrast, Buddhism does not operate under universals

Nor does science. Every scientific theory is possibly in error and can be replaced if a better theory comes along. Are you saying that science has not been successful?

i.e. logic, although you seem to be saying the contrary- please explain.

I have observed that generally logic work here and now, though I have also observed that faulty logic also exists here and now. I do not need the Big Logic In The Sky in order to be able to work here and now. I can use a hammer despite the fact that that hammer will not exist 1,000 years from now. Tools like logic or a hammer do not have to be permanent in order to be useful.

This is a huge difference. If I frame a perfectly reasonable argument, then the conclusion of that argument must be true.

For a logical argument to be true its premises must be true and its logic must be correct. If the premises change then the argument may no longer be correct. What premises in the real world are unchanging?

It is incorrect to speak of “human” reason as belonging to humanity alone.

Then do not call it “human reason”, call it something else.

Reason itself transcends humanity and is rooted in the unchanging nature of God.

As you have noticed, I am not a Christian. How can I tell that reason is not rooted in the unchanging nature of Allah or Vishnu or Amaterasu?

I place confidence in human reason and our perception as means to pursuing truth.

As do I.

If reason is not reliable, then you can’t know whether these things are true even now.

We have agreed that human reason is indeed not reliable. We always need to proceed on the basis that it is possible that we are mistaken.

If you say that reason is temporarily reliable, you still have no certain knowledge to base that confidence off of. In contrast, I place rational acceptance and faith in my intellectual abilities, which makes everything else fall into place.

You are human so you are also capable of error. What is rational about basing your claims to “certain knowledge” on your own possibly erroneous abilities?

But cause and effect is temporary, right? How do you know that cause and effect will still apply in the next time unit?

The same way that we ‘know’ that the sun will rise in the east tomorrow. It is a very well supported working assumption. All knowledge about the future must be a best estimate because we do not know all of the operative causes in the present. If we do not know all of the causes then we cannot know all of the effects.

My remarks only apply to Catholicism. Protestantism has a vastly different philosophical framework than Catholicism.

It may appear like that from within Christianity, it does not appear like that from the outside. To a Buddhist there are far more similarities than differences. Indeed the three Abrahamic religions are not really that different from the Buddhist perspective and are treated the same in the Brahmajala sutta.

Not all teachings or actions of the Church are infallible

I am aware of that, and also that very few things have been declared ex cathedra. We agree that the Church has made errors in its non-infallible teachings.

rossum

 

[Sarpedon]

I have combined some of your points to condense the argument.

You question had no internal logic, so the answer “a rhinoceros” is just as good as any other. You cannot logically show that my answer is wrong.

I have observed that generally logic work here and now, though I have also observed that faulty logic also exists here and now. I do not need the Big Logic In The Sky in order to be able to work here and now. I can use a hammer despite the fact that that hammer will not exist 1,000 years from now. Tools like logic or a hammer do not have to be permanent in order to be useful.

I don’t think you understand the purpose of my question, which was:

“Is it possible for a truly four-sided triangle to exist under any circumstances?”

I’m using this as an example of how Buddhism breaks down reason. If a four-sided triangle can never exist (i.e. due to reason, logic, whatever), then there is some governing law in the universe that cannot be transgressed.

If a four-sided triangle can exist in some circumstances (even if those circumstances are not now), then reason is effectively undercut and rendered unreliable.

It’s a simple yes or no question. Either there can be a four-sided triangle in some situation or time, or there can’t be one. It’s ultimately a question of whether or not logic and reason form governing laws on the world that always apply. If X is irrational now, can X be rational in some future changed world?

I don’t understand your response. Are you saying that reason is temporary? If so, then your answer for the time unit thought experiment fails, because “cause and effect” are temporary as well (and therefore not forming a bridge from one time unit to the other). If reason is permanent, then this does not fit in with your system well.

If reason is temporary, how do you know that what is reasonable at X time unit will also be reasonable at Y time unit?

For a logical argument to be true its premises must be true and its logic must be correct. If the premises change then the argument may no longer be correct. What premises in the real world are unchanging?

I would say universals, and you would disagree. This illustrates my point exactly- since Buddhism rejects universals, it also rejects any permanent premises on which to base knowledge. In the absence of such permanence, reason can be broken up into independent parts as small as the smallest unit of time and therefore any chance for a workable true knowledge that spans time is gone.

Any existing piece of human reasoning is possibly in error. Your claim about the Big Reason In The Sky always being accurate is of no practical use because all I can actually see is contingent ordinary human reasoning with a possibility of error. Again I reject your universal because we can never ever actually get to it.

We can reach it with the perfection of ourselves. Aristotle said that moral virtue was a prerequisite to intellectual virtue. Catholicism is all about transforming our whole lives into accord with perfect virtue. Under Catholicism, things become progressively more clear as we move toward perfection, whether in this life or in purgatory. Do you deny the intrinsic possibility of a truly perfect human being?

Nor does science. Every scientific theory is possibly in error and can be replaced if a better theory comes along. Are you saying that science has not been successful?

Science does operate on universals, namely:

1. That sense perception is reliable.
2. That the human intellect is capable of analyzing bits of data and accurately bridging the gaps between them
3. Cause and effect can be grasped by the mind
4. Empirical justifications are reliable.

Scientific theories are created and discarded based on their congruence with the universal premises outlined above. Theories rise and fall based on how closely they adhere to these universals. If these universals do not hold, we lose science.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Is that a good thing?

It’s a massively interesting something.

The notion that contemplatives (or even religious traditions) can be “sponges” of a full mystical theory—and that these sponges tend to soak up varying theologies—is a fascinating one. Such a concept signifies the Perennial Philosophy. I believe Detales mentioned it earlier.

 

[rossum]

I don’t think you understand the purpose of my question, which was:

“Is it possible for a truly four-sided triangle to exist under any circumstances?”

I’m using this as an example of how Buddhism breaks down reason. If a four-sided triangle can never exist (i.e. due to reason, logic, whatever), then there is some governing law in the universe that cannot be transgressed.

If a four-sided triangle can exist in some circumstances (even if those circumstances are not now), then reason is effectively undercut and rendered unreliable.

The current definition of the word “triangle” is “a polygon with three sides”, so here and now there cannot be a four sided triangle by definition. Languages change over time as do the definitions of words so it may be that in future we can have a four sided triangle because the definition of “triangle” has changed.

I don’t understand your response. Are you saying that reason is temporary?

I am saying that human reason is temporary because Homo sapiens is temporary.

If so, then your answer for the time unit thought experiment fails, because “cause and effect” are temporary as well (and therefore not forming a bridge from one time unit to the other).

All causes are temporary as are all effects. Both are contingent and hence temporary. I do not accept any ideal of cause-and-effect separate from each individual example of cause and effect.

If reason is temporary, how do you know that what is reasonable at X time unit will also be reasonable at Y time unit?

I don’t because I know that the premises that are true at time X will have changed by time Y. Reason is based on premises, and premises can change.

In the absence of such permanence, reason can be broken up into independent parts as small as the smallest unit of time and therefore any chance for a workable true knowledge that spans time is gone.

You have almost reached an appreciation of Dharma Theory - Dharmas (in this context) are precisely those small interacting parts and units that you talk about. I suggest that you have a look at “The Central Conception of Buddhism” by Stcherbatsky for more details. I do not need a knowledge that spans time, I only need a knowledge that works here and now.

We can reach it with the perfection of ourselves. Aristotle said that moral virtue was a prerequisite to intellectual virtue. Catholicism is all about transforming our whole lives into accord with perfect virtue. Under Catholicism, things become progressively more clear as we move toward perfection, whether in this life or in purgatory. Do you deny the intrinsic possibility of a truly perfect human being?

Of course not. The problem I see is that attachment to universals is one of the barriers to being a truly perfect human being. There is no intrinsic unchanging essence in anything.On a cold winter night, a big snow storm hit the city and the temple where Dharma Master Dan Xia served as a Monk got snowed in. Cut off from outside traffic, the fuel delivery man could not get to the Zen Monastery. Soon it ran out of heating fuel after a few days and everybody was shivering in the cold. The monks could not even cook their meals.

Dan Xia began to remove the wooden Buddha Statues from the display and put them into the fireplace.

“What are you doing?” the monks were shocked to see that the holy Buddha Statues were being burnt inside the fire place. “You are burning our holy religious artifacts! You are insulting the Buddha!”

“Are these statues alive and do they have any Buddha nature?” asked Master Dan Xia.

“Of course not,” replied the monks. “They are made of wood. They cannot have Buddha Nature.”

“OK. Then they are just pieces of firewood and therefore can be used as heating fuel,” said Master Dan Xia. “Can you pass me another piece of firewood please? I need some warmth.”

The next day, the snow storm had gone and Dan Xia went into town and brought back some replacement Buddha Statues. After putting them on the displays, he began to kneel down and burn incense sticks to them.

“Are you worshiping firewood?” ask the monks who are confused for what he was doing.

“No. I am treating these statues as holy artifacts and am honouring the Buddha.” replied Dan Xia.
What was the intrinsic unchanging essence of those statues, were they holy images or were they firewood? What was Dan Xia showing by his actions?

Science does operate on universals, namely:

1. That sense perception is reliable.

1. That the human intellect is capable of analyzing bits of data and accurately bridging the gaps between them

1. Cause and effect can be grasped by the mind

1. Empirical justifications are reliable.

Scientific theories are created and discarded based on their congruence with the universal premises outlined above. Theories rise and fall based on how closely they adhere to these universals. If these universals do not hold, we lose science.

Science is not Buddhism. None of the four you list are universals. Sense perception is temporary and contingent on the existence of life. Human intellect is temporary and contingent on the existence of the human species. Cause and effect are both temporary and contingent on each other. The empirical is not universal, and it would probably be better to say that “empirical justifications are usually reliable” as science has the possibility of error built in.

rossum

 

[Detales]

Hi Yggdrasil,

Perhaps we are speaking of two different “perennial” philosophies? The one I speak of is marked by consistent and nearly identical expostulation of God/Reality/Consciousness/Self by independent Realizers regardless of time in history, culture, original “religion”, intellect, gender, or any other variable of the Realizer. That explication is not a sponge. It is, and has been, since the dawn of Awareness in Man, of a piece, a seamless garment. It is what religions and sects are a corruption of. It does not absorb, it states with authority and from experience. It requires no faith and demands none. It only offers to those who wish to do the work an understanding of the structure of Creation based on experiential Truth. Its primary tool, as exemplified by the Buddhas, Christs, and Saints and Sages of the Ages, is Self Knowledge. The State from which its Voice comes takes nothing to Itself as it is always already ALL. Paul’s declaration “The God whom you ignorantly worship, THAT I declare unto you” might be a good place to start. The Identity statements attributed to “Jesus” are as well consistent with the Perennial Philosophy.

 

[Sarpedon]

It’s a massively interesting something.

The notion that contemplatives (or even religious traditions) can be “sponges” of a full mystical theory—and that these sponges tend to soak up varying theologies—is a fascinating one. Such a concept signifies the Perennial Philosophy. I believe Detales mentioned it earlier.

It can also mean that such mysticism can open up the person to any influence. While mysticism has a role to play, it always needs to be rooted in both faith and reason. Otherwise, it can easily go astray into anything. Look at the New Age movement today- it soaks up everything but doesn’t actually have much substance.

 

[Sarpedon]

The current definition of the word “triangle” is “a polygon with three sides”, so here and now there cannot be a four sided triangle by definition. Languages change over time as do the definitions of words so it may be that in future we can have a four sided triangle because the definition of “triangle” has changed.

You say that languages change over time. Is it possible for the underlying structure of the universe, in terms of its logical laws, to change over time? Is it possible to, say, have a shape that has both 3 and 4 sides simultaneously in some other time? You probably won’t answer this while saying it is “useless” speculation.

All causes are temporary as are all effects. Both are contingent and hence temporary. I do not accept any ideal of cause-and-effect separate from each individual example of cause and effect.

How do you that cause and effect itself as a rational description of phenomana, is true and that it transcends and unites the time fragments I mentioned in my experiment?

I don’t because I know that the premises that are true at time X will have changed by time Y. Reason is based on premises, and premises can change.

I am saying that human reason is temporary because Homo sapiens is temporary.

Aside from “human” reason, is reason itself temporary? Can you have a shape in any circumstances that simultaneously has three and four sides, without reference to humanity at all?

I do not need a knowledge that spans time, I only need a knowledge that works here and now.

On what basis then, do you say that Maitreya Buddha will appear in the future? That future event is not now, and if your knowledge only works for now, how can you have knowledge about what will happen in the not now?

Cause and effect, as rational phenomana, only answer this question if cause and effect transcend time. Otherwise they are just as much hampered by the temporary nature of things as anything else.

 

[Sarpedon]

What was the intrinsic unchanging essence of those statues, were they holy images or were they firewood?

In relation to the end of spiritual growth, they were holy images. In relation to the end of material survival, they were firewood. Their nature was predicated on their relationship to their ends.

Continue this frame of thought. What is the end of spiritual growth? What is the end of material survival? Keep tracing these converging lines back and back until they all reach the same place- the final universal, which is the Form of the Good, the final end, and the final explanation.

What I put a person in your example rather than statues/firewood? Would the same idea apply?

Science is not Buddhism. None of the four you list are universals. Sense perception is temporary and contingent on the existence of life. Human intellect is temporary and contingent on the existence of the human species. Cause and effect are both temporary and contingent on each other. The empirical is not universal, and it would probably be better to say that “empirical justifications are usually reliable” as science has the possibility of error built in.

Indeed, science is not Buddhism. Science operates on the propositions I list as universals. Such things must be universals for science to operate. Buddhism rejects universals, and thus science cannot operate under Buddhism.

 

[Detales]

Sarpedon: “It can also mean that such mysticism can open up the person to any influence.” And how can that possibly be any worse than what you have opened up to?

 

[Sarpedon]

Sarpedon: “It can also mean that such mysticism can open up the person to any influence.” And how can that possibly be any worse than what you have opened up to?

There are bad influences out there and you don’t want to just absorb whatever you come in contact with. That’s the problem with New Agey stuff in general- what exactly are you doing with it? While Catholicism has clearly marked doctrines which can be rationally evaluated, random mysticism could be almost anything.

 

[Yggdrasil]

Greetings, Detales.

Agreed: the Perennial Philosophy isn’t a sponge. But human beings are, and what might crassly be termed “monistic mysticism” appears to be innate to us, whereas religions and theologies are what get “soaked up.”

As a Christian, of course, I must split a hair where you perhaps do not: I believe that the traditional religions of mankind are the means of transmission. Huxley opined that “the nature of this one Reality is such that it cannot be directly and immediately apprehended except by those who have chosen to fulfil certain conditions, making themselves loving, pure in heart, and poor in spirit.” Our Lord not only stated that He and the Father are One, but that “whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.” More than just an identity statement, this is a suggestion of means. I concede that religion is not the Perennial Philosophy itself, but it is the tradition by which the song is sung.

I don’t consider this to be too far out of line with A.K. Coomaraswamy:

What was revealed in the beginning contains implicitly the whole truth; and so long as the tradition is transmitted without deviation, so long, in other words, as the chain of teachers and disciples remains unbroken, neither inconsistency nor error is possible. On the other hand, an understanding of the doctrine must be perpetually renewed; it is not a matter of words. That the doctrine has no history by no means excludes the possibility, or even the necessity, for a perpetual explicitation of its formulae, an adaptation of the rites originally practiced, and an application of its principles to the arts and sciences. The more humanity declines from its first self-sufficiency, the more the necessity for such an application arises.

 

[Yggdrasil]

It can also mean that such mysticism can open up the person to any influence. While mysticism has a role to play, it always needs to be rooted in both faith and reason. Otherwise, it can easily go astray into anything. Look at the New Age movement today- it soaks up everything but doesn’t actually have much substance.

That’s something of a red herring. Even Perennialists rightly dismiss the New Age movement, which betrays its own ignorance of mysticism even on a cursory perusal. Not for nothing has it been consistently ripe for parody. There is an easy formula by which we can assess any movement claiming to be mystical: “by their fruits ye shall know them.”

 

[Detales]

Ah, yes, Coomaraswamy. Haven’t heard his name in a long time. I agree especially with the last sentence of the quote you posted: "The more humanity declines from its first self-sufficiency, the more the necessity for such an application arises. And the need for “such an application” is rampant today, it seems. It is the “soaking up” that concerns me, and Sarpedon is as well, though perhaps in a different way than I am. But the most important thing in what you said is related to that idea of soaking up in that what is soaked up is contents. In that regard, all religions, -isms, -ologies, etc, are contents. Systems that deal in and with contents are exoteric, and only by transcendence and inclusion can they be useful, and the nature of the contents, say, of christianism, defeats much of what could be actual spirituality in either devotional or meditative forms. And the misunderstanding of Identity statements by dint of ignorance of simple grammar or of usage in foreign languages is critical to this. And "“whosoever shall seek to save his life shall lose it; and whosoever shall lose his life shall preserve it.” sounds more like a consequence than a method to me, the method being more what has been called “the test of Reality” or Self Inquiry. “Gnothi Seauton.”

 

[Sarpedon]

That’s something of a red herring. Even Perennialists rightly dismiss the New Age movement, which betrays its own ignorance of mysticism even on a cursory perusal. Not for nothing has it been consistently ripe for parody. There is an easy formula by which we can assess any movement claiming to be mystical: “by their fruits ye shall know them.”

To some extent, yes. Neverthless, there is some problem with movements that cannot be universally evaluated by the masses. There is also a problem when you need to completely practice a mystical tradition before you can judge it’s effects.