Perrenialism

[Ahh!]

I firmly belief that most or all religions are based on the same experience, interpreted differently by the culture it occurs in. I came to this belief initially at the age of 13 when I started reading books on comparative religion and later mysticism, which I believe is the common link between religions. I know this is a belief often hawked by New Agers and such who really do not do their research but I believe their is firm ground for this idea despite the often dubious way it is offered to the masses.

 

I have questioned this conclusion many times, most notably from about 15 to 17 when I studied religions in a more fundamentalist, literalist way. I had lost faith at that time that all religions were one and was in search for "the one true way." I studied Islam, Buddhism and Bahai in detail and almost converted to Judaism. But everywhere I went, I found certain similiarities. Eventually, I decided that religion must be based on some sort of shared experience. What it is, whether it's a collective unconcious like Jung said or some sort of truly spiritual encounter, I don't know but I believe it's there.

[BlueGiant]

Would you say that the source of this commonality is that the human condition?

[Ex-COG]

Or human brain function?

[Ahh!]

I don't really like to take a position on whether it's something outside of humanity or simply human brain function because I don't think we know enough yet to tell for sure but I would say both. I believe that there is something beyond normal human perception that is the source of spirituality and that the human brain can perceive it under the right conditions (the standard things- years of meditation, certain mindstates etc)

[Rev R]

Eventually, I decided that religion must be based on some sort of shared experience.

 

Existence. It's not just tied to religion either, secular thinkers also wrestle with the great questions of life.

[The Sage Nabooru]

For mysticism, yes. For our regular everyday religion, no.

 

In fact mysticism has been persecuted by many of its own religious brethren, for being to esoteric or, well, mystic. Too open-minded, too based on philosophy and exeperience of God-as-love, etc. The Jewish leaders persecuted the Hasidic movement, the Muslims did so to the the Sufis, the Christians did so to various saints and mystics (especially during the Reformation), the Hindus did so to the Tantrics, and so on.

 

I think perhaps the reason is that mysticism often reaches the conclusion that God is at one with the mystic, a unified concept, living in creation, with religious doctrines, practices and founders nothing more than a path particular to those who choose it, not in opposition to others. Mysticism spends less time on doctrine and damnation than on unity and wholeness. It is not so much interested in literally scaring the hell out of you as it is concerned with bringing the joy and experience of heaven as a spiritual concept rather than an actual kingdom. Because it raises the ideas that 1. fear is not a neccessary aspect of God, 2. that the mystic seeks personal union with God, rather than relies on a go-between or power structure to gain access to God, and 3. that the doctrines and dogmas of the religion often fade away to mere conventialities in the real experience of Godliness, which knows no bounds, it threatened the religious power structure's hold on the minds of the people, and thus had to be silenced.