I was raised Catholic, became interested in Hinduism and Buddhism in my 20s, and now at nearly 40 I feel confident in saying this: All rivers lead to the same ocean, every faith tradition is a piece of a grander puzzle, every understanding of the higher power is another glass shard in a universal mosaic. This video is the best summation of what I feel in my heart and for which I find my own words insufficient to describe. Thank you for making this.
How devout of a Christian can you be if you relate to this? Are you agreeing they all point to the same thing? Allah and Jehovah are the same? Or any of the others? How exactly do you relate?
@@PEACE2U-ALL Allah and JVHV are actually the same entity. Quite literally, the koran is just the arab interpretation of what their forefather (Abraham) worshipped. They believe in jesus christ all the same
@@PEACE2U-ALL i think perennial philosophy isnt inherently incompatible with the abrahamic faiths. If youre going strictly by scripture you will eventually get it wrong because words are subject to interpretation. But maybe god doesnt care what you say in your prayers as long as you say them. If you look at the abrahamic faiths through a perennial perspective perhaps all denominations get it right to some degree and the differences between them doesn't really matter in the eye of god?
@@guy2224 oh, it matters. It matters Who Jesus is to Him. He’s a real historical Person. ONE Book/Religion almost over stresses that He is the Savior of mankind and the only way to God. Every other religion/source that mentions Jesus puts Him in any other light EXCEPT as the only way to God, even going out of the way to DENY that part. Jesus is the only name in religion that is against swear words and taking God’s name in vain . . . and the only One Whose Name is used as a swear word. You could almost bet there’s a huge clue in all of that, rather than it JUST being a coincidence, but I could be wrong.
Your point is correct but you’ve left out a crucial point: you didn’t explicitly point out the gap between meister eckhardt and vast majority of practices of Christianity, Sufi and usual practice of Islam, etc. Mystics of all religions “converge”, but the way/practices of all mystics are very different from the practices of people practicing “conventional”/non mystic religion.
Scott, thanks for the comment. I think I understand what you're saying. I'm trying to clarify for myself. Yes, there is a huge gap between conventional religious practices and the practices of the mystics.. In my opinion, this is why: I believe the mystics have it right, they get the insight, and then explain it as best they can (each having their own description). Then, it is interpreted and influenced by different cultures... and over time it is morphed a bit to some degree.. and they come up with their own practices at the outer religious level and these can change over time as well (to a degree). So, at this point, the descriptions/practices are quite diverse. I feel like the core lesson is still in the some of the conventional religious practices, but it is usually very diluted. Many nuances, but that's my understanding in a nutshell. Would you say that the heart of religious teachings: forgiveness, love, compassion, surrender, prayer/meditation/mindfulness are different from what the mystics practiced? I feel like all the mystics focused on those things and many religions still do as well (they just put a lot of metaphors/stories around it). I'm not sure I understand where they are different. Except one thing..I would agree that a lot of conventional religious practices leave out self-inquiry, which I think is very powerful. I'm interested in your input on it. Thanks.
@@wisdom-for-life The mystics in general have some right ideas and some helpful methods e.g. Meister Eckhardt said he liked to be close to god and the closest he could get was silence (something like that). As far as conventional religion, their response to him was to bring him up before the inquisition, he got off 1st time and died before they could bring him up a 2nd time. People come from wildly different places and need very different methods to grow spiritually. 1. REad Sihhartha by Hesse for a representation of the Bhudda's life. HE started out by being selfish, leaving family, etc. That was necessary for his growth. Forgiveness, love, compassion come as a result of spiritual growth and can not be imposed from outside however wonderful COurse in Miracles sounds. 2. Buy Tales of Dervish by Idres Shah (sufi stories) and there are some stories in there which will give you some idea e.g. read "Story of Fire" ( you can google it on find it on the web). The ending is very relevant: "The master said to his disciples: “You have to learn how to teach, for man does not want to be taught. First of all, you will have to teach people how to learn. And before that you have to teach them that there is still something to be learned. They imagine that they are ready to learn. But they want to learn what they imagine is to be learned, not what they have first to learn. When you have learned all this, then you can devise the way to teach. Knowledge without special capacity to teach is not the same as knowledge and capacity.” Real knowledge protects itself and conventional religion is generally not useful for true spiritual growth. I am not a teacher but can point you to some other sources you may find useful if you are interested.
@@Scottlp2 Thank you. Very interesting points. I really like that quote as well “You have to learn how to teach, for man does not want to be taught. First of all, you will have to teach people how to learn. And before that you have to teach them that there is still something to be learned. They imagine that they are ready to learn. But they want to learn what they imagine is to be learned, not what they have first to learn. When you have learned all this, then you can devise the way to teach. Knowledge without special capacity to teach is not the same as knowledge and capacity.” That really nails it. I will check out those books. Thank you again.
@@wisdom-for-life As taught, Perennialism teaches the founders themselves were mystics, and that their mystical experience, can be emulated or experienced. Muhammad, before his Prophethood, used to meditated in a cave where Hanifs (Monotheists) meditated. Buddha found his way, after severe asceticism, when remembering as a 12 year old he had a mystical experience under a tree, long before his Enlightenment. Those experiences are happening to ordinary men, and even children, and that's where the mystical journey begins in all traditions.
Greatly put, the pyramid at 2 minuts. I would just have stopped the swords before the contemplative form, stopped it at the institutionnal and theologian form. It's quite rare that spirituals focused on inner spirituality, its message, teaching it and spreading it fight each others. The swords stays between the institutionnal and theologian forms, and don't cross the line further.. I agree for the rest. To be simple, the spiritual stay focused on the spiritual accomplishment of the human being with main virtuous : love, peace, generosity, courage. All religious dogma contained doctrines about the human realisation, but the institutionnalized forms of religion becomes quickly blind by the dogms that they lost the goal of accomplishment and its quite simple techniques. However, like Frithjof Schuon said "Religion is an adaptation to a certain mentality, to save everybody. With Plato you cannot save everybody. But with religion you can save the last men".
This video really resonates with me 🙏... From my experience/experimentation, I believe psych edelics/mediation/sound frequencies breaks down the barrier between our conscious and subconscious mind, allowing our conscious mind to experience our sub conscious thoughts, feelings and memories..... however I also believe, in our subconscious mind we can access the universal consciousness...... One of my first truly breakthrough experiences, during my own experimentation was this..... the words/feeling/communication I was experiencing, felt as if they were coming from someone/something/somewhere else....... """"" Hey we've been waiting for you.... don't be scared...... don't be scared....... your family is here with us..... you don't really know him well, but he's family, he's family...... it's (then proceeded to tell me a name) he's safe, he's here with us, he's your family don't worry, he's with us"""" 3 days later I was with my mum and we were talking about our family and I was asking if any of my older family members had caught or been effected by c v..... at first she said no.... then after a short pause she said her cousin..... with the same name I had heard/felt/experienced 3 days before had been in a coma for 4 days with pneumonia and died the day after my experience....... I was gobsmacked and instantly began to feel an incredible sadness this was one of the most profound experiences of my life....... I had only ever met the man a few times and never really seen him or his family in my day to day life or on social media as I only use this...... there had been no mention from anyone or way of me knowing about his predicament in the weeks prior. I was a hard-core atheist before this...... now I have a new found sense of........ enlightenment amazement, fascination and desire to discover the world to which is there but we cannot see or experience, not in our normal state anyway. Peace, power and freedom to all the psychonauts out there....
I find this intriguing and agree with some of the points made here. I can relate to it. As for me I didn't leave religion, religion left me. Today I'm somewhere more spiritual than agnosticism, but do not actively practice religion in any way. Somewhat agnostic in the true sense of "I don't know", with elements of Deism and still hold many Christian values I grew up with in high regard even though I never attended a service again after age 18... 30 years ago now. Only been to church for weddings and funerals since then. People like to argue over religion. Which is true, which is false, are any true. Atheist will jokingly say "which God" when you talk about God. I am certainly not atheist, but they have a good point...there are many interpretations floating around out there. So for me it's just plain and simple God. The one and only. The Alpha and the Omega. That's it, no more no less. No rituals needed. No arguing needed. It's just simply a non denominational, non defined, unlimited, eternal, Creator, prime mover, intelligent designer, god, God, whatever you want to call it, you can call it. It's as real as it gets for me, because i don't believe reality could exist without a prime mover. I don't know Gods form, the Abrahamic religions say we took Gods form. Maybe. Maybe not. The universe itself could be God. Or maybe God is somewhere outside it, not subject to it's rules like we are. Someday those of us who pass this little test called life might get a few steps closer to finding out...but I have a feeling it's going to be a very long path.
I thought it was interesting how you left out Moses, the only one "who is said" to have audibly communicated with GOD. El'ohim & Yahweh are two entirely different (things), in my opinion. Peace/Shalom/Salaam!
I would add a different phrase : Common religious people wants to escape hell and go to paradise in hereafter. Spirituals wanted paradise here and now, and escaped from hell : the hell of ego and self praising from sunrise till sunset, because for soufis, christian mystics and kabalistic jews, these days were already hell, or Samsara as putten by hindous.
The Traditionalists (Perennialists), hold that spirituality divorced from religion is not only useless, but dangerous. Rene Guenon wrote whole books condemning neo-spirituality. Religious fundamentalism isn't a good thing, but neither is the other extreme, i.e., new age mush/falling under the influence of powers you don't understand
Religious fundamentalism, as you call it, would only be hell to those who are around it, as in going to church. Everyone else has made it clear for decades that they don’t want “religion” pushed onto them, so it hasn’t been pushed onto them from Christianity. Still, people today keep saying things like “most Christians” and “all religion” (which just means Christianity), even though they don’t visit churches or allow God to be discussed in the workplace, which is STILL evident in the fact that no one can get anything right about Christianity or Biblical content. But that doesn’t stop them from echoing the same false claims over and over. Religious fundamentalism isn’t the problem. Religion isn’t the problem. Complete dishonesty is the problem. It’s not the Christians who are causing society to crumble. They’re not committing all the crimes and murders everywhere. And it’s definitely NOT Christianity that everyone is now running to support and defend so they can hate Israel. Even if Israel WAS responsible for the innocent Palestinian children dying, and not Hamas hiding behind them, pretending to be all about a few thousand innocent children in another country while still murdering millions of your own children year after year, just cannot come off any other way than purely hypocritical. You know, the dishonesty thing that Christians AREN’T doing all the time.
@@candaniel every religion is a bridge to the ultimate truth. if you keep changing bridges, then you won't attain that truth, because the progress in one bridge doesn't necessarily translate to progress in all others. If you change from Islam to Christianity, then you have to adapt a new framework altogether which needs time to get used to and absorb and truly understand
@@somedude000o0oo Maybe we conceptualize religion in different ways. I think the analogy of a 'bridge' to describe religion is not fitting, because it creates the idea that you *need* religion to attain this ultimate Truth that we call God, because a bridge usually bridges two gaps that are not easily traversalble without the bridge. In the case of religion and God, to me, religion is not so much a bridge but rather a way sign. The goal (union with / realization of God) is achievable without religion, but religious language can hypothetically help people achieve it, by pointing towards it. Although that only applies in the ideal scenario, as a lot of religions are ironically very misleading, leading to something like idol worship. But if we leave that to the side, I still don't quite understand what you mean when you speak of "progress". What do we progress towards? I assume you mean progress towards union with / realization of God, but in that case, I also beg to differ that 'progress' is a fitting word. Progress implies a long and arduous process that takes time and effort. And yet knowing God is something that can come to someone within five minutes, while others don't get it in a lifetime. There are funny stories (don't remember if they were zen koans or something different) of people becoming enlightened out of a sudden, while doing mundane daily activities like making a cup of tea. Others, who take spirituality very seriously, might embark on strict religious practices for years and years, to only build a very large spiritual ego, and not come to know God at all. So in that light, how is it a hinderance for me to look into different religions over time, if, as perennialists, we believe that all (or most) religions point to the same ultimate Truth anyways?
I am a little confused because I do understand the idea of perennialism but I fail to see how it would by necessity mean that all religions are equal. As a Catholic, I feel as if Catholicism is synonymous with the ultimate reality that perennialism espouses. Other religions may also come close to it. On the other hand, religions like Judaism cannot be part of this deeper unity from a Christian perspective.
Hi. Not all equal, but I would say that they all point to the same thing - deep mystical experiences, aka awakening/enlightenment. Let's say some religious person, guru, leader or anyone really, experiences this awakening (which is beyond words and description). When they came back to report what happened they will put that into their own words which is completely shaped by culture/beliefs/etc. So, everyone would explain the experience of awakening slightly differently even though awakening is the same experience. Now, what I think happened is that many religions are actually based on this deep mystical experience or enlightenment or whatever you want to call it. It's just been twisted, reinterpreted, and dogmatized to the ground. The deep mystical experiences are buried deep in texts. Many religious practices/texts can get you to enlightenment if you actually follow what they teach (truth telling, clean life, meditation, prayer, etc.). So they are all pointing each of us to the truth of enlightenment via different means and methods... but they are all pointing to the same thing - the absolute truth, God, infinity. They are all showing us different ways to reach the truth. And just a quick side note, the only way to know the truth, is through direct experience, through your own inner world - it cannot be shown to you. Only you can know the truth through direct experience.
The point of that part of the video was to say that everyone and every culture will have a different way to interpret and describe a mystical experience. Alan Watts, along with all of these people, had mystical experiences and described them in their own way. It is only a description though… and based on their particular background. On a personal level, Alan Watts is a prophet to me!
@@wisdom-for-life im not dissing alan watts. i quite like him myself alot! but wasnt alan watts just a teacher and storytelling of eastern faiths primarly like zen buddhism and taoism? himself personally i always assumed otherthen being a former anglican minister. he was a follower practionar of zen. which is awesome. but he was no prophet though. a saintly revered holy person with deep insioghts definatly but not a prophet? atleast not in fullest sense of the word not like siddhsarttha lao tzu or zoroaster or jimmu tenno themselves
@@cuchulain55 Thanks for the comment. Yes, he was more of a teacher of Eastern religion and as you said, he was a practitioner of Zen.. and I think later in life he enjoyed wu wei. But he really claimed no religion. I think all prophets are the same.. they have a mystical experience and then try to describe that experience to other people. The mystical experiences are so mind blowing that people come back and do their best to describe them.. but they can't really be put into words. Some will say God told them one thing, while other prophets say something else. It's all interpretation of something beyond words. Alan Watts had mystical experiences (he talks about them in some of his books) and then he attempts to explain the message (what reality is, what god is, what existence is). To me, he is no different than anyone else who has a deep mystical experience and then tried to describe it and what it means. He was a prophet of the perennial philosophy in my opinion. Though I could see why some people wouldn't agree with me that he is a prophet. Most prophets are like a conduit between us and God. While Watts was no different, his message came across quite differently in that this is God. You are God in disguise. So I think this idea distorts the idea of what a prophet is. I hope my perspective makes sense. Maybe it doesn't though :)
@@wisdom-for-life perhaps i guess. he was definatly a great sage sage of perrenialism no doubt one of many reasons why i love him so much. and a great story teller and sage too.
My religion is called "Wisdom-for-Life-is-totally-wrong-about-absolutely-everything", and it's based on you being wrong. Now, according to you, this (my religion) is at least true to some degree.
But if he's wrong about absolutely everything, then your religion must be false because he would consider it true and he is wrong about everything 😂 It's funny because it's that same kind of logical paradox something like "this sentence is a lie" creates. If the sentence is a lie, then it's the truth because it's lying by saying it's a lie, therefore making it true, but how can it be true if it is claiming to be a lie 🤯
I would honestly include atheism/scientism in this as well. Because they're also seeking the absolute, and they believe they have the means to do it, just like all the other religions.
You are absolutely right about scientism and I could also (to a lesser degree) agree about atheism. Maybe you could explain a little more to help clarify. Thanks for your comment!
They are included in the triangle towards the end (tribal, etc). I think I included a footnote about other religions being included as well but I can’t list every religion. But yes, most religions are valid IMO.
Every religion is a retelling of the same story, that story is nothing more than the sun's ecliptic path and all the star signs associated. Astronomy and Astrology is the root origin of every religion ever created.
I respectfully disagree since some of these religions are absolutely mutually exclusive to one another on their means and what their definition of divine ends look like. For example, gnosticism would have you believe that all material reality is evil to the point of ceasing all bodily function including sexual reproduction to the point where the idea of extinction of the human race becomes an ultimate virtue. While traditional Christianity is about Heaven and Earth meeting through Jesus Christ, who bore the sin of the world so that its resurrected back to the way God intended in His image.
Hey Connor, I agree that some smaller religions have other ideas, etc... but as far as the major religions go, I would say that they are all pointing toward the same thing (at their very core). The doctrines and interpretations of the divine are very diverse because the divine can't be defined.
This makes absolutely no sense. How do you reconcile areas in which religions are diametrically opposed to each other?? Is there life after death or not? Is there reincarnation or a judgement day? Is Jesus a Prophet or the son of God? Is there one God or many? What happens after death? There is an objective truth. Someone is right and someone is wrong. Use your brain people.
A lot of the differences are due to the interpretation of the unexplainable. When you go deeper into what religions are really saying (mystical experiences and absolute truth), what they are saying is very similar (I’m not talking about surface level interpretations like reincarnation and many gods). Go read Perennial Philosophy if interested in learning more. This is just a very brief 3 minute video which doesn’t cover those finer details.
@@wisdom-for-life Thanks for replying but how is the notion of a monotheistic God vs. polytheism vs. no God surface level??!? These are the prime, core tenants of some religions. Hardly surface level. How is the reality of the afterlife surface level?!?? Religions (or lack thereof) don't all share the same end goal. Neither do they share values of morality. Certain religions like Islam make absolute truth claims in their books that they (and they alone) are correct - using evidence. Atheism also makes truth claims using evidence and asserts that religions are nonsense. These evidences should be weighed based on merit to assert the truth (or lack thereof). The existence of a monotheistic God is not unexplainable. It's not simply a matter of pure, blind belief built upon a nonsensical post-modernist mindset that there is no objective reality or real truth. If that were the case, then arguments such as as the kalam cosmological argument, and teleological argument (intelligent design) would not exist. Let's take the example of religion and alcohol. Some religions such as Islam forbid alcohol and see it as sinful or negative. Others have allocated a specific place for it, such as in the Christian practice of using wine during the Eucharist rite. In Vajrayana Buddhism, particularly in Tibetan Buddhist practices, alcohol may be used during specific rituals, such as the Ganachakra feast. This ritual involves the consumption of alcohol in a controlled manner, symbolizing the transformation of negative emotions and attachments into wisdom and compassion. In the Shinto religion of Japan, sake, a rice wine, plays a significant role in religious ceremonies and rituals. Sake is often used as an offering to the kami (gods) during Shinto rituals, symbolizing purification and the establishment of a sacred space. Additionally, the sharing of sake between participants in a Shinto ceremony is seen as a means of fostering friendship and strengthening the bonds within the community. In Jewish tradition, wine holds an essential place in various religious rituals and celebrations. Wine is used during the Sabbath and festival meals as part of the Kiddush blessing, which sanctifies the day and acknowledges the sanctity of the occasion. In Taoist rituals and practices, alcohol also plays a role as an offering and a means of connecting with the divine. Now my question is how exactly are these religions saying the "same thing" about the morality of alcohol consumption or even it's role in "mysticism"?? They are not leading you to the same end or absolute truth. As mentioned above, in certain religions, alcohol plays a positive role in spirituality, whereas in Islam, Jainism, and the Bahai faith it is forbidden, and considered blameworthy and immoral. In Islam, one who consumes it without repentance is deserving of punishment in hellfire. Hardly the same "mystical experience".
@@tinyrockyplanet8953 The issue of contradiction between religions is one that you've still failed to address - and perennial philosophy as a whole fails to address. You can live your best life by believing judgement day is every day, sure. But by what moral standard or compass?? Even if one were to remove the element of life after death, you will STILL find contradictions in the 'best way to live' among philosophies. One might consider a relationship of a same-sex nature to be spiritually fulfilling and yet another may have a negative experience filled with regret and disease. Person A was led to a positive spiritual experience in this realm whereas person B was led to destruction. Certain religions in the past believed blood sacrifices were a means to spiritual attainment. There are so many more examples I can cite - although I can almost guarantee you will dismiss them as 'surface level' or 'trivial' or 'insignificant details'. The problem is that they are not. Again, on what grounds are you basing your morality?
None of those things you name are ends in and of themselves. They are means. It is perfectly possible for there to be multiple symbols (means) of the same things (ends).
What utter nonsense!!! We all experience similar life experiences so we imagine similar things! That’s why people imagine aliens with heads and arms and legs! It’s because we can’t imagine past that on the whole
Nonsense. This is a typical intellectual abstraction of the phenomenon of religion, which has nothing to do with the reality of its peculiarities: Where is agreement between self-salvation and savior? What do the son of man Buddha and the son of God Jesus have in common? The one a child of his own spirit, the other God himself? What has the impersonal principle Brahman to do with the personal God who created the world purposely? Man did not create religion, but God Himself is the object of His religion, who dictated His will into man's pen. There are no two mystics who report the same visions. Mysticism is not the core of all religions, but their destruction.
Catholicism, in particular (and I'm confident other faiths have something like this as well), has a tinge of "Perrenialism" already built within it. The Catholic church believes God created everyone from every race and culture, so we are all made with the same desire for God and union with the divine. These strong, latent desires manifest in the origin of religious faiths of various different kinds. So, a common phrase used to describe what is true in other religions (in Catholic terminology) is that they contain "shards of truth." This phenomenon doesn't exist by dumb chance, but it happens because every human being was created by the God of all and built with a desire for transcendence (to know Him). So, all in all, I'm not sure there is a binary choice between the idea of all religions being either all true or all false. Why can't one faith's revelations be "the fullness" of Truth, and the other faiths "not as true." Clearly, the strict Perrenialist would already admit some religious faiths are "more true" than others by using objective measurements by examining their claims and practices.
The idea that worshipping idols leads to "the absolute" truth in the same way that worshipping One God does is foolish. So reject their idols and worship Allah - the only One who is absolute.
@@CA-jz9bm Jews take their rabbis as Lords. Christians claim God is three persons - one of them a Jewish man. Buddhists are atheists, the most vile kind of pagan. Only Islam brings pure monotheism, which is rejecting all idols and submitting only to Allah. This is the religion of all the Prophets and no other religion of today will be accepted. Allah said: " Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allāh]. And he was not of the idol worshippers. مَا كَانَ إِبْرَٰهِيمُ يَهُودِيًّۭا وَلَا نَصْرَانِيًّۭا وَلَـٰكِن كَانَ حَنِيفًۭا مُّسْلِمًۭا وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ ٦٧ Indeed, the most worthy of Abraham among the people are those who followed him [in submission to Allāh] and this prophet [i.e., Muḥammad (ﷺ)] and those who believe [in his message]. And Allāh is the Ally1 of the believers..." إِنَّ أَوْلَى ٱلنَّاسِ بِإِبْرَٰهِيمَ لَلَّذِينَ ٱتَّبَعُوهُ وَهَـٰذَا ٱلنَّبِىُّ وَٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ ۗ وَٱللَّهُ وَلِىُّ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ ٦٨ So its no wonder from the religions you mentioned Islam is the only one which literally means submission to the one God. All the other religions you mentioned are named after people, because they worship men or they try to make themselves into gods or both.
@@CA-jz9bm Yes they all worship idols. If you say no, you either dont understand Tawhid (pure monotheism) - or you dont understand those three religions which you claim are not pagan. Either way Im free from you and all you worship besides Allah. Both in this life and the next.
![A Problem With My Religion - (in defense of Perennialism) [Esoteric Saturdays]](/img/n.gif)
Severely underrated. Get it together, UA-cam Algorithm.
Ha.. Thanks Stephen. I don't think a lot of people have even heard of the perennial philosophy. Wish I heard about it when I was younger.
I was raised Catholic, became interested in Hinduism and Buddhism in my 20s, and now at nearly 40 I feel confident in saying this: All rivers lead to the same ocean, every faith tradition is a piece of a grander puzzle, every understanding of the higher power is another glass shard in a universal mosaic. This video is the best summation of what I feel in my heart and for which I find my own words insufficient to describe. Thank you for making this.
Thank you. I went down a similar path!
Perfect overview. That was exactly what I needed. Thank you
I am a devout Christian and I take my faith in God seriously. As a personal philosophy I can totally relate to this.
How devout of a Christian can you be if you relate to this?
Are you agreeing they all point to the same thing? Allah and Jehovah are the same? Or any of the others?
How exactly do you relate?
@@PEACE2U-ALL Allah and JVHV are actually the same entity. Quite literally, the koran is just the arab interpretation of what their forefather (Abraham) worshipped. They believe in jesus christ all the same
@@swagsukeuchiha7599 quite literally a bunch of nonsense when one says he doesn’t have a son and One says He does. That would be the real One.
@@PEACE2U-ALL i think perennial philosophy isnt inherently incompatible with the abrahamic faiths. If youre going strictly by scripture you will eventually get it wrong because words are subject to interpretation. But maybe god doesnt care what you say in your prayers as long as you say them. If you look at the abrahamic faiths through a perennial perspective perhaps all denominations get it right to some degree and the differences between them doesn't really matter in the eye of god?
@@guy2224 oh, it matters. It matters Who Jesus is to Him.
He’s a real historical Person.
ONE Book/Religion almost over stresses that He is the Savior of mankind and the only way to God.
Every other religion/source that mentions Jesus puts Him in any other light EXCEPT as the only way to God, even going out of the way to DENY that part.
Jesus is the only name in religion that is against swear words and taking God’s name in vain . . . and the only One Whose Name is used as a swear word.
You could almost bet there’s a huge clue in all of that, rather than it JUST being a coincidence, but I could be wrong.
Only the Absolute is absolute.
Absolutely
How sure are you?
3 minutes of understanding that most people never learn in a lifetime. Thank you!!
Thank you for this brilliant visual summary!
Your point is correct but you’ve left out a crucial point: you didn’t explicitly point out the gap between meister eckhardt and vast majority of practices of Christianity, Sufi and usual practice of Islam, etc. Mystics of all religions “converge”, but the way/practices of all mystics are very different from the practices of people practicing “conventional”/non mystic religion.
Scott, thanks for the comment. I think I understand what you're saying. I'm trying to clarify for myself. Yes, there is a huge gap between conventional religious practices and the practices of the mystics.. In my opinion, this is why:
I believe the mystics have it right, they get the insight, and then explain it as best they can (each having their own description).
Then, it is interpreted and influenced by different cultures... and over time it is morphed a bit to some degree.. and they come up with their own practices at the outer religious level and these can change over time as well (to a degree). So, at this point, the descriptions/practices are quite diverse. I feel like the core lesson is still in the some of the conventional religious practices, but it is usually very diluted.
Many nuances, but that's my understanding in a nutshell.
Would you say that the heart of religious teachings: forgiveness, love, compassion, surrender, prayer/meditation/mindfulness are different from what the mystics practiced? I feel like all the mystics focused on those things and many religions still do as well (they just put a lot of metaphors/stories around it). I'm not sure I understand where they are different. Except one thing..I would agree that a lot of conventional religious practices leave out self-inquiry, which I think is very powerful. I'm interested in your input on it. Thanks.
@@wisdom-for-life The mystics in general have some right ideas and some helpful methods e.g. Meister Eckhardt said he liked to be close to god and the closest he could get was silence (something like that). As far as conventional religion, their response to him was to bring him up before the inquisition, he got off 1st time and died before they could bring him up a 2nd time. People come from wildly different places and need very different methods to grow spiritually. 1. REad Sihhartha by Hesse for a representation of the Bhudda's life. HE started out by being selfish, leaving family, etc. That was necessary for his growth. Forgiveness, love, compassion come as a result of spiritual growth and can not be imposed from outside however wonderful COurse in Miracles sounds. 2. Buy Tales of Dervish by Idres Shah (sufi stories) and there are some stories in there which will give you some idea e.g. read "Story of Fire" ( you can google it on find it on the web). The ending is very relevant:
"The master said to his disciples:
“You have to learn how to teach, for man does not want to be taught. First of all, you will have to teach people how to learn. And before that you have to teach them that there is still something to be learned. They imagine that they are ready to learn. But they want to learn what they imagine is to be learned, not what they have first to learn. When you have learned all this, then you can devise the way to teach. Knowledge without special capacity to teach is not the same as knowledge and capacity.”
Real knowledge protects itself and conventional religion is generally not useful for true spiritual growth. I am not a teacher but can point you to some other sources you may find useful if you are interested.
@@Scottlp2 Thank you. Very interesting points. I really like that quote as well
“You have to learn how to teach, for man does not want to be taught. First of all, you will have to teach people how to learn. And before that you have to teach them that there is still something to be learned. They imagine that they are ready to learn. But they want to learn what they imagine is to be learned, not what they have first to learn. When you have learned all this, then you can devise the way to teach. Knowledge without special capacity to teach is not the same as knowledge and capacity.”
That really nails it. I will check out those books. Thank you again.
@@wisdom-for-life As taught, Perennialism teaches the founders themselves were mystics, and that their mystical experience, can be emulated or experienced. Muhammad, before his Prophethood, used to meditated in a cave where Hanifs (Monotheists) meditated. Buddha found his way, after severe asceticism, when remembering as a 12 year old he had a mystical experience under a tree, long before his Enlightenment. Those experiences are happening to ordinary men, and even children, and that's where the mystical journey begins in all traditions.
Greatly put, the pyramid at 2 minuts. I would just have stopped the swords before the contemplative form, stopped it at the institutionnal and theologian form. It's quite rare that spirituals focused on inner spirituality, its message, teaching it and spreading it fight each others. The swords stays between the institutionnal and theologian forms, and don't cross the line further..
I agree for the rest. To be simple, the spiritual stay focused on the spiritual accomplishment of the human being with main virtuous : love, peace, generosity, courage. All religious dogma contained doctrines about the human realisation, but the institutionnalized forms of religion becomes quickly blind by the dogms that they lost the goal of accomplishment and its quite simple techniques. However, like Frithjof Schuon said "Religion is an adaptation to a certain mentality, to save everybody. With Plato you cannot save everybody. But with religion you can save the last men".
This is so good a video introducing me to Perennial Philiosphy. Thank you.
Reading through the Perennial Philosophy was a lengthy trek, but glad I did it! Thanks for the brief summary
This video really resonates with me 🙏...
From my experience/experimentation, I believe psych edelics/mediation/sound frequencies breaks down the barrier between our conscious and subconscious mind, allowing our conscious mind to experience our sub conscious thoughts, feelings and memories..... however I also believe, in our subconscious mind we can access the universal consciousness......
One of my first truly breakthrough experiences, during my own experimentation was this..... the words/feeling/communication I was experiencing, felt as if they were coming from someone/something/somewhere else.......
""""" Hey we've been waiting for you.... don't be scared...... don't be scared....... your family is here with us..... you don't really know him well, but he's family, he's family...... it's (then proceeded to tell me a name) he's safe, he's here with us, he's your family don't worry, he's with us""""
3 days later I was with my mum and we were talking about our family and I was asking if any of my older family members had caught or been effected by c v..... at first she said no.... then after a short pause she said her cousin..... with the same name I had heard/felt/experienced 3 days before had been in a coma for 4 days with pneumonia and died the day after my experience....... I was gobsmacked and instantly began to feel an incredible sadness this was one of the most profound experiences of my life....... I had only ever met the man a few times and never really seen him or his family in my day to day life or on social media as I only use this...... there had been no mention from anyone or way of me knowing about his predicament in the weeks prior.
I was a hard-core atheist before this...... now I have a new found sense of........ enlightenment amazement, fascination and desire to discover the world to which is there but we cannot see or experience, not in our normal state anyway.
Peace, power and freedom to all the psychonauts out there....
Well summarized
Thank you!
R u guys David r Hawkins readers by chance?
Needs more views!
Thanks for the video.
You are welcome! Thanks for stopping by.
Thank you!
Many native Americans were monotheistic which is rarely talked about
Great great video man! Love how succinct but well explained it is.
Hey, thanks man!
I find this intriguing and agree with some of the points made here. I can relate to it. As for me I didn't leave religion, religion left me. Today I'm somewhere more spiritual than agnosticism, but do not actively practice religion in any way. Somewhat agnostic in the true sense of "I don't know", with elements of Deism and still hold many Christian values I grew up with in high regard even though I never attended a service again after age 18...
30 years ago now. Only been to church for weddings and funerals since then.
People like to argue over religion. Which is true, which is false, are any true. Atheist will jokingly say "which God" when you talk about God. I am certainly not atheist, but they have a good point...there are many interpretations floating around out there. So for me it's just plain and simple God. The one and only. The Alpha and the Omega. That's it, no more no less. No rituals needed. No arguing needed. It's just simply a non denominational, non defined, unlimited, eternal, Creator, prime mover, intelligent designer, god, God, whatever you want to call it, you can call it. It's as real as it gets for me, because i don't believe reality could exist without a prime mover. I don't know Gods form, the Abrahamic religions say we took Gods form. Maybe. Maybe not. The universe itself could be God. Or maybe God is somewhere outside it, not subject to it's rules like we are. Someday those of us who pass this little test called life might get a few steps closer to finding out...but I have a feeling it's going to be a very long path.
Different paths to the same destination. Yet there's people on here commenting that their path is best. How many wars have been started over religion?
It's not that one path is better than another, there is ONLY ONE PATH. Christ.
Wars have been started over many different reasons.
I thought it was interesting how you left out Moses, the only one "who is said" to have audibly communicated with GOD.
El'ohim & Yahweh are two entirely different (things), in my opinion.
Peace/Shalom/Salaam!
When you cross-fertilise all religions there is much you can learn.
7 Absolute Monarchs
7 Rays of Light
🌈
great vid
Amazing!!
Religion is for people who fear going to hell, spirituality is for those of us who have been to hell - often because of religious fundamentalism
That's pretty good! I think religion can be helpful, but you have to move beyond it at a certain point. It can only point the way.
I would add a different phrase : Common religious people wants to escape hell and go to paradise in hereafter. Spirituals wanted paradise here and now, and escaped from hell : the hell of ego and self praising from sunrise till sunset, because for soufis, christian mystics and kabalistic jews, these days were already hell, or Samsara as putten by hindous.
Truth!
The Traditionalists (Perennialists), hold that spirituality divorced from religion is not only useless, but dangerous. Rene Guenon wrote whole books condemning neo-spirituality. Religious fundamentalism isn't a good thing, but neither is the other extreme, i.e., new age mush/falling under the influence of powers you don't understand
Religious fundamentalism, as you call it, would only be hell to those who are around it, as in going to church.
Everyone else has made it clear for decades that they don’t want “religion” pushed onto them, so it hasn’t been pushed onto them from Christianity.
Still, people today keep saying things like “most Christians” and “all religion” (which just means Christianity), even though they don’t visit churches or allow God to be discussed in the workplace, which is STILL evident in the fact that no one can get anything right about Christianity or Biblical content. But that doesn’t stop them from echoing the same false claims over and over.
Religious fundamentalism isn’t the problem.
Religion isn’t the problem.
Complete dishonesty is the problem.
It’s not the Christians who are causing society to crumble. They’re not committing all the crimes and murders everywhere.
And it’s definitely NOT Christianity that everyone is now running to support and defend so they can hate Israel.
Even if Israel WAS responsible for the innocent Palestinian children dying, and not Hamas hiding behind them, pretending to be all about a few thousand innocent children in another country while still murdering millions of your own children year after year, just cannot come off any other way than purely hypocritical.
You know, the dishonesty thing that Christians AREN’T doing all the time.
It needs to be more emphasized that one has to stick with one path otherwise he will not make any progress, but good video nonetheless.
What do you mean by not making progress, and why wouldn't that be possible?
@@candaniel every religion is a bridge to the ultimate truth. if you keep changing bridges, then you won't attain that truth, because the progress in one bridge doesn't necessarily translate to progress in all others. If you change from Islam to Christianity, then you have to adapt a new framework altogether which needs time to get used to and absorb and truly understand
@@somedude000o0oo Maybe we conceptualize religion in different ways. I think the analogy of a 'bridge' to describe religion is not fitting, because it creates the idea that you *need* religion to attain this ultimate Truth that we call God, because a bridge usually bridges two gaps that are not easily traversalble without the bridge.
In the case of religion and God, to me, religion is not so much a bridge but rather a way sign. The goal (union with / realization of God) is achievable without religion, but religious language can hypothetically help people achieve it, by pointing towards it. Although that only applies in the ideal scenario, as a lot of religions are ironically very misleading, leading to something like idol worship.
But if we leave that to the side, I still don't quite understand what you mean when you speak of "progress". What do we progress towards?
I assume you mean progress towards union with / realization of God, but in that case, I also beg to differ that 'progress' is a fitting word. Progress implies a long and arduous process that takes time and effort.
And yet knowing God is something that can come to someone within five minutes, while others don't get it in a lifetime. There are funny stories (don't remember if they were zen koans or something different) of people becoming enlightened out of a sudden, while doing mundane daily activities like making a cup of tea. Others, who take spirituality very seriously, might embark on strict religious practices for years and years, to only build a very large spiritual ego, and not come to know God at all.
So in that light, how is it a hinderance for me to look into different religions over time, if, as perennialists, we believe that all (or most) religions point to the same ultimate Truth anyways?
@@somedude000o0oo Actually, I changed my mind.
@@candaniel cool
I am a little confused because I do understand the idea of perennialism but I fail to see how it would by necessity mean that all religions are equal. As a Catholic, I feel as if Catholicism is synonymous with the ultimate reality that perennialism espouses. Other religions may also come close to it. On the other hand, religions like Judaism cannot be part of this deeper unity from a Christian perspective.
Hi. Not all equal, but I would say that they all point to the same thing - deep mystical experiences, aka awakening/enlightenment. Let's say some religious person, guru, leader or anyone really, experiences this awakening (which is beyond words and description). When they came back to report what happened they will put that into their own words which is completely shaped by culture/beliefs/etc. So, everyone would explain the experience of awakening slightly differently even though awakening is the same experience. Now, what I think happened is that many religions are actually based on this deep mystical experience or enlightenment or whatever you want to call it. It's just been twisted, reinterpreted, and dogmatized to the ground. The deep mystical experiences are buried deep in texts. Many religious practices/texts can get you to enlightenment if you actually follow what they teach (truth telling, clean life, meditation, prayer, etc.). So they are all pointing each of us to the truth of enlightenment via different means and methods... but they are all pointing to the same thing - the absolute truth, God, infinity. They are all showing us different ways to reach the truth. And just a quick side note, the only way to know the truth, is through direct experience, through your own inner world - it cannot be shown to you. Only you can know the truth through direct experience.
Yet still, this channel makes use of the symbol of the materialist worship of an isolated bodily organ in its logo.
"Nirvana is just another name for Union with God"
says who?
why is the a picture of alan watts? he isnt a religion or prophet?
The point of that part of the video was to say that everyone and every culture will have a different way to interpret and describe a mystical experience. Alan Watts, along with all of these people, had mystical experiences and described them in their own way. It is only a description though… and based on their particular background.
On a personal level, Alan Watts is a prophet to me!
@@wisdom-for-life im not dissing alan watts. i quite like him myself alot! but wasnt alan watts just a teacher and storytelling of eastern faiths primarly like zen buddhism and taoism? himself personally i always assumed otherthen being a former anglican minister. he was a follower practionar of zen. which is awesome. but he was no prophet though. a saintly revered holy person with deep insioghts definatly but not a prophet?
atleast not in fullest sense of the word not like siddhsarttha lao tzu or zoroaster or jimmu tenno themselves
@@wisdom-for-life alan watts himself was buddhist i always assumed. who had a deep understanding other paths as well.
@@cuchulain55 Thanks for the comment. Yes, he was more of a teacher of Eastern religion and as you said, he was a practitioner of Zen.. and I think later in life he enjoyed wu wei. But he really claimed no religion.
I think all prophets are the same.. they have a mystical experience and then try to describe that experience to other people. The mystical experiences are so mind blowing that people come back and do their best to describe them.. but they can't really be put into words. Some will say God told them one thing, while other prophets say something else. It's all interpretation of something beyond words. Alan Watts had mystical experiences (he talks about them in some of his books) and then he attempts to explain the message (what reality is, what god is, what existence is). To me, he is no different than anyone else who has a deep mystical experience and then tried to describe it and what it means. He was a prophet of the perennial philosophy in my opinion.
Though I could see why some people wouldn't agree with me that he is a prophet. Most prophets are like a conduit between us and God. While Watts was no different, his message came across quite differently in that this is God. You are God in disguise. So I think this idea distorts the idea of what a prophet is. I hope my perspective makes sense. Maybe it doesn't though :)
@@wisdom-for-life perhaps i guess. he was definatly a great sage sage of perrenialism no doubt one of many reasons why i love him so much. and a great story teller and sage too.
This rules
Thanks! 🙏
My religion is called "Wisdom-for-Life-is-totally-wrong-about-absolutely-everything", and it's based on you being wrong. Now, according to you, this (my religion) is at least true to some degree.
But if he's wrong about absolutely everything, then your religion must be false because he would consider it true and he is wrong about everything 😂
It's funny because it's that same kind of logical paradox something like "this sentence is a lie" creates. If the sentence is a lie, then it's the truth because it's lying by saying it's a lie, therefore making it true, but how can it be true if it is claiming to be a lie 🤯
💖💖💖
Thanks Kathy!
I would honestly include atheism/scientism in this as well. Because they're also seeking the absolute, and they believe they have the means to do it, just like all the other religions.
You are absolutely right about scientism and I could also (to a lesser degree) agree about atheism. Maybe you could explain a little more to help clarify. Thanks for your comment!
Why does it matter if belief in religion leads to conflict?
👏👏👏
Where are the African religions? Yes, shamanism and animism but also the Ethiopian and Egyptian religions.
They are included in the triangle towards the end (tribal, etc). I think I included a footnote about other religions being included as well but I can’t list every religion. But yes, most religions are valid IMO.
Every religion is a retelling of the same story, that story is nothing more than the sun's ecliptic path and all the star signs associated. Astronomy and Astrology is the root origin of every religion ever created.
Now look into this yourself, and you’ll see how wrong this is. All roads do NOT lead to Rome.
Nice! Here's a related video. "48 - The Perennial Philosophy" ua-cam.com/video/X41SNCVCwc8/v-deo.html
I respectfully disagree since some of these religions are absolutely mutually exclusive to one another on their means and what their definition of divine ends look like.
For example, gnosticism would have you believe that all material reality is evil to the point of ceasing all bodily function including sexual reproduction to the point where the idea of extinction of the human race becomes an ultimate virtue. While traditional Christianity is about Heaven and Earth meeting through Jesus Christ, who bore the sin of the world so that its resurrected back to the way God intended in His image.
Hey Connor, I agree that some smaller religions have other ideas, etc... but as far as the major religions go, I would say that they are all pointing toward the same thing (at their very core). The doctrines and interpretations of the divine are very diverse because the divine can't be defined.
Prisca theologia
promo sm 😆
Can you clarify your comment.. not sure I'm tracking.
prophet of mohamed isthe best 👌 one and his religion is the powerful
Gross
They are all powerful. They are all pointing to the same thing.
This makes absolutely no sense. How do you reconcile areas in which religions are diametrically opposed to each other?? Is there life after death or not? Is there reincarnation or a judgement day? Is Jesus a Prophet or the son of God? Is there one God or many? What happens after death?
There is an objective truth. Someone is right and someone is wrong. Use your brain people.
A lot of the differences are due to the interpretation of the unexplainable. When you go deeper into what religions are really saying (mystical experiences and absolute truth), what they are saying is very similar (I’m not talking about surface level interpretations like reincarnation and many gods). Go read Perennial Philosophy if interested in learning more. This is just a very brief 3 minute video which doesn’t cover those finer details.
@@wisdom-for-life Thanks for replying but how is the notion of a monotheistic God vs. polytheism vs. no God surface level??!? These are the prime, core tenants of some religions. Hardly surface level. How is the reality of the afterlife surface level?!??
Religions (or lack thereof) don't all share the same end goal. Neither do they share values of morality. Certain religions like Islam make absolute truth claims in their books that they (and they alone) are correct - using evidence. Atheism also makes truth claims using evidence and asserts that religions are nonsense. These evidences should be weighed based on merit to assert the truth (or lack thereof).
The existence of a monotheistic God is not unexplainable. It's not simply a matter of pure, blind belief built upon a nonsensical post-modernist mindset that there is no objective reality or real truth. If that were the case, then arguments such as as the kalam cosmological argument, and teleological argument (intelligent design) would not exist.
Let's take the example of religion and alcohol. Some religions such as Islam forbid alcohol and see it as sinful or negative. Others have allocated a specific place for it, such as in the Christian practice of using wine during the Eucharist rite. In Vajrayana Buddhism, particularly in Tibetan Buddhist practices, alcohol may be used during specific rituals, such as the Ganachakra feast. This ritual involves the consumption of alcohol in a controlled manner, symbolizing the transformation of negative emotions and attachments into wisdom and compassion. In the Shinto religion of Japan, sake, a rice wine, plays a significant role in religious ceremonies and rituals. Sake is often used as an offering to the kami (gods) during Shinto rituals, symbolizing purification and the establishment of a sacred space. Additionally, the sharing of sake between participants in a Shinto ceremony is seen as a means of fostering friendship and strengthening the bonds within the community. In Jewish tradition, wine holds an essential place in various religious rituals and celebrations. Wine is used during the Sabbath and festival meals as part of the Kiddush blessing, which sanctifies the day and acknowledges the sanctity of the occasion. In Taoist rituals and practices, alcohol also plays a role as an offering and a means of connecting with the divine.
Now my question is how exactly are these religions saying the "same thing" about the morality of alcohol consumption or even it's role in "mysticism"?? They are not leading you to the same end or absolute truth. As mentioned above, in certain religions, alcohol plays a positive role in spirituality, whereas in Islam, Jainism, and the Bahai faith it is forbidden, and considered blameworthy and immoral. In Islam, one who consumes it without repentance is deserving of punishment in hellfire. Hardly the same "mystical experience".
@@tinyrockyplanet8953 The issue of contradiction between religions is one that you've still failed to address - and perennial philosophy as a whole fails to address.
You can live your best life by believing judgement day is every day, sure. But by what moral standard or compass??
Even if one were to remove the element of life after death, you will STILL find contradictions in the 'best way to live' among philosophies. One might consider a relationship of a same-sex nature to be spiritually fulfilling and yet another may have a negative experience filled with regret and disease. Person A was led to a positive spiritual experience in this realm whereas person B was led to destruction. Certain religions in the past believed blood sacrifices were a means to spiritual attainment. There are so many more examples I can cite - although I can almost guarantee you will dismiss them as 'surface level' or 'trivial' or 'insignificant details'. The problem is that they are not.
Again, on what grounds are you basing your morality?
None of those things you name are ends in and of themselves. They are means. It is perfectly possible for there to be multiple symbols (means) of the same things (ends).
@@Christianity_and_Perennialism what is an example of an "end" according to you? and what is an example of a "means" according to you?
What utter nonsense!!! We all experience similar life experiences so we imagine similar things!
That’s why people imagine aliens with heads and arms and legs! It’s because we can’t imagine past that on the whole
Only Islam is the truth.
It is one aspect of the truth. There are many ways to see and interpret the truth.
A superficial analysis.
It’s only 3 minutes my friend! :)
Nonsense. This is a typical intellectual abstraction of the phenomenon of religion, which has nothing to do with the reality of its peculiarities: Where is agreement between self-salvation and savior? What do the son of man Buddha and the son of God Jesus have in common? The one a child of his own spirit, the other God himself? What has the impersonal principle Brahman to do with the personal God who created the world purposely? Man did not create religion, but God Himself is the object of His religion, who dictated His will into man's pen. There are no two mystics who report the same visions. Mysticism is not the core of all religions, but their destruction.
Islam is the only way to God , you miss it and you are in trouble
oh well
Religious is worst things created by human
Yes and no.. It's a paradox, just like everything else in the universe.
Catholicism, in particular (and I'm confident other faiths have something like this as well), has a tinge of "Perrenialism" already built within it. The Catholic church believes God created everyone from every race and culture, so we are all made with the same desire for God and union with the divine. These strong, latent desires manifest in the origin of religious faiths of various different kinds. So, a common phrase used to describe what is true in other religions (in Catholic terminology) is that they contain "shards of truth." This phenomenon doesn't exist by dumb chance, but it happens because every human being was created by the God of all and built with a desire for transcendence (to know Him). So, all in all, I'm not sure there is a binary choice between the idea of all religions being either all true or all false. Why can't one faith's revelations be "the fullness" of Truth, and the other faiths "not as true." Clearly, the strict Perrenialist would already admit some religious faiths are "more true" than others by using objective measurements by examining their claims and practices.
The idea that worshipping idols leads to "the absolute" truth in the same way that worshipping One God does is foolish. So reject their idols and worship Allah - the only One who is absolute.
Jews do not worship idols neither do Christians, neither do zen Buddhist etc
On that bases No reason to chose Islam over any other religion
@@CA-jz9bm Jews take their rabbis as Lords. Christians claim God is three persons - one of them a Jewish man.
Buddhists are atheists, the most vile kind of pagan.
Only Islam brings pure monotheism, which is rejecting all idols and submitting only to Allah. This is the religion of all the Prophets and no other religion of today will be accepted. Allah said:
" Abraham was neither a Jew nor a Christian, but he was one inclining toward truth, a Muslim [submitting to Allāh]. And he was not of the idol worshippers.
مَا كَانَ إِبْرَٰهِيمُ يَهُودِيًّۭا وَلَا نَصْرَانِيًّۭا وَلَـٰكِن كَانَ حَنِيفًۭا مُّسْلِمًۭا وَمَا كَانَ مِنَ ٱلْمُشْرِكِينَ ٦٧
Indeed, the most worthy of Abraham among the people are those who followed him [in submission to Allāh] and this prophet [i.e., Muḥammad (ﷺ)] and those who believe [in his message]. And Allāh is the Ally1 of the believers..."
إِنَّ أَوْلَى ٱلنَّاسِ بِإِبْرَٰهِيمَ لَلَّذِينَ ٱتَّبَعُوهُ وَهَـٰذَا ٱلنَّبِىُّ وَٱلَّذِينَ ءَامَنُوا۟ ۗ وَٱللَّهُ وَلِىُّ ٱلْمُؤْمِنِينَ ٦٨
So its no wonder from the religions you mentioned Islam is the only one which literally means submission to the one God.
All the other religions you mentioned are named after people, because they worship men or they try to make themselves into gods or both.
@@CA-jz9bm Yes they all worship idols. If you say no, you either dont understand Tawhid (pure monotheism) - or you dont understand those three religions which you claim are not pagan.
Either way Im free from you and all you worship besides Allah. Both in this life and the next.
@@MiloBoz what idols do Jews worship?
@@MiloBozcalling another religion "vile" is enough to tell me that not only are you an ignorant and hateful person, you're not even a true Muslim