Perennialists and Christianity

Just starting to read the perennialists. I'm starting with Guenon and Corbin (since I'm familiar with Jung and Islam). Perhaps I misunderstand the intellectual mission of the traditionalists, but how do they reconcile the Trinity and Islam's Tawhid? I can see how one can reconcile Brahman and Allah (upanishads call Brahman formless, Hindus actually being pluralistic, etc.), but how do they reconcile the triune godhead with the oneness of Allah? I read a while ago on here that Corbin's concept of theophanies and "men of light" have potential for reconciling it, but I'm not really familiar enough with his work to make definitive statements

Attached: Perennialists.jpg (434x604, 50.31K)

>I can see how one can reconcile Brahman and Allah (upanishads call Brahman formless, Hindus actually being pluralistic, etc.), but how do they reconcile the triune godhead with the oneness of Allah?

Guenon at least does not attempt to do any sort of systematic ranking of how different concepts in different traditions are reconciled with others (an especially on matters of extoteric dogma), and such an attempt at a systematic ranking is against the spirit and attitude of his writings. Schuon does go further in trying to tie together specific details.

One approach to try to reconcile the trinity would be to preserve the trinitarian nature of God as remaining true but as being symbolized in other non-Christian traditions by certain patterns that come in 3's, or you can say that the Christian trinitarian understanding and the non-Christian non-trinitarian understanding are both superseded by some higher truth that they are both pointing/leading to.

You know perennialism isn’t about reconciling all religions? The perennialists claim that all religions are the outgrowth of a philosophia perennis, which is something like the mystical experience of unity with God or the Absolute. They say that the esoteric principles are the same, but the exoteric (ie. doctrine of trinity, various prophets and miracles, and so on) are different. They’re all very different ways of getting to the same destination.

>but the exoteric (ie. doctrine of trinity, various prophets and miracles, and so on) are different.
the trinity is not an exoteric matter. you seem to have completely misunderstood what exoteric means. the trinity is obviously seem in plotinus, hinduism and buddhism

Jesus said to him, “I am the way, and the truth, and the life. No one comes to the Father except through me.

And there is salvation in no one else, for there is no other name under heaven given among men by which we must be saved.”

I told you that you would die in your sins, for unless you believe that I am he you will die in your sins.

For there is one God, and there is one mediator between God and men, the man Christ Jesus

I am the door. If anyone enters by me, he will be saved and will go in and out and find pasture.

Why is it inconceivable that Jesus can also be found in other religions? Obviously it wouldn’t work with Islam and Judaism because the Qu’ran says Jesus is not God and was not crucified, and the Jews say Jesus was a false messiah, but it’s possible that Jesus can be reached by a Buddhist as well as a Christian. You could even say Christianity is the fullest revelation, and the other religions contain a lot of falsehoods, while still admitting it’s possible for a Buddhist monk to reach Jesus through mysticism (though he doesn’t know him as Jesus).

This is just what St. Justin Martyr says in his First Apology, a very early Patristic source. Orthodox Christianity is the fullest expression of Truth. Other religions have to greater or lesser degrees participated in the Logos and have tried to grasp God, some getting closer than others. I have no problem admitting this as a Christian. Anyone saved is saved through Jesus. We have no idea who will be saved outside of the flock though. We can only attempt to lead them to Christ and pray that God have mercy on their souls. This user is correct though . It’s already a narrow way. Perennialism is not the answer.

There was some explanation Guenon gives about the Trinity in a footnote but ngl I forgot what it was.

That makes sense. My problem though is that the trinity is clearly not reconcilable with Tawhid. I know about the sufi annihilation and similar things in Orthodox mysticism, which both lead to dissolution in God, but I'm not sure how one can resolve the concept of personhood in the Godhead with Allah's oneness

Orthodoxy doesn’t teach ‘dissolution’

You're interpreting this in a specific way based on your pre-assumptions. As someone who thinks Guenon makes a lot of sense there is no contradiction with the words of Jesus.

You’re reading the words of Jesus Christ through the lens of a French Freemason instead of through the lens of the Apostles and Church Fathers. They’re not reconcilable.

i agree
>“I have other sheep too that do not belong to this fold. I must lead them as well, and they will hear my voice. Thus, there will only be one flock, one shepherd.
John 10:16

there can't be no total annihilation. no perennialist teaches that no matter how apophatic they may be. plotinus didn't teach that as well (the person will still remain in its true form). 'fusion but without confusion' as Ananda Coomaraswamy quotes Eckhart

>Orthodox Christianity is the fullest expression of Truth
Yeah, this is my issue. I was Roman Catholic before converting to Islam, and my problem isn't that I didn't understand the trinity, but that Orthodox Christianity is extremely reliant on mysterianism. Christianity in general is, that you can't understand God without reliance on the scriptures, whereas in Islam, God can be fully realized with the intellect. Just saying "God is ultimately mysterious" seems like a tremendous copout. There's a great video actually of a debate review by a youtuber called the Muslim Metaphysician where he's reviewing a debate between Jay Dyer and some Muslim, and he talks about this. It's also not sensible that only the Jews received revelation. My problem with taking the authority of the bible over all is that there's really no backing for it. If one says that its predictions came true regarding Christ, then I could easily cite the end times hadiths of the Prophet Muhammad that clearly predict the current godless modern culture to exact details

The words of Jesus make more sense viewed through the lens of Guenon, which he does not own, he restates several times that he had no original ideas.
"I am the Truth" refers to the state of realization. This is the only context in which it makes sense, like most things in their own tradition, Christians can't explain to you what it means, they can only eventually throw their hands up and say "well we can't understand it". Oh really? Then why the fuck did the Teacher say it? Lmfao. YOU can't understand it.

>Orthodox Christianity is the fullest expression of Truth.
i'm and if by orthodox christianity you mean eastern orthodox i do not fully agree with you

You must also believe that you can't grasp certain aspects of God. God is infinte, all-powerful, eternal, unchanging, all good. Can you really conceive such a being? Perhaps conceptually it's possible, just like it's possible for the Christian to describe the Trinity with various philosophical definitions, but to actually grasp God in his fullness seems impossible. If that's the case, then why is Islam privileged over Christianity in this regard?

That's what I was saying, it's ultimately grounded in mysterianism

Idc about the "traditionalists" but I will speak for Guénon.
First, you have to know his view on Christianity, he says that original Christianity was only esoteric (basically esoteric judaism) but it got exteriorized during the early first centuries (even before the Council of Nicaea), which implied the adoption of the roman canon law and the loss of the initiatic character of baptism, all of this was a traditional (in other words legitimate) adaptation due to the divine providence because the greco-roman tradition degenerated too much and it was needed a new one. Now, Guénon says in The Great Triad that the christian trinity is quite unique and you can't find the exact same thing in any other tradition (he explicitly states that trinity =/= triad). The only way to explain this unicity is that it has something to do with this exteriorization of Christianity, so maybe it used to be understood in a non ultimate way, so to speak (the kabbalah has a similar concept), because Guénon makes it clear that the final stage of all initiatic paths is without dualism, distinction and so forth. As a matter of fact, a few christian esoterists came to similar conclusions about the true but relative (non-supreme as hindus would say) character of the trinity, like Meister Eckhart for example.

>and my problem isn't that I didn't understand the trinity
????? you converted to islam because of that ???????

"nisi credideritis, non intelligetis."

the trinity is not a theory to be demonstrated and understood 'with the intellect' (in your case discursive reason), it is to be realized as all matters of religion.

It's not about understanding the purpose of the divine will or anything like that, no Muslim claims to understand God in his fullness (neither do Christians). It's about the fact that Muslims believe God can be completely understood by the rational intellect, and that all people are born with an innate tendency towards God (no "fall", like in Christianity). Another thing, God is not all good. Neither Christianity nor Islam say this. He is just and merciful (in the Christian case, sending Christ to bear the sins of the world due to the loss of the temple, and in the Islamic case forgiving any and all sins with a pure heart but punishing disbelievers)

If you're saying what I think you're saying then yeah I agree. Ultimately one has to realize and become one with God. Your beliefs don't take you anywhere, there is no magic spell or secret code into Heaven.
My current understanding is that Jesus was based and everything he said, assuming it was accurately taken down, was true, but Paul was sometimes right and sometimes wrong. There's nothing to support the infallibility of the Bible, truth ultimately is not in a book.
But I'm still learning my opinions may change. I'm not a dogmatist.

>whereas in Islam, God can be fully realized with the intellect.
Claiming that you can fully realize God with the intellect does not make it possible. Either you reduce God or deify the intellect. Kant btfo this.

I don't understand then. What's the difference between the Christian and you? Both of you have ways of describing God using philosophical terminology, but both of you admit you cannot fully comprehend him.

I converted to Islam because I believe its system is more realistic and in line with the true Abrahamic tradition, end times hadiths all coming true, and the outstanding eloquence of the Qur'an upon studying Arabic.
And sure, I understand that the Trinity has to be understood through faith, but I don't see why God would just prioritize ONE people in the world, say things like "God is not a man" (don't say "human and divine nature are different, I understand this passage, I received a Catholic education for 9 years, but it's inherently confusing), and admit there are gentile prophets (Balam, for example, regardless of what Jews want to say), but then condemn everyone else to hell. It makes more sense that everyone got a fair shot because they were created believing in one God, and they were drawn to polytheism and punished for that

Mysticism is inherently going to be an important part of any discussion about God. God is ultimately inconceivable and ineffable. This is why Orthodoxy balances cataphatic statements about God with a recognition that these words will always be inadequate, because God is beyond our concepts and understanding. Thus comes to apophatic language used often in Orthodoxy. Muslims I’ve seen think that God should be somehow completely understandable and subjugated to the intellect and reason. It’s not that God cannot in a sense be grasped via the intellect, but God is ultimately beyond this. Sure, he can be grasped through the things created. Paul says this in Romans, as do many parts of Scripture which talk of the heavens and earth declaring the glory of God, but it will be limited. Revelation balances our understanding and guides it towards the fullness of Truth.

>It’s also not sensible that only the Jews received revelation.
Who is to say this? Eventually, as prophecized, the entire world had delivered unto them the fullness of Truth in the Gospel. This was the fullfillment of everything said in the OT about the Messiah coming and the Gentiles coming to worship the God of Israel. We know that God was at work even among non-Israelites before this, and there are many examples in the Bible. Melchizedek is a priest of God who appears to offer Abraham bread and wine in Genesis, Balaam was a prophet who a non-Israelite as well, and in truth people like Noah and Abraham were pre-Israelite prophets as well. The Bible is about how God established a people who would bring the Messiah to the world to deliver the Good News. God may have and likely did do many things outside of this, undoubtedly.

> If one says that its predictions came true regarding Christ, then I could easily cite the end times hadiths of the Prophet Muhammad that clearly predict the current godless modern culture to exact details
Saying stuff will be bad in the future isn’t that impressive, we can find that in the Srimad Bhagavatam, the Mahabharata and many other texts. This is just a basic intuition since people know that this world is fallen and degenerating since the Fall. Christ’s prophecies in the OT coming true is of a much different order, especially when prophecies in places like Daniel give exact timescales and predicted major events like the sacrifices ending at a particular time (i.e. when the Messiah comes and foreign armies destroy Jerusalem).

Muslims can't understand things like His will, but we can understand his identity and the things that matter in terms of devotion. The Christians are literally reliant on the authority of scripture and the traditions of the Church (in the case of Catholics). In Islam, scripture compliments the intellect

Satanic heresy

>but then condemn everyone else to hell.
Nobody believes that. Look up baptism of desire. Look up the Harrowing of Hell. Only radical fundamentalists believe that nobody can be saved outside of the visible bonds of the Church.

And you’re reliant on hadith and other parts of sunnah to know how to properly practice Islam, this is a dumb argument.

> say things like "God is not a man"
The context of this verse is to say that God doesn’t lie.

> but then condemn everyone else to hell.
It looks like Papists fried your brain. Christ descended into Hades after death and preached the Gospel there. Not to mention Church Fathers like Justin Martyr already believed that people had no excuse before Christ, and were still saved or condemned depending on their participation in the Logos. Paul even writes in Romans that the Gentiles know the things of the Law by nature

Muslims aren't reliant on the ahadith for understanding the identity of God, it can be done with intellect and Qur'an alone. I would even say (though I'm not a Qur'anist) that some of the ahadith confuse the matter, like metaphors of Allah's hands, which Salafis anthropomorphize

>It looks like Papists fried your brain
>Proceeds to lay out beliefs that are perfectly in line with Catholic theology
Why are Orthodox so hateful towards us Catholics? I respect Orthodox a lot but you lot seem to be extremely anti-Catholic, which doesn't even make sense. Our doctrines are basically identical, barring the Papacy.

>but then condemn everyone else to hell.
the church never teaches that only christians will be saved, but that all saved are members of the Invisible Church, whether they are christians or not

seems to be a modernist and protestant take. individual reasoning and sola scripture is very much in common both in protestants and muslims

>papists
oh it's another who rejects central authority

Attached: 1619383107422.jpg (1079x1351, 222.52K)

>participation in the Logos
What does this even mean?
>the context of this verse is to say that God doesn't lie
And in the next verse he says "Nor is He a Son of Man that he should repent". You don't think, if these books were divinely inspired, He wouldn't include something that can so easily be confused in light of new revelation?

i suppose they are mostly american orthodox who have a protestant milieu which has a strong history of anti-papacy

the anti-pauline sentiment is very stupid and born out of ressentment.

Do you understand the difference between "God is not a man" and "God assumed human nature and entered into his own creation"?

>individual reasoning and sola scripture is very much in common both in protestants and muslims
In some Sunnis, sure, not in Shia Islam

I think the Catholic Church has gone into error especiallysince the 1960s, and is going quickly towards some sort of ecumenist religion. We can see multiple popes praying in mosques, kissing Qur’ans, saying that Muslims are part of the promise given to Abraham, etc. I think many Catholics are good people and desire change in the Church and I pray it one day happens. I want reunification one day.

That isn't my point. My point is that it can be confused insanely easily. The mental gymnastics are insane

Attached: 1.png (1182x820, 368.92K)

the errors are not exclusive to catholicism. your own patriarch (unless you are in schism) from constantinople is as much ecumenical as pope francis

Jesus never repented either, as he was sinless. You capitalize ‘son of man’ in an attempt to bolster your argument, not knowing that ‘son of man’ is a Hebrew phrase meaning ‘people’ or ‘humans’ in general. The one like a son of man in Daniel, let us not forget, is the one given eternal dominion over all nations, peoples and languages. This is Jesus Christ, who was called the Son of Man as a messianic title. God assumed human nature

I don’t see him kissing Qur’ans and praying in mosques.

Well yeah some of the Popes have done extremely questionable things (not like Orthodox bishops haven't) but that doesn't reflect on the Church. We don't believe the Pope is sinless or will 100% go to heaven.

I know, the Hebrew is Ben Adam. Where does it say that the Son of Man in Daniel will be God in the flesh?

> My point is that it can be confused insanely easily.
Maybe if you’re a Muslim quote-miner who doesn’t look at Scripture holistically.

nobody takes evola seriously save some /pol/ incels who lack a father figure and want to larp as strong men of the will, knightly, aristocrats of the soul etc

In Samuel and Hosea he says He isn't a man too. Pharoah said he was God too, I don't see how this is confusing. The whole point of the Old Testament is that idols are not gods and humans are not gods

Christians don't believe God is a man. We believe God took on human nature and entered into his own creation. God is not just some dude. It's not "mental gymnastics" you're just being uncharitable.

Take the time when you get a chance to read 1 Samuel 7:14-16, Daniel 7:13-14 and Isaiah 9:6-7. We will see that the Davidic covenant necessitates that God will establish the House of David’s throne *forever*, and that God like be like a Father to the king, who will be his Son. This is repeated, of course, in Daniel, where the one like a son of man comes in the clouds of heaven and is granted eternal dominion. Isaiah 9 says that the Messiah promised to David will reign eternally and be named Mighty God, Prince of Peace, Wonderful Counselor, Everlasting Father, etc. Isaiah 11 says that the Messiah from the root of Jesse will stand as a banner for the nations (the cross), and all of the Gentiles will rally around him. His resting place, it says, will be glorious. Isaiah 12 says that in that day, people will sing that God is their salvation, and that the Holy One will be among them. This is Jesus Christ.

Attached: F1909DA7-EDC9-4AC3-8FE6-83B106A57EF9.jpg (375x700, 132.77K)

Oh ok so you don't believe he's a man, just that he became one, got it

God isn’t a man. Scripture teaches the incarnation, so the argument is dead in the water.

But Jesus wasn't a descendant of David, Jewish lineage is traced through the father. And the verse you mention from Isaiah 9 is outwardly talking about Hezekiah (I understand that the Christian tradition interprets this as typology), but either way, Christ is not the Father, he's the Son.

Yes but he didn't become a man in the sense that he was limited. He was fully in possession of his divine nature even as he was walking among us in human form.

>nobody takes evola seriously save some /pol/ incels who lack a father figure and want to larp as strong men of the will, knightly, aristocrats of the soul etc

Attached: 1616151226819.png (600x573, 417.28K)

That Samuel verse says "if he does wrong, he will be flogged by human hands", what did Jesus do wrong?

> But Jesus wasn't a descendant of David, Jewish lineage is traced through the father.
Both Mary and Joseph were descendents of David. Whatever way you look at it, he was a biological descendent of David.

> And the verse you mention from Isaiah 9 is outwardly talking about Hezekiah
Did a rabbi tell you that? Did Hezekiah come from Galilee? No. Did Hezekiah rule forever? No. Did Hezekiah have all of the Gentiles gather around him and have a glorious resting place? No.

>if
Even then, we know that Jesus was punished for our sins, and they were imputed to him though he was sinless.