The Transcendent Unity of Religions

In trying to comprehend God, whether in a personal sense or as in Panendeism, it is natural to assume that comprehension occurs on our level of understanding. It seems unnatural to assume that comprehension is not a matter of learning more knowledge but of acquiring the being necessary for understanding.

Frithjof Schuon's book "The Transcendent Unity of Religions" describes how comprehension which I believe is closer to Panendeism becomes complete when man reaches transcendent understanding. This means of course that all the argument on the exoteric level is much ado about nothing and debates about partial truths. Understanding begins at the esoteric level and develops into the transcendent level. Really quite interesting

Thomas McFarland uses a diagram for clarification and offers food for thought

http://www.integralscience.org/unity.html

It is really sad how many religious wars have been fought over nothing and only served to degrade religious meaning.

I don't think it degrades religious meaning at all, in fact it gives religion meaning.

War and destruction is the primary human endeavor, it is utter folly to imagine us as peaceful beings beset into war by misunderstanding, misinterpretation, or philosophical pettiness.

Humans make war because that's what we are hardwired to do. War, struggle for supremacy, and death are all natural, fundamental constituents of the human experiential estate. Just as valid as love, family, and birth.

Nick_A wrote:

Frithjof Schuon's book "The Transcendent Unity of Religions" describes how comprehension which I believe is closer to Panendeism becomes complete when man reaches transcendent understanding.

That may be true, but IMO complete comprehension of god is beyond the minds of man... at least at this point.

Aaron wrote:

Nick_A wrote:

Frithjof Schuon's book "The Transcendent Unity of Religions" describes how comprehension which I believe is closer to Panendeism becomes complete when man reaches transcendent understanding.

That may be true, but IMO complete comprehension of god is beyond the minds of man... at least at this point.

At this point I agree but it if man is capable of conscious evolution back his origin, it seems at that level, comprehension would be beyond anything we are capable of in our current ever changing chaotic states of being.

Quote :

This means of course that all the argument on the exoteric level is much ado about nothing and debates about partial truths. Understanding begins at the esoteric level and develops into the transcendent level. Really quite interesting.

Well all I can say is while it may be true that you can never reach God through intellect and logic alone, I would bet my bottom dollar that you're not likely to find Him/Her without it or in contravention of it, either.

Helium wrote:

Quote :

This means of course that all the argument on the exoteric level is much ado about nothing and debates about partial truths. Understanding begins at the esoteric level and develops into the transcendent level. Really quite interesting.

Well all I can say is while it may be true that you can never reach God through intellect and logic alone, I would bet my bottom dollar that you're not likely to find Him/Her without it or in contravention of it, either.

I agree. This is the difference between a transrational approach and a prerational one.

Quote :

The Pre/Trans Fallacy
quoted from SEX, ECOLOGY, SPIRITUALITY by Ken Wilber.
© 1995, 2000 by Ken Wilber. By arrangement with
Shambhala Publications, Inc., Boston, www.shambhala.com

Ever since I began writing on the distinctions between prerational (or prepersonal) states of awareness and transrational (or transpersonal) states - what I called the pre/trans fallacy - I have become more convinced than ever that this understanding is absolutely crucial for grasping the nature of higher (or deeper) or truly spiritual states of consciousness.

The essence of the pre/trans fallacy is itself fairly simple: since both prerational states and transrational states are, in their own ways, nonrational, they appear similar or even identical to the untutored eye. And once pre and trans are confused, then one of two fallacies occurs:

In the first, all higher and transrational states are reduced to lower and prerational states. Genuine mystical or contemplative experiences, for example, are seen as a regression or throwback to infantile states of narcissism, oceanic adualism, indissociation, and even primitive autism. This is, for example, precisely the route taken by Freud in The Future of an Illusion.

In these reductionistic accounts, rationality is the great and final omega point of individual and collective development, the high-water mark of all evolution. No deeper or wider or higher context is thought to exist. Thus, life is to be lived either rationally, or neurotically (Freud's concept of neurosis is basically anything that derails the emergence of rational perception - true enough as far as it goes, which is just not all that far). Since no higher context is thought to be real, or to actually exist, then whenever any genuinely transrational occasion occurs, it is immediately explained as a regression to prerational structures (since they are the only nonrational structures allowed, and thus the only ones to accept an explanatory hypothesis). The superconscious is reduced to the subconscious, the transpersonal is collapsed to the prepersonal, the emergence of the higher is reinterpreted as an irruption from the lower. All breathe a sigh of relief, and the rational worldspace is not fundamentally shaken (by "the black tide of the mud of occultism!" as Freud so quaintly explained it to Jung).

On the other hand, if one is sympathetic with higher or mystical states, but one still confuses pre and trans, then one will elevate all prerational states to some sort of transrational glory (the infantile primary narcissism, for example, is seen as an unconscious slumbering in the mystico unio). Jung and his followers, of course, often take this route, and are forced to read a deeply transpersonal and spiritual status into states that are merely indissociated and undifferentiated and actually lacking any sort of integration at all.

In the elevationist position, the transpersonal and transrational mystical union is seen as the ultimate omega point, and since egoic-rationality does indeed tend to deny this higher state, then egoic-rationality is pictured as the low point of human possibilities, as a debasement, as the cause of sin and separation and alienation. When rationality is seen as the anti-omega point, so to speak, as the great Anti-Christ, then anything nonrational gets swept up and indiscriminately glorified as a direct route to the Divine, including much that is infantile and regressive and prerational: anything to get rid of that nasty and skeptical rationality. "I believe because it is absurd" (Tertullian) - there is the battle cry of the elevationist (a strand that runs deeply through Romanticism of any sort).

Freud was a reductionist, Jung an elevationist - the two sides of the pre/trans fallacy. And the point is that they are both half right and half wrong. A good deal of neurosis is indeed a fixation/regression to prerational states, states that are not to be glorified. On the other hand, mystical states do indeed exist, beyond (not beneath) rationality, and those states are not to be reduced.

For most of the recent modern era, and certainly since Freud (and Marx and Ludwig Feuerbach), the reductionist stance toward spirituality has prevailed - all spiritual experiences, no matter how highly developed they might in fact be, were simply interpreted as regressions to primitive and infantile modes of thought. However, as if in overreaction to all that, we are now, and have been since the sixties, in the throes of various forms of elevationism (exemplified by, but by no means confined to, the New Age movement). All sorts of endeavors, of no matter what origin or of what authenticity, are simply elevated to transrational and spiritual glory, and the only qualification for this wonderful promotion is that the endeavor be nonrational. Anything rational is wrong; anything nonrational is spiritual.

Spirit is indeed nonrational; but it is trans, not pre. It transcends but includes reason; it does not regress and exclude it. Reason, like any particular stage of evolution, has its own (and often devastating) limitations, repressions, and distortions. But as we have seen, the inherent problems of one level are solved (or "defused") only at the next level of development; they are not solved by regressing to a previous level where the problem can be merely ignored. And so it is with the wonders and the terrors of reason: it brings enormous new capacities and new solutions, while introducing its own specific problems, problems solved only by a transcendence to the higher and transrational realms.

Many of the elevationist movements, alas, are not beyond reason but beneath it. They think they are, and they announce themselves to be, climbing the Mountain of Truth; whereas, it seems to me, they have merely slipped and fallen and are sliding rapidly down it, and the exhilarating rush of skidding uncontrollably down evolution's slope they call "following your bliss." As the earth comes rushing up at them at terminal velocity, they are bold enough to offer this collision course with ground zero as a new paradigm for the coming world transformation, and they feel oh-so-sorry for those who watch their coming crash with the same fascination as one watches a twenty-car pileup on the highway, and they sadly nod as we decline to join in that particular adventure. True spiritual bliss, in infinite measure, lies up that hill, not down it.


[Note: A more detailed description of the pre/trans fallacy can be found in Eye to Eye.]