Dry Bones: Why Religion Can’t Live without Mysticism

[Ahimsa]

By Luke Timothy Johnson

The great religious battle of our time is not the one being waged between believers and unbelievers. To be sure, that is an important and certainly a noisy conflict—never before have the voices of religion’s despisers been more numerous, loud, or confident than those of our proselytizing atheists today.

More significant even than that struggle, though, is the clash occurring within religious traditions. The battle within each of the three great monotheistic religions is between the exoteric and esoteric versions of each. In my view, the contest is already so far advanced as virtually to be decided. But that is getting ahead of ourselves.

As the name suggests, the exoteric focuses on external expressions of religion. Its concern is for the observance of divine commandments, the performance of public ritual, and the celebration of great festivals. In its desire for a common creed and practice, its tropism is toward religious law, and it seeks to shape a visible and moral society molded by such law. To form a visible community publicly obedient to divine command requires an explicit social vision, and exoteric religion is overtly political. The goal, after all, is the realization of the kingdom of God as an empirical reality; the point is religion in its public dimension.

The esoteric, in contrast, finds the point of religion less in external performance than in the inner experience and devotion of the heart; less in the public liturgy than in the individual’s search for God. The esoteric dimension of religion privileges the transforming effect of asceticism and prayer. It seeks an experience of the divine more intense, more personal, and more immediate than any made available by law or formal ritual. The esoteric element in religion finds expression above all in mysticism. Mystics pursue the inner reality of the relationship between humans and God: they long for true knowledge of what alone is ultimately real, and desire absolute love for what is alone infinitely desirable.

Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are all best known as exoteric traditions, each with the full array of formal worship, religious law, sacred books, and codes of morality. Yet each has also contained, from the beginning, a strong element of mysticism. The Judaism that formed in the second century on the basis of a strict interpretation of Torah, demanding observance of all the commandments, including dietary and purity regulations, also expressed itself mystically through the heavenly ascents accomplished by the adepts of Merkabah Mysticism, riders of the heavenly throne-chariot. The earliest Christian books contain a powerful visionary composition (Revelation), while Christian mystical impulses found early expression both in Gnostic literature and among the desert fathers and mothers; and in Islam, the Sufi movement, dedicated to the quest of God through renunciation and prayer, grew together with the exoteric framework of the Shari’ah, the system of Muslim law and observance. It is among the Sufis where we find the passionate pulse of early Islam, as in the words of the female saint Rabi’a al-’Adawiyya (d. ca. 801):“I love thee with two loves, love of my happiness, and perfect love, to love thee as is thy due. My selfish love is that I do naught but think on thee, excluding all beside; but that purest love, which is thy due, is that the veils which hide thee fall, and I gaze on thee. No praise to me in either this or that. Nay, thine the praise for both that love and this.”
Exoteric and esoteric religious impulses coexist in tension with one another: the mystic’s tendency to derogate the visible can lead to neglect of external forms in the name of purity of heart, while the lawyer’s concern for common standards can encourage the suspicion and even suppression of private devotion. The great monotheistic religions have not found it easy to reconcile their exoteric and esoteric sides…

 

[m8421]

Both are good! I think someone with a close relationship with God would be well rounded in both these approaches.
But like all healthy things, when corrupted they become dangerous. A Christian acting exotericly should be bold in proclaiming their faith, even in countries that are becoming increasingly post-Christian. It is important to let your faith direct your political and public choices, because without moral guidance, a society will rot from the inside out. BUT they also need to remember that man is not capable of creating a utopia. It is not healthy for a Christian to think that they should create a perfect society, because it’s a futile effort and also forces you to be too preoccupied with worldliness. I think C. S. Lewis said something like, some of the people who had the greatest influences on *this *world were preoccupied with the next.
What was said about esoteric views is mostly good… spiritual growth and a personal relationship with God is important… but I’m troubled by how comfortable Luke Timothy Johnson seems to be with Christian Gnosticism (a heresy that denies that Jesus was fully man, among other departures from Scripture). The desire for esoteric knowledge that no one else knows about is a very subtle trap. If your reason for developing an esoteric view of religion is intellectual pride, wouldn’t you be using mysticism in the wrong way? It becomes a “gateway” to temptations that hide in the “esoteric” vein, like experimenting with magic or coming up with your own heresy.

Also, I don’t think esoteric and exoteric views need to be at odds with each other…

Agreed? What do you think?

 

[Hereswith]

I don’t see why exoteric and esoteric need be opposed either. For me, they have always existed quite comfortably side by side.

Although, we are all individuals. I suppose that for some the path of esoteric leads to God, and for others the exoteric makes more sense.

It’s when we all start comparing the two and pointing fingers that trouble can begin…

 

[Yggdrasil]

It’s interesting that Professor Johnson assigns validity to the esoteric streams within Islam and Judaism. Because when divorced from the context of their respective exoterisms, the mystical writers of all the great religious traditions are virtually in agreement. To wit: whereas many of the doctrinal conceits of say, Islam and Christianity, are mutually exclusive, mystics such as Meister Eckhart and Jalaluddin Rumi have, at the core of their writings, a great deal in common.

It may be true that the devout and sincere practice of an outward religion encourages the inward religion of the heart. But the problem for the Catholic Christian (and presumably for Professor Johnson) is that the Church claims a monopoly on the “fullness of the Truth.” Yet the nearly unanimous and universal contention of the mystical tradition is that the Truth is ineffable—entirely beyond any words, creeds, dogmas, and that neither religion nor language is perfectly sufficient to express it. The experience of the mystical vision is said to be transcendent, and anything after it can only be commentary and poetry. It is for this reason that the Catholic Church, which exalts its particular creeds over all else, has always been circumspect with her mystical writers. Some of Eckhart’s most provocative statements were condemned, and Origen was posthumously anathematized for his belief in universal salvation (and it takes a truly mystical mindset to overcome the duality of Heaven and Hell: to reconcile the two most final polarities in One.) St. Thomas Aquinas’ most valuable contribution is considered by the Church to be his discursive philosophical contributions, while his most mystical comment was that everything he had written (the sum of Roman theology, no less!) was as worthless as straw compared to the vision of God that he had seen.

If esoteric religion is the realization of an Ultimate Truth (as its finest pan-religious expositors seem to suggest), then the worrying implication for the Catholic is that exoteric religion—though valuable—is somewhat arbitrary. The Sufi and the Trappist are climbing to the top of the same mountain on different sides.

 

[Ahimsa]

If esoteric religion is the realization of an Ultimate Truth (as its finest pan-religious expositors seem to suggest), then the worrying implication for the Catholic is that exoteric religion—though valuable—is somewhat arbitrary. The Sufi and the Trappist are climbing to the top of the same mountain on different sides.

Yes, “somewhat” arbitrary, but not totally. To use a Buddhist symbolism, the boat you use to get to the other side might be a red boat, or a blue boat, but one thing it can’t be is a boat with holes in it.

 

[Ahimsa]

but I’m troubled by how comfortable Luke Timothy Johnson seems to be with Christian Gnosticism (a heresy that denies that Jesus was fully man, among other departures from Scripture). The desire for esoteric knowledge that no one else knows about is a very subtle trap.

Well, you’re assuming that Christian Gnostics are driven by the pride for knowledge, by the desire for possessing knowledge very few other people have. Maybe Christian Gnostics are driven by what they truly believe is true?

And, even if it is the case that Christian Gnostics are knowledge-driven, how is that so different from modern scientists? Look at quantum physics – this is truly “esoteric” knowledge from the perspective of the average guy on the street!

 

[Yggdrasil]

Yes, “somewhat” arbitrary, but not totally. To use a Buddhist symbolism, the boat you use to get to the other side might be a red boat, or a blue boat, but one thing it can’t be is a boat with holes in it.

Indeed. It’s doubtful that Scientology or Mormonism will yield a Ruysbroeck or a Shankara.

There is typically a death of perennial mysticism in religions that are mostly preoccupied with doctrine, morals, or history—as is the case with the Protestant sects, and even with the Catholic Church following the Renaissance and the Reformation, whereupon the apophatic mystical tradition transmitted down through Plotinus, Pseudo-Dionysus, and Eckhart was largely forgotten in favor of a popular Christocentric mysticism.

 

[Contarini]

It’s interesting that Professor Johnson assigns validity to the esoteric streams within Islam and Judaism. Because when divorced from the context of their respective exoterisms, the mystical writers of all the great religious traditions are virtually in agreement. To wit: whereas many of the doctrinal conceits of say, Islam and Christianity, are mutually exclusive, mystics such as Meister Eckhart and Jalaluddin Rumi have, at the core of their writings, a great deal in common.

Yes, but in both religions there are a range of mystical writers. Some, like the ones you mention, tend to downplay the esoteric. Others, like Bernard of Clairvaux in Christianity or Al-Ghazzali in Islam, unite esoteric and exoteric.

I don’t think it follows from the claim that esoteric strands are valid that they are the “real” truth at the core of each religion. Esoteric religion might point to the ineffable Ultimate Reality–I believe it does–but it might still be the case that one exoteric religion contains more falsehood than another. And a doctrine like the Incarnation shatters the distinction itself by claiming that the Ultimate Reality became flesh. Christians can’t entirely sign on to the kind of esoteric religion practiced by Sufis, for instance (though I think we can affirm that Sufis are in genuine contact with God), because we believe in the Incarnation.

But the problem for the Catholic Christian (and presumably for Professor Johnson) is that the Church claims a monopoly on the “fullness of the Truth.”

Perhaps we might ask Catholics what they mean by this. I’m not sure they mean quite what you think they do. Or rather, I’m not sure they all mean the same thing by it!

The claim certainly is not incompatible with belief in ineffable truth. The claim is that the Church in some way has the fullness of *revealed *truth, not of all truth without exception.

Yet the nearly unanimous and universal contention of the mystical tradition

To make that claim you have to define carefully what this “mystical tradition” is. Such claims often wind up being ideologically loaded.

is that the Truth is ineffable—entirely beyond any words, creeds, dogmas, and that neither religion nor language is perfectly sufficient to express it.

I shouldn’t think that this would be a controversial claim for Catholics. It seems like basic orthodox Christianity to me.

It is for this reason that the Catholic Church, which exalts its particular creeds over all else, has always been circumspect with her mystical writers. Some of Eckhart’s most provocative statements were condemned, and Origen was posthumously anathematized for his belief in universal salvation (and it takes a truly mystical mindset to overcome the duality of Heaven and Hell: to reconcile the two most final polarities in One.)

I’m not sure about that. Origen certainly contributed to the development of Christian mysticism, and Bernard McGinn argues that he should be regarded as a mystic. But he’s not necessarily the first example that would spring to mind.

What about Benard of Clairvaux, or the 16th-century Spanish mystics?

St. Thomas Aquinas’ most valuable contribution is considered by the Church to be his discursive philosophical contributions, while his most mystical comment was that everything he had written (the sum of Roman theology, no less!) was as worthless as straw compared to the vision of God that he had seen.

But again, I don’t think that’s even remotely controversial. Of course all human attempts to explain the vision of God are as straw beside the reality of that vision. The controversial question would be whether Aquinas actually saw God (I don’t think he is reported as having claimed this). The Western Catholic tradition, most notably Aquinas, does generally deny that God can be directly seen in this life.

If esoteric religion is the realization of an Ultimate Truth (as its finest pan-religious expositors seem to suggest), then the worrying implication for the Catholic is that exoteric religion—though valuable—is somewhat arbitrary. The Sufi and the Trappist are climbing to the top of the same mountain on different sides.

Arbitrary for what? You assume an instrumentalist view of exoteric religion. You are assuming your conclusions in your premises.

The real question for Christians is whether Christianity is true. Is Jesus the Incarnation of God? Christians get too hung up on what that might mean for a Sufi. I’m happy to leave the Sufis (who include some relatives of mine) to the God they love and seek so ardently.

The instrumentalist view works in many ways for Islam, because the “exoteric” aspect of Islam is largely a set of rituals and moral teachings designed to help people do God’s will and become righteous. But that’s not true for Christianity. Exoteric and esoteric can’t be separated in the same way, because of the dogmas of Trinity and Incarnation.

Edwin

 

[Contarini]

In response to the OP: I think Johnson puts the case well. He’s kinder to Judaism than many Jews would be. I heard a talk at a Reform Jewish synagogue a few months ago by an author on Jewish spirituality who argued that Judaism in recent decades suffers from a lack of attention to the Jewish spiritual heritage (hence the common phenomenon of Jews turning to Eastern religions, particularly Buddhism).

Edwin

 

[Yggdrasil]

Yes, but in both religions there are a range of mystical writers. Some, like the ones you mention, tend to downplay the esoteric. Others, like Bernard of Clairvaux in Christianity or Al-Ghazzali in Islam, unite esoteric and exoteric.

The difficulty in interpreting any Christian or Islamic mystic in terms of a universal and transcendent Truth is determining how much of the prevailing local theology colors the account of the person’s mystical experience. Some mystics are bold enough to go astray from the orthodoxy currently in vogue (sometimes seemingly rejecting it), while others are content to try and reconcile their inner vision with their outward religion. Regardless of this, it is the essence of their writing, and not the religious flourishes, that would delineate a shared vision.

I don’t think it follows from the claim that esoteric strands are valid that they are the “real” truth at the core of each religion. Esoteric religion might point to the ineffable Ultimate Reality–I believe it does–but it might still be the case that one exoteric religion contains more falsehood than another.

That is the Christian view. It is also the view of Jews and Muslims, all of whom credit their own tradition with being the correct one dispensed by the Almighty. The Christian judges what is a “falsehood” by Christian standards; the Muslim by Islamic standards. If esoteric religion gets at the Ultimate Reality, then the fact that “falsehood” is determined along party lines in this valley of tears only serves to undermine the special privilege that these religions assign themselves.

And a doctrine like the Incarnation shatters the distinction itself by claiming that the Ultimate Reality became flesh. Christians can’t entirely sign on to the kind of esoteric religion practiced by Sufis, for instance (though I think we can affirm that Sufis are in genuine contact with God), because we believe in the Incarnation.

Christians believe in an Incarnation. Hindus, on the other hand, admit a multiplicity of incarnations. Jesus of Nazareth’s claim that “I and the Father are One” dovetails with the Vedic notion that Atman is indeed Brahman. The difference is that exoteric Christianity will allow for only the singular notion as it applies to Our Lord.

To make that claim you have to define carefully what this “mystical tradition” is. Such claims often wind up being ideologically loaded.

Well, if anyone could put their finger on it precisely, they wouldn’t have it. They’d still be stuck with an it. Something like the transcendence of all duality, all things, and all concepts lies at what constitutes a “mystical unity” of the world’s major religions. It does appear to be human habit to attach ideologies to the mystical vision. This almost can’t be avoided. Even Lao-Tzu, who averred that “those who say, do not know; and those who know, do not say” was nevertheless saying something. Ideological appeal can vary over time, but it may account for why plenty of sincere and thoughtful Westerners are intrigued by such a stark via negativa as Buddhism. The Christianity that they are presented with has largely forgotten its own tradition of “unknowing.” Eckhart’s notion of “the nameless Nothing” is heretical.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

To be honest, I’m also uncomfortable with putting exoteric and esoteric in opposition with regard to Christianity. I very much agree with Jean Borella’s central thesis in his book “Guenonian Esoterism and Christian Mystery” that in Christianity, an exo/eso opposition doesn’t work because in the Church, they are one and the same. Borella seems to suggest that neither term is happily at home in Christianity and prefers the term “mystery” to either. His suggestion is that, insofar as there is a distinction of exoteric or esoteric made in Christianity, it is because the mystery is being improperly understood or traditioned. And the proper understanding of the mystery is not a secret or kept under lock and key, available only to those with the right password or handshake, or accessible only to those in the “inner order” as opposed to the masses consigned to the “outer order”, but it is declared from the rooftops. The secret hidden in God from before the beginning of time, has been revealed. The Mass itself represents just this declaration. The mystery is available to all–if they should seek it. And seeking it, they will find it, as Our Lord promises. I highly recommend Borella’s work.

This is not to say that Christianity is incompatible with other esotericisms–the Unknown Author of The Meditations on the Tarot goes to some lengths to make a case for a Christian Hermeticism. And he largely succeeds. But he is careful to make clear that Hermeticism in a Christian context is more of a hermeneutic, not a special kind of exclusive Christianity, nor is it something which it is neccessary to possess in order to be a true Christian. It is not secret knowledge. The Unknown Author would not think to argue for a Gnostic Christianity or an Initiatory Christianity unless its the gnosticism of St. Clement of Alexandria and the Initiation of Baptism. The foreword/afterword (depending on the edition) alone by Hans Urs von Balthasar is worth reading regarding this eso/exo question (Charles Williams, whom von Balthasar mentions, is also worth a look-see in this regard).

Anyway…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Contarini]

Grace & Peace!

To be honest, I’m also uncomfortable with putting exoteric and esoteric in opposition with regard to Christianity. I very much agree with Jean Borella’s central thesis in his book “Guenonian Esoterism and Christian Mystery”

I need to read this book. I have only recently become interested in the whole Guenonian “traditionalist” point of view, largely through using a piece by Seyyed Hossein Nasr in my World Religions class and trying to understand where he’s coming from.

Ironically, I think Nasr agrees, but he sees this as a problem with Christianity (that Christians lack a truly exoteric element corresponding to Islamic shari’ah, and thus expect a higher standard of most people than they can accomplish).

Edwin

 

[Yggdrasil]

To be honest, I’m also uncomfortable with putting exoteric and esoteric in opposition with regard to Christianity. I very much agree with Jean Borella’s central thesis in his book “Guenonian Esoterism and Christian Mystery” that in Christianity, an exo/eso opposition doesn’t work because in the Church, they are one and the same. Borella seems to suggest that neither term is happily at home in Christianity and prefers the term “mystery” to either. His suggestion is that, insofar as there is a distinction of exoteric or esoteric made in Christianity, it is because the mystery is being improperly understood or traditioned. And the proper understanding of the mystery is not a secret or kept under lock and key, available only to those with the right password or handshake, or accessible only to those in the “inner order” as opposed to the masses consigned to the “outer order”, but it is declared from the rooftops. The secret hidden in God from before the beginning of time, has been revealed. The Mass itself represents just this declaration. The mystery is available to all–if they should seek it. And seeking it, they will find it, as Our Lord promises. I highly recommend Borella’s work.

And for a modifying view, I would recommend a short essay, The Veil of the Temple, by Marco Pallis, who is a colleague of Jean Borella in the study of perennial philosophy and Guénonian metaphysics. He agrees that the distinction between the esoteric and exoteric is necessarily a blurry one in the Christian religion (for presumably all is revealed in Christ: “I am the Truth”)—and as the title suggests, the veil of the temple was torn to reveal the heretofore hidden glory of God. But his thesis also includes the notion that the failure of the Christian establishment to properly nurture a creative answer to the esoteric-exoteric paradigm was a contributing cause of the stubborn dualism that has long plagued Western thought.

Revelation does not guarantee comprehension. For this reason St. Paul first gave the Corinthians “milk to drink, not meat; for you were not able as yet.” This was because humans have differing dispositions: “the sensual man perceiveth not these things that are of the Spirit of God; for it is foolishness to him, and he cannot understand, because it is spiritually examined. But the spiritual man judgeth all things; and he himself is judged of no man.” After all, the founder Himself said to His inner circle, “to you it is given to know the mystery of the kingdom of God: but to them that are without, all things are done in parables: that seeing they may see, and not perceive; and hearing they may hear, and not understand.” Not for nothing did Matthias Scheeben, a Catholic theologian and scholar of Christian mysticism, write about what he boldly deemed “the Christian Mysteries.”

 

[m8421]

Well, you’re assuming that Christian Gnostics are driven by the pride for knowledge, by the desire for possessing knowledge very few other people have. Maybe Christian Gnostics are driven by what they truly believe is true?

And, even if it is the case that Christian Gnostics are knowledge-driven, how is that so different from modern scientists? Look at quantum physics – this is truly “esoteric” knowledge from the perspective of the average guy on the street!

I don’t think being knowledge-driven is the problem. But if you’re only interested in knowledge BECAUSE only a very few people know it, I think there might be too much pride in the motives. That is where the danger lies (is the focus on learning about God, or is it on learning for the sake of esotericism alone? How far would the person be willing to stray from their conscious in order to go “deeper”? ) I’m certainly not saying that striving to Discover is sinful, or always pride-motivated. I’m just saying history has plenty of examples of men who stumbled when they made a false idol out of getting into the “inner circle.” I think a quantum physicist would want to share their discoveries, whereas a pride-based esoteric only values secret knowledge because it is secret.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

I need to read this book. I have only recently become interested in the whole Guenonian “traditionalist” point of view, largely through using a piece by Seyyed Hossein Nasr in my World Religions class and trying to understand where he’s coming from.

I love Nasr! But then, there are few of the traditionalists I don’t find myself loving. Although I’ve not plunged into Julius Evola. And am not sure I want to…(Hrmm).

Ironically, I think Nasr agrees, but he sees this as a problem with Christianity (that Christians lack a truly exoteric element corresponding to Islamic shari’ah, and thus expect a higher standard of most people than they can accomplish).

That sounds about right from a Guenonian viewpoint. I had read the second half of that critique from Jacob Needleman, whose point seems to be “it’s nice to say ‘love everyone’ but what does that actually mean?” But as Yggdrasil points out (as if in response to Nasr’s criticism), if the Way is a Person, not a process, an itinerary, or a list of instructions, then the answer to the question, “what does it mean?” is bound to look confusing when people are just looking for something to *do. *And part of the scandal of the Gospel is the message, “there’s nothing you can *do. *But there is something you can *be.” *It makes me think of a friend of mine who often says, “The gospel makes no sense if it isn’t also about you,” which is just another way of saying, “It is not important to be a Christian, it is important to be Christ,” which, though a paraphrase from the Gospel of Philip, is perhaps one of the most orthodox and challenging things in that text–and, to me, points to Maximos the Confessor: “what God is by nature, we will be by grace.”

But anyway… (!)

Yggdrasil, thanks for the Pallis link! I’ve been wanting to read him! And you bring up some very good points…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Ahimsa]

I need to read this book. I have only recently become interested in the whole Guenonian “traditionalist” point of view, largely through using a piece by Seyyed Hossein Nasr in my World Religions class and trying to understand where he’s coming from.

Ironically, I think Nasr agrees, but he sees this as a problem with Christianity (that Christians lack a truly exoteric element corresponding to Islamic shari’ah, and thus expect a higher standard of most people than they can accomplish).

Edwin

One might suggest that Christianity is esoteric Judaism.

 

[Deo_Volente]

Grace & Peace!

One might suggest that Christianity is esoteric Judaism.

It’s a bold suggestion. The work of Margaret Barker tends along these lines, only for her thesis, replace “esoteric” in that sentence with “First Temple”.

It’s an interesting argument. But then it seems like for Barker, First Temple Judaism is esotericism as it represents a sort of unacknowledged backdrop to Second Temple Judaism (which is a reaction against the First Temple for her), Jewish and Christian apocalyptic literature, developments in Kabbalah, etc. Her thesis even includes an argument that the purported neo-platonic leanings of the early church fathers exists not because they were actually neo-platonist sympathizers, but because there are fundamental similarities between a First Temple mindset and basic platonism (arguing, for her, for an influence of Judaism on Greek philosophy, not Greek philosophy on Judaism).

It’s an interesting thesis, and Barker argues it well. But I’m not quite sure if it all pans out…

Under the Mercy,
Mark

All is Grace and Mercy! Deo Gratias!

 

[Contarini]

The difficulty in interpreting any Christian or Islamic mystic in terms of a universal and transcendent Truth is determining how much of the prevailing local theology colors the account of the person’s mystical experience. Some mystics are bold enough to go astray from the orthodoxy currently in vogue (sometimes seemingly rejecting it), while others are content to try and reconcile their inner vision with their outward religion. Regardless of this, it is the essence of their writing, and not the religious flourishes, that would delineate a shared vision.

Right, and this is where I think the whole esoteric/exoteric paradigm breaks down, because it assumes that what is important is the “shared vision,” so that the mystics who emphasize the particularities of their religion are less bold or imaginative or profound than those who sound more like mystics of other religions. I’m not willing to accept that premise.

That is the Christian view. It is also the view of Jews and Muslims, all of whom credit their own tradition with being the correct one dispensed by the Almighty.

In a subtler way, it’s also the view of the Eastern religions. Buddhists believe in “right views” as opposed to “wrong views.” True, they’re mostly interested in the pragmatic question of what sorts of views help or hinder the journey toward enlightenment. But even that boils down to a doctrinal assertion that some views are unskillful (belief in an omnipotent God who predestines everything, for instance). And most Buddhists I’ve read are willing to say that even beliefs that are helpful at one stage in the journey (belief in a personal, loving God with whom one cultivates a relationship) are still less true than the corresponding Buddhist beliefs. More or less the same is true of Hinduism. Other religions may have helpful and good elements, but where they contradict Hindu belief (in positing only one lifetime for each being, for instance) they are wrong. The “neo-Hindus” such as Vivekenanda who try to get round this don’t really succeed, because they wind up reinterpreting other religions to agree with their versions of Hinduism, and then claiming that this reinterpretation of Christianity, say, is just as valid as Hinduism. Some Hindus seem to claim that all Scriptures of the major religions are genuinely true, but I admit that I find this pretty hard to fathom, since those same Hindus will denounce beliefs that Christians hold on the basis of those very Scriptures.

The Christian judges what is a “falsehood” by Christian standards; the Muslim by Islamic standards. If esoteric religion gets at the Ultimate Reality, then the fact that “falsehood” is determined along party lines in this valley of tears only serves to undermine the special privilege that these religions assign themselves.

I don’t think that’s necessarily true. If esoteric religion is basically what the major religions have in common, then on the assumption that one religion is “true” (in the sense that its basic doctrinal claims are correct and those of other religions are false where they contradict the claims of the “true” religion), it would make sense that this common belief (like the other aspects of particular religions that agree with the principles of the “true” religion) brings people into contact with Ultimate Reality.

 

[Contarini]

I take very seriously the objection that it seems far more likely that particular religions are self-serving in their claims than that any one of them is actually true in the sense I’ve defined. But here are the alternatives as I see them:

1. Reject all religions because “they can’t all be true” and therefore no one of them can be true. This seems illogical. If all religions seem to have some truth, then rejecting all of them is a bad idea.
2. Pick and choose the bits of each religion with which you agree. This is a popular option, but I think it may be the most spiritually destructive of all, because you wind up basically worshiping your own feelings and opinions. It’s also destructive of religious community, because each person winds up in their own religious bubble.
3. Practice one religion, while acknowledging that its truth is only provisional and that ultimate truth is to be found in the “esoteric” religion that is common to all the great religions. This is an appealing option in many ways. But it has problems, particularly for Christians. I’m not sure that you can profess and practice Christianity honestly, in community with other Christians, while believing that the things you claim to believe are only provisionally true and the real heart of your religion is something that has nothing to do with the Incarnation of Jesus or the dogma of the Trinity. You wind up with a more sophisticated version of option 2: a religion that really isn’t historic Christianity at all but is your own private version thereof. Furthermore, “esoteric religion” does turn out to have certain kinds of doctrinal claims and to favor certain specific aspects of certain religions. It really isn’t quite the common core of all religions that many claim it to be. I put these objections in all humility, as someone who is finding the “traditionalist” or “essentialist” position quite appealing right now.
4. Practice one religion, and accept not only its practices but its basic doctrinal claims, recognizing that you are a fallible human being and that all expressions fall short of Ultimate Reality. This is my approach. I choose to live and act on the basis of Christianity, and I do not judge and rate Christian doctrines by their correspondence to some “esoteric” truth that is common to all religions. Admittedly, like everyone else, I put my own spin on Christianity. I have doctrines that I want to de-emphasize or reinterpret. But I do this in conversation with other Christians living and dead, and not with a prior allegiance to some alleged “core” that is shared with other religions (though of course the fact that a doctrine or practice is shared with other religions is strong evidence in favor of that doctrine or practice).

There is of course a fifth option: persuade yourself through study and comparison that one religion is true, and that you know this with absolute certainty. That option isn’t open to me, and it appears not to be open to you either.

Christians believe in an Incarnation.

I’d prefer to say “the” Incarnation, from a Christian perspective.

Hindus, on the other hand, admit a multiplicity of incarnations. Jesus of Nazareth’s claim that “I and the Father are One” dovetails with the Vedic notion that Atman is indeed Brahman. The difference is that exoteric Christianity will allow for only the singular notion as it applies to Our Lord.

Indeed. And that’s the point. The incarnation of Vishnu as Krishna, for instance, is itself part of Maya.

Well, if anyone could put their finger on it precisely, they wouldn’t have it. They’d still be stuck with an it. Something like the transcendence of all duality, all things, and all concepts lies at what constitutes a “mystical unity” of the world’s major religions. It does appear to be human habit to attach ideologies to the mystical vision. This almost can’t be avoided. Even Lao-Tzu, who averred that “those who say, do not know; and those who know, do not say” was nevertheless saying something.

Right. And that’s the paradox in the dogmatic claim that there is a mainstream mystical tradition which can be set over against the particular claims of, for instance, Christianity.

Ideological appeal can vary over time, but it may account for why plenty of sincere and thoughtful Westerners are intrigued by such a stark via negativa as Buddhism. The Christianity that they are presented with has largely forgotten its own tradition of “unknowing.” Eckhart’s notion of “the nameless Nothing” is heretical.

It isn’t just Eckhart. I like Eckhart, but when advocates of pan-religious mysticism repeat “Eckhart, Eckhart,” they diminish the credibility of their position in the eyes of many Christians, because just one theologian isn’t enough to establish the legitimacy of a position within Christianity. And as I think I’ve said in other posts (I’m having a very strong sense of deja vu right about now), I’m not sure that Eckhart is heretical. Maximus the Confessor says some similar things, following Pseudo-Dionysius. And in the Orthodox tradition Maximus is certainly not heretical.

Indeed, much Western Christianity *has *forgotten the apophatic tradition, and it badly needs to be revived.

Edwin

 

[Yggdrasil]

1. Practice one religion, while acknowledging that its truth is only provisional and that ultimate truth is to be found in the “esoteric” religion that is common to all the great religions. This is an appealing option in many ways. But it has problems, particularly for Christians. I’m not sure that you can profess and practice Christianity honestly, in community with other Christians, while believing that the things you claim to believe are only provisionally true and the real heart of your religion is something that has nothing to do with the Incarnation of Jesus or the dogma of the Trinity.

But neither the Incarnation nor the Trinity is diminished if Christianity is viewed in light of perennial philosophy. What is called into question is the insistence on the exclusivity of the Church’s truth claims. Religious chauvinism is the casualty. However high we care to exalt Christianity, we must be able to say, with St. Clement of Alexandria, that “the way of truth is one—but into it, as into a perennial river, streams flow from all sides.” This echoes the Hindu Vedas: “truth is one, but sages call it variously.” I’m not sure that this notion renders Christianity “provisionally true.”

And that’s the paradox in the dogmatic claim that there is a mainstream mystical tradition which can be set over against the particular claims of, for instance, Christianity.

Religion is the handmaid of the Truth. Since religion is a “thing” that we can more or less define and categorize (and of course practice) in time, and since a unitive mystical Truth would be eternal, and transcending all definitions and concepts, then we’re back to the notion that Christianity is “somewhat arbitrary” once this contrast is established—and my apologies if that phrase comes off as a put-down, since it isn’t intended as such. Admitting that everyone puts their own spin on Christianity—however much in conversation with the Church militant or the Communion of Saints—reflects the notion that religion itself is necessarily of (and in) time. This is suggested even in Christian terms: “man is bound by the sacraments, but God is not.” There is a hierarchical order. Indeed: the Sabbath was made for man, and not man for the Sabbath.

I like Eckhart, but when advocates of pan-religious mysticism repeat “Eckhart, Eckhart,” they diminish the credibility of their position in the eyes of many Christians, because just one theologian isn’t enough to establish the legitimacy of a position within Christianity. And as I think I’ve said in other posts (I’m having a very strong sense of deja vu right about now), I’m not sure that Eckhart is heretical.

Well, but I don’t know that Eckhart is the voice of one crying out in the wilderness. That, for sure, would ruin the whole Christian scheme—it would make Eckhart a singular spiritual prodigy who managed to hop off of “a donkey burdened with relics, a Church reduced to pure exoterism” (which is Borella’s summation of Guénon’s harsh critique of Catholicism.) His theology is, perhaps, the finest expression of universal mystical religion within Christianity, but it is not the only instance.

I don’t think it’s in dispute that Eckhart’s teachings on “absolute identity” (those which are most in harmony with Eastern ideas) were condemned by Pope John XXII. Others have, of course, gotten away with similar ideas—possibly by choosing their words more carefully. Pope Innocent XII was gracious enough to qualify his condemnation of Abp. Fénelon by famously declaring that “Fénelon erred by loving God too much!”