Exoteric | Esoteric

[Thomas]

"Exotericism consists in identifying transcendent realities with the dogmatic forms, and if need be, with the historical facts of a given Revelation, whereas esotericism refers in a more or less direct manner to these same realities."
(Frithjof Schuon, Logic and Transcendence, New York, 1975, p. 144)

"If we can grasp the transcendent nature of the human being, we thereby grasp the nature of revelation, of religion, of tradition; we understand their possibility, their necessity, their truth. And in understanding religion, not only in a particular form or according to some verbal specification, but also in its formless essence, we understand the religions... the meaning of their plurality and diversity; this is the plane of gnosis, of the religio perennis, whereon the extrinsic antinomies of dogmas are explained and resolved."
(ibid. p. 142)

 

[TheLightWithin]

"Exotericism consists in identifying transcendent realities with the dogmatic forms, and if need be, with the historical facts of a given Revelation, whereas esotericism refers in a more or less direct manner to these same realities."
(Frithjof Schuon, Logic and Transcendence, New York, 1975, p. 144)

"If we can grasp the transcendent nature of the human being, we thereby grasp the nature of revelation, of religion, of tradition; we understand their possibility, their necessity, their truth. And in understanding religion, not only in a particular form or according to some verbal specification, but also in its formless essence, we understand the religions... the meaning of their plurality and diversity; this is the plane of gnosis, of the religio perennis, whereon the extrinsic antinomies of dogmas are explained and resolved."
(ibid. p. 142)

Reviving this thread - no questions on it at the time - sometimes I don't feel prepared enough to ask questions on this topic.
The idea of perennialism when I first came across it seemed in alignment with what I believed - if I understand correctly it holds that all religions come from the same underlying source, or ideas to that effect.

But as i've learned a little more, it seems perennialism holds ideas in contrast to my ideas too - for example somewhere I got the idea that perennialism holds that every religion in its orthodox form is complete and correct, or something like that.

I'm not quite sure what that means or what the implications are...

My thoughts are quite different. I agree that all religions come from the same source. But I also think that religions are theories about the source, not perfect expressions of it... I'm not really sure how to develop the idea further. I arrived at that idea when I was a little girl, hearing different beliefs from many different people. I was never confused, I just thought religions were theories about what little bit of information people could get from Beyond, given that G-d and whatever else was Beyond was almost always out of reach of the senses.

 

[Thomas]

The idea of perennialism when I first came across it seemed in alignment with what I believed - if I understand correctly it holds that all religions come from the same underlying source, or ideas to that effect.

Yes.

But as i've learned a little more, it seems perennialism holds ideas in contrast to my ideas too - for example somewhere I got the idea that perennialism holds that every religion in its orthodox form is complete and correct, or something like that.

It's 'complete and correct' in that it lacks nothing necessary for the believer to attain the goal of which the religion speaks.

But I also think that religions are theories about the source, not perfect expressions of it... I'm not really sure how to develop the idea further.

Well all religions are 'forms' and no religion is 'perfect' because humanity is not perfect and God is not a 'form'.

It depends what we mean about 'theories' – to some, it is a reality, and to others it's just a construct altogether.

Take any 'ideal' – the beatific vision, enlightenment, transcendence, etc., and the modern world has found a psychology to undermine it, and answer for everything that takes away faith in anything other than the empirical.

At ground level religion can be faith in the source, sans theories – our clever selves look down on that, whereas our wise selves know better.

In that sense, as we're discussing such esoterica, then the Archons of this world are doing quite a good job of undermining our faith in both God and ourselves.

 

[TheLightWithin]

At ground level religion can be faith in the source, sans theories – our clever selves look down on that, whereas our wise selves know better.

Faith in the source sans theories - that's pretty much my religion (which clever dogmatists look down upon and I know better?)
Maybe that's what it means

In that sense, as we're discussing such esoterica, then the Archons of this world are doing quite a good job of undermining our faith in both God and ourselves.

Discussing the theories and bits of data that support the theories without ever seeing the whole or knowing whether we are anywhere remotely close to the reality.
Something like a statement attributed I think to the Buddha "shall we debate the nature of fire or put out the fire?"

 

[Bloodshot]

"Exotericism consists in identifying transcendent realities with the dogmatic forms, and if need be, with the historical facts of a given Revelation, whereas esotericism refers in a more or less direct manner to these same realities."
(Frithjof Schuon, Logic and Transcendence, New York, 1975, p. 144)

"If we can grasp the transcendent nature of the human being, we thereby grasp the nature of revelation, of religion, of tradition; we understand their possibility, their necessity, their truth. And in understanding religion, not only in a particular form or according to some verbal specification, but also in its formless essence, we understand the religions... the meaning of their plurality and diversity; this is the plane of gnosis, of the religio perennis, whereon the extrinsic antinomies of dogmas are explained and resolved."
(ibid. p. 142)

Wow. Are there plain english versions, or are these writings actively designed only to be accessible to middle class intellectuals?

 

[wil]

Are there plain english versions

There are if you have a dictionary.

Some people follow the rules and stories of a religion to find God. Other people look for God directly in their own hearts and minds.

I look at the rules created by religionists to understand them and interpret scriptural stories created within religions to understand how to walk thru life with less hassle.

 

[Bloodshot]

My point is that using language like this automatically selects for a certain type of reader, and puts barriers up for others.

 

[Thomas]

My point is that using language like this automatically selects for a certain type of reader, and puts barriers up for others.

It's written on the basis of the reader making an effort to understand it, rather than talking down to the reader. Having said that, it's also written to a degree of metaphysical precision, so the language reflects that.

Generally, those texts that 'simplify' or make complex theories more accessible also tend to open the door to margins of error. The bookshops abound with popular books, aimed at a broader readership, making dubious metaphysical claims.

If you think this is difficult, try Analogia Entis: Metaphysics: Original Structure and Universal Rhythm, by Erich Przywara, published in 1932. I still can't get my head round it!

 

[Bloodshot]

Oh no, I don't have a problem, I was speaking more generally as a teacher as well as a learner. I've always took pains to make the path to knowledge easy to climb. What you say smacks a little of "You must learn the high tongue to be worthy of the sacred knowledge" to my ears.

But I am inferring a lot from a brief passage, perhaps the writer paved the way before this point.

 

[Thomas]

Hi Bloodshot –

Wow. Are there plain english versions, or are these writings actively designed only to be accessible to middle class intellectuals?
...
My point is that using language like this automatically selects for a certain type of reader, and puts barriers up for others.

Does it, though ... or more precisely, what type of reader?

At first glance, I did wonder at the stereotype 'middle class intellectuals' and what is says about the perceived class, and similarly the upper and working classes?

But I think there's more to it.

We read by pattern recognition. When we read the eye skips along the top of the line (technical term is saccade), and we recognise words by shape, rather than letter-by-letter. And here's where it gets interesting ...

People often put down books and say "it's too hard" or "I don't understand it", whereas, in fact, quite often, what's happening is they are faced with unfamiliar word patterns, and so the number of saccades per line increases, and the eye has to work harder to read, and this is all the more tiring. That's when they put the book down. It's not that they lack the intellectual capacity to read or understand, it's simply it is actually harder work to read.

Texts that deploy often unfamiliar technical terms, suffer from this.

The question then is, is it worth the effort?

If the reader is invested in the subject, it is. If they're not, it isn't. And that depends upon a desire to understand, in which case the reader makes the effort (sometimes even reading with a dictionary to hand), as opposed to a so-so desire which would rather have everything made easy and accessible – offered in patterns they recognise, rather than having to make an effort to understand, or get their minds round new patterns.

If one perseveres, of course, the new word-patterns become familiar, and reading becomes easier, and the problem goes away.

+++

Take the text cited in your post #35 under 'Taoism cosmology'

"The Cosmic Decoherence Framework 1.0
Description
This framework proposes that the arrow of time, dimensions, and structures of the universe on every scale, arise from the decoherence and cooling phase transition of a pristine, superfluid-like medium. A nucleating bubble cascade generates a fractal foam. As the bubbles expand and pop, the deterioration of the interstitial scaffold imparts fractal vortex generation, laying down the pattern of galaxies, stars and planets, and the seeds of matter itself. Particles are interpreted as dynamically stable vortex structures. Quantum uncertainty is reframed as substrate decoherence, resolving the role of the observer."

Which is, I would suggest, no less technical or obtuse than the texts I cited, and equally susceptible to the same criticism?

 

[Bloodshot]

Absolutely, that text was intentionally tailored for a particular audience with a particular vocabulary. I'll be sharing the same ideas in different ways via different media.

I'm very aware of how my choice of words selects my audience, my original comment was I guess questioning how deliberate this was on the part of the authors of the quoted passages.

 

[wil]

Some people follow the rules and stories of a religion to find God. Other people look for God directly in their own hearts and minds.

But I am inferring a lot from a brief passage, perhaps the writer paved the way before this point.

Isn't that the way of all knowledge? There are steps along the way...

I recall a story of a computer being dropped in an African village. No instruction...just a computer...and everyone in the village now had access but they had to stand in line to use it...wait their turn...and first had to learn English.

The complex words are buried in their definitions and implications....and if we start over every time...it wastes all of our time.

 

[Thomas]

Absolutely, that text was intentionally tailored for a particular audience with a particular vocabulary. I'll be sharing the same ideas in different ways via different media.

Same with the perennialists. Generally they decried the intellectual poverty with regard to traditional metaphysics in their day. They made no bones about the fact they were talking to a particular audience.

I'm very aware of how my choice of words selects my audience, my original comment was I guess questioning how deliberate this was on the part of the authors of the quoted passages.

And I agree with you, with regard to choice of words.

Why try and reinvent language when there is a lexicon common to the discourse on a particular subject?

When it comes to discussions of metaphysics, most often and most common are errors that occur because people do not have sufficient insight into the lexicon, and because of that tend to fall into categorical error.

 

[Bloodshot]

Fair enough!
Bolshy working class egalitarian intellectual here, as you probably suspected

 

[TheLightWithin]

Absolutely, that text was intentionally tailored for a particular audience with a particular vocabulary. I'll be sharing the same ideas in different ways via different media.

I'm very aware of how my choice of words selects my audience, my original comment was I guess questioning how deliberate this was on the part of the authors of the quoted passages.

All writing is tailored towards some audience of readers real or imagined. Not all material is written to be easily accessible, but that doesn't mean the author isn't necessarily trying to stop anybody from reading the material.

 

[Bloodshot]

Absolutely! I bristled for no good reason, or the wrong one anyway.

I do however find advocating different paths for the "masses" and the "enlightened" horribly elitist at first glance.

 

[TheLightWithin]

Absolutely! I bristled for no good reason, or the wrong one anyway.

Why?

I do however find advocating different paths for the "masses" and the "enlightened" horribly elitist at first glance.

Ok... but you can read the material anyway if you can get your eyes on it. Regardless of what elitism (or any other motive) there may be.