The Trouble with Transcendental Unity of Religions

[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.”"

[seattlegal]

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.

If you can talk about it,
it ain't Tao.
If it has a name,
it's just another thing.

Tao doesn't have a name.
Names are for ordinary things.

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.

Stop wanting stuff;
it keeps you from seeing what's real.
When you want stuff,
all you see are things.

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.”"

Those two sentences
mean the same thing.
Figure them out,
and you've got it made.


~The Tao Te Ching 1
a modern interpretation of Lao Tzu
perpetrated by Ron Hogan
-source-

[wil]

Funny,

The title says the 'trouble with'...but as I read the document it appears the title should say the 'beauty of'...

And yes I think SL has it right when we try to verbalize that which we have in our hearts, that which we've grocked via inspiration, words do not suffice, but it is apparent by the blissful grin on our face and then confused look as we move from that thought to the physical space we perceive we are in.

[Thomas]

Hi Seattlegal —

Originally Posted by seattlegal

If you can talk about it,
it ain't Tao.

Of course, we must accept and understand that because the true depths of the Tao lie beyond the Taoist's apprehension, that does not mean that the rule applies to every other belief ...

Put another way — the shortcomings of one does not thereby determine that everything else is subject to the same degree.

Thomas

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by wil

Funny,

The title says the 'trouble with'...but as I read the document it appears the title should say the 'beauty of'...

Not really Wil, look closer — Huston Smith was pointing to the 'Promeathean temptation' of assuming one can have a foot in every camp, and of making such statements as 'all religions are the same', and so forth — which assumes that speaker considers him or herself superior to all religions, to make such as assertion in the first place.

Originally Posted by wil

but it is apparent by the blissful grin on our face and then confused look as we move from that thought to the physical space we perceive we are in.

Hmmm ... not so sure ... Could not that 'blissful grin and a confused look' simply be a sign of ... confusion?

Certainly I doubt the Buddha, the Christ and a host of others aimed at such a result as the product of their teachings? They saw the world clearly ... without confusion, and nothing to laugh about ...

I think we too often try to accommodate their teaching to our world, to make their message comfortable and manageable ... beatitude is a nice idea, and my own faith is founded on it, but there's a world of work to do first.

Thomas

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Seattlegal —



Of course, we must accept and understand that because the true depths of the Tao lie beyond the Taoist's apprehension, that does not mean that the rule applies to every other belief ...

Put another way — the shortcomings of one does not thereby determine that everything else is subject to the same degree.

Thomas

Hi Thomas. I was attempting to point out how Huston Smith's letter paralleled the Tao Te Ching 1. Same arguments, same process, much wordier.

[Snoopy]

Originally Posted by seattlegal

Same arguments, same process, much wordier.

My, haven't we been on the green tea today!

s.

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Not really Wil, look closer — Huston Smith was pointing to the 'Promeathean temptation'

Namaste Thomas,

I looked closer and saw what I saw the first time. The problem isn't with Transedental Unity, but with the perceptions of same. He says

The problem ... 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.

And then his last paragraph, a summary and conclusion.

...I am fully convinced that ... truth is no longer a matter of doctrine, of theological or metaphysical conceptions, but is God Himself: ‘I am the truth’, said Christ.”"

Obviously if he believes what he is saying Christ is more than a narrow view.

[dauer]

I saw what Wil saw, if Wil saw what I think he saw. I thought the good prof was criticizing and dismissing an oversimplification of the idea that religions all share something in common at the core while embracing a more nuanced understanding of how religions share something in common.

-- Dauer

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by dauer

I saw what Wil saw, if Wil saw what I think he saw. I thought the good prof was criticizing and dismissing an oversimplification of the idea that religions all share something in common at the core while embracing a more nuanced understanding of how religions share something in common.

-- Dauer

Apologies to Wil (sorry Wil) ... I was picking up other things ...

Thomas

[wil]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Apologies to Wil (sorry Wil) ... I was picking up other things ...

Thomas

Namaste Thomas,

No worries, a little postjudice is bound to happen after we've bumped heads on various topics.

[seattlegal]

Originally Posted by Snoopy

My, haven't we been on the green tea today!

s.

I need to be hitting the dark chocolate, instead!

[Eclectic Mystic]

Originally Posted by Thomas

Hi Seattlegal —



Of course, we must accept and understand that because the true depths of the Tao lie beyond the Taoist's apprehension, that does not mean that the rule applies to every other belief ...

Put another way — the shortcomings of one does not thereby determine that everything else is subject to the same degree.

Thomas

This is a shortcoming?

[Thomas]

Originally Posted by Eclectic Mystic

This is a shortcoming?

My point being that because one Tradition implies or reaches a limit in the order of transcendence, that does not thereby mean that the same limit is present in all Traditions.

Thomas

[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