Aldous Huxley who can articulate himself as good as Richard Dawkins, writes an introduction to the Hindu scripture 'The Bhagavad Gita' and shows that the perennial philosophy underlies all major religions and thus can be a common ground for all religious adherents.

I am curious if anyone else sees the sense of what Huxley is trying to convey here. Telling the religious to become atheist and vice versa is never in my view gonna work and bring peace and harmony. Also other religious peoples trying to impose their views on other religious follwers isnt gonna do the trick either. All religious peoples recognizing a common factor in all religions which is the perenial philosophy (this common factor by the way promotes tolerance, love and charity and therefore isnt prejudiced against atheists) will allow religious adherents to focus on a fundamental metaphysical similarity which can most definately help maintain and constantly renew a loving tolerant perspective.



Introduction to the Bhagavad-Gita (Translation of Bhagavad-Gita by Swami Prabhavananda and Christopher
Isherwood.) by Aldous Huxely.

More than twenty-five centuries have passed since that which has been called the Perennial Philosophy was first committed to writing; and in the course of those centuries it has found expression, now partial, now complete, now in this form, now in that, again and again. In Vedanta and Hebrew prophecy, in the Tao Teh King and the Platonic dialogues, in the Gospel according to St. John and Mahayana theology, in Plotinus and the Areopagite, among the Persian Sufis and the Christian mystics of the Middle Ages and the Renaissance--the Perennial Philosophy has spoken almost all the languages of Asia and Europe and has made use of the terminology and traditions of every one of the higher religions.

But under all this confusion of tongues and myths, of local histories and particularist doctrines, there remains a Highest Common Factor, which is the Perennial Philosophy in what may be called its chemically pure state. This final purity can never, of course, be expressed by any verbal statement of the philosophy, however undogmatic that statement may be, however deliberately syncretistic. The very fact that it is set down at a certain time by a certain writer, using this or that language, automatically imposes a certain sociological and personal bias on the doctrines so formulated. It is only the act of contemplation when words and even personality are transcended, that the pure state of the Perennial Philosophy can actually be known. The records left by those who have known it in this way make it abundantly clear that all of them, whether Hindu, Buddhist, Hebrew, Taoist, Christian, or Mohammedan, were attempting to describe the same essentially indescribable Fact.


The original scriptures of most religions are poetical and unsystematic. Theology, which generally takes the form of a reasoned commentary on the parables and aphorisms of the scriptures, tends to make its appearance at a later stage of religious history. The Bhagavad-Gita occupies an intermediate position between scripture and theology; for it combines the poetical qualities of the first with the clear-cut methodicalness of the second. The book may be described, writes Ananda K. Coomaraswamy in his admirable Hinduism and Buddhism, “as a compendium of the whole Vedic doctrine to be found in the earlier Vedas, Brahmanas and Upanishads, and being therefore the basis of all the later developments, it can be regarded as the focus of all Indian religion” is also one of the clearest and most comprehensive summaries of the Perennial Philosophy ever to have been made.

Hence its enduring value, not only for Indians, but for all mankind.
At the core of the Perennial Philosophy we find four fundamental doctrines.
First: the phenomenal world of matter and of individualized consciousness--the world of things and animals and men and even gods--is the manifestation of a Divine Ground within which all partial realities have their being, and apart from which they would be non-existent.

Second: human beings are capable not merely of knowing about the Divine Ground by inference; they can also realize its existence by a direct intuition, superior to discursive reasoning. This immediate knowledge unites the knower with that which is known.

Third: man possesses a double nature, a phenomenal ego and an eternal Self, which is the inner man, the spirit, the spark of divinity within the soul. It is possible for a man, if he so desires, to identify himself with the spirit and therefore with the Divine Ground, which is of the same or like nature with the spirit.

Fourth: man’s life on earth has only one end and purpose: to identify himself with his eternal Self and so to come to unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground.

In Hinduism the first of these four doctrines is stated in the most categorical terms. The Divine Ground is Brahman, whose creative, sustaining and transforming aspects are manifested the Hindu trinity. A hierarchy of manifestations connects inanimate matter with man, gods, High Gods, and the undifferentiated Godhead beyond.
In Mahayana Buddhism the Divine Ground is called Mind or the Pure Light of the Void, the place of the High Gods is taken by the Dhyani-Buddhas.

Similar conceptions are perfectly compatible with Christianity and have in fact been entertained, explicitly or implicitly, by many Catholic and Protestant mystics, when formulating a philosophy to fit facts observed by super-rational intuition. Thus, for Eckhart and Ruysbroeck, there is an Abyss of Godhead underlying the Trinity, just as Brahman underlies Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Suso has even left a diagrammatic picture of the relations subsisting between Godhead, triune God and creatures. In this very curious and interesting drawing a chain of manifestation connects the mysterious symbol of the Divine Ground with the three Persons of the Trinity, and the Trinity in turn is connected in a descending scale with angels and human beings.

These last, as the drawing vividly shows, may make one of two choices. They can either live the life of the outer man, the life of the separative selfhood; in which case they are lost (for, in the words of the Theologia Germanica, “nothing burns in hell but the self”). Or else they can identify themselves with the inner man, in which case it becomes possible for them, as Suso shows, to ascend again, through unitive knowledge, to the Trinity and even, beyond they Trinity, to the ultimate Unity of the Divine Ground.

Within the Mohammedan tradition such a rationalization of the immediate mystical experience would have been dangerously unorthodox. Nevertheless, one has the impression, while reading certain Sufi texts, that their authors did in fact conceive of al haqq, the Real, as being the Divine Ground or Unity of Allah, underlying the active and personal aspects of the Godhead.

The second doctrine of the Perennial Philosophy--that it is possible to know the Divine Ground by a direct intuition higher than discursive reasoning--is to be found in all the great religions of the world. A philosopher who is content merely to know about the ultimate Reality--theoretically and by hearsay--is compared by Buddha to a herdsman of other men’s cows. Mohammed uses an even homelier barnyard metaphor. For him the philosopher who has not realized his metaphysics is just an ass bearing a load of books. Christian, Hindu, Taoist teachers wrote no less emphatically about the absurd pretensions of mere learning and analytic reasoning.

In the words of the Anglican Prayer Book, our eternal life, now and hereafter, “stands in the knowledge of God”; and this knowledge is not discursive, but “of the heart,” a super-rational intuition, direct, synthetic and timeless.

The third doctrine of the Perennial Philosophy, that which affirms the double nature of man, if fundamental in all the higher religions. The unitive knowledge of the Divine Ground has, as its necessary condition, self-abnegation and charity. Only by means of self-abnegation and charity can we clear away the evil, folly and ignorance which constitute the thing we call our personality and prevent us from becoming aware of the spark of divinity illuminating the inner man. but the spark within is akin to the Divine Ground.

By identifying ourselves with the first we can come to unitive knowledge of the second. These empirical facts of the spiritual life have been variously rationalized in terms of the theologies of the various religions. The Hindus categorically affirm that thou art That--that the indwelling Atman is the same as Brahman. For orthodox Christianity there is not an identity between the spark and God. union of the human spirit with God takes place--union so complete that the word deification is applied to it; but it is not the union of identical substances. According to Christian theology, the saint is “deified,” not because Atman is Brahman, but because God has assimilated the purified human spirit in to the divine substance by an act of grace.

Islamic theology seems to make a similar distinction. The Sufi, Mansur, was executed for giving to the words “union” and “deification” the literal meaning which they bear in the Hindu tradition. For our present purposes, however, the significant fact is that these words are actually used by Christians and Mohammedans to describe the empirical facts of metaphysical realization by means of direct, super-rational intuition.


in regard to man’s final end, all the higher religions are in complete agreement. The purpose of human life is the discovery of Truth, the unitive knowledge of the Godhead. The degree to which this unitive knowledge is achieved here on earth determines the degree to which it will be enjoyed in the posthumous state. Contemplation of truth is the end, action the means. In India, in China, in ancient Greece, in Christian Europe, this was regarded as the most obvious and axiomatic piece of orthodoxy.

The invention of the steam engine produced a revolution, not merely in industrial techniques, but also much more significantly in philosophy. Because machines could be made progressively more and more efficient, Western man came to believe that men and societies would automatically register a corresponding moral and spiritual improvement. Attention and allegiance came to be paid, not to Eternity, but to the Utopian future. External circumstances came to be regarded as more important that states of mind about external circumstances, and the end of human life was held to be action, with contemplation as a means to that end.

These false and historically, aberrant and heretical doctrines are now systematically taught in our schools and repeated, day in, day out, by those anonymous writers of advertising copy who, more than any other teachers, provide European and American adults with their current philosophy of life. And so effective has been the propaganda that even professing Christians accept the heresy unquestioningly and are quite unconscious of its complete incompatibility with their own or anybody else’s religion.

These four doctrines constitute the Perennial Philosophy in its minimal and basic form. A man who can practice what the Indians call Jnana yoga (the metaphysical discipline of discrimination between the real and teh apparent) asks for nothing more. This simple working hypothesis is enough for his purposes. But such discrimination is exceedingly difficult and can hardly be practiced, at any rate in the preliminary stages of the spiritual life, except by persons endowed with a particular kind of mental constitution. That is why most statements of the Perennial Philosophy have included another doctrine, affirming the existence of one or more human Incarnations of the Divine Ground, by whose mediation and grace the worshipper is helped to achieve his goal--that unitive knowledge of the Godhead, which is man’s eternal life and beatitude.

The Bhagavad-Gita is one such statement. Here, Krishna is an Incarnation of the Divine Ground in human form. Similarly, in Christian and Buddhist theology, Jesus and Gotama are Incarnations of divinity. But whereas in Hinduism and Buddhism more than one Incarnation of the Godhead is possible (and is regarded as having in fact taken place), for Christians there has been and can be only one.

An Incarnation of the Godhead and, to a lesser degree, any theocentric saint, sage or prophet is a human being who knows Who he is and can therefore effectively remind other human beings of what htey have allowed themselves to forget: namely, that if they choose to become what potentially they already are, they too can be eternally united with the Divine Ground.

Worship of the Incarnation and contemplation of his attributes are for most men and women the best preparation for unitive knowledge of the Godhead. But whether the actual knowledge itself can be achieved by this means is another question. Many Catholic mystics have affirmed that, at a certain stage of that contemplative prayer in which, according to the most authoritative theologians, the life of Christian perfection ultimately consists, it is necessary to put aside all thought of the Incarnation as distracting from the higher knowledge of that which has been incarnated.

From this fact have arisen misunderstandings in plenty and a number of intellectual difficulties. Here, for example, is what Abbot Josh Chapman writes in one of his admirable Spiritual Letters: “The problem of reconciling (not merely uniting) mysticism with Christianity is more difficult. The Abbot (Abbot Marmion) says that St. John of the Cross is like a sponge full of Christianity. You can squeeze it all out, and the full mystical theory remains. Consequently, for fifteen years or so, I hated St. John of the Cross and called him a Buddhist. I loved St. Teresa, and read her over and over again. She is first a Christian, only secondarily a mystic. Then I found that I had wasted fifteen years, so far as prayer was concerned.” And yet, he concludes, in spite of its “Buddhistic” character, the practice of mysticism (or, to put it in other terms, the realization of the Perennial Philosophy) makes good Christians.

He might have added that it also makes good Hindus, good Buddhists, good Taoists, good Moslems and good Jews.

The solution to Abbot Chapman’s problem must be sought in the domain, not of philosophy, but of psychology. Human beings are not born identical. There are many different temperaments and constitutions; and within each psycho-physical class one can find people at very different stages of spiritual development.

Forms of worship and spiritual discipline which may be valuable for one individual maybe useless or even positively harmful for another belonging to a different class and standing, within that class, at a lower or higher level of development. All this is clearly set forth in the Gita, where the psychological facts are linked up with general cosmology by means of the postulate of the gunas. Krishna, who is here the mouth-piece of Hinduism in all its manifestations, finds it perfectly natural that different men should have different methods and even apparently differently objects of worship. All roads lead to Rome--provided, of course, that it is Rome and not some other city which the traveler really wishes to reach.

A similar attitude of charitable inclusiveness, somewhat surprising in a Moslem, is beautifully expressed in the parable of Moses and the Shepherd, told by Jalauddin Rumi in the second book of the Masnavi. And within the more exclusive Christian tradition these problems of temperament and degree of development have been searchingly discussed in their relation to the way of Mary and the way of Martha in general, and in particular to the vocation and private devotion of individuals.

We now have to consider the ethical corollaries of the perennial Philosophy. “Truth,” says St. Thomas Aquinas, “is the last end for the entire universe, and the contemplation of truth is the chief occupation of wisdom.” The moral virtues, he says in another place, belong to contemplation, not indeed essentially, but as a necessary predisposition.

Virtue, in other words, is not the end, but the indispensable means to the knowledge of the divine reality. Shankara, the greatest of the Indian commentators on the Gita, hold the same doctrine. Right action is the way to knowledge; for it purifies the mind, and it is only to a mind purifies from egotism that the intuition of the Divine Ground can come.
Self-abnegation, according to the Gita, can be achieved by the practice of two all-inclusive virtues--love and non-attachment.

The latter is the same thing as that “holy indifference,” on which St. Francois de Sales is never tired of insisting. “He who refers every action to God,” writes Camus, summarizing his master’s teaching, “and has no aims save His Glory, will find rest everywhere, even amidst the most violent commotions.” So long as we practice this holy indifference to the fruits of action, “no lawful occupation will separate us from God; on the contrary, it can be made a means of closer union.” Here the word “lawful” supplies a necessary qualification to a teaching which, without it, is incomplete and even potentially dangerous.

Some actions are intrinsically evil or inexpedient; and no good intentions, no conscious offering them to God, no renunciation of the fruits can alter their essential character. Holy indifference requires to be taught in conjunction not merely with a set of commandments prohibiting crimes, but also with a clear conception of what in Buddha’s Eightfold Path is called “right livelihood.” Thus, for the Buddhist, right livelihood was incompatible with the making of deadly weapons and of intoxicants; for the mediaeval Christian, with the taking of interest and with various monopolistic practices which have since come to be regarded as legitimate good business.

John Woolman, the American Quaker, provides a most enlightening example of the way in which a man may live in the world, while practicing perfect non-attachment and remaining acutely sensitive to the claims of right livelihood. Thus, while it would have been profitable and perfectly lawful for him to see West Indian sugar and rum to the customers who came to his shop, Woolman refrained from doing so, because these things were the products of slave labor. Similarly, when he was in England, it would have been both lawful and convenient for him to travel by stage coach. Nevertheless, he preferred to make his journeys on foot. Why? Because the comforts of rapid travel could only be bought at the expense of great cruelty to the horses and the most atrocious working conditions for the post-boys.

In Woolman’s eyes, such a system of transportation was intrinsically undesirable, and no amount of personal non-attachment could make it anything but undesirable. So he shouldered his knapsack and walked.

In the preceding pages I have tried to show that the Perennial Philosophy and its ethical corollaries constitute a Highest Common Factor, present in all the major religions of the world. To affirm this truth has never been more imperatively necessary than at the present time. There will never be enduring peace unless and until human beings come to accept a philosophy of life more adequate to the cosmic and psychological facts than the insane idolatries of nationalism and the advertising man’s apocalyptic faith in Progress towards a mechanized New Jerusalem.

All the elements of this philosophy are present, as we have seen, in the traditional religions. But in existing circumstances there is not the slightest chance that any of the traditional religions will obtain universal acceptance. Europeans and Americans will see no reason for being converted to Hinduism, say, or Buddhism. And the people of Asia can hardly be expected to renounce their own traditions for the Christianity professed, often sincerely, by the imperialists who, for four hundred years and more, have been systematically attacking, exploiting, and oppressing, and are now trying to finish off the work of destruction by “educating” them.

But happily there is the Highest Common Factor of all religions, the Perennial Philosophy which has always and everywhere been the metaphysical system of prophets, saints and sages. It is perfectly possible for people to remain good Christians, Hindus, Buddhists, or Moslems and yet to be united in full agreement on the basic doctrines of the Perennial Philosophy.

The Bhagavad-Gita is perhaps the most systematic scriptural statement of the Perennial Philosophy. to a world at war, a world that, because it lacks the intellectual and spiritual prerequisites to peace, can only hope to patch up some kind of precarious armed truce, it stands pointing, clearly and unmistakably, to the only road of escape from the self-imposed necessity of self-destruction.

For this reason we should be grateful to Swami Prabhavananda and Mr. Isherwood for having given us this new version of the book--a version which can be read, not merely without that dull aesthetic pain inflicted by all too many English translations from the Sanskrit, but positively with enjoyment.


Any thoughts? Does he make a decent point? Please write what you think.

Hows this perspective - there is no real religion, because religion is false, and heres why.

Religion, ALL RELIGIONS, the Bible and every other book based on religion, is derived from ASTROLOGICAL READINGS in ANCIENT TIMES.

Nothing more than Astrological, Theologically Interpretated Literary, PERSONIFIED.

Is Huxley saying here that these original scriptures in their pure form were then corrupted by theology and the methodicalness of? That without theology an individual then only has the potential to truely understand what this original knowledge has to offer?



I have my suspicions....but what "external circumstances" became more important, and what rationale or motives dwell behind providing us with these false and historically aberrant doctrines?



How does an individual bust through the centuries of propaganda to reach people in this fashion. More often then not we are met with extreme negativity or intentional disregard for what is being relayed......this frustrates me to no end.

I've personally shared this idea (not knowing what it was) to alot of people but to no avail......the best that i hope for is the planting of a seed to be then referenced at some later date.



I've never personal read the Bhagavad-Gita, but i do realize that most of what is said for some reason alot of us are aware of naturally. There does most certainly seem to be a great divide between what we think we are and what we actually are, this divide created I believe for the specific reason of preventing mankind from realizing their true potential, indeed to prevent mankind as a whole from uniting.

This, I assume is the gist of the perennial philosophy. I also presume it is so calledn because it is a philosophy which has sprung up in many cultures over a period of time(hence perennial)

What it illustrates is that whatever culture/language men employ, their thought process are almost universally common. Thus they ask similar big questions and provide very similar answers. Of course this does not involve any quetion of right or wrong (which are probably outside the philosophers scope anyway) just that this is a quite universal human philosophy. It may well be the philosophical equivalent of skin. Ie something which has evolved/was created to hold the rest of our organism together.

Unfortunately, in the real world, this philosophy is not only not going to succeed in promoting religious harmony; it actually does not accurately represent, either the personal philosophies of many humans, or the behaviour of almost all humans.

One could just as readily create a not so nice perennial philosophy, through studying the nature/beliefs and actions of most men. Either through genetic lack, or through lack of social opportunity, most men do not develop very sophisticated personal philosophies. One only has to look at the real state of interhuman relationships(at a personal, community, national and international level) to understand that the perennial philosophy is neither truly universal, nor even the most commonly accepted philosophy in the world today.

People can choose to accept, and act upon, this philosophy, but the problem is getting through to the average joe, "whats in it for me?"

Rightly, or wrongly, religions often provide joe with an answer to this question.

What interests me is which came first.....the philosophy, or the theology. The reason why this is of concern is because, IMO, the closer we get to the original unadulterated form the closer we are to some sort of truth......and to me even within the christian religion, theology has corrupted the philosophy.

I can't escape from the fact that yes there is a universal philosophy almost intrinsic to mankind. This says alot!.....but the scary part is that, especially our society or culture is so far removed from this philosophy to the point now that there has been created a true apathy for finding out who we are.

It only takes one person to view the original philosophy of mankind through the ego for it to be corrupted forever never to be attained again

Nice information but eeerrrr how does this relate to the perennial philosophy?

No I dont think so (though I rekon he would agree that has definately happened). He is actually complementing the Gita because the Gita is quite poetical and yet very methodic in its approach to the spiritual life. Other Perennial Philosophy Texts I have read like the Tao Te Ching, though metaphysically accurate (in my view), doesnt offer the vivid instruction as elaborately as the Gita (In my view).






I think what he is implying is that people in general (me included) often find it difficult to interpret the abstractness of certain scriptures. Huxley isnt saying that we ought to change the original scriptures but that the theology (usually in the form of seasoned commentry) makes its appearance in history.

I for an example have a what I believe to be a good translation of the Bhagavad Gita with a commentry by Mahatma Gandhi. There are quite a few verses that I have had trouble interpreting or understanding and so it is nice to have a commentry written by someone who has actually lived the life and practice of the Gita.

Of course I may disagree with Gandhi on certain parts and what have you, however it is there to read by my choosing.




The 'external circumstances' that became more important were industrialism and materialism in general I would say. Outer progress was emphasized on more than inner spiritual health. Inner spiritual health was considered danngerous if it hindered material progress.

The rationale or motive would be because of ignorance and from that ignorance comes motives of greed. Egocentric people (like myself) often prefer instant physical gratification than being patient, abstinent and spirituall detached.
Though physical gratification may bring about a level of pleasure, it can never properly fulfill or satiate my being for more than a moment.

I myself crave continuous fulfillment and nothing transitory can ever do that.




Ya I understand your frustration. Look through history and you will find that extrodinary individuals who have realized the perennial philosophy have often been harshly harassed or persecuted (much more in the west than east). The perennial philosophy as you would have read shows however that our real nature is infinite and eternal and therefore beyond life and death. Those who have truly realized this (I myself havnt) are indifferent to whether they live or not because they are eternal.

The vast majority of the perennial philosophers I have read, all admit that unless one has become God or Tao oneself one ought not to teach it (so about 95 percent of all western and eastern priests hahahaha).

Those who have realized this but only in theory (like me) would have to make a choice whether or not to recant our beliefs in the face of ridicule , persecution etc. Im in england at the moment and so dont have to worry about being hunted down and tortured because I dont believe in a certain doctrine (though many get ridiculed). Unlike people in communist china who cant publically shout out the Dalai Lamas name.



The perennial philosophy is about rectifying one's own self first (I have alot of work to do on myself!!!!) and then teach it. The best we can do is practice it the best we can and set our own example. If we suceed in influencing others for the better then great! If not then great! Because we are still then working on our self liberation which not only frees us from suffering but directly and indirectly helps others. The perennial philosophy is about working within the moment and if one is thinking anxious thoughts about success or failure in the futureor regrets in the past then one isnt truly in the moment because much of their mind is elsewhere.




I dont wanna put you down man but trust me you'll be blown away if you read the Gita. The Gita is repugent to reason(so I believe) and alot can be learnt from it. I myself though have read it many times dont practice it like I should. So I am aware that I havntreaped the full benefits of its teachings.

Of course there natural common sense knowledge in there which we all know naturally because the Gita is well balanced in its practicality. The whole perenial philosophy is basically about realizing what we already know rather than learning anything new and hence it's scriptures in most of its forms help 'awaken' oneself to reality.




I agree. Hence why I value the perenial philosophy in all religions because it is the same message. A message of breaking free via self-naughting and love.

Intelligent individuals if they truly truth seeking willnot find it hard to find the common ground of all religions which as Huxley so eloquently puts it can be summed up as the perennial philosophy.

Actually many of the perennial philosophers have similar answers to questions of right and wrong and often answer the best for the very reason that they have experienced that from which right and wrong both sprang directly and consciously. Here are some quotes from famous perenial philosophers:

If thou has not seen the devil, look at thine own self ---Jalal-uddin Rumi (Islamic mystic)

Your own self is your own Cain that murders your own Abel. For every action and motion of self has the spirit of Anti-Christ and murders the divine life within you. ---William Law (Christian mystic)

The city of God is made by the love of God pushed to the contempt of self; the earthly city, by the love of self pushed to the contempt of God. --- St. Augustine (intelligent man with quitea number of mystical insights but not a full blown mystic)

There difference between a good and bad man does lie in this,that one wills that which is good and the other does not, but soley in this,that the one concurs with the living inspiring spiritof God within him, and the other resistsit, and can be chareable with evil only because he resists it. ---William Law

People should think less about what they ought to do and more about what they ought to be. If only their being were good, their works would shine forth brightly. Do not imagine that you can ground your salvation upon actions; it must rest on what you are. The ground upon which good character rests is the very same ground from which man's work derives its value, namely a mind wholly turned to God. Verily, if you were so minded, you might tread on a stone and it would be a more pious work than if you, simply for your own profit, were to recieve the Body of the Lord and were wanting in spiritual detachment.

---Meister Eckhart (Christian Mystic)

Man is made by his belief. As he believes, so he is. ---Bhagavad Gita

It is mind which gives to things their quality, their foundation and their being. Whoever speaks or acts with impure mind, him sorrow follows, as the wheel follows the steps of the ox that draws the cart.

---Dhammapada

In all the possibility of thing there is and can be but one happiness and one misery. The one misery is nature and creature left to itself, the one happiness is the Life, the Light, the Spirit of God, manifested in nature and creature. his is the true meaning of the words of Our Lord: There is but one that is good, and that is God.

---William Law

Aldous Huxley actually wrotea book called 'The perennial philosophy' and there a whole chapter dedicated to the topic of Good and Evil. Those writings aforementioned were just a select few of the writings Huxley includes within that chapter.



However it has been proven practically valid by the practicing mystics, sages, saint and prophets. Therefore it isnt just a flowery ideal but something that can be put into practice and reaized for oneself.

But you are right in that many people will reject the philosophy on the grounds that it will clash with their own personal philosophy of life. However if they are religious then they can easily be made aware of the perennial philosophy within their own and other religions.



Doubt it. The perennial philosophy at all times promotes non-violence and non-cohesion. One could create a not nice philosophy and call it 'the perennial philosophy' however a tree is known by its fruits. It wouldnt be hard to pick up that it wasnt truly a perennial philosophy.

Just like the catholic church in my view isnt truly Christian.




Agreed. I totally agree. However if you look through all cultures and through all major religions you will find that the perennial philosophy is globally universal within the major religions and has been practiced by the mystics within those religions (and even in some primitive cultures).

Show me a true christian mystic and I can show you how similar he is to buddhist teachings. Show me a Buddhist mystic and I can show how similar he is to a hindu mystic. Same with the moslem sufis.



A little reading of the perennial philosophy shows what is in it for the average joe. However conveying this to the average joe could be quite difficult. However the perennial philosophy is flexible and caters to the spiritual development of the individual.

Take Sudhakar. He says this:

..The real God is not to be sought in idols and symbols, in temples or churches.
The truth of the matter is that the purified man is God himself, for he has become one with universal life. The purified man is the self-realised man. He has not to await answers from God, for he has no questions to ask. He himself is the answer to all questions; his life itself is a benediction. (Sudhakar S.D, 1988.
p55)

Yet he also says this:

But man does need God. Vedanta defines God as Brahman, which is beyond all duality, plurality and beyond all categories of thought; yet including these. But the Vedantic concept of God is difficult for the common man to understand. It is beyond those who are incapable of abstract thinking, for it is impossible for them to establish an effective living relationship with what is formless, infinite, transcendent, that Brahman is. Such people need a personal God with whom they establish a personal relationship- a father, mother, master, goddess, beloved, friend. Lord Krishna, a human incarnation of God, is closer to the heart of common man than Brahman could be. For unless the infinite is conceived in the finite form of a personal God, devotion will be lacking in depth and intensity. The senses need a form, a concrete something that can be held, touched and adored. (Sudhakar S.D, 1988. p54)


Anyone can practice the philosophy according to their own spiritual level.




The perennial philosophy does. However it claims or implys that the true asnwers comes from experience derived from practice.

Many joes want the novelty and mysteriousness that religion can provide and not real answers. However the average joe can keep to his religious doctrine and live in harmony with other people and their religion because

a) all religions usually teach the golden rule and that we ough to love one another

b ) all major religions share the common ground of the perennial philosophy

Hey Brave ! Long read !!

Tis worth it I rekon.

So was it the rulers of society, specifically here in the west, that made a conscious decision to withhold or not to promote these ideals for the purpose of profit generation, because from what i understand these perennial philosophies would enhance society, indeed our standard of living, and would also maintain a specific level of peace and harmony within the world. Where exactly did we go wrong??

As far as instant gratification: Our society revolves around this need, within the media , within the economy, jobs, relationships.....is this intended in order to create apathy in society towards what really matters?......or is it just a reflection of what we have become? I suppose it just isn't good business to have people living their lives with the big picture of things in mind as apposed to what they can have right now!



So what damage, if any, does worship, deification, idolatry, or the belief of damnation have on achieving this realization?



I understand the need to stay in the moment. More often then not everything we are looking for is actually right there in the moment, but to have your eyes foscused elsewhere cause one to miss the view........but it is so difficult to do!!!......lol

When talking along the lines of "whats my purpose in life", or "How do i know what my purpose is".....I truly believe that your purpose should change from moment to moment. if one is truly working within the moment then their purpose in life would change accordingly, correct?

Thanks for your detailed response/analysis of my post, Brave. I agree with a lot of what you are saying.

One thing. I must read huxley, for his "definitions' of good and bad. A lot of the quotes you gave carried an implied universal understanding of good and bad. However, as good and bad are often really only defined by their effects on a culture, they may not actually possess a universal and constant value.

For example, if slavery is the only thing which keeps a society from breaking down to a point where everyone (including the slaves) are living so poorly that their health and lives are in danger; while, with slavery, all in the society are well fed, and relatively well off by other social indicators, is slavery in that society a good or bad thing.?


There is no inherently correct answer. It depends on the individual weighting of values you place on different indicators such as; personal liberty, or good health etc.

Goodand bad according to the perennial philosophers is much less empahasized on cultural effects and more on the spiritual progress or hinderance of the individual. The message of the perennial philosophy is that when one becomes enlightened then the rest of the world reflects that state of mind.

When not enlightened, Buddhas are no other than ordinary beings; when there is enlightenment, ordinary beings at once turn into Buddhas. --- Hui Neng

Bad is that which stops one from realizing their Christ or Buddha nature and Good is that which helps one to realize it. When one (and remember I am no expert here or enlightened I am only beating out what I have read in theory) is identifying with their Buddha or Christ nature one's actions are always completely selfless and therefore are a benefit to society.

Households, cities and nations have enjoyed great happiness, when a single individual has taken heed of the Good and Beautiful. . . . Such men not only liberate themselves; they fill those they meet with a free mind. ---Philo



A perenial philosopher I would imagine would say that slavery it is good only if everybody had the unlimited freedom to worship and work towards the Godhead or Tao and bad only if anyone was deprived of such religious excercise.



SORRY THISIS BRAVE_NEW_WORLD. I DIDNT LOG OUT OF NELL'S ACCOUNT AND WROTE MY REPLY.

Brave very simply when man values peace as much as he values and adores violence then peace will come....

Great question. Personally I dont know. All I can say is that the is a massive blanket of ignorance in this world (I myself am wrapped in it).



Well said. You would be correct it seems. The perennial philosophy is essentially about giving up desire yet we have a society which is constantly trying to arouse our desires all the time for things we dont need i.e advertising.




Good question. The answer will take some pondering. It isnt an answer that can be had with a little quick thinking and some short words (such as I used and often still do think).

Because everything is infinite eternal oneness nothing is ever wrong and everything is always perfect.

However we Identify with the ego instead ofthe infinite oneness and so have a feeling of separation which is the cause of all our misery.

Enlightenment or Self-realization is waking up to the fact that we never were separate and always have been infinite oneness.

Why then bother striving in the first place? I do so because it feels right and because I believe there is a difference between being intellectually aware and being directly aware. The theory gives me the faith to keep striving to realize what I already am.

Tis a paradox. I cannot rationalize it any further.




embaressingly so



From one angle you are correct. However from a more abstract perennial philosophy point of view there is no purpose. Wy does infinite eternal oneness require a purpose? If it did then it would be the infinite eternal absolute because it would be limited to a 'purpose'. Here is what I am saying but much better worded:

This metaphysics of nondualism generates a number of profound philosophical difficulties, of which the first is this: why did the one manifest itself as the many? Why did the eternal become temporal, the infinite become finite, the immutable become mutable? Many thinkers in the orthodox Hindu tradition argue that the answer is delight (ananda): the universe is Brahman's expression of delight in creation. Vivekananda's reply is different:
'To ask this question we have to suppose that the Absolute also is bound by something, that it is dependent on something. Thus we see that the very question as to why the Infinite became the finite is an absurd one, for it is self-contradictory.' (Collinson, Fifty Eastern Thinkers, 2000)

The same can be applied to purpose. A purpose is binding and contradicts infinity in my view.

Infinity ultimately transcends both purpose and purposeless. Infinity and finite. All word,concepts and thought.

Tis a real headf*&^ hahaha

Here is a good way of saying it:

God is an infinite sphere whose center is everywhere and circumference is nowhere. --- Blaise Pascal

And he also says this which most definately applies to the perennial philosophy:

Faith embraces many truths which seem to contradict each other.
Blaise Pascal


Metaphysics cannot be expressed effectively unless it includes paradox and contradiction.

But to recognize this fact alludes to at least some type of realization. There are masses out there that would not even consider these lines of thought. That some of the ideas discussed within these confines, and others, would sicken alot of people, because to contemplate these things would in fact defeat what they believe to be the very purpose of their existence.



It sucks bigtime!!!.....pardon my candor, but it does. Its not our fault though IMO?....I mean we as a society have been ushered into this state of fog and all the stimuli we are exposed to is of such a design to keep us here. Sure we could escape to some high mountain top away from the bright cities and big TV's......but what would that do for the betterment of whats around us.



A life purpose I suppose contadicts infinity , but what about a temporary purpose a fleeting purpose.....one that suits for the moment, a purpose that is recognized then fullfilled.

I personally realize that I have no life purpose, nor do I want one......but I do feel that i have these fleeting purposes when i choose them or when i make them my purpose for that moment , moreover when i recognize them.

You know Brave, somehow I guessed that. Thanks for filling me in.

It does appear that their definitions of good and bad are even more culturally specific than most, given that they are constructed by, and limited to, a fairly elite "cultural" group (who happen to come from various epochs and races) The question then would be, why should these conceptualised forms of good and evil have any more validity or value than others?

While I don't wish to appear negative, perhaps these 'Perennial Philosophies' haven't been adopted en masse simply because they don't work?

For all that the idealistic will protest, humankind has a dualistic nature and those religions that have been successful have pandered to that nature, being attractive to the selfish side of us all as well as the altruistic.

In so much that relgion , especially here in the west, has been divided or splintered into different assuagements to accomodate every predilection of opinion, may be the exact reason why the 'Perennial Philosophies' have not cemented itself into our culture.

To expect any form of unification of philosophy amongst the human race may very well be delusive. I suppose it isn't our nature, yet what befuddles me is the fact that every human on this planet is as and of the same environment fundementally, and universally. A perennial philosophy or String Philosophy seems to be not only practical but bona fide.

Just as gravity keeps the whole of the species on the ground , wouldn't the nature of reality be just as generic?

Well because the divineground or infinite consciousness (or whatever you wish to call it) is all things and beyond all things then ultimately purpose is there. It couldnt be all things if it wasnt purpose as well. It is a mass of contradictions that dont make logical sense but makes intuitive sense (well in my view it does). It may all be a contradiction when we try to apply logic or language to it but when we have the experience of God or oneness directly itself ,then it all just is and real.

We'll never know until we experience it but in the mean time the theory keeps me occupied.

That is a Good question. Tis worth sitting down and pondering on it. My personal answer is that the Reality the perennial philosophers have discovered (rediscovered) is eternal truth and our true nature. Therefore I have faith that they know what they are talking about when they define good and evil etc. Also their (the perennial philosophers or mystics) basic guidelines on finding this reality which is inherent inall things is always non-violent and non-coercive.

It makes intuitive sense as well as reasonable sense to me. I personally have pondered long and hard on their notions. There is a possibility that they are wrong. But my intuition says otherwise. It comes down to faith in the end. I cannot prove it yet I believe it can be proven by anyone for themselves who take up the practices and have the experience.

Thing is, Chauncy, we are NOT the products of the same environment because our capacity for abstract thought allows us to imagine the environment we live in to be very different from what it may be, hence we have people with persecution complexes among other delusions.

This complex mind we have means the enivronment we derive our behaviour from is, in some fashion, very different from the environment of , let's say, a dog.

Having a universal philosophy, like the Perennial Philosophy would presume we all have the same fundamental behavioural response to external stimulae, but we don't. A paranoid will respond completely differently, in some situations, to someone who isn't paranoid.

One could try to implement this Perennial Philosophy but there will always be a nonconformist looking to disrupt the utopian ideal, simply because we are complex and have complex, and sometimes irrational, behaviour.

Now, I don't see this Perennial Philosophy as being a 'truth' of reality any more than any other philosophy is. It is, at it's core, a theosophy, not a philosophy. I'm always a bit leery of things dressed up to be what they ain't to give them a bit of validity to a wider audience.

I dig what your saying here. Yes the dexterity of the human mind to convince itself that things are they way they are , when in fact they are not.

I realize now this to be the case. The point I was trying to make though, is that regardless of what one believes to be true, there underneath that dark veil does lie the actual truth.

So as far as the laws of nature are concerned (the ones we know and the ones not yet discovered) all that exists on this planet are governed by them, regardless of what a person's mind has convinced themselves of.

So if there is some type of universal truth as far as life and death, it would in fact govern all......whether one would admit it or not.

Regardless of one's delusion :"Just as gravity keeps the whole of the species on the ground , wouldn't the nature of reality be just as generic"




The actual path that one travels is tantamount to that final state of understanding. So the fact that we all act and react diferently to stimuli, a universal path would not work. we all need to travel different routes because the experiences on an individual's chosen path is crucial, and we all experience the same things differently.

BNW .... aah Vedanta, in which I found all answers to the limit I could understand with my mind. Obviously I was not sufficiently ready, as no teacher came.

I think the answer to why it is not universally adopted is that it requires a high degreee of philosophical understanding - or the mind of a child. People in general need their God in bytes they can absorb at their levels, hence the many aspects of God in Hinduism, and the stories and myths designed to teach every byte. If you do not yet know it, look up the story of Narasimhan and contemplate the lesson of being non-judgemental therein.

The other aspect is reincarnation, allowing us a million lives during which each lesson, or if you have a guru accelerated lessons to reduce the number of incarnations, may be learnt until self-realization can finally happen. No 'hell', just a long time getting to enlightenment.

Very personal note: this philosophy sustained me for decades. From 1976 it was clear to me via studying Sufi teachings that at the mystical level, all 'religions' were the same. Only a few years ago I was brought up short by a growing devotion to Padre Pio the Stigmatist, who died in 1968. Still working it out and cannot reconcile it yet, and the suffering and bloodiness of the stigmata, Satan and radical forgiveness are giving me a hard time.

When nature and perception are not the same the point is moot. Philosophy is a subjective approach to conducting your life and thinking on the meaning of things and, as such, is conditional on the perception of reality, not the nature of it.

And what do you know of the perennial philosophy??????

Seriously I am interested.

Some dont like the acknolwedge metaphysics as philosophy.

Good points. I myself who am an advocate of the perennial philosophy do not follow it through with the dedication that I (and everyone else) ought to. In fact I am very sloppy.

However the perennial philosophy embraces all stlyes of worship (even thought pure thoughtless contemplation is the end aim of all spiritual practices). One can keep to christianity, Islam, Buddhism or Hinduism on a more dual level of practice and worship (like myself) and understand quite well that one's chosen religious path is only one of many valid paths.

Hinduism and Buddhism cater to this particularly well.

But man does need God. Vedanta defines God as Brahman, which is beyond all duality, plurality and beyond all categories of thought; yet including these. But the Vedantic concept of God is difficult for the common man to understand. It is beyond those who are incapable of abstract thinking, for it is impossible for them to establish an effective living relationship with what is formless, infinite, transcendent, that Brahman is. Such people need a personal God with whom they establish a personal relationship- a father, mother, master, goddess, beloved, friend. Lord Krishna, a human incarnation of God, is closer to the heart of common man than Brahman could be. For unless the infinite is conceived in the finite form of a personal God, devotion will be lacking in depth and intensity. The senses need a form, a concrete something that can be held, touched and adored. (Sudhakar S.D, 1988. p54)

All of the higher religions have an element of the perennial philosophy and this can be used as a common ground between all religions. Though it does take an open mind to understand this which most people lack.



I agree. Reincarnation (in my view) broadens one's view of God and therefore the universe. God is seen to be all forgiving and all merciful and also all patient.



I love Sufism!!!!!!!!



Im sure you'll be able to do so. I mean wow! You studied sufism! One can know Sufism and nothing else and reach salvation or enlightenment in my view.

Also if you want to reconcile religious views then I suggest you read the book 'The Perennial Philosophy' by Aldous Huxley.

Here is the introduction to the book 'The Perennial Philosophy' by Aldous Huxley:

PHILOSOPHIA PERENIS---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. A version of this Highest Common Factor in all preceding and subsequent theologies was first committed to writing more than twenty-five centuries ago, and since that time the inexhaustible theme has been treated again and again, from the standpoint of every religious tradition and in all the principal languages of Asia and Europe. In the pages that follow I have brought together a number of selections from these writings, chosen mainly for their significance--because they effectively illustrated some particular point in the general system of the Perennial Philosophy--but also for their intrinsic beauty and memorableness. These selections are arranged under various heads and embedded, so to speak, in a commentary of my own, designed to illustrate and connect, to develope and, where necessary, to elucidate.

Knowledge is a function of being. When there is a change in the being of the knower, there is a corresponding change in the nature and amount of knowing. For example, the being of a child is transformed by growth and education into that of a man; among results of this transformation is a revolutionary change in the way of knowing and the amount and character of the things known. As the individual grows up, his knowledge becomes more conceptual and systematic in form, and its factual, utilitarian content is enormously increased. But these gains are offset by a certain deterioration in the quality of immediate apprehension , a blunting and a loss of intuitive power. Or consider the change in his being which the scientist is able to induce mechanically by means of his instruments. Equipped with a spectroscope and a sixty-inch reflector an astronomer becomes, so far as eyesight is concerned, a superhuman creature; and, as we should naturally expect, the knowledge possessed by this superhuman creatrure is very different, both in quantity and quality, from that which can be aquired by a star-gazer with unmodified, merely human eyes.


Nor are changes in the knower's physiological or intellectual being the only ones to affect his knowledge. What we know depends also on what, as moral beings, we choose to make ourselves. "Practice," in the words of William james, "may change our theoretical horizon, and this in a twofold way: it may lead into new worlds and secure new powers. Knowledge we could never attain, remaining what we are, may be attainable in consequences of higher powers and a higher life, which we morally achieve." To put the matter more succinctly, 'Blessed are the pure in heart, for they shallsee God." And the same idea has been expressed by the Sufi poet, Jalal-uddin Rumi, in terms of a scientific metaphor: "The astrolabe of the mysteries of God is love."


This book I repeat, is an anthology of the Perennial Philosophy; but though an anthology, it contains but few extracts from the writings of professional men of letters and, though illustrating a philosophy, hardly anything from the professional philosphers. The reason for this is very simple. The Perennial Philosophy is primarily concerned with the one, divine Reality substantial to the manifold world of things and lives and minds. But the nature of this one Reality is such that it cannot be directly and immediately apprehended except by those who have chosen to fulfil certain conditions, making themselves loving, pure in heart, and poor in spirtit. Why is this so? We do not know. It is just one of those facts which we have to accept, whether we like them or not and however implausible and unlikely they may seem. Nothing in our everyday experience gives us any reason for supposing that water is made up of hydrogen and oxygen;and yet when we subject water to certain rather drastic treatments,the nature of its constituent elements becomes manifest. Similarly, nothing in our everyday experience gives us much reason for supposing that the mind of the average sensual man has, as one of its constituents, something resembling, or identical with, the Reality substantial to the manifold world; and yet when that mind is subjected to certain rather drastic treatments, the divine element, of which it is in part at least composed, becomes manifest, not only to the mind itself, but also, by its reflection in external behaviour, to other minds.

It is only by making physical experiments that we can discover the intimate nature of matter and its potentialities. And it is only by making psychological and moral experiments that we can discover the intimate nature of mind and its potentialities. In the ordinary circumstances of average sensual life these potentialities of mind remian latent and unmanifested. If we would realize them, we must fulfil certian conditions and obey certain rules, which experience has empirically to be valid.


In regard to few professional philosophers and men of letters is there any evidence that they did very much in the way of fulfilling the necessary conditions of direct spiritual knowledge. When poets or metaphysicians talk about the subject matter of the Perennial Philosophy, it is generally at second hand. But in every age there have been some men and women who chose to fulfil the conditions upon which alone, as a matter of brute empirical fact, such immediate knowledge can be had; and of these a few have left accounts of the Reality they were thus enabled to apprehend and have tried to relate, in one comprehendsive system of thought, the given facts of this experience with the given facts of their other experiences. To such first-hand exponents of the Perennial Philosophy those who knew them have generally given the name of "saint" or "prophet", "sage" or "enlightned one." And it is mainly to these, because there is good reason for supposing that they knew what they were talking about, and not to the professional philosophers or men of letters, that I have gone for my selections.


In India two classes of scripture are recognized: the Shruti, or inspired writings which are their own authority, since they are the product of immediate insight into ultimate Reality; and the Smriti, which are based upon the Shruti and from them derive such authority as they have. "The Shruti," in Shankara's words, "depends upon direct perception. The Smriti plays a part analogous to induction, since like induction, it derives its authority from an authority other than itself."


This book, then is an anthology, with explanatory comments, of passages drawn from the Shruti and Smriti of many times and places. Unfortunately, familiarity with traditionally hallowed writings tends to breed, not indeed contempt, but something which, for practical purposes, is almost as bad--namely a kind of reverential insensibility, a stupor of the spirit, an inward deafness to the meaning of the sacred words. For this reason, when selecting material to illustrate the doctrines of the Perennial Philosophy, as they were formulated in the West, I have gone almost always to sources other than the Bible. This Christian Smriti, from which I have drawn, is based upon the Shruti of the canonical books, but has the great advantage of being less well known and therefore more vivid and, so to say, more audible than they are. Moreover much of this Smriti is the work of genuinely saintly men and women , who have qualified themselves to know at first hand what they are talking about. Consequently it may be regarded as being itself a form of inspired and self-validating Shruti-and this in a much higher degree than many of the writings now included in the Biblical canon.


In recent years a number of attempts have been made to work out a system of empirical theology. But in spite of the subtlety and intellectual power of such writers as Sorley, Oman and Tennant, the effort has met with only partial success. Even in the hands of its ablest exponents empirical theology is not particularly convincing. The reason, it seems to me, must be sought in the fact that the empirical theologians have confined their attention more or less exclusively to the experience of those whom the theologians of an older school called "unregernerate"---that is to say, the experience of people who have not gone very far in fulfilling the necessary conditons of spiritual knowledge. But in fact, confirmed and re-confirmed during two or three-thousand years of religious history, that ultimate Reality is not clearly and immediately apprehended, except by those who have made themselves loving, pure in heart and poor in spirit.


This being so, it is hardly surprising that a theology based upon the experience of nice, ordinary, unregenerate people should carry so little conviction. This kind of empirical theology is on precisely the same footing as an empirical astronomy, based upon the experience of naked-eye observers. With the unaided eye a small, faint smudge can be detected in the consetllation of Orion, and doubtless an imposing cosmological theory could be based upon the observation of this smudge. But no amount of such theorizing, however ingenious, could ever tell us as much about the galactic and extra-galactic nebulae as can direct acquaintance by means of a good telescope, camera and spectroscope. Analogously, no amount of theorizing about such hints as may be darkly glimpsed within the ordianary, unregenerate experience of the manifold world can tell us as much about divine Reality as can be directly apprehended by a mind in a state of detchament, charity and humility.


Natural science is empirical; but does not confine itself to the experience of human beings in their merely human and unmodified condition. Why empirical theologians should feel themselves obliged to submit to this handicap, goodness only knows. And of course, so long as they confine empirical experience within these all too human limits, they are doomed to the perpetual stultification of their best efforts. From the material they have chosen to consider, no mind, however brilliantly gifted, can infer more than a set of possibilities or, at the very best, specious probabilities. The self-validating certainty of direct awareness cannot in the very nature of things be achieved except by those equipped with moral 'astrolabe of God's myserties." If one is not oneself a sage or saint, the best thing one can do, in the field of metaphysics, is to study the works of those who were, and who, because they had modified their merely human mode of being were capable of a more than merely human kind and amount of knowledge.

The universal consciousness/enlightenment of Perennial Philosophy is a form of godhead, as such it should really be termed Perennial Theosophy as it presumes to describe the universe in a god-like aspect. Philosophy can include dialogue on the nature of the divine, I accept that, but it cannot be based on such.

'brave_new_world'

Thank you very much. I look forward to going back to something that gave me so much solace those years past.

Old hippy reading: Baba Ram Dass: Be Here Now; Robert de Ropp: The Master Game. Alexandra David-Neel; Lama Anggarika - the Way of the White Cloud. Alan Watts: The Way of Zen. Look up Gurdjieff [but it leads down dead ends]; Herman Hesse - wonderful stuff ... culminating in the Glass Bead Game. Attar: Conference of the Birds.

What joy awaits you!

But always - once you know ... Do! That's the really hard part. But if you keep on even keel and be kind to others a lot, It arises. Write to me if I can be of help.

God be close to you, always

Metaphysics is philosophy, philosophy which includes the nature of reality which the perennial philosophy does address (hence making it a metaphysic).


Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics);

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy



The perennial philosophy includes how one ought to live to understand directly the essential nature of that which exists.

How is that not a philosophy???



PHILOSOPHIA PERENIS---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.

---Aldous Huxley


Elaborate for me how metaphysics isnt philosophy???????



Metaphysics is the branch of philosophy that investigates principles of reality transcending those of any particular science, traditionally, cosmology and ontology.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics


How does this not include the perennial philosophy???

Got any references on how a system of thought based on the impersonal divine ground of all things, cant be accepted as philosophy??


Not accepting metaphysics as philosophy is the same as not accepting christianity as spiritual in my view.

Thank you very much for taking the time to write in this thread.



I have a copy of this book and think it is F*&^%$£ BRILLIANT!!!!!!!!!! I can see why you have it first on this book list!




Havn't read any of these. But I will inquire since I am such a bookworm.




Awww thank you so much.

I never argued that metaphysics wasn't a branch of philosophy, I argued that the state of divinity is not an essential nature of things. Hence assuming a divine nature to reality makes the Perennial Philosophy a Theosophy. Theosophical thought can be philosophical, but it is also religious and I cannot justify the Perennial Philosophy as a pure philosophy (metaphysics) when it is also a religion.

That is your opinion yes. However there are philosophies that philosophize that a state of divinity is the nature of things. It is called metaphysics (though not all metaphysics may believe in divinity).


A central branch of metaphysics is ontology, the investigation into what types of things there are in the world and what relations these things bear to one another.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Metaphysics


Ontology

1. the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ontology


The perennial philosophy is a metaphysic that states that the nature of being is that of a transcendent and immanent Godhead, Tao, Brahman etc.

This first paragraphy states it all:

PHILOSOPHIA PERENIS---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.

---Aldous Huxley


Now how does this:

the metaphysic that recognizes a divine Reality substantial to the world of things and lives and minds;

Not correspond with this:

the branch of metaphysics that studies the nature of existence or being as such.

And therefore not correspond to this:

Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics); what sorts of things exist and what are their essential natures (metaphysics);

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

??????


Unless you want to admit that metaphysics isnt philosophy then how can you say that a system of thought which recognizes a transcendent divine ground as being the essential ground to all being not be a philosophy????

Then we have this from the Huxley paragraph:


' the ethic that places man's final end in the knowledge of the immanent and transcendent Ground of all being' (If you want some more elaborate quotations from the book 'the perennial philosophy' about the ethics required to properly contemplate the metaphysics then just ask). This clearly corresponds with this:

Philosophy is the discipline concerned with questions of how one should live (ethics);

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Philosophy

So if the perennial philosophy is based on ethics and metaphysics then how can it not be a philosophy??? Unless you wish to say that

a) Questions concerning how one ought to live (ethics) isnt philosophy.

What exists and what its nature is (metaphysics) isnt philosophy.





Here is the first definition of the word Theosophy according to dictionary.com:

1. any of various forms of philosophical or religious thought based on a mystical insight into the divine nature.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/theosophy

According to you ,no 'various forms of philosophical' thought based on mystical insight can be called philosophical for the very reason that philosophy cannot be based on the divine nature.

And to be pedantic here are the definitions of the word philosophical from dictionary.com:


1. of or pertaining to philosophy: philosophical studies.
2. versed in or occupied with philosophy.
3. proper to or befitting a philosopher.
4. rationally or sensibly calm, patient, or composed.
5. Rare. of or pertaining to natural philosophy or physical science.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/philosophical










What reference can you give that the perennial philosophy isnt a philosophy??????

Also what reference can you give that ontology within the perennial philosophy isnt (purely) metaphysical????

So, brave...

You're not being dogmatic about this at all then?

My posts speak for themselves.