The Perennial Philosophy

[bernee51]

In this discussion Micatala listed some of the reasons he thought were the basis for a belief in god and religion.

Aldous Huxley, in The Perennial Philosophy wrote:
" Philosophia Perennis-- the phrase was coined by Leibniz; but the thing -- the metaphysic that recognizes a divine Reality substantial to the world of things and lives and minds; the psychology that finds in the soul something similar to, or even identical with, divine Reality; the ethic that places man's final end in the knowledge of the immanent and transcendent Ground of all being -- the thing is immemorial and universal. Rudiments of the Perennial Philosophy may be found among the traditionary lore of primitive peoples in every region of the world, and in its fully developed forms it has a place in every one of the higher religions."

Because we are conscious, sentient beings we have an awareness of our own consciousness. This consciousness, as Schoedinger noted, is singular, a plural is unknown. This consciousness is also unsullied by the imperfections we observe in the phenomenal world. We see the imperfections and attribute them to 'man' and his 'fall'. The individualised ego provides us with our view of the world. However, we are also aware, at a fundamental level, of the 'divinity' of our pure consciousness, and because it does not fit within what we see, we call it 'god'. A separate reality.

This observation is summed up succinctly in the Sanskrit formula tat twam asi - That art thou. Our Self, our pure consciousness, is but one. The search for 'god' outside is futile and ultimately doomed to failure. What we seek is our own pure consciousness - and that is within - and is is common to us all.

Shroedinger:
"Is it not possible that this unity of knowledge, feeling and choice which you call your own should have sprung into being from nothingness at a given moment not so long ago; rather, this knowledge, feeling and choice are essentially eternal and unchangeable and numerically one in all people, nay in all sensitive beings."

Is the why of religion - the fact that we are aware?

[juliod]

Is the why of religion - the fact that we are aware?

I agree. My personal belief is that religion (and supernaturalism generally) are a consequence of language. Once we were able to formulate the thought "why" we were forced to find explanations for things we were manifestly unable to explain. Primitive man knew nothing, so it is natural that the answers he came up with were very wrong. From this "awakening" we get religion.

DAnZ

[harvey1]

I agree. My personal belief is that religion (and supernaturalism generally) are a consequence of language. Once we were able to formulate the thought "why" we were forced to find explanations for things we were manifestly unable to explain. Primitive man knew nothing, so it is natural that the answers he came up with were very wrong. From this "awakening" we get religion.

My view is that religion is a consequence of a spiritual awareness of one's environment. I have often thought that some feel their independence is threatened by this spiritual awareness, so for them, they would rather deny the beauty that comes from seeing purpose in human existence.

[bernee51]

Is the why of religion - the fact that we are aware?

I agree. My personal belief is that religion (and supernaturalism generally) are a consequence of language. Once we were able to formulate the thought "why" we were forced to find explanations for things we were manifestly unable to explain. Primitive man knew nothing, so it is natural that the answers he came up with were very wrong. From this "awakening" we get religion.

DAnZ

They may have been wrong from our perspective now, just as some would see the current crop of interpretations of the perennial philosophy as also being wrong - especially if it does not agree with theirown interpretation. However for the believers, ancient and modern, it is right and brings some meaning and purpose into their existence.

These interpretations can be seen to be undergoing what could be described as evolutionary change. From animism, through magical, mythic, rational and so on.

[bernee51]

My view is that religion is a consequence of a spiritual awareness of one's environment.

Do you mean by that awareness of 'spirit' in the environment or having an awareness of the environment that transcends the physical?

[harvey1]

Do you mean by that awareness of 'spirit' in the environment or having an awareness of the environment that transcends the physical?

I would say religion stems from at least both of these.

[bernee51]

Do you mean by that awareness of 'spirit' in the environment or having an awareness of the environment that transcends the physical?

I would say religion stems from at least both of these.

Those two seem to be common to all interpretations of the PP. (There are other obvious commonalities)

Can you offer your definition of 'spirit?

[ST88]

Is the why of religion - the fact that we are aware?

I'm not sure that it can be adequately summed up that way. It is possible to ask why we are here and come up with a non-religious answer (e.g., Because that's how the cosmic cookie crumbled). I think the fact that most people do have a religious answer to that question is a bigger point. I partly agree with juliod's assessment that asking a why question tends to lead one down the garden path, but I think the answer lies more with the need for the human brain to fill in the gaps in knowledge with something that makes sense to both hemispheres. Whether this pre-dates (in evolutionary terms) the language necessary to ask "why" is an open question.

The fact that we are aware is a compelling piece of evidence, but we do not even know enough about awareness to eliminate it as an attribute of so-called lower life forms, who presumably do not have religion. As a separeate point, do/can autistic persons have religion?

But besides that, what appears to have eluded Shroedinger (in that quote -- I'm not familiar with the guy) is that awareness need not be a binary operator (snap on, snap off)-- it is most likely a continuum, as evidenced by, among other things, Piaget's stages of human development. This leads me to believe that this particular fallacy of self-awareness is that there is something unexplainable and therefore mystical about it (who flipped the switch?). It's my opinion that we are all perception processors with highly developed analysis functions. The "I" that I feel can't be an illusion, for example, because there would have to be another "I" behind the illusion in order to be convinced by it, & so on. That we can't reconcile our linear way of grasping & storing knowledge with the biology of the mind is the most likely cause for believing in powers we can't perceive. And that's a higher level of philosophy than simple awareness.

[bernee51]

... but I think the answer lies more with the need for the human brain to fill in the gaps in knowledge with something that makes sense to both hemispheres. Whether this pre-dates (in evolutionary terms) the language necessary to ask "why" is an open question.

Knowledge...and emotion.

The 'something' has to help the believer make sense of what it sees around them.

"All life is suffering"? Why do we 'suffer'? Why the 'imperfection'?

The fact that we are aware is a compelling piece of evidence, but we do not even know enough about awareness to eliminate it as an attribute of so-called lower life forms, who presumably do not have religion. As a separeate point, do/can autistic persons have religion?

Interesting question??

But besides that, what appears to have eluded Shroedinger (in that quote -- I'm not familiar with the guy) is that awareness need not be a binary operator (snap on, snap off)-- it is most likely a continuum, as evidenced by, among other things, Piaget's stages of human development.

Piagets stages are developmental levels of 'consciousness'. I don't believe that each level is a different cosnciousness.

This leads me to believe that this particular fallacy of self-awareness is that there is something unexplainable and therefore mystical about it (who flipped the switch?).

Agree totally.

It's my opinion that we are all perception processors with highly developed analysis functions. The "I" that I feel can't be an illusion, for example, because there would have to be another "I" behind the illusion in order to be convinced by it, & so on.

The 'I' you feel, the one you describe, is the sense of the individual self. The 'unity' theory of consciousness is that there is only one, which is fundamental to all sentient beings, whih is the 'observer' of the individual self.

That we can't reconcile our linear way of grasping & storing knowledge with the biology of the mind is the most likely cause for believing in powers we can't perceive. And that's a higher level of philosophy than simple awareness.

Does the mind have a 'biology'?

[ST88]

... but I think the answer lies more with the need for the human brain to fill in the gaps in knowledge with something that makes sense to both hemispheres. Whether this pre-dates (in evolutionary terms) the language necessary to ask "why" is an open question.

The 'something' has to help the believer make sense of what it sees around them.

"All life is suffering"? Why do we 'suffer'? Why the 'imperfection'?

That's a good point. But I think it's possible to ask why something in nature happens and come up with a religious answer before selfishly asking why there are personal tribulations.

But besides that, what appears to have eluded Shroedinger (in that quote -- I'm not familiar with the guy) is that awareness need not be a binary operator (snap on, snap off)-- it is most likely a continuum, as evidenced by, among other things, Piaget's stages of human development.

Piagets stages are developmental levels of 'consciousness'. I don't believe that each level is a different cosnciousness.

For all intents and purposes, doesn't the awareness of self = consciousness? There is a defined stage where babies recognize themselves in a mirror, for example. But the example was intended to show that biological development mirrors the process of becoming aware.

It's my opinion that we are all perception processors with highly developed analysis functions. The "I" that I feel can't be an illusion, for example, because there would have to be another "I" behind the illusion in order to be convinced by it, & so on.

The 'I' you feel, the one you describe, is the sense of the individual self. The 'unity' theory of consciousness is that there is only one, which is fundamental to all sentient beings, whih is the 'observer' of the individual self.

That's a hard one to swallow. Jungian Ur theory, to me, seems to suffer from experimenter bias. Why are there common visions among peyote users? Answer A is that peyote unlocks the door between common consciousness and individual consciousness; answer B is that peyote acts on the same areas of the brain in all users, which is scientifically verifiable. I don't necessarily discount the idea of common consciousness out of hand, but there's really no need for it to explain how the mind works.

That we can't reconcile our linear way of grasping & storing knowledge with the biology of the mind is the most likely cause for believing in powers we can't perceive. And that's a higher level of philosophy than simple awareness.

Does the mind have a 'biology'?

Absolutely. We can prove this by performing and examining brain lesion studies. There are defined and repeatable observations of specific sequelae that lead to specific neurological conditions, which are expressed as alterations of mind-states.