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.
This is how "debates" should be...a shared and respectful search for deeper truths which can only come through interaction with one another. Beautiful.
Thank you very much for this discussion. I resonated with Jonathon’s critique that perennialism does not account for morality or evil. I just watched an interview with John Vervaeke who said that evil isn’t just a sum of immoral choices, it comes from a failure to love deeply which detaches one from reality. I think this correlates with Zevi’s response to the critique, but I would still love to raise this again in future discussions with clear definitions of morality, evil, and sin; how they overlap and differ.
Schuon here in Transcendent Unity of Religions gives an explanation of evil and the devil from a perennialist and thus metaphysical point of view: “The perspective of the esoteric doctrines shows up with particular clarity in their way of regarding what is commonly called ‘evil’; it has often been said that they deny evil purely and simply, but such an interpretation is too rudimentary and expresses the perspective of the doctrines in question in a very imperfect manner. The difference between the religious and metaphysical conceptions of evil does not mean, moreover, that the one is false and the other true, but simply that the former is incomplete and individual whereas the latter is integral and universal; what the exoteric perspective represents as evil or the Devil only corresponds therefore to a partial view and is in no way the equivalent of the negative cosmic tendency that is envisaged by the metaphysical doctrines, and which Hindu doctrine designates by the term tamas; but if tamas is not the Devil, and more correctly corresponds to the Demiurge, insofar as it represents the cosmic tendency that ‘solidifies’ manifestation, drawing it downward and away from its Principle and Origin, it is nonetheless true that the Devil is a form of tamas, the latter being considered in this case solely in its relations with the human soul. Man being a conscious individual the cosmic tendency in question, when it comes in contact with him, necessarily takes on an individual and conscious aspect a ‘personal’ aspect according to the current expression. Outside the human world this same tendency may assume entirely impersonal and neutral aspects, as, for example, when it is manifested as physical weight or material density, or in the guise of a hideous beast or of a common and heavy metal such as lead. The exoteric perspective, by definition occupies itself only with man and considers cosmology solely in relation to him, so that there is no reason to reproach religion for considering tamas under a personified aspect that is to say, under the aspect that actually touches the world of men. If, therefore, esoterism seems to deny evil it is not because it ignores or refuses to recognize the nature of things as they are in reality; on the contrary, it completely penetrates their nature, and that is the reason why it is impossible for it to abstract from the cosmic reality one or other of its aspects or to consider one such aspect solely from the point of view of individual human interest It is self-evident that the cosmic tendency of which the Devil is the quasi-human personification is not evil since it is this same tendency, for example, that condenses material bodies, and if it were to disappear-an absurd supposition-all bodies or physical and psychic compositions would instantaneously volatilize. Even the most sacred object therefore has need of this tendency in order to be enabled to exist materially, and no one would be so rash as to assert that the physical law that condenses the material mass of, say, the Sacred Host is a diabolical force or in any sense an evil. It is precisely because of this neutral character (independent of the distinction between good and evil) of the demiurgic tendency that the esoteric doctrines, which reduce everything to its essential reality, seem to deny what in human parlance bears the name of "evil."
Your participation in the dialogue was inspiring. Searching for what we have in common is more difficult than the search for the other. The other leads to the identity, which leads to the ego.
Enjoyed the conversation, exactly the topic I have been thinking about. The difference between truth and wisdom, learning never stops even after "liberation" I suppose. Thank you.
Good talk. To me, as a layman on these subjects, I found it really refreshing that the discussion shifted pretty quickly from an aspect of glorifying of the individual and right/wrong (good/evil), to something else. As an afterthought, a discussion on the subjectivity of truth/good/evil/this/that, between these philosophies would be of interest too. I actually dont understand why the idea of objective good and evil is so important to this discussion.
Nietzsche "Something might be true while being harmful and dangerous in the highest degree. Indeed, it might be a basic characteristic of existence that those who would know it completely would perish."
Zevi, as always, you helped put together a beautiful and respectful discussion of a complicated topic. I'm sure I speak for everyone in saying thank you for sharing this with us. I must say, though, that the accusation and subsequent discussion near the end saddened me. You have always made it a point to be open and welcoming of diverse thought and opinion, and for someone to insist otherwise in bad faith and with such disrespectful verbiage is disappointing. I could go on, but that shouldn't be the purpose of this forum. May many blessings be upon you and the work you do.
Your right, I think it should of been left out! Keep in mind though this gentleman did acknowledge that he did not hear the presentation/debate, and was stating a general sentiment not directly or at zevi personally- of whom he knows nothing about..
WOW...extremely intrigued by the topic and discussion. I have such a deeper respect for you brother Zevi. Truly, I value all the incredible content you put out. Thank you. Please write a book, so that your legacy will be cemented for the future generations Im sure there must be something in the works. Shalom
I want to address two issues that are in my mind related in relation to mystical conceptions - 1) The first issue I want to address is the issue of ethics raised by Professor Weidenbaum in relation to mystical conceptions. I want to formulate the philosophic issue in what I think are stronger terms than his formulation. I want to suggest that a mystic, who has attained mystical enlightenment and has a mystical experience or awareness that all is One, is nevertheless under no ethical obligation to overcome social injustice or to love (moral love) one's fellow human being. By the way, in my view, Maimonides is responding (or, at least can be viewed as responding) to this philosophic issue in the Guide 1, 54 and 3, 54 (in which he sends us back to 1, 54). In my view, among other things, Maimonides as a rationalistic mystic is arguing that one who has attained mystical enlightenment (and, for Maimonides, mystical enlightenment is intellectual enlightenment on the basis of the study of philosophy and science) will necessarily live a life of moral action - a life of lovingkindess and righteousness (as according to the verse of Jeremiah 9, 22-23 that Maimonides quotes at the end of the Guide 3, 54). However, in Maimonides' ethical conception in the Guide ethics is not a matter of virtue and moral character (as in his Aristotelian conception of virtue ethics that he presents in the Eight Chapters and the laws of character traits as a precondition in order to attain enlightenment) - and, ethics is a matter of moral action. Ethics in the sense of moral action, in Maimonides' conception, is not a matter of ethical obligation. Rather, ethics in the Guide 1, 54, and 3, 54 is a utilitarian conception in which ethics is a matter of rational judgment as to which actions will be most beneficial - and, such rational judgment emanates necessarily from mystical and intellectual enlightenment (as a result rather than precondition of enlightenment). 2) I want to add one other thing regarding a related issue that was not addressed in this video "The Great Debate" - a psychological issue related to the ethical issue. A mystic who has attained mystical enlightenment and has a mystical experience or awareness that all is One will be seen on a widespread basis by mystics as experiencing bliss, equanimity or deep happiness and fulfillment - and, on a widespread basis, such mystical enlightenment or experience will be seen by mystics as excluding anger and upset. There is an implicit assumption in such a mystical conception that is at least widespread that anger is in some way a negative or "bad" feeling that is to be avoided or that will not be experienced in attaining mystical enlightenment. I question this assumption as a psychologist-counselor. In my personal view as a psychologist-counselor, feelings including anger and upset, are not good or bad (and not positive or negative) and merely something that we experience. The terms good and bad apply, in my view, only to behavior and not to feelings. In the case of anger, the image of fire has often been used to represent anger. If one irresponsibly dumps anger on another person and expresses the anger in a personally attacking way, then the fire of anger burns and will likely severely damage, if not destroy, the relationship - and, on the other hand, if one expresses anger to another in a responsible, considerate and issue oriented way (without personal attack), then the fire of anger will likely warm and enhance the relationship (in that the anger is expressed in a sensitive way that gives feedback to the other person that can be received helping to improve the relationship). More importantly, anger is an important motivation especially in responding to or overcoming social injustice. The ideal, in my view, is not to eliminate anger in the face of social injustice - rather, the ideal is one of self-control (as according to the Talmudic teaching "who is the truly strong person? The one who controls one's passions and drives") in which we reduce our anger so that we are in control of our anger. But, what is important here, is that the anger itself is a motivation that allows us to have strength to fight against or overcome social injustice - and, thus, our anger is not to be reduced but not entirely avoided (and, I am leaving aside the issue of whether it is realistic that a state of enlightenment can be attained in which we completely avoid anger and upset). This issue then is related to the previous ethical issue. The mystic who has attained mystical enlightenment and has a mystical experience or awareness that all is One, and who does not experience anger in attaining enlightenment, may lack this important motivation to fight against social injustice - and, in my personal view, there is indeed an ethical obligation to fight against injustice.
"The truth becomes encrusted..." I like that characterization! It is perhaps the unfortunate but inevitable limitation of language to convey actual experience. Communication, at best, forever remains a sincere attempt that cannot ever quite encompass something like truth except by accidental or miraculous serendipity more often achieved by art than religion. The combination of art and religion is resoundingly powerful as a result.
Zevi, thank you and just seeing your channel and a few others all of you are just spectacular and just provide so much of beautiful descriptions and uniting of openness to whole new world. I admire your wonderment and joyful spirit.
What a beautiful discussion. I wish all academic activity was conducted with such mutual charity and good faith. This is what, in my opinion, will bring the greatest benefit to us all.
The concept of absolutism has been softened, beautiful.. Of course, the concept of the absolute is not the absolute. As Nagarjuna said, "Those who think of the void as a thing are worse off then ordinary people who know nothing of it." Both within and without we must contemplate the absolutes relationship to the plurality of perception.
Perenialism is unique Philosophy in its good intention to help mankind understand each other, opponents of this view tend to aspire to destroy with criticism rather than intend to help society at all. Keep it up brother, your light shines and continues to unify seekers
This was a very edifying discussion--thanks for posting it. I admire such learned people who can disagree in a spirit of truth-seeking. I think it might've been fuller had a perennial traditionalist (someone like Seyyed Hossein Nasr or Harry Oldmeadow) been presenting as well, so that the traditionalist position could have explained itself more fully in its own terms. That's just a comment, not a complaint. This was wonderful as is. Thanks again.
21st to like. Thanks for the illuminating discussion! Plants will not change their root structure until it is too late, but "too late" generally means that survival often requires a 'miracle.' Of course, a master gardener knows how to trick a plant into 'thinking' it is too late. Not only is this principle of change true of plant roots but it is also true for humans changing their 'roots.' Hebbian learning [i.e., neurons that fire together will wire together] is as resource intensive if not more so and as averse to structural change as is plant root development. What if mystical experiences for humans provide the analogous role of the expert gardener for plants? What if mystical experiences are brain reboot hacks? It just so happens that it often takes a sort of cognitive framework [creeds and doctrines] to safely induce mystical states of 'death and rebirth.' What if creeds and esoteric doctrines are medicinal under the right conditions, methods to induce mystical experiences of death and rebirth in a way that the participant still feels safe and cared for? Tbh, I do not know whether with this framework, is understanding mystical experiences as a technology for safely rebooting neuronal structure a perennialism or a materialistic reductionism? Or both? What if like alchemy, this sort of perennialism is a Jungian projection of personal development and change? And if Spinoza is correct about the nature of an Absolute Infinity, a projection theory of perennialism would still be a perennialism [LOL]. Ngl, this pluralist about the spirit worlds might have just talked themselves into a quasi-perennialist position! Much love!
"Let's have a fight..." wow, Ben's comments at the end led to a wonderful bit of dialogical conflict which was a delightful icing on an already rich and multilayered philomystical ehem, debate? Couldn't have had a better accompaniment to my early morning coffee
An inspired dialogue and one that exemplified beautifully the difference between philia sofia and philia nikia. It's Zevi's commitment to the former that attracted me initially to his channel and when it's accompanied by like-minded interlocutors, I always come away with a heightened sense of consciousness that I never experience when it's simply about winning an argument. Also, the perennialism he currently espouses is very 'attractive', getting back to the "A, B, C's" of religiosity rather than getting caught up in the many dogmatic "X, Y, Z's" he mentioned in a previous video and one that is always vigilant to any fatalistic interpretation or indifference to the other. The title of this channel sums it up. Thank you.
Thank you Jason. It means so much to me that this means so much to you. I’m so privileged and blessed to be in conversation of heart and mind with lovers of wisdom like Jon, John, Justin, Filip, Angela, Reyna and others. And now hopefully with Jason too 😉
I can appreciate everything said here! Very interesting “debate”, & I did so much like the part on Perrenislism & the execution! The close was awesome as well. I so appreciated your mention of the Rebbe Lubavitch 🙏🏻 & the point about what some consider “new age” is exactly what the mystics talk about, is certainly very old, nothing new about it. Some people get very fired up by what they consider new age and I always say this as well, that this has been around for ages. So I appreciate you bringing that to light ✨✨ overall enjoyed this discussion, thank you 🙏🏻✨
Beautiful discussion. Thank you. Perhaps "intuitional ethics" is a helpful category for ethics arising from contemplative practice. The intuition of oneness/interconnectivity is that which drives the contemplative toward service, perhaps moreso than a "logical" or "propositional" ethic in which one debates whether one should or should not act in a particular way. The true contemplative, at some point in the transformation, *can't help but* act with lovingkindness toward all things (even if, on some level, they logically assent to and see from the "just being-ness" of the world). It has become their natural way in the world. Thank you again so much for the discussion and the channel. Have learned much... Blessings.
Great discussion. Holy sparks of the internet. Question- How does the framework of the 7 Noahide commandments fit in with the Perrenialism approach? One one hand it honors the uniqueness if each Nation while having a minimalist moral demand/framework of the Noahide Laws that leaves room for the expressions of unique national particularities. Not just unique cultural expressions but different approaches to God as well(as long that its idol worship practices undergo revision). The Torah is not imperialist like many other religions and honors plurality of reality.
As the great sage Ben once said: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to this 'debate.' I did not come to bring peace, but a sword." Jokes aside, great discussion and clarification on Perennialism.
A premise: The problem of evil is only a problem if one sees theological claims as truth claims regarding what the world already is/was rather than what it might become - future tense. However, if... I subscribe to a theology which "merely" 1. makes claims about what this reality might become 2. identifies attitudes which move us towards a more perfect reality ...then I am free to rephrase the claim Jonathan ascribes to the Perrenialist 19:25 thusly: - "To claim that this empirical realm, the everyday world, is the expression of a more perfect reality; it can be argued" - To insist that this empirical realm, the everyday world, holds the potential to become a more perfect reality; it can be argued - "a) trivializes the problems of this world" - a) serves as an antidote to the cynicism engendered by the problems of this world - "b) and places the moral quest, the directing of individual and collective energies towards bettering this world as second to the contemplative one." - b) while giving us permission to see those moments when our heads are in the clouds mining the heavens for a more potent attitude to re-enter into the atmosphere with, as complimentary to the work performed while our boots are planted firmly on the problem ridden ground. The "Primordial Wound" can only be perceived as a wound if you are able to envision a perfectly healthy world. The imagery of the wound cannot register unless you have a corresponding image of completeness/wholeness. So why not choose wholeness as the starting point? Why choose to begin with negative imagery? But alas... in the words of E-40 "erybody makes choices..." Humble thinkers have realized time and time again that when we try to tap into truths pertaining to a more perfect supra-human consciousness, we inevitably find ourselves looking at our own reflections. We can only talk about *this* consciousness. TL;DR I think we'd get rid of a lot of confusion if we'd be willing to see theological doctrines/claims as a Trojan horse concealing/conveying attitudes which suggest a better future; rather than truth claims about what already is so. By the time you got around to examining what "already is so", reality has already moved on to what "might be".
I enjoyed both sides of this discussion so much! Conversations like this truly bring God's light into the world. I thought Zevi's perspective on morality was interesting, but philosophically it left me somewhat unsatisfied. As I understood it, Zevi's idea that we have a natural self-love which gets repurposed towards loving and caring for others once we come to understand that in truth we are one with everything/everyone. Assuming that’s a correct summary of Zevi’s view, my question is how this is compatible with the idea that the unitive mystical revelation involves the death of the “small self”. I find the term “ego” gets thrown around here in a way that is ambiguous. There is a slide between two meanings of “ego”. Meaning one is more colloquial, whereby “ego” means a sort of narcissistic selfish personality, as in: “He has such a big ego!”. I’ll call this ego-1. On the other hand, in the context of unitive experience and psychology, “ego” refers to the part of us that perceives and acts as if we are a unique person with a distinctive viewpoint on the world. This part need not be selfish, and in fact moral behavior is as much a function of the ego in this second sense as selfish behavior. I’ll call this ego-2. So coming back to the question of perennialism and morality. If ego is used in the sense of ego-1 then the death of the ego is a good thing morally. However, what is less clear is whether ego-death in the sense of losing ego-2 is morally beneficial. This brings me back to Zevi’s point about a person’s natural love for themselves. Presumably this natural love is precisely an aspect of ego-2. For Josh to love Josh himself, Josh must perceive Josh as a being. (In philosophy of language jargon we’d say that Josh must be an intensional object for himself.) If Josh is perceiving Josh, then by definition, Josh has and is consciously occupying ego-2. So, if perennialism says that the true reality is one in which ego-2 does not exist, and that the deepest mystical experience is a realization of that fact, how does it follow that our natural self-love will be extended to other human selves? It would seem to me that the natural self-love would simply dissolve along with all other intensional states which presuppose (falsely) the existence of separate subjects. On the other hand, if Zevi is claiming that the ego-death in question is a death of ego-1, then this does not seem to require the sort of metaphysics usually associated with perennialism. For example, in Joseph Campbell’s death-rebirth cycle for the hero's journey the metaphorical “death” of the old personality structure is necessary to make room for newly emerging personality structures. At no point however does this require that the individuated viewpoint of the hero is somehow unreal or illusory. On the contrary, it is precisely in virtue of the hero’s hidden individual depths that he is capable of returning transformed from out of the abyss. An analogy often used for this kind of death-rebirth is the snake shedding its skin. The snake does not at any point cease to be a snake, yet it is capable of undergoing a transformation into a new self.
The Crux, Or Core Of The Matter: What is the nature of good and evil, being and reality? An open letter to two fine gentlemen, on my favourite philosophy podcast: Seeking Unity I must say, with great respect, this is an excellent and extremely rare caliber of discussion, which is extraordinarily helpful to our world at this critical, pivotal time of global crisis; but it is a discussion between two individuals who self-evidently have never tasted, or glimpsed, reality. I speak, by the way, not from theory, nor speculation, but from direct experience, frankly, because it must be said. The world is in too much peril for mincing of words or excessive delicacy. Humility or non-humility has no bearing on it, once it is directly realized there truly is no self, and no duality of subject and object, self and other, whatsoever. Moreover, false modesty merely sows confusion, when what we need is clarity, above all. If you know how to walk, you do not say, No, I do not know how to walk. If you have seen, then you have seen. It is simply a matter of straight forward fact. I do not have time to elaborate here, but as to the four critiques of the perennial wisdom, points 1, 3 and 4 are demonstrably false, and easily refuted. Point two is invalid, being a statement which can stem only from ignorance, from a dweller in the cave of shadows, from one who has never opened his eyes, and has not seen. The central issue, however, is this: theory will never suffice. You can debate to the end of time, and remain forever in ignorance. The point is to deeply examine things for yourself, via a true radical empiricism, yes, and to actually see. When the direct experience of the non-dual/interdependent nature of being and reality arises, there are no more questions, and no more theories - you know. Only the subtleties of interpretation and refinement of vision remain to be addressed, if even that. Reality becomes self-evident, and undeniable, for the first time. Until then, debate, discuss, and theorize all you like. But keep a true modesty about it, because you are still blind men in a dark cave. As to the question of evil: universal, unconditional, subjectless, objectless compassion is the natural state of the awakened mind, that directly perceives the non-dual nature of being and reality; moreover, it is compassion which itself opens the gates of wisdom, because it is the primary antidote to the ego-grasping which both stems from and also perpetuates the delusion of duality. That is to say, the door to enlightenment is opened solely through the key that is compassion. Compassion is therefore integral to the path, as well as the result. This is the union of the inner and outer, the esoteric and esoteric, the sutrayana path and the vajrayana path, the causal and result vehicles, in other words, or the relative and the absolute. Furthermore, compassion is enlightened self-interest and basic intelligence, for all things are interconnected and truly one. Like ripples in a pond, whatever we send out, sooner or later echoes back, reverberates and returns to us. This is the nature of interdependence, which is the manifest dance of the non-dual ground of being itself. The question of evil is therefore answered best, and answered adequately, solely by the perennial wisdom of the non-dual view, and by no other. Again: Brilliant, important work you are doing, yes; but be aware that there is indeed more to heaven and earth than is contained in your philosophy. - With much love, J. Todd Ring, Villa Samadhi, Uruguay November 27, 2023
Very nice, thank you for this. But I think we need part two where we dive a bit deeper into the differences between traditions. For example, Zevi, you mentioned the Fana’ concept in Islam and linked it to another concept in Judaism and you made it sound that as if all traditions accept this concept of dissolution of the ego, but did you realise that some Sufi orders don’t subscribe to Fana’ and don’t talk about it? What do you do about that?
Excellent discussion! And I absolutely love your channel. I get worried about Perennialism and Traditionalism, so I'm glad that got mentioned here. Do you have other videos where you discuss this more in-depth?
Welcome Caleb. Glad you enjoyed it. Here’s a survey we made of the subject: The Debate that (Almost) Broke Mysticism ua-cam.com/video/n_RJQS-JRwM/v-deo.html
Ben's correct that no one is a true nondualist, same as Moshe Idel said, everyone has a taboo, a forbidden word, a forbidden act, an absolute evil, an other, and that never can be tolerated. The otherness of nondualism against dualism is itself a dualism, that nondualism is 'not-dualism' is a dualism.
Ben is like the malignant one from the passover reading LOL By excluding yourself from the innermost kernel of the topic of conversation - the debate - you have betrayed the substance thereof. The love you share in the conversation is just as deadly as hatred forged in heated debates. But it is that deadliness which tests most the mettle of one's merit.
I spent most of childhood very deeply set in mormonisum a religion created by a con man to me there no real value been rooted in that. what gave me an understanding of myself was to stop sitting in a reality crated bya man who constructed it day by day and actually go on a journey to find what others in my ancestry found sacred to them and in that I found myself after casting off the falsehoods upon the cliffs overlooking the oblivion of what I thought I was and been recreated and filled in a way if feel reborn. If I was to just stick at one religion that I knew inside out I don't think I would be alive today. They true step is to know yourself and at the core of all people is the same thing, all other things are ripples of chaos that dance around the singularity that is the me the I am. I stood their standing into the Abyss, I cast away what I thought I was to find him staring back at me. We need to be grounded in one truth to grow and that is ourselves all thing come from the idea of me and I am.
~ 7 minutes in: You've never impressed me more, Jon, with your uncanny ability to be simultaneously so articulate, obviously erudite, and keenly precise about what the writers you criticize are merely attempting to convey about the universal human condition (through the weak and artificial medium of language), and at the same time so dismissive of these intellectual giants.
I don't know much about this subject, but in college I had a course on Augustine's thought, and came away with the insight that the catalyst for his conversion was his encounter with neoplatonism, which also provided the framework for his mature theology and philosophy. Years later when I heard about perennialism and traditionalism (I didn't understand how they were distinct), I felt like I was seeing a new form of neoplatonism. And it seemed to be doing to world religions something similar to what Augustine had used it for when he re-encountered scripture with neoplatonist spirituality and metaphysics as a hermeneutic. On the one hand it was somewhat reductionist, and sometimes forced Christianity into new, excessively neoplatonist shapes. On the other hand it revealed and amplified aspects of the existing tradition. And eventually, some form of Augustine's Christianity became "true" Christianity for much of the western church, and people forgot what had made it new. I wonder if something similar could be said of perennialism - it's its own thing, not the ultimate word on world religions, but a valuable philosophy in its own right, to be critiqued just as freely as today we critique Augustine, while recognizing his greatness. In any case I feel like I'm making two points here, somewhat confusedly. There's the analogy with Augustine, but there's also the strong influence of neoplatonism throughout western thought, up to perennialism. I assume Plotinus is always in the background of these discussions, isn't he? Sorry for rambling on - this video is wonderful, and has opened up new ways of thinking for me. I'm very grateful.
1:23:34 Questioner: Can you tell me what bias creates their momentum toward the chosen path of service to self? _Ra: I am Ra. We can speak only in metaphor. Some love the light. Some love the darkness. It is a matter of the unique and infinitely various Creator choosing and playing among its experiences as a child upon a picnic. Some enjoy the picnic and find the sun beautiful, the food delicious, the games refreshing, and glow with the joy of creation. Some find the night delicious, their picnic being pain, difficulty, sufferings of others, and the examination of the perversities of nature. These enjoy a different picnic._ _All these experiences are available. It is free will of each entity which chooses the form of play, the form of pleasure._
Whence evil? Evil is greed and hate, stemming from the delusion of duality, which Socrates and the ancient Greeks called, somewhat euphemistically, ignorance. Cut the root of ignorance, or more precisely, delusion, and evil ceases to arise. Until then, it is temporary, bandaid solutions only that are possible.
Zevi, I’m having problems with the debate premise. This seems like too much “head” and not enough “heart”. It’s confusing to talk about the perennial philosophy aka Perennialism (philosophia perennis) as distinct from The Perennial Philosophy of Aldous Huxley. It’s the same thing IMO but one has to study it from at least three angles (its’ renaissance roots, the more “popular” universalism of the 19th century Transcendentalists, Unitarians, and Theosophical Society, and lastly the modern Traditionalist School). Aside from studying Ficino and Pico Della Mirandola, as well as the neglected works of GRS Mead due to the whole Theosophical Society Leadbetter affair, the Traditionalist School TODAY has the most academic treatment of it in my own experience and reading. Both GRS Mead and the modern Traditionalist School are sorely ignored by the Academy despite several brilliant historical studies of it, for instance the Gifford Lectures of KNOWLEDGE AND THE SACRED by Seyyed Hossain Nasr to name just one. Aside from differing interpretations, it’s hard for me to see any real debate here. A true mystical experience leads one to study as many mystical features of other “religions” and for me there’s more unity than division. For this reason, based on my own mystical experiences, I strongly favor the philosophia perennis. I don’t really see the need to bring in a pluralism of any sort because it’s a materialist trap. Pluralism just seems to be a means of saying there’s no one “Truth” when I see it more as a difficulty in defining a Transcendent Truth, especially by those who think that everything can be explained away. It’s way too post-modern a perspective for me. Just my two cents.
For every Shankara there is Mahdva and for every Meister Eckart there is....???...I couldn't catch the name of the dualist Christian figure Jonathan mentioned, did anybody catch it?
Have you read Jorge Ferrer’s argument against perennialism? In my grad program I was a lone antiperennialist after him. Folks thought I became pessimistic. Nah, just realistic.
Loved the conversation until the one whiny guy (Ben, I think?) hijacked it with complaining and nobody was willing to tell him off or contradict his baseless claims. From the earliest religions, movements have absorbed ideas from other religions as a point of growth and expansion - whether that's the introduction of proto-indo-european myths into the Orphic and then Hellenic religions hundreds or thousands of years BCE, the influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism during the Babylonian Exile, the Islamic influence in things like alchemy and hermeticism that then influenced medieval Christianity, or the co-opting of Yogic, Tantric and Hindu ideals in new religious movements/cults like Aum Shinrikyo or Rajneeshism. I'm not a huge fan of the idea of perennialism (although I do certainly like Zevi's personal take on it much more than the other perennialist thinkers I've read or heard of), but this guy is really not attacking it from any kind of credible grounds or firm basis to stand on and he should be told that when he tries to derail a conversation that was, up until that point, very respectful and educational for myself at least, and it seems like for everyone involved also. Thinking that even classic and traditional "deep-dive" religious figures limited themselves to studying only one tradition and blocked out any other ideas, concepts, or influences is actually a much more modern viewpoint than the alternative. Calling perennialism a "new-age" philosophy is truly ignorant of the history of the concept of a perennial philosophy that emerged in the middle ages, and then was modified just as other religions or religious ideas evolve over time. Given this guy's time scale, I bet he'd consider Luria's work as "new-age" philosophy as well - it's about the same era, there's candles and sitting around in a room speaking/singing rhythmically there too, which that guy seems to be allergic to...
First i was "yay Ben!" Then i was "oh, Ben." Now I'm "yay Ben" again. First i thought he was on about practical application, yay! Then i saw he was, i dunno, a bit of a dogmatist. Then i saw he's making my point. ... The one I'ma make now, about truth, ego, and meaning: Truth isn't one thing that some people are privy to; it's the reality of everything, articulated. It's not the testimony of one person, or one special class of person; it's everyone, every single one. It's so much that full testimony that the two long distance forces, gravity and magnetism, are the result of relativity: let that sink in. The fabric of spacetime is such that we *all* makes sense *together*. The roll of ego is that we know our place, that each of us know our own place. That's meaning; meaning is place, you are *where* you are. We have sovereign rights of place; and responsibilities too. In reddit's r/Debatereligion sub the problem of evil comes up constantly: if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then why evil? I've been thinking it's like this: the Father is omnipotent but oblivious; the Son is omniscient (by each of us in our places) and informs the Father; the Holy Spirit is in each of us, and it's the source of the omnibenevolence. We bring the love; the problem of evil is that we look for the solution elsewhere.
The truth is that there is only one religion with multiple messengers and consequently multiple concrete forms or laws. But the existing religions may not represent the original, rather decayed to either putting partners to God or lost the concepyof God! So today's religions are not on the same foot at all, making talking about commonalities a failure from the beginning. The way is to follow the last revealed words of God and the last messenger; all other ways will certainly mislead the ignorant and stubborn ones
Sorry Zevy, I didn't have the patience to listen to the conversation. With these subjects it has to do with intuitive knowing, not intellectual thinking. Words are supposed to be a pointer, not the Thing itself. Some things must be left for the mystics.
Is there something spiritually narcissistic about seeing "self in other" endlessly? What if the boundaries of the self stayed where they are phenomenologically for non-mystics and a deep empathy for the other happened in that context that was not an expansion of self but just deep empathy and care from one created being to another. Isn't that a higher level? Its true giving and feeling of an other without making the other part of the self. Allowing full otherness and connection and giving across that space.
'One Taste, Many Flavors' 😎 ParaDoxically . . . BOTH 🙏 PerennialPlural 😻 Blessings & Gratitude to Zevi &SOU 😻 - SOUfan soulSOUL ParaDoxically, The 'Ego' is the launchpad to The 'TransEgoic' 😹 en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy
What if the real perennial tradition was the criticisms we made against perennialism along the way?
I'd be honored to have a round with you on this question Dan.
@@SeekersofUnity I'd love to, but you guys were pretty thorough here!
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.
This is how "debates" should be...a shared and respectful search for deeper truths which can only come through interaction with one another. Beautiful.
Thank you very much for this discussion. I resonated with Jonathon’s critique that perennialism does not account for morality or evil. I just watched an interview with John Vervaeke who said that evil isn’t just a sum of immoral choices, it comes from a failure to love deeply which detaches one from reality. I think this correlates with Zevi’s response to the critique, but I would still love to raise this again in future discussions with clear definitions of morality, evil, and sin; how they overlap and differ.
Schuon here in Transcendent Unity of Religions gives an explanation of evil and the devil from a perennialist and thus metaphysical point of view:
“The perspective of the esoteric doctrines shows up with
particular clarity in their way of regarding what is commonly
called ‘evil’; it has often been said that they deny evil purely and simply, but such an interpretation is too rudimentary and expresses the perspective of the doctrines in question in a very imperfect manner. The difference between the religious and metaphysical conceptions of evil does not mean, moreover, that the one is false and the other true, but simply that the former is incomplete and individual whereas the latter is integral and universal; what the exoteric perspective represents as evil or the Devil only corresponds therefore to a partial view and is in no way the equivalent of the negative cosmic tendency that is envisaged by the metaphysical doctrines, and which Hindu doctrine designates by the term tamas; but if tamas is not the Devil, and more correctly corresponds to the Demiurge, insofar as it represents the cosmic tendency that ‘solidifies’ manifestation, drawing it downward and away from its Principle and Origin, it is nonetheless true that the Devil is a form of tamas, the latter
being considered in this case solely in its relations with the human soul.
Man being a conscious individual the cosmic tendency in question, when it comes in contact with him,
necessarily takes on an individual and conscious aspect a ‘personal’ aspect according to the current expression. Outside the human world this same tendency may assume entirely impersonal and neutral aspects, as, for example, when it is manifested as physical weight or material density, or in the guise of a hideous beast or of a common and heavy metal such as lead. The exoteric perspective, by definition occupies itself only with man and considers cosmology
solely in relation to him, so that there is no reason to reproach religion for considering tamas under a personified aspect that is to say, under the aspect that actually touches the world of men. If, therefore, esoterism seems to deny evil it is not because it ignores or refuses to recognize the nature of things as they are in reality; on the contrary, it completely penetrates their nature, and that is the reason why it is impossible for it to abstract from the cosmic reality one or other of its aspects or to consider one such aspect solely from the point of view of individual human interest It is self-evident that the cosmic tendency of which the Devil is the quasi-human personification is not evil since it is this same tendency, for example, that condenses material bodies, and if it were to disappear-an absurd supposition-all bodies or physical and psychic compositions would instantaneously volatilize.
Even the most sacred object therefore has need of this tendency in order to be enabled to exist materially, and no one would be so rash as to assert that the physical law that condenses the material mass of, say, the Sacred Host is a diabolical force or in any sense an evil. It is precisely because of this neutral character (independent of the distinction between good and evil) of the demiurgic tendency that the esoteric doctrines, which reduce everything to its essential reality, seem to deny what in human parlance bears the name of "evil."
Frithjof Schuon in fact wrote several chapters about the question of theodicy, and also about morality, virtue, sin and related questions.
Possibly the most important debate we could be having atm! Thank you!♾❤️
Your participation in the dialogue was inspiring. Searching for what we have in common is more difficult than the search for the other. The other leads to the identity, which leads to the ego.
Enjoyed the conversation, exactly the topic I have been thinking about. The difference between truth and wisdom, learning never stops even after "liberation" I suppose. Thank you.
Good talk. To me, as a layman on these subjects, I found it really refreshing that the discussion shifted pretty quickly from an aspect of glorifying of the individual and right/wrong (good/evil), to something else. As an afterthought, a discussion on the subjectivity of truth/good/evil/this/that, between these philosophies would be of interest too. I actually dont understand why the idea of objective good and evil is so important to this discussion.
Thank you J.J. 🙏🏼
This is a great discussion topic. Very insightful!
Thank you Reyna.
Nietzsche "Something might be true while being harmful and dangerous in the highest degree. Indeed, it might be a basic characteristic of existence that those who would know it completely would perish."
Thank you Jonathan Weidenbaum for holding forth at length. I enjoyed every second.
I don't agree with the Ben guy, but I enjoy those aggressive, interrogation style questions. This no BS approach gets answers and I respect it
Zevi, as always, you helped put together a beautiful and respectful discussion of a complicated topic. I'm sure I speak for everyone in saying thank you for sharing this with us. I must say, though, that the accusation and subsequent discussion near the end saddened me. You have always made it a point to be open and welcoming of diverse thought and opinion, and for someone to insist otherwise in bad faith and with such disrespectful verbiage is disappointing. I could go on, but that shouldn't be the purpose of this forum. May many blessings be upon you and the work you do.
Your right, I think it should of been left out! Keep in mind though this gentleman did acknowledge that he did not hear the presentation/debate, and was stating a general sentiment not directly or at zevi personally- of whom he knows nothing about..
WOW...extremely intrigued by the topic and discussion.
I have such a deeper respect for you brother Zevi.
Truly, I value all the incredible content you put out. Thank you.
Please write a book, so that your legacy will be cemented for the future generations
Im sure there must be something in the works.
Shalom
I want to address two issues that are in my mind related in relation to mystical conceptions -
1) The first issue I want to address is the issue of ethics raised by Professor Weidenbaum in relation to mystical conceptions.
I want to formulate the philosophic issue in what I think are stronger terms than his formulation. I want to suggest that a mystic, who has attained mystical enlightenment and has a mystical experience or awareness that all is One, is nevertheless under no ethical obligation to overcome social injustice or to love (moral love) one's fellow human being.
By the way, in my view, Maimonides is responding (or, at least can be viewed as responding) to this philosophic issue in the Guide 1, 54 and 3, 54 (in which he sends us back to 1, 54). In my view, among other things, Maimonides as a rationalistic mystic is arguing that one who has attained mystical enlightenment (and, for Maimonides, mystical enlightenment is intellectual enlightenment on the basis of the study of philosophy and science) will necessarily live a life of moral action - a life of lovingkindess and righteousness (as according to the verse of Jeremiah 9, 22-23 that Maimonides quotes at the end of the Guide 3, 54).
However, in Maimonides' ethical conception in the Guide ethics is not a matter of virtue and moral character (as in his Aristotelian conception of virtue ethics that he presents in the Eight Chapters and the laws of character traits as a precondition in order to attain enlightenment) - and, ethics is a matter of moral action. Ethics in the sense of moral action, in Maimonides' conception, is not a matter of ethical obligation. Rather, ethics in the Guide 1, 54, and 3, 54 is a utilitarian conception in which ethics is a matter of rational judgment as to which actions will be most beneficial - and, such rational judgment emanates necessarily from mystical and intellectual enlightenment (as a result rather than precondition of enlightenment).
2) I want to add one other thing regarding a related issue that was not addressed in this video "The Great Debate" - a psychological issue related to the ethical issue.
A mystic who has attained mystical enlightenment and has a mystical experience or awareness that all is One will be seen on a widespread basis by mystics as experiencing bliss, equanimity or deep happiness and fulfillment - and, on a widespread basis, such mystical enlightenment or experience will be seen by mystics as excluding anger and upset.
There is an implicit assumption in such a mystical conception that is at least widespread that anger is in some way a negative or "bad" feeling that is to be avoided or that will not be experienced in attaining mystical enlightenment.
I question this assumption as a psychologist-counselor. In my personal view as a psychologist-counselor, feelings including anger and upset, are not good or bad (and not positive or negative) and merely something that we experience. The terms good and bad apply, in my view, only to behavior and not to feelings.
In the case of anger, the image of fire has often been used to represent anger. If one irresponsibly dumps anger on another person and expresses the anger in a personally attacking way, then the fire of anger burns and will likely severely damage, if not destroy, the relationship - and, on the other hand, if one expresses anger to another in a responsible, considerate and issue oriented way (without personal attack), then the fire of anger will likely warm and enhance the relationship (in that the anger is expressed in a sensitive way that gives feedback to the other person that can be received helping to improve the relationship).
More importantly, anger is an important motivation especially in responding to or overcoming social injustice. The ideal, in my view, is not to eliminate anger in the face of social injustice - rather, the ideal is one of self-control (as according to the Talmudic teaching "who is the truly strong person? The one who controls one's passions and drives") in which we reduce our anger so that we are in control of our anger. But, what is important here, is that the anger itself is a motivation that allows us to have strength to fight against or overcome social injustice - and, thus, our anger is not to be reduced but not entirely avoided (and, I am leaving aside the issue of whether it is realistic that a state of enlightenment can be attained in which we completely avoid anger and upset).
This issue then is related to the previous ethical issue. The mystic who has attained mystical enlightenment and has a mystical experience or awareness that all is One, and who does not experience anger in attaining enlightenment, may lack this important motivation to fight against social injustice - and, in my personal view, there is indeed an ethical obligation to fight against injustice.
"The truth becomes encrusted..." I like that characterization! It is perhaps the unfortunate but inevitable limitation of language to convey actual experience. Communication, at best, forever remains a sincere attempt that cannot ever quite encompass something like truth except by accidental or miraculous serendipity more often achieved by art than religion. The combination of art and religion is resoundingly powerful as a result.
Zevi, you are a gentleman and a scholar. ❤
Thank you for Adam. You’re too kind. Much love.
Zevi, thank you and just seeing your channel and a few others all of you are just spectacular and just provide so much of beautiful descriptions and uniting of openness to whole new world. I admire your wonderment and joyful spirit.
Thank you Brandi. That really means a lot to me. Welcome to the channel ☺️🙏🏼
What a beautiful discussion.
I wish all academic activity was conducted with such mutual charity and good faith.
This is what, in my opinion, will bring the greatest benefit to us all.
The concept of absolutism has been softened, beautiful.. Of course, the concept of the absolute is not the absolute. As Nagarjuna said, "Those who think of the void as a thing are worse off then ordinary people who know nothing of it." Both within and without we must contemplate the absolutes relationship to the plurality of perception.
Perenialism is unique Philosophy in its good intention to help mankind understand each other, opponents of this view tend to aspire to destroy with criticism rather than intend to help society at all. Keep it up brother, your light shines and continues to unify seekers
Truth is all that matters, not unity. You can’t unify with a liar lol
This was a very edifying discussion--thanks for posting it. I admire such learned people who can disagree in a spirit of truth-seeking. I think it might've been fuller had a perennial traditionalist (someone like Seyyed Hossein Nasr or Harry Oldmeadow) been presenting as well, so that the traditionalist position could have explained itself more fully in its own terms. That's just a comment, not a complaint. This was wonderful as is. Thanks again.
🙏🏼
21st to like. Thanks for the illuminating discussion! Plants will not change their root structure until it is too late, but "too late" generally means that survival often requires a 'miracle.' Of course, a master gardener knows how to trick a plant into 'thinking' it is too late. Not only is this principle of change true of plant roots but it is also true for humans changing their 'roots.' Hebbian learning [i.e., neurons that fire together will wire together] is as resource intensive if not more so and as averse to structural change as is plant root development. What if mystical experiences for humans provide the analogous role of the expert gardener for plants? What if mystical experiences are brain reboot hacks? It just so happens that it often takes a sort of cognitive framework [creeds and doctrines] to safely induce mystical states of 'death and rebirth.' What if creeds and esoteric doctrines are medicinal under the right conditions, methods to induce mystical experiences of death and rebirth in a way that the participant still feels safe and cared for? Tbh, I do not know whether with this framework, is understanding mystical experiences as a technology for safely rebooting neuronal structure a perennialism or a materialistic reductionism? Or both? What if like alchemy, this sort of perennialism is a Jungian projection of personal development and change? And if Spinoza is correct about the nature of an Absolute Infinity, a projection theory of perennialism would still be a perennialism [LOL]. Ngl, this pluralist about the spirit worlds might have just talked themselves into a quasi-perennialist position! Much love!
So excited for this!
Ditto.
Loved hearing both sides of the argument here. Very thoughtful and insightful. I definitely learned a lot!
Thank you. That’s what we like :)
"Let's have a fight..." wow, Ben's comments at the end led to a wonderful bit of dialogical conflict which was a delightful icing on an already rich and multilayered philomystical ehem, debate? Couldn't have had a better accompaniment to my early morning coffee
Glad you enjoyed the Joker :)
@@SeekersofUnity you all handled it Like pros!
An inspired dialogue and one that exemplified beautifully the difference between philia sofia and philia nikia. It's Zevi's commitment to the former that attracted me initially to his channel and when it's accompanied by like-minded interlocutors, I always come away with a heightened sense of consciousness that I never experience when it's simply about winning an argument. Also, the perennialism he currently espouses is very 'attractive', getting back to the "A, B, C's" of religiosity rather than getting caught up in the many dogmatic "X, Y, Z's" he mentioned in a previous video and one that is always vigilant to any fatalistic interpretation or indifference to the other. The title of this channel sums it up. Thank you.
Thank you Jason. It means so much to me that this means so much to you. I’m so privileged and blessed to be in conversation of heart and mind with lovers of wisdom like Jon, John, Justin, Filip, Angela, Reyna and others. And now hopefully with Jason too 😉
I can appreciate everything said here! Very interesting “debate”, & I did so much like the part on Perrenislism & the execution! The close was awesome as well. I so appreciated your mention of the Rebbe Lubavitch 🙏🏻 & the point about what some consider “new age” is exactly what the mystics talk about, is certainly very old, nothing new about it. Some people get very fired up by what they consider new age and I always say this as well, that this has been around for ages. So I appreciate you bringing that to light ✨✨ overall enjoyed this discussion, thank you 🙏🏻✨
Thank you for joining us 🙏🏼☺️
This was awesome . It would be fantastic if you could get a Perennialist like Charles Upton to come on .
Beautiful discussion. Thank you. Perhaps "intuitional ethics" is a helpful category for ethics arising from contemplative practice. The intuition of oneness/interconnectivity is that which drives the contemplative toward service, perhaps moreso than a "logical" or "propositional" ethic in which one debates whether one should or should not act in a particular way. The true contemplative, at some point in the transformation, *can't help but* act with lovingkindness toward all things (even if, on some level, they logically assent to and see from the "just being-ness" of the world). It has become their natural way in the world. Thank you again so much for the discussion and the channel. Have learned much... Blessings.
Ben felt like a popular cultural depiction of Jews in media, not necessarily an offensive one.
Great discussion on one of my favorite topics!
😎
Great discussion. Holy sparks of the internet.
Question- How does the framework of the 7 Noahide commandments fit in with the Perrenialism approach? One one hand it honors the uniqueness if each Nation while having a minimalist moral demand/framework of the Noahide Laws that leaves room for the expressions of unique national particularities. Not just unique cultural expressions but different approaches to God as well(as long that its idol worship practices undergo revision). The Torah is not imperialist like many other religions and honors plurality of reality.
Wonderful discussion! Thanks to everyone involved.
Thank you for joining us.
As the great sage Ben once said: "Do not suppose that I have come to bring peace to this 'debate.' I did not come to bring peace, but a sword."
Jokes aside, great discussion and clarification on Perennialism.
😂😅 Thank you Loud Waffle 🧇 Glad you enjoyed it.
“No man ought to write at all, or even to speak at all, unless he thinks that he is in truth and the other man in error”
Thanks for this debate. Question. I heard about the world religions from east to west but what about the (global) south's religious traditions?
A premise: The problem of evil is only a problem if one sees theological claims as truth claims regarding what the world already is/was rather than what it might become - future tense.
However, if... I subscribe to a theology which "merely"
1. makes claims about what this reality might become
2. identifies attitudes which move us towards a more perfect reality
...then I am free to rephrase the claim Jonathan ascribes to the Perrenialist 19:25 thusly:
- "To claim that this empirical realm, the everyday world, is the expression of a more perfect reality; it can be argued"
- To insist that this empirical realm, the everyday world, holds the potential to become a more perfect reality; it can be argued
- "a) trivializes the problems of this world"
- a) serves as an antidote to the cynicism engendered by the problems of this world
- "b) and places the moral quest, the directing of individual and collective energies towards bettering this world as second to the contemplative one."
- b) while giving us permission to see those moments when our heads are in the clouds mining the heavens for a more potent attitude to re-enter into the atmosphere with, as complimentary to the work performed while our boots are planted firmly on the problem ridden ground.
The "Primordial Wound" can only be perceived as a wound if you are able to envision a perfectly healthy world. The imagery of the wound cannot register unless you have a corresponding image of completeness/wholeness. So why not choose wholeness as the starting point? Why choose to begin with negative imagery? But alas... in the words of E-40 "erybody makes choices..."
Humble thinkers have realized time and time again that when we try to tap into truths pertaining to a more perfect supra-human consciousness, we inevitably find ourselves looking at our own reflections. We can only talk about *this* consciousness.
TL;DR I think we'd get rid of a lot of confusion if we'd be willing to see theological doctrines/claims as a Trojan horse concealing/conveying attitudes which suggest a better future; rather than truth claims about what already is so. By the time you got around to examining what "already is so", reality has already moved on to what "might be".
I enjoyed both sides of this discussion so much! Conversations like this truly bring God's light into the world.
I thought Zevi's perspective on morality was interesting, but philosophically it left me somewhat unsatisfied. As I understood it, Zevi's idea that we have a natural self-love which gets repurposed towards loving and caring for others once we come to understand that in truth we are one with everything/everyone. Assuming that’s a correct summary of Zevi’s view, my question is how this is compatible with the idea that the unitive mystical revelation involves the death of the “small self”. I find the term “ego” gets thrown around here in a way that is ambiguous. There is a slide between two meanings of “ego”. Meaning one is more colloquial, whereby “ego” means a sort of narcissistic selfish personality, as in: “He has such a big ego!”. I’ll call this ego-1. On the other hand, in the context of unitive experience and psychology, “ego” refers to the part of us that perceives and acts as if we are a unique person with a distinctive viewpoint on the world. This part need not be selfish, and in fact moral behavior is as much a function of the ego in this second sense as selfish behavior. I’ll call this ego-2.
So coming back to the question of perennialism and morality. If ego is used in the sense of ego-1 then the death of the ego is a good thing morally. However, what is less clear is whether ego-death in the sense of losing ego-2 is morally beneficial. This brings me back to Zevi’s point about a person’s natural love for themselves. Presumably this natural love is precisely an aspect of ego-2. For Josh to love Josh himself, Josh must perceive Josh as a being. (In philosophy of language jargon we’d say that Josh must be an intensional object for himself.) If Josh is perceiving Josh, then by definition, Josh has and is consciously occupying ego-2.
So, if perennialism says that the true reality is one in which ego-2 does not exist, and that the deepest mystical experience is a realization of that fact, how does it follow that our natural self-love will be extended to other human selves? It would seem to me that the natural self-love would simply dissolve along with all other intensional states which presuppose (falsely) the existence of separate subjects.
On the other hand, if Zevi is claiming that the ego-death in question is a death of ego-1, then this does not seem to require the sort of metaphysics usually associated with perennialism. For example, in Joseph Campbell’s death-rebirth cycle for the hero's journey the metaphorical “death” of the old personality structure is necessary to make room for newly emerging personality structures. At no point however does this require that the individuated viewpoint of the hero is somehow unreal or illusory. On the contrary, it is precisely in virtue of the hero’s hidden individual depths that he is capable of returning transformed from out of the abyss. An analogy often used for this kind of death-rebirth is the snake shedding its skin. The snake does not at any point cease to be a snake, yet it is capable of undergoing a transformation into a new self.
A pragmatic narrative rather than a hegemonic discourse? YES PLEASE!
1:00:53 “it was saving myself.”
We are all connected, one. There is no autonomous individual.
We are a story loving species, can there ever be too many of them? Not this one or that one but ALL OF THEM ALL THE TIME!
The Crux, Or Core Of The Matter:
What is the nature of good and evil, being and reality?
An open letter to two fine gentlemen, on my favourite philosophy podcast:
Seeking Unity
I must say, with great respect, this is an excellent and extremely rare caliber of discussion, which is extraordinarily helpful to our world at this critical, pivotal time of global crisis; but it is a discussion between two individuals who self-evidently have never tasted, or glimpsed, reality.
I speak, by the way, not from theory, nor speculation, but from direct experience, frankly, because it must be said. The world is in too much peril for mincing of words or excessive delicacy. Humility or non-humility has no bearing on it, once it is directly realized there truly is no self, and no duality of subject and object, self and other, whatsoever. Moreover, false modesty merely sows confusion, when what we need is clarity, above all. If you know how to walk, you do not say, No, I do not know how to walk. If you have seen, then you have seen. It is simply a matter of straight forward fact.
I do not have time to elaborate here, but as to the four critiques of the perennial wisdom, points 1, 3 and 4 are demonstrably false, and easily refuted. Point two is invalid, being a statement which can stem only from ignorance, from a dweller in the cave of shadows, from one who has never opened his eyes, and has not seen.
The central issue, however, is this: theory will never suffice. You can debate to the end of time, and remain forever in ignorance. The point is to deeply examine things for yourself, via a true radical empiricism, yes, and to actually see.
When the direct experience of the non-dual/interdependent nature of being and reality arises, there are no more questions, and no more theories - you know. Only the subtleties of interpretation and refinement of vision remain to be addressed, if even that. Reality becomes self-evident, and undeniable, for the first time. Until then, debate, discuss, and theorize all you like. But keep a true modesty about it, because you are still blind men in a dark cave.
As to the question of evil: universal, unconditional, subjectless, objectless compassion is the natural state of the awakened mind, that directly perceives the non-dual nature of being and reality; moreover, it is compassion which itself opens the gates of wisdom, because it is the primary antidote to the ego-grasping which both stems from and also perpetuates the delusion of duality. That is to say, the door to enlightenment is opened solely through the key that is compassion. Compassion is therefore integral to the path, as well as the result. This is the union of the inner and outer, the esoteric and esoteric, the sutrayana path and the vajrayana path, the causal and result vehicles, in other words, or the relative and the absolute.
Furthermore, compassion is enlightened self-interest and basic intelligence, for all things are interconnected and truly one. Like ripples in a pond, whatever we send out, sooner or later echoes back, reverberates and returns to us. This is the nature of interdependence, which is the manifest dance of the non-dual ground of being itself.
The question of evil is therefore answered best, and answered adequately, solely by the perennial wisdom of the non-dual view, and by no other.
Again: Brilliant, important work you are doing, yes; but be aware that there is indeed more to heaven and earth than is contained in your philosophy.
- With much love,
J. Todd Ring, Villa Samadhi, Uruguay
November 27, 2023
Very nice, thank you for this. But I think we need part two where we dive a bit deeper into the differences between traditions. For example, Zevi, you mentioned the Fana’ concept in Islam and linked it to another concept in Judaism and you made it sound that as if all traditions accept this concept of dissolution of the ego, but did you realise that some Sufi orders don’t subscribe to Fana’ and don’t talk about it? What do you do about that?
The “mystics” can never answer why exactly we are incarnated in our own bodies if there really is no other
Excellent discussion! And I absolutely love your channel. I get worried about Perennialism and Traditionalism, so I'm glad that got mentioned here. Do you have other videos where you discuss this more in-depth?
Welcome Caleb. Glad you enjoyed it. Here’s a survey we made of the subject: The Debate that (Almost) Broke Mysticism
ua-cam.com/video/n_RJQS-JRwM/v-deo.html
Awesome! Thank you very much!
Ben's correct that no one is a true nondualist, same as Moshe Idel said, everyone has a taboo, a forbidden word, a forbidden act, an absolute evil, an other, and that never can be tolerated. The otherness of nondualism against dualism is itself a dualism, that nondualism is 'not-dualism' is a dualism.
Evil are the broken pieces that have given up, or never even had, the hope of being whole.
Ben is like the malignant one from the passover reading LOL
By excluding yourself from the innermost kernel of the topic of conversation - the debate - you have betrayed the substance thereof. The love you share in the conversation is just as deadly as hatred forged in heated debates. But it is that deadliness which tests most the mettle of one's merit.
I spent most of childhood very deeply set in mormonisum a religion created by a con man to me there no real value been rooted in that. what gave me an understanding of myself was to stop sitting in a reality crated bya man who constructed it day by day and actually go on a journey to find what others in my ancestry found sacred to them and in that I found myself after casting off the falsehoods upon the cliffs overlooking the oblivion of what I thought I was and been recreated and filled in a way if feel reborn. If I was to just stick at one religion that I knew inside out I don't think I would be alive today. They true step is to know yourself and at the core of all people is the same thing, all other things are ripples of chaos that dance around the singularity that is the me the I am. I stood their standing into the Abyss, I cast away what I thought I was to find him staring back at me. We need to be grounded in one truth to grow and that is ourselves all thing come from the idea of me and I am.
~ 7 minutes in: You've never impressed me more, Jon, with your uncanny ability to be simultaneously so articulate, obviously erudite, and keenly precise about what the writers you criticize are merely attempting to convey about the universal human condition (through the weak and artificial medium of language), and at the same time so dismissive of these intellectual giants.
I don't know much about this subject, but in college I had a course on Augustine's thought, and came away with the insight that the catalyst for his conversion was his encounter with neoplatonism, which also provided the framework for his mature theology and philosophy. Years later when I heard about perennialism and traditionalism (I didn't understand how they were distinct), I felt like I was seeing a new form of neoplatonism. And it seemed to be doing to world religions something similar to what Augustine had used it for when he re-encountered scripture with neoplatonist spirituality and metaphysics as a hermeneutic. On the one hand it was somewhat reductionist, and sometimes forced Christianity into new, excessively neoplatonist shapes. On the other hand it revealed and amplified aspects of the existing tradition. And eventually, some form of Augustine's Christianity became "true" Christianity for much of the western church, and people forgot what had made it new.
I wonder if something similar could be said of perennialism - it's its own thing, not the ultimate word on world religions, but a valuable philosophy in its own right, to be critiqued just as freely as today we critique Augustine, while recognizing his greatness.
In any case I feel like I'm making two points here, somewhat confusedly. There's the analogy with Augustine, but there's also the strong influence of neoplatonism throughout western thought, up to perennialism. I assume Plotinus is always in the background of these discussions, isn't he?
Sorry for rambling on - this video is wonderful, and has opened up new ways of thinking for me. I'm very grateful.
20:32 Primordial truth and postmodern theology
21:47 useless suffering
No one can debate/compete with Zevi because Zevi does not debate/compete
1:23:34
Questioner: Can you tell me what bias creates their momentum toward the chosen path of service to self?
_Ra: I am Ra. We can speak only in metaphor. Some love the light. Some love the darkness. It is a matter of the unique and infinitely various Creator choosing and playing among its experiences as a child upon a picnic. Some enjoy the picnic and find the sun beautiful, the food delicious, the games refreshing, and glow with the joy of creation. Some find the night delicious, their picnic being pain, difficulty, sufferings of others, and the examination of the perversities of nature. These enjoy a different picnic._
_All these experiences are available. It is free will of each entity which chooses the form of play, the form of pleasure._
Wow that ending was wild haha
😉
Whence evil? Evil is greed and hate, stemming from the delusion of duality, which Socrates and the ancient Greeks called, somewhat euphemistically, ignorance. Cut the root of ignorance, or more precisely, delusion, and evil ceases to arise. Until then, it is temporary, bandaid solutions only that are possible.
Ecumenical studies draws all the fire and the ire of every fundamentalism. Zevi, is an optimist/mystic. of my type.
Kumbayah Ben
😉
Zevi, I’m having problems with the debate premise. This seems like too much “head” and not enough “heart”.
It’s confusing to talk about the perennial philosophy aka Perennialism (philosophia perennis) as distinct from The Perennial Philosophy of Aldous Huxley. It’s the same thing IMO but one has to study it from at least three angles (its’ renaissance roots, the more “popular” universalism of the 19th century Transcendentalists, Unitarians, and Theosophical Society, and lastly the modern Traditionalist School). Aside from studying Ficino and Pico Della Mirandola, as well as the neglected works of GRS Mead due to the whole Theosophical Society Leadbetter affair, the Traditionalist School TODAY has the most academic treatment of it in my own experience and reading. Both GRS Mead and the modern Traditionalist School are sorely ignored by the Academy despite several brilliant historical studies of it, for instance the Gifford Lectures of KNOWLEDGE AND THE SACRED by Seyyed Hossain Nasr to name just one.
Aside from differing interpretations, it’s hard for me to see any real debate here. A true mystical experience leads one to study as many mystical features of other “religions” and for me there’s more unity than division. For this reason, based on my own mystical experiences, I strongly favor the philosophia perennis. I don’t really see the need to bring in a pluralism of any sort because it’s a materialist trap. Pluralism just seems to be a means of saying there’s no one “Truth” when I see it more as a difficulty in defining a Transcendent Truth, especially by those who think that everything can be explained away. It’s way too post-modern a perspective for me.
Just my two cents.
Thank you friend for your thoughtful feedback.
I agree one hundred percent. All things point towards a unified but transcendental truth. Pluralism is deemed to fail.
For every Shankara there is Mahdva and for every Meister Eckart there is....???...I couldn't catch the name of the dualist Christian figure Jonathan mentioned, did anybody catch it?
Have you read Jorge Ferrer’s argument against perennialism? In my grad program I was a lone antiperennialist after him. Folks thought I became pessimistic. Nah, just realistic.
Loved the conversation until the one whiny guy (Ben, I think?) hijacked it with complaining and nobody was willing to tell him off or contradict his baseless claims. From the earliest religions, movements have absorbed ideas from other religions as a point of growth and expansion - whether that's the introduction of proto-indo-european myths into the Orphic and then Hellenic religions hundreds or thousands of years BCE, the influence of Zoroastrianism on Judaism during the Babylonian Exile, the Islamic influence in things like alchemy and hermeticism that then influenced medieval Christianity, or the co-opting of Yogic, Tantric and Hindu ideals in new religious movements/cults like Aum Shinrikyo or Rajneeshism. I'm not a huge fan of the idea of perennialism (although I do certainly like Zevi's personal take on it much more than the other perennialist thinkers I've read or heard of), but this guy is really not attacking it from any kind of credible grounds or firm basis to stand on and he should be told that when he tries to derail a conversation that was, up until that point, very respectful and educational for myself at least, and it seems like for everyone involved also.
Thinking that even classic and traditional "deep-dive" religious figures limited themselves to studying only one tradition and blocked out any other ideas, concepts, or influences is actually a much more modern viewpoint than the alternative. Calling perennialism a "new-age" philosophy is truly ignorant of the history of the concept of a perennial philosophy that emerged in the middle ages, and then was modified just as other religions or religious ideas evolve over time. Given this guy's time scale, I bet he'd consider Luria's work as "new-age" philosophy as well - it's about the same era, there's candles and sitting around in a room speaking/singing rhythmically there too, which that guy seems to be allergic to...
I love Perennial Philosophy but I can’t help but also see it as a kind of spiritual reductionism
First i was "yay Ben!" Then i was "oh, Ben." Now I'm "yay Ben" again. First i thought he was on about practical application, yay! Then i saw he was, i dunno, a bit of a dogmatist. Then i saw he's making my point. ... The one I'ma make now, about truth, ego, and meaning:
Truth isn't one thing that some people are privy to; it's the reality of everything, articulated. It's not the testimony of one person, or one special class of person; it's everyone, every single one. It's so much that full testimony that the two long distance forces, gravity and magnetism, are the result of relativity: let that sink in. The fabric of spacetime is such that we *all* makes sense *together*. The roll of ego is that we know our place, that each of us know our own place. That's meaning; meaning is place, you are *where* you are. We have sovereign rights of place; and responsibilities too.
In reddit's r/Debatereligion sub the problem of evil comes up constantly: if God is omnipotent, omniscient, and omnibenevolent, then why evil? I've been thinking it's like this: the Father is omnipotent but oblivious; the Son is omniscient (by each of us in our places) and informs the Father; the Holy Spirit is in each of us, and it's the source of the omnibenevolence. We bring the love; the problem of evil is that we look for the solution elsewhere.
I appreciate your second half of your argument . I like what you explain and you may have a point here that I can align my thinking with.
How do you “unify” with pure evil?
The truth is that there is only one religion with multiple messengers and consequently multiple concrete forms or laws.
But the existing religions may not represent the original, rather decayed to either putting partners to God or lost the concepyof God! So today's religions are not on the same foot at all, making talking about commonalities a failure from the beginning. The way is to follow the last revealed words of God and the last messenger; all other ways will certainly mislead the ignorant and stubborn ones
Sorry Zevy, I didn't have the patience to listen to the conversation. With these subjects it has to do with intuitive knowing, not intellectual thinking. Words are supposed to be a pointer, not the Thing itself. Some things must be left for the mystics.
Thank you for your heartfelt feedback 🙏🏼 During the Q&A section of this video we respond to this very criticism.
Is there something spiritually narcissistic about seeing "self in other" endlessly? What if the boundaries of the self stayed where they are phenomenologically for non-mystics and a deep empathy for the other happened in that context that was not an expansion of self but just deep empathy and care from one created being to another. Isn't that a higher level? Its true giving and feeling of an other without making the other part of the self. Allowing full otherness and connection and giving across that space.
Yes! Brilliant insight!
'One Taste, Many Flavors' 😎
ParaDoxically . . .
BOTH 🙏
PerennialPlural 😻
Blessings & Gratitude to Zevi &SOU 😻
- SOUfan soulSOUL
ParaDoxically,
The 'Ego'
is the launchpad to
The 'TransEgoic'
😹
en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Perennial_philosophy