Esoteric unity of religion

[maxfreakout]

Any religion can be interpreted on 2 separate levels, the exoteric (outer, surface) level, and the esoteric (inner, deep) level. On the exoteric level, religions appear as separate entities (christianity over here, islam over there, Buddhism over there etc etc), but on the esoteric level, all religions are saying the same thing, they are all essentially equivalent expressions of religious insight. The esoteric interpretation of Islam is equivalent to the esoteric interpretation of Christianity

An analogy for this idea - the separate religions are like different candy wrappers, which all contain one and the same candy bar

The pseudo-historical Moses, Mohammed, Jesus, and Buddha are at war against each other; while the esoteric/mythic Moses, Mohammed, and Buddha are one and the same being, in full agreement with himself. Just as individual people are esoterically the limbs of the transcendent One Being, so are the various exoteric religions secretly, on the esoteric level, all the one true religion.

The one false religion is the exoteric/Literalist/historicist/exoteric religions (plural); the one true religion is the Esoteric/allegorical/esoteric religion (singular)

 

[sandandfoam]

I agree.

 

[doppelganger]

Exoteric and esoteric approaches to religion serve different purposes. Hence, neither method is categorically "false." But rather more or less true depending on what someone is using the myth to accomplish.

http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...123119-what-purpose-religion.html#post2658078

 

[Student of X]

Exoteric and esoteric approaches to religion serve different purposes. Hence, neither method is categorically "false." But rather more or less true depending on what someone is using the myth to accomplish.

As I read this, 1 Corinthians 3:2 comes to mind.

I gave you milk, not solid food, for you were not yet ready for it. Indeed, you are still not ready.

 

[dyanaprajna2011]

Ah, the teachings of Perennial Philosophy; it's one I accept as well.

 

[Vinayaka]

Is reincarnation esoteric or exoteric?
Is heaven/hell esoteric or exoteric?

 

[doppelganger]

Is reincarnation esoteric or exoteric?
Is heaven/hell esoteric or exoteric?

Both and both.

 

[Sunstone]

The OP strikes me as a gross simplication of the facts. While there are many similarities between some religions, there are key differences -- even at the so-called "esoteric" level. For instance: at the estoteric level, union with deity is often a goal in Hinduism, is a heresy that at times could get you burnt at the stake in both Christianity and Islam, and is, at most, entirely ignored in Shintoism. To say those three approaches to union with deity are esoterically the same is to ignore the truth.

 

[Caladan]

The 'exoteric side' of religion can be be lost in conservatism, fundamentalism, and other social and political dimensions. the 'esoteric' side of religion can be lost to charlatanism, questionable scholarship, and easy answers for simplified circumstances.

I think that no person can truly say that they understand religion if they believe they understand only one of the two. what does it help me if I lead myself to believe that there is a unifying core to all religions when I systematically alter the facts to make it be the case.
religion has many levels, some historical people and parties of a larger religious body emphasised the esoteric side of religion and sought union with the natural world and with people, other segments of that body sought to participate in the social order, and the socially recognized brand of religion.

the fact remains, I have yet to see anyone who said they had 'exclusive' knowledge of esoteric matters to actually tell me something I haven't had access to before.

does it really do justice to all historical religious figures (or mythical) when I compare them all in order to have a unifying formula for world religions? why not understand the context of each and every one?
for example can we compare the society of the first century of the eastern Mediterranean and the era of the Roman empire to the Arab tribes of and around Mecca and Medina during the 7th century? is the situation the same? were Jesus and Muhammad actually discussing the same issues? even a superficial reading of the New Testament and the Qur'an will easily show that it is not the case.

 

[Sunstone]

The OP strikes me as a gross simplication of the facts. While there are many similarities between some religions, there are key differences -- even at the so-called "esoteric" level. For instance: at the estoteric level, union with deity is often a goal in Hinduism, is a heresy that at times could get you burnt at the stake in both Christianity and Islam, and is, at most, entirely ignored in Shintoism. To say those three approaches to union with deity are esoterically the same is to ignore the truth.

I do not wish this to be taken as suggesting there are no profound or striking similarities between some religions. But to assert that all religions are -- on some esoteric level -- the same strikes me as utterly absurd.

 

[Quiddity]

It's utterly meaningless if they truly are the same if no one see's it as such. You can't find harmony in the esoteric without finding harmony in the exo.

 

[Sunstone]

What is the most fundamental nature of the self in Christianity, Zen Buddhism, and the religion of the Dakota? I think the more you examine that question, the less you are apt to conclude that all religions are estoterically the same.

 

[Student of X]

It's utterly meaningless if they truly are the same if no one see's it as such.

No one? There are several people at least.

You can't find harmony in the esoteric without finding harmony in the exo.

Not sure what you mean by this. Standing on a mountaintop, you can see a harmony that a climber in the foothills can't yet see. Standing in the eye of a hurricane, you can see things that someone in the outer rainbands can't.

 

[doppelganger]

What is the most fundamental nature of the self in Christianity, Zen Buddhism, and the religion of the Lakota? I think the more you examine that question, the less you are apt to conclude that all religions are estoterically the same.

Religions? Of course they aren't the same. Artistic expressions that become these symbolic systems of religion, though, tend to come from wellsprings of the same basic, human experiences but in different cultural frameworks. It's the underlying experience that is the same. The fundamental nature of the self can be experienced in the same ways but expressed artistically and practically in different ways depending on culture. Does that mean they aren't expressing the same things (though metaphorically) about the nature of being human?

Of course the religions are different. That's an inherently exoteric inquiry to begin with.

 

[1137]

The one false religion is the exoteric/Literalist/historicist/exoteric religions (plural); the one true religion is the Esoteric/allegorical/esoteric religion (singular)

I completely agree.

 

[Student of X]

What is the most fundamental nature of the self in Christianity, Zen Buddhism, and the religion of the Dakota? I think the more you examine that question, the less you are apt to conclude that all religions are estoterically the same.

Religions answer questions like that based on universal mystical experiences. I think the more you examine comparative mysticism, comparative mythology, and comparative religion, the more apt you are to conclude that all religions are esoterically related even when separated by time and space.

 

[arthra]

"The one false religion is the exoteric/Literalist/historicist/exoteric religions (plural); the one true religion is the Esoteric/allegorical/esoteric religion (singular)"

I wouldn't go that far.. Just saying "exoteric religion" is false is oversimplifying.. I would say yes.. Aspects of religion in time get influenced by culture, langugae and traditions around them but they are still a religion and have mystical aspects.

What I find interesting is how the spiritual and mystical side of religions can be similar and unifying... I found this to me the case when we have interfaith gatherings and share aspects of our religions on a forum..not just on the internet but a forum for reps of the various religions publically...

Revelation or Enlightenment are essential to the beginning and inspiration of religion...and in this sense they all have that in common in my view. What happens after the revelation occurs varies over time and various settings. If the revelation is accurately recorded there is an advantage to say a revelation that occurs and is passed down verbally for years and years and eventually set down to writing.

 

[Sunstone]

Religions? Of course they aren't the same. Artistic expressions that become these symbolic systems of religion, though, tend to come from wellsprings of the same basic, human experiences but in different cultural frameworks. It's the underlying experience that is the same. The fundamental nature of the self can be experienced in different ways but expressed artistically and practically in different ways depending on culture. Does that mean they aren't expressing the same things (though metaphorically) about the nature of being human?

Of course the religions are different. That's an inherently exoteric inquiry to begin with.

The title of this thread is "The estoteric unity of religion" -- not "The estoteric unity of human experience". If you are going to talk about human experience, well then yes -- I see your point. But I believe the OP is not really arguing your point. Instead, I believe it is arguing that there is an estoteric unity of religions.

 

[doppelganger]

The title of this thread is "The estoteric unity of religion" -- not "The estoteric unity of human experience". If you are going to talk about human experience, well then yes -- I see your point. But I believe the OP is not really arguing your point. Instead, I believe it is arguing that there is an estoteric unity of religions.

I think the OP is poorly worded. On the esoteric level the function of mythology is either not religious or only incidentally religious.

I posted to a summary of the four functions of mythology I wrote a while back (that are a paraphrase and summary of Joseph Campbell's view). Three of the four are what the OP would probably call "exoteric": (1) belief in afterlife/reincarnation/other modes of negating existential angst; (2) the perception of an absolute moral/social order for organizing human affairs; (3) cosmology - explaining the structure of the universe and the observer's/believer's place in it. The fourth is the esoteric one - the artistic expression of the ineffable mystery of being.

When myth is being used for psychological purposes related to the first three, the fourth one is usually glossed over or ignored entirely. When the fourth one becomes the focus (which it does with the great artists, prophets and scientists) then the first three become less significant.

 

[doppelganger]

Albert Einstein called it "cosmic religious feeling"

The religious geniuses of all ages have been distinguished by this kind of religious feeling, which knows no dogma and no God conceived in man's image; so that there can be no church whose central teachings are based on it. Hence it is precisely among the heretics of every age that we find men who were filled with this highest kind of religious feeling and were in many cases regarded by their contemporaries as atheists, sometimes also as saints. Looked at in this light, men like Democritus, Francis of Assisi, and Spinoza are closely akin to one another.

How can cosmic religious feeling be communicated from one person to another, if it can give rise to no definite notion of a God and no theology? In my view, it is the most important function of art and science to awaken this feeling and keep it alive in those who are receptive to it.

Yesterdays heretics (those artists and scientists who fearlessly question the ontologies of the first three functions of myth because they primarily operate in the fourth) are today's saviors to everyone but today's heretics.