Christian tradition and the sophia perennis

[Anonymous No.18429140]

Is there any way to reconcile the Christian tradition with other traditions? Several religions, such as Buddhism or Hinduism, fit well into the perennialist interpretation, but Christianity seems to stand out in regards to the difficulty one encounters when reconciling it with other traditions. From a theological and ecclesiastical point of view, Christianity is expressely fundamentalist and exclusivist. However, it surprises me how many Christians are also supporters of the perennial philosophy.

For example, concerning the Christian fundamentalist point of view, one can read in 1 Corinthians, Chapter 10: "18 Consider the people of Israel: Do not those who eat the sacrifices participate in the altar? 19 Do I mean then that food sacrificed to an idol is anything, or that an idol is anything? 20 No, but the sacrifices of pagans are offered to demons, not to God, and I do not want you to be participants with demons. 21 You cannot drink the cup of the Lord and the cup of demons too; you cannot have a part in both the Lord’s table and the table of demons. 22 Are we trying to arouse the Lord’s jealousy? Are we stronger than he?".
This exclusivist point of view is further restated in Psalms, 115: "Wherefore should the heathen say, Where is now their God?
3 But our God is in the heavens: he hath done whatsoever he hath pleased. 4 Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men's hands. 5 They have mouths, but they speak not: eyes have they, but they see not: 6 They have ears, but they hear not: noses have they, but they smell not: 7 They have hands, but they handle not: feet have they, but they walk not: neither speak they through their throat. 8 They that make them are like unto them; so is every one that trusteth in them."

However, this seems to be in apparent contradiction with the words of Saint Augustine: “That which today is called the Christian religion existed among the ancients and has never ceased to exist from the origin of the human race until the time when Christ him-self came and men began to call ‘Christian’ the true religion which already existed beforehand.”,
and those of the Orthodox Saint, Saint Nikolai Verimirovich: “Glory to the memory of Lao Tzu, the teacher and prophet of his people! Glory to the memory of Krishna, the teacher and prophet of his people! Blessed be the memory of Buddha, the royal son and inexorable teacher of his people!”

My question therefore is, is it possible that Christianity can be understood as another path towards God, like the sophia perennis catalogs it, or is it a fundamentally exclusive and isolated religion?

[Anonymous No.18429146]

Read Assmann for an answer to your question regarding monotheism

[Anonymous No.18429148]

>>18429146
>Liberation Theology
No.

[Anonymous No.18429153]

>>18429140
/trad/ chads, I finally realized America is counter-traditional at its core
how do I cope with this?

[Anonymous No.18429162]

>>18429153
Pray for the destruction of the United States of Babylon.

[Anonymous No.18429165]

>>18429148
I'm talking about the Egyptology guy. You're telling me there's a latinx communist Assmann writing about liberation theology?

[Anonymous No.18429173]

>>18429165
I see. What book do you recommend for starting with him? And what makes him special, in relation to the topics of the post?

[Anonymous No.18429204]

Bump

[Anonymous No.18429217]

>>18429140
>“I am the way and the truth and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.”
Christ explicitly says that there is one truth. Christianity is an exclusive religion and cannot be merged with other faiths, at least not honestly.

[Anonymous No.18429235]

The problem lies in the Trinity. It’s metaphysics is not compatible with the perennial philosophy because it’s based on faith and not reason.

Reason doesn’t get you to a tripartite god. Christians will do all sorts of mental gymnastics to try and rationalise it, but it’s only because of their biased presuppositions that Christianity is true.

The perennial themes in Christianity are real, but the doctrine of the trinity is incoherent. No amount of mental gymnastics will make it so, and any real platonist will agree, or monist.

[Anonymous No.18429239]

>>18429173
Assmann argues for a "mosaic distinction," a true/false dichotomy in religion first introduced by the pharaoh Akenahten but later made famous by the Abrahamic religions (which by their own memory come from Egypt in opposition to Egypt), which in short denies the beliefs of other people. In his view the pagan or polytheistic religions did not usually make these claims and were comfortable translating the names of each others' gods among other things. This distinction thus has enormous consequences for the development and history of religions and of societies in which it is introduced. (And because of this, it is rather poetic to see tradposters identity-drift from Abrahamism to Abrahamism in search of which is the most based, i.e. the most hostile to the other religions). The major works are Moses the Egyptian, and The Price of Monotheism.

[Anonymous No.18429249]

>>18429217
How I've seen this passage interpreted by perennialist is the fact that Jesus, as the Logos, was stating that there is no way towards the Father if not through the Logos. Perennialists find the Logos in several traditions, and the words of Justin the Martyr justify this:
>“We have been taught that Christ is the First-begotten of God and have testified that he is the Logos of which every race of man partakes. Those who lived in accordance with the Logos are Christians, even though they were called godless, such as, among the Greeks, Socrates and Heraclitus and others like them. Those who lived by this Logos, and those who so live now, are Chris-tians, fearless and unperturbed.”

[Anonymous No.18429271]

Perennialism is a cope and literally 90% of the members of most of these traditions will tell you that their tradition is the sole way to the truth and salvation. How did Geunon’s Muslim friends not kick his ass when they saw him writing about Kali Yuga or some shit? Surely perennialism is outright kufr? Muslims get antsy over how to wash your feet when you pray; I doubt they’d let indifferentism slide.

[Anonymous No.18429272]

>>18429235
>Reason doesn’t get you to a tripartite god
>No amount of mental gymnastics will make it so, and any real platonist will agree, or monist.
Did not the Neoplatonist philosopher Damascius propose a triadic model of God based on Neoplatonist metaphysical arguments?

[Anonymous No.18429277]

>>18429249
This just sounds like a rip-off of neoplatonism used to sell Christianity to educated Greeks/Romans

[Anonymous No.18429293]

>>18429272
Insisting that one god is three people, rather than that the other two are emanated from or inferior to the first person, is necessary to comply with the requirements of Abrahamism. Muslims and Jews do not do this because they weren't trying to convert neoplatonists. Jews were the OGs so there was no one to convert, while Muslims conquered Christians and Zoroastrians.

[Anonymous No.18429323]

>>18429140
>My question therefore is, is it possible that Christianity can be understood as another path towards God, like the sophia perennis catalogs it, or is it a fundamentally exclusive and isolated religion?
It certainly can be. When Christ said he is the "way, the truth and the life" he was talking in his capacity as the divine Logos. Any religion that recognizes that there is one God and follows the Logos to reach Him is compatible with Christianity.

[Anonymous No.18429327]

>>18429140
>ESV Study Bible
patrician taste

[Anonymous No.18429334]

why would you worship a dead jew on a stick instead of something strong?
this seems to run counter to all human nature

[Anonymous No.18429342]

>>18429249
Everything ultimatley gets reduced to "the one" in Platonism, or "the one itself". If you dont understand this, you are trying to twist Platonism to fit a modality of Christianity. There are tripartied concepts in platonism but these are always posterior to The One which is absolute.

[Anonymous No.18429351]

>>18429140
The more I think about it the more I'm swayed toward the position of perennialism. As noted there's already a strong strain of perennialism in the Church Fathers who tended to recognize Christianity as the fulfilment of pre-Christian religion and recognized Pagan philosophers like Plato and Aristotle as Christians in spirit. The idea that God, the creator of all reality decided to only reveal Himself to a small tribe of middle eastern Jews is too much of a stretch for me. Especially when I see the exact same themes that are in the Bible also cropping up in the Tao Te Ching and the Bhagavad Gita. Did God just leave 95% of the human race in darkness while showing favoritism to a certain tribe? Of course not. God doesn't play favorites.

I believe Christianity is the most beautiful expression of the perennial philosophy but doesn't have exclusive rights to it.

[Anonymous No.18429353]

>>18429249
by perennialists*
>>18429239
Thanks anon. I will look into it.

[Anonymous No.18429356]

>>18429342
The One in Platonism is equivalent to the Trinity. If you think the Trinity divides the Godhead then you don't understand Trinitarian theology. It is a Tri-unity.

[Anonymous No.18429376]

>>18429271
Of course they will tell you that their tradition is the one and only. It is a fact understood by all Perennialists. The point being that Perennialism is not a philosophy "for the masses" but for the educated few who can understand the trascendental unity beyond the exoteric aspects of the diverse religions.

[Anonymous No.18429388]

>>18429376
This is true. Religion and exclusivity is necessary for the masses to have a cultural identity and to be able to protect their faith from outsiders. People who read deeper don't need to accept these doctrines that only exist to maintain social cohesion within individual societies.

[Anonymous No.18429390]

>>18429356
This is the mental gymnastics im talking about. This is illogical and incoherent.

The One Itself, is it three or one?

[Anonymous No.18429398]

>>18429140
>Is there any way to reconcile the Christian tradition with other traditions?
Fundamentally no, since it's all hostile hogwash.
jewish world colonialistically, yes, see: world.

[Anonymous No.18429400]

>>18429390
Three persons, One God. Is the perimeter of the mandelbrot set infinite or finite? It's clearly bounded, so it can't be infinite, can it? Yet it is. If you can't deal with antinomy you won't make it very far into the deep waters of theology.

[Anonymous No.18429420]

>>18429293
>Insisting that one god is three people, rather than that the other two are emanated from or inferior to the first person, is necessary to comply with the requirements of Abrahamism.
Eastern Orthodox hold to the ‘monarchia’ view of the trinity, which holds that the Son and the Spirit are both caused by the Father (by begetting and spirating respectively)

[Anonymous No.18429434]

>>18429327
It is quite excellent supplementary material but only the KJV is patrician.

[Anonymous No.18429448]

>>18429420
Did not know that the Orthodox believe that. I don't think the major traditionalists/perennials wrote much on orthodoxy (probably since it got steamrolled by marxism and did not appear politically useful to "Tradition").

[Anonymous No.18429456]

>>18429400
The One Itself, is One.

The One is both One and Not One.

You can argue that the trinity is The One because it particiates as One and Not One.

But you cannot argue The One Itself, which is the godhead beyond comprehention, is a trinity.

Also you would have to PROVE it was three, which is impossible.

[Anonymous No.18429476]

>>18429456
>The One is both One and Not One.
Correct. What's hard to understand about this?

>But you cannot argue The One Itself, which is the godhead beyond comprehention, is a trinity.
I can, I am and I'll go even further and say that it's a necessity that the One be a Trinity by virtue of the fact of what it is.

>Also you would have to PROVE it was three, which is impossible.
Augustine did it in de Trinitate

[Anonymous No.18429501]

>>18429476
>Correct. What's hard to understand about this?
I do understand this, but you cant seem to fathom my point.

>I can, I am and I'll go even further and say that it's a necessity that the One be a Trinity by virtue of the fact of what it is.
You dont understand platonic metaphysics or your willfully being obtuse.

The One Itself, cannot be One and Not One.

A multitude is Not One. Just because you say so, doesnt make it so. Think.

>Augustine did it in de Trinitate
Augustine conceded that Christianity is based on faith and not reason.

Go read Proclus instead of trying to rationalise your beliefs.
>Proposition IV: Every thing which is united is different from the one itself.
>Proposition V: All multitude is posterior to the one.

[Anonymous No.18429510]

>>18429476
>Augustine did it in de Trinitate
Ah the amazing things the mind can be forced to do by the goals it sets. How do you keep all the triads of Plotinus or Proclus that educated Romans agree with AND hold to the doctrines of a slave revolt?

[Anonymous No.18429514]

>>18429501
Based Procline poster have a (You)

[Anonymous No.18429521]

>>18429501
From what I see, the Orthodox point of view concerning the Trinity is far more reasonable than that of Catholicism.

[Anonymous No.18429528]

>>18429351
>Christianity is the most beautiful expression of perennialism
Why do you think so? I'm interested.

[Anonymous No.18429529]

>>18429501
>Proposition V: All multitude is posterior to the one.
The Trinity isn't a multiplicity. Again you don't understand Trinitarian theology. Do your reading. The is One God that that One God is absolutely simple in essence. ALL Christian theologians teach this. You're trying to claim that they were in error and taught a doctrine that contradicts this when it's you who are in error and still conceiving of the Trinity as three things when the Trinity transcends those categories. The Trinity is not three things because thingness only exists posterior to the Trinity. The Trinity relates to the inner life of God which, again for emphasis is ONE and WITHOUT COMPOSITION

Right?

First, from the previous articles of this question. For there is neither composition of quantitative parts in God, since He is not a body; nor composition of matter and form; nor does His nature differ from His "suppositum"; nor His essence from His existence; neither is there in Him composition of genus and difference, nor of subject and accident. Therefore, it is clear that God is nowise composite, but is altogether simple.

Secondly, because every composite is posterior to its component parts, and is dependent on them; but God is the first being, as shown above (I:2:3).

Thirdly, because every composite has a cause, for things in themselves different cannot unite unless something causes them to unite. But God is uncaused, as shown above (I:2:3), since He is the first efficient cause.

Fourthly, because in every composite there must be potentiality and actuality; but this does not apply to God; for either one of the parts actuates another, or at least all the parts are potential to the whole.

[Anonymous No.18429537]

>>18429529
>The trinity isnt a multiplicity.

....

Alright dude peace.

[Anonymous No.18429541]

>>18429537
>Unable to understand the doctrine of the Trinity because he keeps imagining the Trinity like composite substance like matter
Filtered.

[Anonymous No.18429555]

>>18429271
muslims were different 100 years ago compared to today, guess ((who)) is responsible for this

[Anonymous No.18429605]

>>18429448
Wasn’t Guenon considering it at one point? I think the rich traditional worship as well as the more advanced ascetic practices would make it attractive to a perennialist. You wouldn’t necessarily need to be ethnically Greek/Russian/Serbian to authentically partake in it as well, compared to some strands of Hinduism and being ethnically Hindu.

[Anonymous No.18429616]

>>18429555
Were they more mellow back then? I guess the Israel situation and the influence of Saudi-funded Wahhabism didn’t help.

[Anonymous No.18429646]

>>18429555
>Jews are responsible for Jew-hating Salafists who actually want to get rid of bid’ah
Retard. Guénon was a kafir dog

[Anonymous No.18429695]

Bump

[Anonymous No.18429698]

>>18429646
Mashallah bro

[Anonymous No.18429740]

>>18429140
Shouldn't this be on /his/?

[Anonymous No.18429748]

>>18429740
All philosophy threads seem to die on /his/.

[Anonymous No.18429759]

>>18429153
Burn down a Walmart

[Anonymous No.18429765]

>>18429249
Other faiths may contain some truth, but this does not make them true. Mostly false with a grain of truth is a clever lie.

[Anonymous No.18429974]

>>18429501
>faith and not reason
And Augustine was right. You can logic and reason yourself silly, but it won't make a bit of difference.

[Anonymous No.18430091]

>>18429541
Its actually ironic you say that, given your reply persists from intellection.

Any form of intellection denotes multiplicity.

If you are in a state of pure being, any attempt to articulate or comprehend that state is a negation of the state itself.

Also you should try answering
>Proposition IV: Every thing which is united is different from the one itself.

>>18429974
>just accept jesus and dont think bro.
You probably believe the world is 6000 years old too.

[Anonymous No.18431605]

>>18430091
I don't care how old the world is

[Anonymous No.18431976]

>>18429501
Based Proclus poster

[Anonymous No.18431990]

>>18429740
any kind of philosophical or theological discussions, espcially ones involving christianity, are far better here than /his/ in my experience

[[daily random lyrics] No.18432000]

>>18429140
Stopped into a church
I passed along the way
Well, I got down on my knees
And I pretend to pray

[Anonymous No.18432007]

>>18429605
I personally find that it is probably the best form of christanity for Traditionalists. The only problem with it is that, in my experience at least, they tend to be dominated by ethnic elements, and are thus hard for converts to properly access who are outside of such ethnicites

[Anonymous No.18432043]

This thread was deflected in the end. Then, is Christianity inherently an exclusivist religion, or is there any way we can understand it as another path?

[Anonymous No.18432206]

>>18432007
>I personally find that it is probably the best form of christanity for Traditionalists.
The doctrine of universal salvation is more common in Eastern Orthodoxy and has received support by more senior/influential figures within it compared to other branches of Christianity, this is certainly something that opens the door on some level to perennialism.

David Bentley Hart, a proponent of universal salvation, has described himself before as a crypto-perennialist.

[Anonymous No.18433658]

>>18429140
Christian hermeticism

[Anonymous No.18433719]

>>18433658
Are there any routes of Christian hermeticism outside of catholic oriented ones?

[Anonymous No.18433837]

>>18429140
Perennalism is a cope for resentful dorks.

[Anonymous No.18433850]

>>18433837
t. seething leftoid tranny

[Anonymous No.18433899]

>>18433719
Would you consider Martinism to be catholic oriented?

[Anonymous No.18433912]

>>18432043
The former.

[Anonymous No.18434095]

>>18429140
In it's exoteric aspects it's clearly exclusivist, but there have been many great theologians that are proponents of apocatastasis and universal salvation, which can leave the door open for some form of perennialism.
There is also no shortage of priests and theologians that have tried to reconcile different traditions, like Bede Griffiths or Panikkar.
Whatever you believe, at the end the Extra Ecclesiam Nulla Salus remains the most difficult to accept of all dogmas.
Can God really condemn the millions of souls that find trascendence in different traditions and reject Christ?
Does God really find the beauty of temples and sacred texts of other religions abhorrent?
If we go for the most orthodox approach then we end up in utter barbarism, like that quote from Caliph Omar 'If the books of this library contain matters opposed to the Koran, they are bad and must be burned. If they contain only the doctrine of the Koran, burn them anyway, for they are superfluous.'
That is the most inacceptable form of barbarism in my mind.

[Anonymous No.18434197]

>>18433899
Honestly I dont know enough about them to say

[Anonymous No.18434265]

>>18429140
>This seems to be in apparent contradiction with the words of Saint Augustine
St. Augustine was a former Manichean who, while brilliant and greatly influenced Christianity, hardly counts as its canonical founder or reformer. If you are choosing between Scripture and Augustine, Augustine loses. The more probable answer though is that you just misinterpreted Augustine.

[Anonymous No.18434628]

>>18434197
Then I recommend you look into that tradition:
https://martinism.net/education/
https://www.bmosite.org/reading-martinism
Has a reading list on them

[Anonymous No.18435237]

>>18434628
Thank you anon, il do some research, though I myself am not a christian, and this more to satisfy my curiosity about christian esotercism

[Anonymous No.18435415]

>>18435237
Also, read this book

[Anonymous No.18435426]

>>18435415
Yes I have started with that, an excellent book so far, for christians and non-christians alike

[Anonymous No.18436140]

>>18429217
>>18429249
>>18429140

Christ is the Logos, the reasoned intelligent speech from which the term "logic" comes, that created the universe.
"Let there be light" It was the Logos saying that.
That is in agreement with pic related

Paul says that after death, we will be able to see reality as it really is, we will be in communion with the infinite God and understand the mysteries of the universe.

13 If I speak in the tongues[a] of men or of angels, but do not have love, I am only a resounding gong or a clanging cymbal. 2 If I have the gift of prophecy and can fathom all mysteries and all knowledge, and if I have a faith that can move mountains, but do not have love, I am nothing. 3 If I give all I possess to the poor and give over my body to hardship that I may boast,[b] but do not have love, I gain nothing.

4 Love is patient, love is kind. It does not envy, it does not boast, it is not proud. 5 It does not dishonor others, it is not self-seeking, it is not easily angered, it keeps no record of wrongs. 6 Love does not delight in evil but rejoices with the truth. 7 It always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

8 Love never fails. But where there are prophecies, they will cease; where there are tongues, they will be stilled; where there is knowledge, it will pass away. 9 For we know in part and we prophesy in part, 10 but when completeness comes, what is in part disappears. 11 When I was a child, I talked like a child, I thought like a child, I reasoned like a child. When I became a man, I put the ways of childhood behind me. 12 For now we see only a reflection as in a mirror; then we shall see face to face. Now I know in part; then I shall know fully, even as I am fully known.

13 And now these three remain: faith, hope and love. But the greatest of these is love.

[Anonymous No.18437310]

>>18429323
What does it mean to follow the logos?

[Anonymous No.18437338]

>>18429153
it took you this long?
>how do I cope with this?
join ISIS