From: darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice)
Subject: Re: religion in general
Keywords: atheism is more than just anti-Christian
Organization: Monash University, Melb., Australia.
Date: Fri, 22 Jan 1993 08:59:59 GMT

In <77122@apple.apple.COM> mikel@Apple.COM (Mikel Evins) writes:

>In article <1993Jan20.105527.19729@monu6.cc.monash.edu.au> darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au (Fred Rice) writes:
>>
>>Not really.  Several people, throughout history in fact, have the
>>viewpoint that the essential truths within various "authentic" religions
>>are one.  This, I understand, was a viewpoint held by several mystics in
>>the past.  For example, the Sufi Al-Jili wrote:

>I am aware of the popularity of this viewpoint among mystics,
>but I disagree with it. In my opinion, the unification
>alleged by adherents of this view is generally accomplished
>at the expense of the essential characters of one or more of 
>the religions being considered. It looks to me as though
>such philosophers lift those features of various religions
>that can be interpreted to agree with their viewpoint and
>ignore other features. 

It depends upon what you consider to be the "essential" characteristics
of the religion.  The Perennial Philosophy viewpoint I am most familiar
with -- that espoused by Frithjof Schuon -- holds that the essence of
a religion is its esoteric, or mystic, dimension.  According to this
viewpoint, Sufism is the heart of Islam.  This viewpoint is not really
new, of course, since several Sufis and Muslims (and probably mystics of
other religions too, I expect) have also stated this.  One famous
example is Al-Ghazali, who was a well-known Islamic theologian before he
discovered and embraced Sufism.  (He lived in the 12th or 13th century
or so.)

>The Baha'is, who hold the unity of all 
>religions as an article of faith, will go so far as to
>redefine the creeds of some religions to make them fit
>the philosophy they advocate, and redefine the word 'religion'
>to exclude those religions (such as Zen Buddhism) that cannot 
>be remolded in this fashion.

I don't know about Zen Buddhism in particular, but regarding Buddhism
generally it seems to me that the Buddhist concept of Nirvana is
essentially the same as the Sufi concept of "fana", which can be
interpreted as "annihilation in God".  In Buddhism and Sufism, in this
stage the mystic loses his sense of individuality and merges with "God"
(in Sufism) or ? in Buddhism.
(Whether this is useful or not to what you were saying I don't know, 
since my knowledge in particular of Zen Buddhism is poor.)

I don't know how the Bahais formulate their unity of faith doctrine, so
I can't comment on it directly.

However, I admit that you cannot say that _all_ religions are
essentially the same, for then you would have to include all manner of
weird suicidal cults etc., which would just turn the whole idea into a
joke.  Schuon specifies the unity of "revealed" religions -- how he
determines that a religion is "revealed" I don't actually know at this
stage.  However, I do know that he considers Hinduism to be the original
"revealed" religion and Islam to be the last "revealed" religion.  (This
accords with Muhammad's claim to being the "last Prophet" and with
Islam's claim to being a reaffirmation of the primordial religion which
God has periodically revealed to mankind over mankind's existence.)

>I think it is reasonable to characterize such portrayals as a sort
>of (perhaps unintentional) intellectual imperialism in which
>the essential character of a religion is discarded and its
>exploitable characteristics co-opted to serve a philosopher's
>ideological agenda.

What do you mean here by the "essential" character of a religion?
Perhaps we mean different things when you and I talk about a religion's
"essence."

I personally do not consider certain laws, for example, as constituting
a religion's essence (such as Judaic or Islamic law).  The reason for
this is because Jewish and Islamic faith both recognize that there was a
period (before Moses) when there was no explicit religious law, at least
not in the sense of highly developed Jewish or Islamic law as exists at
present.  These laws are therefore not, in my opinion, the essences of
these religions.

>>Anyhow, I hope I have shown that your conclusion, that the greatest
>>evidence against the authenticity of religions is the fact of a
>>plurality of religions, does not follow.

>I don't believe that the plurality of religions can be made
>into a very strong case against the validity of one or
>another of them, but I don't think your argument establishes
>this.

>>Another topic relevant to this is the unity of purpose of various
>>mythologies, as expounded in the work of Joseph Campbell.
>>
>>This is good scholarship I'm talking about here -- you can't just
>>dismiss it with a wave of your hand.

>No hand-waving here, I hope; I am familiar with Campbell's work
>(and would recommend Eliade's for a somewhat more detailed look
>at some of the same issues), but I interpret it differently from
>the way you seem to.

You are probably more familiar with Campbell's stuff than I am.  So far
I have only seen Campbell's TV series.  I hope to get around to reading
some of his books eventually.  It was interesting that he sees a unity
of purpose in these various myths, however, I think his interpretation
of this is more a universality of human psychology than a universal
transcendent truth behind them.  However, as I said, I'm no expert on
Joseph Campbell's viewpoint.

Schuon _is_ explicit in sensing a transcendent truth behind all "revealed"
religions.  In fact, Schuon tries to do more than just see a unity
behind "revealed" religions -- he also attacks Western rationalist
thought in favour of a more "traditional" mode of thought explicit
within mysticism.  By this, I don't mean that Schuon doesn't feel that
rational thought will lead to truth, but rather he feels that rational thought
can only lead to a limited truth.  In this sense he is a strong critic
of modern philosophy, since I think he feels it makes greater claims for
rationalist thought than it warrants.

 Fred Rice
 darice@yoyo.cc.monash.edu.au   
Newsgroups: alt.atheism