The Trouble with Transcendental Unity of Religions

[lunamoth]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

It would help if we had a bit more context, like maybe the paragraphs before and after the clip. I know that Huston Smith is an avowed universalist. I also know that he does not consider his own mix and match combination of religious practices to be the same thing as the "cafeteria spirituality" he despises. I suppose this plays into what he's saying in this small quote.

Here's an interesting related link that I'm sure no one will read: http://members.shaw.ca/abhishiktananda/Abhi.thesis.pdf

Chris

Did you read all 256 pages?

[China Cat Sunflower]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

Did you read all 256 pages?

Er, skimmed would be more accurate. I don't have a large interest in Hindu cosmology anymore, I just wanted to see what the advaitic connection was. I'd not encountered the term "transcendental unity of religions" before, and the quote from the OP implies an advaitic connection.

The French Benedictine monk Henri Le Saux (Abhishiktånanda) sought to establish an Indian Christian monasticism, emphasizing Hindu advaitic experience. He understood advaita as both nondual and non-monistic. Using phenomenology and comparative philosophy, this thesis explores his understanding and experience of advaita, comparing it to both traditional
Hinduism and neo-Vedånta, as well as to Christianity and Zen Buddhism. Abhishiktånanda’s description of his experience is examined in relation to perception, thinking, action, ontology and theology. Special attention is given to comparing the views of the Hindu sages Ramaˆa Maharshi and Gnånånanda, both of whom influenced Abhishiktånanda.

Abhishiktånanda believed that advaita must be directly experienced; this experience is beyond all words and concepts. He compares Christian apophatic mysticism and Hindu sannyåsa. This thesis examines his distinction between experience and thought in relation to recent philosophical discussions.

Abhishiktånanda radically reinterprets Christianity. His affirmation of both nonduality and non-monism was influenced by Christian Trinitarianism, interpreted as an emanation of the Many from the One. Jesus’ experience of Sonship with the Father is an advaitic experience that is equally available to everyone. Abhishiktånanda believes that the early Upanishads report a similar experience. A monistic interpretation of advaita only developed later with the “dialectics” of Shankara’s disciples. In non-monistic advaita, the world is not an illusion. Using ideas derived from tantra and Kashmir Íaivism, Abhishiktånanda interprets måyå as the ßakti or power of Shiva. He compares ßakti to the Holy Spirit.

etcetera....

Chris

[lunamoth]

What does 'advaitic' mean? It's not in my dictionary and I can't find anything clear and straightforward online.

[China Cat Sunflower]

Here's the Wiki entry: Advaita Vedanta - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

I'm still not sure where Thomas intended to go with this.

Chris

[lunamoth]

Thanks for the link. I'm still not getting it though (Smith's point or the direction of this thread). It's probably just me though...

[China Cat Sunflower]

Well, I see what the quote says at face value, but I also know a little bit about the man being quoted, which makes me wonder what the broader context of this letter might be. Huston Smith is an interesting character. He was dropping acid with Tim Leary and hanging out with Aldous Huxley way back when.

Chris

[China Cat Sunflower]

Here's a quote from Huston Smith from a 1997 interview with Mother Jones magazine:

I don't want to justify religion in terms of its benefits to us. I believe that, on balance, it does a lot of bad things, too -- a tremendous amount. But I don't think that the final justification of religion is the good it does for people. I think the final justification is that it's true, and truth takes priority over consequences. Religion helps us deal with what is most important to the human spirit: values, meaning, purpose, and quality.

Historically, religion has given people another world to live in, a world more adaptive to the human spirit. As a student of world religions, I see religion as the winnower of the wisdom of the human race. Of course, not everything about these religions is wise. Their social patterns, for example -- master-slave, caste, and gender relations -- have been adopted from the mores of their time. But in their view of the nature of reality, there is nothing in either modernity or postmodernity that rivals them.

Q: You've been critical of the role secularism and science have played in supplanting religion...

A: I'm nearing 80, and I find myself more optimistic than I've ever been on this subject. In science, for example, physics is already out of the tunnel constructed by Enlightenment thinking. Newtonian physics worked very much at cross-purposes with the Spirit, which is beyond matter, space, and time. Of contemporary physics, Henry Stapp, a world-class physicist at Berkeley, said that "everything we know about nature is in accord with the idea that the fundamental process of nature lies outside space-time."

Religion, for its part, says that God, who is the source of it all, is outside nature. Now, don't quote me as saying Henry Stapp says that God exists! He didn't say that at all. Besides, he has no competence to talk about that as a physicist, because physics can't deal with quality or consciousness. Nevertheless, for him to say that the fundamental process of nature is immaterial opens the door for a meeting of physics and faith. Both are speaking the same language in their own domain.

Good stuff, I think!

Chris

[Bishadi]

Originally Posted by Thomas

From a letter written by Prof. Huston Smith in 2004:

"It is only of late (perhaps in the last year or two) that I seem finally to have made my peace with the TU [Transcendental Unity] doctrine. It became clear to me that what I had found troubling was not the doctrine as such, but certain misconceptions associated with the doctrine, which not a few of its proponents seem to hold.

The problem, as I see it, is that one is tempted to conceive of that ‘transcendent unity’ as a doctrine in its own right. Typically one conceives of it in advaitic terms, thereby reducing that stipulated superdoctrine to an abstract formula of ‘nonduality’ which is supposed to embody the quintessential truth of the religions. Yet in truth a ‘reduction’ of this kind constitutes a betrayal of tradition, beginning with the Hindu tradition itself, which insists upon its six classical darshanas, and moreover counts advaita as only one of several Vedantic schools. What is more, it recognizes that the actual truth of advaita Vedanta cannot be expressed in words or grasped this side of nirvikalpa samadhi – which is just what the authentic doctrine of ‘transcendent unity’ likewise insists upon.

The problem with the TU doctrine, then, is that it is prone to be misunderstood. A Promethean temptation befalls us, an overweening desire to lay claim to an understanding which by right is proper to God. We have had occasion to see with horror! where this can lead.

Meanwhile, however, I am fully convinced that there IS a transcendent unity of which every authentic religion constitutes a manifestation willed by God. It seems to me that this transcendent unity is indeed ‘the pearl of truth’ enshrined within every religion, which the faithful are destined to discover and take possession of at the end of the road, when they shall have, Deo volente, attained to what Christianity terms theosis; for indeed, that truth is no longer a matter of doctrine, of theological or metaphysical conceptions, but is God Himself: ‘I am the truth’, said Christ.”"

And that unifying frame is 'light'...... and to convey the interactions of all things within the comprehension of the scientific properties know about light, then the associations and foundations set into faithful observance resonate these properties within the human construct of articulation.

i.e... non-local affect (from God) is entangled energy (light). and to increase the entanglement of associations between 2 separate structures increases the potential; we can observe this as Love.

The cross; a drawing of what light is as scientifically represented; electric and magnetic fields at perpendicular planes.

Light is the life upon mass and from most every rendition on earth; light is that source and often considered God himself.

the Christ is supposed to be the one to bring these truths. as Jesus did not

every religion speaks of a day when the 'truth' will combine all knowledge and combine mankind under one set of Understanding; in which each of the great contributors of the world will be of the 'book of life' in which all them gift each of the greats offered for the future builds a layer on knowledge, for the next generation perfecting and 'evolutionary' pattern to comprehension itself.

and eventually 'that' pinnacle is reached and each can comprehend, each can be aware, each responsible, each creating life, each know the combination of God (existence) and themselves, within the 'mind' (knowledge) and consciousness.......... equally.

Which in time removes the fibs of old, the religious beliefs as magic and that end period to believing the truth when each can know the truth of exactly what makes us alive and how our choices determine our continuance (life) ever after.

So is there a combining frame............... YES!

[Vajradhara]

Originally Posted by lunamoth

What does 'advaitic' mean? It's not in my dictionary and I can't find anything clear and straightforward online.

it means "nondual" which is a way of wholistically viewing the cosmos and all phenomena and noumena within.

<though you probably figured that out by now>

metta,

~v

[Thomas]

Hi Lunamoth —

Henri Le Saux (Abhishiktånanda)'s book is a delight ... mine's so used and so old the spine's broken and it's held together by a bulldog clip.

There is also "Christianity and the Doctrine of Non-Dualism" by 'A Monk of the West' which is a bit more in the Perennialist line.

The idea of Advaita (Sanskrit for ‘non-dual’ or ‘not two’) is fundamental to the Abrahamic Traditions, so much so that it is often overlooked, and especially if viewed through an Hellenic (dualist) eye.

In C&DND the author shows that non-dualism is neither pantheism nor monism, and that there is no incompatibility between orthodox Christian doctrine and the strictest understanding of non-dualism in the Advaita Vedanta.

Thomas

[Thomas]

[quote=Bishadi;152197]And that unifying frame is 'light'...

To echo Chris' quote of Huston Smith:

Religion, for its part, says that God, who is the source of it all, is outside nature. Now, don't quote me as saying Henry Stapp says that God exists! He didn't say that at all. Besides, he has no competence to talk about that as a physicist, because physics can't deal with quality or consciousness. Nevertheless, for him to say that the fundamental process of nature is immaterial opens the door for a meeting of physics and faith. Both are speaking the same language in their own domain.

(my emphasis)

Is this the ground of our disagreement — are you saying physics renders faith invalid? (A 'yes' or 'no' answer will do)

Thomas

[Penguin]

A good, thought provoking thread Thomas.

[Raksha]

I also know that he does not consider his own mix and match combination of religious practices to be the same thing as the "cafeteria spirituality" he despises.

Chris,

That tells me he's an elitist right there! "I'm allowed to do it but you aren't" is to me the very essence of spiritual elitism, the "gatekeeper" paternalism that I so despise. I have a radar for that kind of thing, and whenever I sense it there is INSTANT hostility! It just gets my back up like nothing else.

I guess that's why I have such a prejudice against Huston Smith. I read an article by him many years ago--I can't even remember the name of it or what it was about, but I seem to remember it was in Gnosis magazine, which unfortunately is no longer being published. Anyway, I sensed that paternalistic attiitude and was immediately put off, to the point where just seeing his name in the lead note got my back up.

I may check out some of the links, but Huston Smith is going to have an uphill battle convincing me he has anything worthwhile to say about universalism.

--Linda

[China Cat Sunflower]

Huston Smith is an old elitist prissy pants. He's Ellsworth Toohey.

Chris

[Raksha]

Originally Posted by China Cat Sunflower

Huston Smith is an old elitist prissy pants. He's Ellsworth Toohey.

Chris

Chris,

I don't know who Ellsworth Toohey is, but I freely admit that my negative impression of Huston Smith is a prejudice. I was NOT intending in any way to downgrade his accomplishments, which are even more formidable than I realized at first. My big gripe is with his attitude.

In a serious attempt to be fair, I just did a search on his name and spent the last several hours reading interviews with him. I found a great deal to agree with, a lot of real insight and wisdom. But again I detected that irritating note of paternalism, and again I experienced the same negative response.

It's especially noticeable when he talks about shamanism. For example: He freely admits that the Australian aborigines are telepathic and that this is a normal ability with them, I guess in the same way that musical talent or artistic talent are normal abilities with us. Obviously some individuals have these abilities to a much higher degree than others, but they are still considered normal aspects of the human birthright.

And yet for all that he admires and defends aboriginal cultures, he STILL feels compelled to issue the standard Western knee-jerk paternalistic warnings against focusing on the development of the "siddhis" or paranormal abilities, because that can result in ego inflation and so on. The "do-not-try-this-at-home" attitude. Well, sometimes you don't even HAVE to try because it happens on its own.

I know perfectly well when I am experiencing telepathy, and so do you and so does everyone. I also know that for me, as for most Western people, it comes sporadically, in fits and starts, and there are long periods when I seem to have no ability to access it at all. Why does that happen?

Part of the problem of course is our culture's obsession with scientism, and the constantly repeated assertions that such experiences are "hallucinations." But I suspect a lot of it also has to do with these constantly repeated warnings on the part of the spiritual gatekeepers that it's "wrong" or "dangerous" to try to develop these abilities. We're even told to ignore them when they happen spontaneously!

I don't know much about the Australian aborigines, but one thing I'm positive about: When they are growing up, they are NOT constantly subjected to all these nervous-Nellie prohibitions. That's one big reason they can "do it" consistently and we can't!

Love and Light,
Linda