In defense of Monism

My position is that perennialism, irrespective of whether it's true or not, is a fruitless position to hold. That is to say, it has no implications with respect to the life, and its quality, one leads. Before I explain further, let me try and say what I mean by perennialism. Consider the following two questions:

1) Is there any truth in religion?

2) Is any religion true?

The perennialist is someone who answers the first question in the affirmative and the second in the negative. Religions glimpse a single truth exclusive to none of them. They each merely point to this truth with words like God, Brahman, Nirvana, Tao, etc.

The religious inclusivist, by contrast, is someone who answers both questions in the affirmative. Let's take the Christian inclusivist as an example. For him, God, as revealed in the person of Christ, is the ultimate standard of truth, but dim, incomplete reflections and expressions of this truth can still be found in other religions. Thus, the perennialist subsumes God under a neutral truth X, whereas for the Christian inclusivist, God occupies the place of X (for there is nothing beyond God), just as Brahman does for the Hindu inclusivist, and so on.

Now, what follows from perennialism? I answer: nothing. If it turns out that all religions are merely groping in various ways toward some truth exclusive to none of them, then one has, ipso facto, ruled out belonging to any one of them. Apart from Unitarianism perhaps, every religious tradition proposes a set of exclusive truth claims that it is incumbent on followers to accept. But more than that, every religious tradition makes certain practical and behavioral demands of its follows. The Catholic must attend Mass, the Hindu, puja, the Jew, synagogue, and so on. The follower is obliged to pray, meditate, fast, give to charity, go on pilgrimage, etc.

The perennialist is estranged from all this. If he claims that he can still engage in certain of these practices without formally belonging to any particular religious tradition, that may be so, but a religion of one is, in reality, a religion of none. It isn't religion at all, but a form of eclecticism, for religion is an inherently communal and institutional enterprise. Such a person is seeking the benefits of religion without the costs, the costs being assent to a specific set of truth claims and obedience to religious authority, both of which are especially hard for modern man to accept. Simply put, it isn't certain that the benefits of religion can be had outside of it. Nor is it certain that they can be had within it either, but one may and ought to wonder whether they are better had within it than not. The religious hermit, for example, for all his solitude, still chooses to formally bind himself to a particular belief structure and religious institution, no matter how physically distant from the latter he may be.

In sum, perennialism leaves one in precisely the same set of circumstances one was in before its acceptance. For the individual who sees the possibility, merit, and even urgency of personal transformation, perennialism will be an empty consolation.

Simply put, it isn't certain that the benefits of religion can be had outside of it. Nor is it certain that they can be had within it either, but one may and ought to wonder whether they are better had within it than not. The religious hermit, for example, for all his solitude, still chooses to formally bind himself to a particular belief structure and religious institution, no matter how physically distant from the latter he may be.

In sum, perennialism leaves one in precisely the same set of circumstances one was in before its acceptance. For the individual who sees the possibility, merit, and even urgency of personal transformation, perennialism will be an empty consolation.

The Jedis are purposefully designed after Zen Buddhism.

Maybe the point is labels don’t mean much.

Thorongil is right that Perennialism basically says all religions are wrong and are mistaken about Reality. I don’t think this is accurate.

I don’t think God cares about theological accuracy.

This idea that there is good in most religions helps answer why I’ve met very holy and wise people in conflicting faiths and why I’ve personally found each of them meaningful.

There’s nothing wrong in mixing them to make my own blend, since there is no required formula for avoiding damnation.

You ought not to call yourself a Christian or attend a Christian church if you reject the truth claims of Christianity. I

My advice would be to stick to better articulating it, instead of employing in a superficial manner various mystics, religious founders, and philosophers as a crutch to lend credibility to your views, whatever they are.

You said earlier that if I reject all religions then I end up not believing anything.

I’ve akready established there is no damnation

Personally I’m drawn most strongly to Islam, Judaism and Baha’i, so I think I can practice a monotheism

My entrance into heaven isn’t based on my theological accuracy nor my ability to articulate it.

God commands you not to commit suicide or murder, which is why you won't kill yourself or murder other people in order to attain heaven that much faster. But if getting to heaven requires accepting this particular dogma about suicide and murder,

If not because you think one of them is true, then you're just expressing your aesthetic preferences, which I and most people here don't care about.

was taking aim at the perennialist who conceives of himself as a religious person, despite not formally belonging to any one particular religion. "A religion of one is a religion of none."

God can command things as what we should do in order to be righteous and be closer to Him, but He doesn’t have to require these things to avoid hell. Jews are commanded to wear tassels but aren’t going to hell for not doing so. This is a Christian understanding of the Law which is not Jewish.

Even if I don’t, I could easily become a universalit Quranist (i.e. Muslim). I’m sure there are other liberal Muslims, I know universalist Sufis exist.

Or I would be fully welcome with the Quakers.

If Bishop Spong is Episcopalian than so am I.

Labels don’t mean much.

The best objection to religious membership meaning anything at all, is the vast number of people who say they are a certain religion and even be on the church rolls but only rarely go to services, do no practices at home, do not follow their faiths prohibitions, and know little of their faith’s theology. I would be a good Christian if I just didn’t like reading and cared more about football instead without any increase of faith.