And that "perennialist" sentiment is shallow. Whatever is "ultimate" necessarily is beyond all traditions made up of non-ultimate, or proximate, minds, no? — 180 Proof

Unless you accept the Hermetic principle of "as above, so below"; the idea that the microcosm inevitably reflects the macrocosm, in which case you would think it is deep not shallow.

I have a couple of outstanding comments to reply to but will look at them tomorrow. In the meantime, feel welcome to continue any further discussion and I am particularly interested in Hermeticism, as an underlying system, which was inherent in certain religious perspectives.

From Wikipedia
Throughout its history, Hermeticism was closely associated with the idea of a primeval, divine wisdom, revealed only to the most ancient of sages, such as Hermes Trismegistus.[10] In the Renaissance, this developed into the notion of a prisca theologia or "ancient theology", which asserted that there is a single, true theology which was given by God to some of the first humans, and traces of which may still be found in various ancient systems of thought. Thinkers like Giovanni Pico della Mirandola (1463–1494) supposed that this 'ancient theology' could be reconstructed by studying (what were then considered to be) the most ancient writings still in existence, such as those attributed to Hermes, but also those attributed to, e.g., Zoroaster, Orpheus, Pythagoras, Plato, the 'Chaldeans', or the Kaballah.[11] This soon evolved into the idea, first proposed by Agostino Steuco (1497–1548), that one and the same divine truth may be found in the religious and philosophical traditions of different periods and places, all considered as different manifestations of the same universal perennial philosophy.[12] In this perennialist context, the term 'Hermetic' tended to lose even more of its specificity, eventually becoming a mere byword for the purported divine knowledge of the ancient Egyptians, especially as related to alchemy and magic. Despite their occasional use of authentic Hermetic texts and concepts, this generic and pseudo-historical use of the term was greatly popularized by nineteenth- and twentieth-century occultists.[13]
From this initial reading, I am not interested in Hermeticism as it seems to be a form of special revelation, have supernatural aspects and predate our modern scientific worldview but perhaps you can somehow make it interesting?

Your point escapes me. I accept the cosmic scale fractal as a mathematical analogue to "as above, so below", but what does that have to do with anything I've posted to this thread?

It may be that my own mind is a bit too 'elastic', but it is probably because I have not found one perspective which I believe sums up the 'truth'. — Jack Cummins

And if "the truth" is a mirage, merely imaginary, then what? Go on perpetually chasing your own tail (ouroboros-like) ...

I take the point of an open mind can become a closed one is closed' and I don't wish to rule out any possible definitive answers.

You miss my point completely, Jack. Without discipline or criteria, your mind is so "open" and "possibilities" are so arbitrary that by considering everything, IMO, such an approach indefinitely postpones you (deeply) understanding anything.

Your point escapes me. I accept the cosmic scale fractal as a mathematical analogue to "as above, so below", but what do that have to do with anything I've posted to this thread? — 180 Proof

The point was only that what might seem shallow to you could seem, and obviously has seemed across time and cultures, deep to many others. The idea is that the Higher Truth is embodied in the Lower Manifestation and may be apprehended through intuition or the seeing of a "seer", gnosis, or through meditative practice and so on. The idea is common to both the Eastern and Western traditions and also the shamanistic practices of hunter/ gatherer cultures.

From this initial reading, I am not interested in Hermeticism as it seems to be a form of special revelation, have supernatural aspects and predate our modern scientific worldview but perhaps you can somehow make it interesting? — prothero

I can't "make it interesting" to anyone; it;s either interesting to you or not. It has been interesting to me at times over the years, but less so of late. I never had real faith in the idea, as should be obvious from my arguments with @Wayfarer. On the other hand I don't dismiss others' interest as being delusional or without value.

Okay. Seeming "deep" just because the bottom can't be perceived (or conceived of), however, doesn't make something deep.

Right, probably not deep in the sense of complexly elaborated thought, but perhaps in the sense that the bottom cannot be reached, or the depths of the ocean that are yet to be explored.

What I'm getting at is that something can seem deep if it feels mysterious and remains ungraspable, but no, not determinably deep like a complex analysis or subject matter might be thought of as being.

Does an Understanding of Comparative Religion Have any Important Contribution to Philosophy?

Definitely. Alduous Huxley, whom you mentioned, made the case quite well in his book, The Perennial Philosophy. Some of the others who deserve a mention are Huston Smith, Ninian Smart, Karen Armstrong, Mark Vernon, Jules Evans, to name a few. It's worth reading some of Mircea Eliade, and becoming at least a little familiar with the 20th century representatives of the perennial philosophy such as Ananda Coomaraswamy and Rene Guenon. Have I mentioned https://www.temenosacademy.org/ before?

I referred to an essay yesterday, Cults and Cosmic Consciousness: Religious Vision in the American 1960’s . It's quite long but worth a read. It concludes:

The religious impulse of the sixties must be rescued from he wreckage and redeemed. The exposure to Hinduism and Buddhism that my generation had to get haphazardly from contemporary literature and music should be formalized and standardized for basic education. What students need to negotiate their way through the New Age fog is scholarly knowledge of ancient and medieval history, from early pagan nature cults through the embattled consolidation of Christian theology. Teaching religion as culture rather than as morality also gives students the intellectual freedom to find the ethical principles at the heart of every religion. — Camille Paglia

Which is pretty well what I'm engaged in.

Thanks. I've generally enjoyed Camille Paglia - I don't always agree and she is often barking, but she is super entertaining. Her ongoing fight against the wreckage of 1960's radicalism and the Me Generation which followed (and only needed 30 years and social media to metastasize in the international psyche) is often highly amusing.

Can’t say I’m a fan but I like that essay.

Okay. Seeming "deep" just because the bottom can't be perceived (or conceived of), however, doesn't make something deep. — 180 Proof

Shallow and muddy instead of clear and deep waters. In both cases "...the bottom can't be perceived (or conceived of)..."

But then...

I have no idea if this is relevant but all religions have what appears to be a rather tricky problem to solve. First, they have to explain the status quo which inevitably requires them to come up with some framework in which evil makes sense. Second, they have to fit benevolence/goodness into that framework. The Abrahamic triad does this by introducing free will and divine retribution. Hinduism achieves this with a narrative about power struggles between gods and demons. Buddhism uses Karma to the same end.

However, as you will have noticed, these explanations seem a bit too contrived, as if those who founded these religions were really struggling with the issue of evil vis-à-vis goodness. This dissonance manifests in the many ways people jump through hoops, bend over backwards to accommodate evil in a system declared to be through and through benevolent, sometimes even going so far as to deny the existence of evil, that god works in mysterious ways, that everything happens for a reason, and so on.

The difficulty is most acutely felt in the Abrahamic triad because they have a God which they believe is all-good, all-powerful, and all-knowing? Whence this evil?

In Buddhism and Hinduism, the evil one experiences is just your own Karmic reflection. A better explanation in my opinion. After all, there's no good God that we must adjust for.

There maybe more interesting stuff we can unearth in the way religions, each in its own way, tackles the necessity for good and also the existence of evil.

Actually, I do read some of the various writers, referred to by @Wayfarerincluding Ninian Smart, Eliade, Karen Armstrong and Huston Smith. I was also extremely impressed by Huxley's ' The Perennial Philosophy' which I read about 4 months ago, and that was partly what influenced me in thinking that there are underlying themes underlying the various religious traditions. My basic belief is that it is about achieving a sense of the transcendent or numinous, although it don't think it is necessary to believe in God to achieve such states of consciousness.

I try to have a certain amount of discipline to reading whether or not I consider it 'research ' as such. I probably try to use this site as a way of trying to guide me in reading about specific themes, including some of my own and other people's threads. It may be that my posts don't reflect this because often by the time I have done all the reading the thread is fading out. But, I definitely feel that this site helps my reading. I also wish that libraries were open again because it is difficult to find quiet reading spaces.

As far as being open minded it is not that I wish to remain that way always, but simply that there don't appear to be clear answers, but definitely some writers seem more useful than others. I have already said that I see Jung as my main mentor. But, I do find that I do often go round in circles at times, but, really, we have a lifetime to work out overall philosophies. Even when people come to specific conclusions, it doesn't mean that they will not revise and modify their thinking. I also think that the ideal is to have an entirely independent view, but I think that it is becoming harder to do this, because so many ideas have been thought out in detail and depth by so many people previously.

It agree that people often seem to 'jump through hoops' and 'bend over backwards' to fit ideas such as the problem of evil into their conceptions of religious truths. That is probably why I don't come to a clear perspective although I do think that I probably can relate to Eastern traditions and metaphysics more than Abrahamic religions points of view. But, my own Catholic background does affect me. But, I probably would not gravitate to atheism because I am not sure that life is mere chance and coincidence.

But, that may be because I find that my own life is full of 'Jungian synchronicities', although I am aware that it is about acausal principles and our own interpretation of meaning. But, if nothing else, it shows underlying patterns in life. Also, I am open to the idea of karma, but of course, this is about the subjective interpretations of events and how they appear related to our actions. But, this applies to causal factors in this life and karma is usually considered to be something related to past lives in Hinduism especially.

Anyway, I liked the video of puddles because I feel that I am often jumping from puddle to puddle, and it is sometimes hard to tell how deep or shallow the puddles are, especially those of our own questing for knowledge.

I am sure that various religions and spiritualities have plenty to contribute to Philosophy. For my own relationship to spirituality, however, I honestly feel like I've gained more from J.D. Salinger than anyone else, including some of the actual religious texts that I've read.

I'm not sure that academic formalism, despite that I like this idea of teaching religion as culture, is really all that great of an approach to spirituality. I'd bet that there are practicing Buddhists who are plenty more wise than those engaged in academic research. Sure, it'd go the other way as well, but there's something to the individual pursuit that gets lost in a more formal inquiry.

I was also extremely impressed by Huxley's ' The Perennial Philosophy' which I read about 4 months ago, and that was partly what influenced me in thinking that there are underlying themes underlying the various religious traditions. My basic belief is that it is about achieving a sense of the transcendent or numinous, although it don't think it is necessary to believe in God to achieve such states of consciousness. — Jack Cummins

I agree. Experiencing a sense of the numinous may also happen with the arts; for my taste painting, music and poetry in particular. My view is that it is best (for myself at least) to enjoy the experience while forming no conclusions about its possible implications.

I'd found I didn't get anywhere, or progress in my understandings, until I gave up seeking "clear answers" (mythos) and switched to reasoning toward better, more probative, questions (logos vs mythos (i.e. meta-mythos)). After all, an "answer" is nothing but a question's way of generating new questions.

however, I honestly feel like I've gained more from J.D. Salinger than anyone else, including some of the actual religious texts that I've read. — thewonder

Yes. Me too except it was George Elliot.

I'd found I didn't get anywhere, or progress in my understandings, until I gave up seeking "clear answers" (mythos) and switched to reasoning toward better, more probitive, questions (logos vs mythos (i.e. meta-mythos)). — 180 Proof

That sounds like breakthrough moment. I think the questions people find interesting are very revealing about them and often they seem to be the wrong questions. With an inadequate set of questions, the answers can be like premature ejaculation. :gasp:

I'd found I didn't get anywhere, or progress in my understandings, until I gave up seeking "clear answers" (mythos) and switched to reasoning toward better, more probitive, questions (logos vs mythos (i.e. meta-mythos)). After all, an "answer" is nothing but a question's way of generating new questions. — 180 Proof

Religion's are at the core of many cultures, so are vital if you want to develop a more expansive understanding of the human experience.

problem of evil — Jack Cummins

Can you see what's happening Jack?

The Abrahamic triad attempts to explain evil by chalking it up to free will (necessary for the idea of the good) and divine retribution (punishment for evil acts we're culpable of because we have free will) - the bottom line is according to these religions, let's not mince words here, evil is good in disguise.

Now, Buddhism. In this religion too, evil, as I mentioned in my previous post, is karmic retribution i.e. again, evil is good in disguise.

This is what I meant by jumping through hoops and bending over backwards. The problem of evil? Huh? You mean good (free will, repercussions for evil done in accord with your own free will)? In other words, there's no evil - it's either a minor and yet generally detested accompaniment to the melodic splendor of the good (free will) or simply the echo of your deeds bouncing back at you i.e. either evil has something good in it or is good itself in a form that one can't recognize. Geez!

Religion's are at the core of many cultures, so are vital if you want to develop a more expansive understanding of the human experience. — Pantagruel

I second that but I have a sneaking suspicion that people might take that in a way identical to Richard Dawkins' views on the matter - study religion (theology) but, he says, don't practice religion. @Wayfarer would disagree most forcefully and I too because praxis is the cornerstone of religions. The proof of the pudding is in the eating!

praxis is the cornerstone of religions. The proof of the pudding is in the eating! — TheMadFool

And this argument undoubtedly has merit. As I just posted on my thread on "motivated belief":

"It may well be, for example, that there is some kind of spiritual or noumenal dimension whose information is only manifest to those who actually believe in it. Then people who deny and criticize those who claim to enjoy access to such information are really only confirming their own inability to achieve the requisite belief."

If "praxis is the cornerstone", then why many, actually most, e.g. Christians do not 'act Christ-like' very often (i.e. live Christ-like lives) and haven't done so throughout history?

praxis is the cornerstone of religions. The proof of the pudding is in the eating! — TheMadFool

Are religious folk renown for practicing what they preach? :lol:

So the question becomes, what is the cornerstone of religion?

I have just looked at my phone, having come home, and I would say that even though I started a thread on comparative religion, I am not suggesting that I think religious philosophies are the ultimate answers. I read widely and I am sure that many may see my own thinking as inadequate because I don't come across as having a particular overriding viewpoint. I am in the position of thinking that various traditions of philosophy and comparative religion are extremely interesting, and I am sure that many may object to me for such lack of one particular view. I am not trying to say that it is a matter of relativism entirely. However, I do come from the view that I do not believe that there is one ultimate viewpoint, within religious or secular thinking, and that pluralism has some relevance for thinking about varying perspectives about truth.

So the question becomes, what is the cornerstone of religion? — praxis

I would have though the cornerstones of religion are hypocrisy and materialism. I agree with @Pantagruel that if you wish to understand human behavior in all its maddening ambiguity and contradiction, religion is a good place to start.

"Though all religions assert that they worship God and say that we must love one another, they instill fear through their doctrines of reward and punishment, and through their competitive dogmas they perpetuate suspicion and antagonism.”

Krishnamurti

I am not suggesting that I think religious philosophies are the ultimate answers. I read widely and I am sure that many may see my own thinking as inadequate because I don't come across as having a particular overriding viewpoint. — Jack Cummins

As I suggested previously here, looking for "ultimate answers", IMO, is not doing philosophy or what philosophy is about. Instead that's seeking – needing to live by – some religious dogma. Nothing's wrong with that per se, but let's not confuse that with philosophy.