259 - Christianity and the Perennial Philosophy

Christianity and the Perennial Philosophy
By Owen C. Thomas

I used to think that the main option in the West to the biblical religions, Judaism and Christianity, was naturalistic humanism. This is the worldview which affirms the uniquely human values of freedom, community, justice, equality, and so forth, in the context of a naturalistic philosophy, a metaphysic in which nature is the highest or broadest category. Now, I believe that this is no longer the case, and probably never was (except in the academy, and perhaps not even there). I am persuaded that the main option to the biblical religions today is what Aldous Huxley and many others call the perennial philosophy.

Huxley defines the perennial philosophy as "the metaphysic that recognizes a divine reality substantial to the world" and "the psychology that finds in the soul something similar to, or even identical with, divine Reality."¹ It has been exemplified in the West in Neoplatonism, the mysticism of the Pseudo-Dionysius, modern idealism, and such religious movements as Gnosticism, Rosicrucianism, Swedenborgianism, Theosophy, Spiritualism, and Christian Science, as well as imports from the East.²

It has also become an important school of thought led by such authors as Titus Burckhardt, Rene Guenon S. H. Nasr, Jacob Needleman, Frithjof Schuon, and Huston Smith.

I

There is something of a consensus among interpreters that the world religions fall into two main types, what Max Weber called the emissary and the exemplary types, and what Peter Berger has called the confrontation and interiority types. The first or emissary type is exemplified in the Jewish prophet, the Christian apostle, and the Muslim prophet; the second or exemplary, in the Hindu holy man, the Buddhist monk, and the Taoist sage. And the question is often raised and discussed about the relation between these two types of religion and whether or not a synthesis is possible.

Owen C. Thomas is Professor of Systematic Theology at the Episcopal Divinity School, Cambridge, Mass. He has served as visiting lecturer at the Pontifical Gregorian University and the North American College, both in Rome. He is the author of several works on theology, and an earlier book, Attitudes Toward Other Religions, is to be issued in a revised edition in 1986.

¹ The Perennial Philosophy (New York: Harper and Row, 1944), p. vii.
² See the study of thirty-six contemporary groups of this type by Robert S. Ellwood in his book Religious and Spiritual Groups in Modern America (Englewood Cliffs, N.J.: Prentice-Hall, 1973).

260 - Christianity and the Perennial Philosophy

It is usually assumed that Christianity generally falls within the emissary type and the perennial philosophy in the exemplary type. It would seem on the face of it that they represent quite distinct types of' religious experience and religious tradition. But I want to suggest that Christianity has always in fact been a synthesis or amalgam, sometimes stable, sometimes unstable, of what I will call biblical religion and the perennial philosophy.

I first became aware of this issue in the 'forties through the neoorthodox polemic against liberal theology and, in particular, against the elements in it of mysticism and idealism. In my graduate study, I did a good deal of work on the English Hegelians and especially on the debates between the absolute idealists and the personal idealists in which these issues figured. Then I began to notice that people from all walks of life were fascinated both intellectually and existentially by the perennial philosophy. I recall Reinhold Niebuhr once remarking that if a Christian theologian were invited to lecture at Columbia University, the philosophy department would be outraged, but if a Buddhist monk or a Hindu swami were invited, they would all purr like kittens.

Then, several years ago, I participated in a group of theologians and psychiatrists in Boston assembled by Erich Lindemann. I discovered to my astonishment that the majority of the psychiatrists were rather disdainful of biblical religion but were quite fascinated with the perennial philosophy. In the 'sixties, I noticed that much of the counter-culture movement was deeply informed by the perennial philosophy. Finally, I have often been surprised to discover that the operative faith of theological students and other Christians turns out to be some form of the perennial philosophy, that Christian people often assume that Christian faith and the perennial philosophy are the same thing. So, in a word, I have been continually impressed by the power and the pervasiveness of the perennial philosophy, and I continue to be curious about its relation to Christianity.

I want to approach this question by looking at the perennial philosophy and biblical religion as two ideal types, two heuristic constructs which may serve to organize certain historical data. By this, I mean that I will try to indicate the fundamental elements of each, not all of which, however, may be present in any particular example of them. In speaking of biblical religion, I am not referring to Judaism or Christianity in any of their specific forms, but rather to an ideal construct which may underlie any particular form of either of them. The same applies to my description of the perennial philosophy.

II

The perennial philosophy is a religious worldview which, like all worldviews, involves a particular understanding of reality, including the divine, and the place of humanity in reality. It affirms that ultimate reality, the divine, is the nameless, ineffable One about which nothing else can be said except perhaps by negations. For example, it is not a

261 - Christianity and the Perennial Philosophy

person or personal. Then, there is the world, but its origin is obscure or problematic. In the Gnostic version of the perennial philosophy, the origin of the world is the result of a mythic accident or misunderstanding. In the Neoplatonic version, the world is the result of the emanation or overflowing of the divine substance, the reason for which is obscure. It is sometimes described as involuntary and sometimes as a reckless falling away from the One.

This means that the world is essentially divine, or, as Huxley puts it, the divine reality is substantial to the world. It also means that reality is ordered in a great hierarchy of levels of being stretching from the divine down through the spiritual, the psychic, and the organic, to the inorganic. This is a hierarchy of reality, power, and value. The higher or closer a level of being is to the divine, the greater its reality, power, value; the lower or farther from the divine, the lesser its reality, power, and value.

Humanity includes all the levels of being and, thus, is called a microcosm, the whole of reality in miniature. Humanity includes the inorganic, the organic, the psychic, the spiritual, and the divine. This means that the highest and essential level of human being is identical with the divine. The problematic character of the human situation is that the human spirit which is essentially divine is involved in the lower levels of being and as a result is confused, led astray, and forgets about its essential divine nature.

The way of salvation is for the human spirit to discover its true nature, to turn away from the lower levels of being and to rise up until it is perfectly united with the divine in mystical union. This way of salvation is pursued in many different ways in the different versions of the perennial philosophy, but they usually involve some kind of asceticism or suppression of the bodily and the psychic through disciplines of meditation.

I pause to note that this is what many people believe Christianity is, especially people raised in the traditions of liberal Protestantism, Roman Catholicism, or Eastern Orthodoxy. The reason for this is that these traditions (and all other Christian traditions in varying degrees) are in fact syntheses or amalgams of biblical religion with various forms of the perennial philosophy.

From these fundamental elements of the perennial philosophy certain results tend to emerge. First, because of the monistic and hierarchical character of reality, individuality in general and human individuality or personhood in particular tends to become at least ambiguous in character, if not actually unreal or evil. The reason for this is that the more individuality or distinctness something has, the further it is from the divine, and thus the less reality, power, and value it will have. This is also indicated by the fact that the fulfillment of the individual is to become perfectly united with the divine in an identity in which there is no distinct individuality at all. Huston Smith puts it this way: "Only persons who sense themselves to be not finally real-anatta, no

262 - Christianity and the Perennial Philosophy

self-will sense the same of the God of theism. And for them it does not matter that in the last analysis God is not the kind of God who loves them, for at this level there is no 'them' to be loved."³

A second tendency is that bodily life is viewed with suspicion. The reason is the same. Physical bodies are even further removed from the divine than the human psyche and they are, moreover, the source of' human confusion and ignorance about its true nature, and thus are the source of evil. (Thus monism always tends to produce a dualism in regard to the body and the physical world.) Since human individuality and embodiment are the basis of human personal relations, human association and community become ambiguous, of little value, and subject to suspicion. Finally, since human history is the story of human communities and their relations, the significance of history becomes questionable. The significant movement of human life is not forward into the future in personal, communal, and historical development, but rather upwards out of bodily, communal, historical life in the direction of the divine.

The ideal type or construct of "biblical religion" has one point of agreement with the perennial philosophy, namely, the ultimate reality of the divine One. But even here there is a fundamental difference. In biblical religion, the divine is ineluctably personal and thus a differentiated or organic unity on the analogy of integrated human personhood, whereas in the perennial philosophy the divine One is absolutely simple and undifferentiated. Moreover, the divine in biblical religion is not nameless or ineffable, but has many names and must be spoken about.

Furthermore, the origin of the world is not obscure, but is understood to be the result of the divine will and action, namely, creation. This means that the world is not essentially divine, but rather creaturely, a kind of reality which is neither divine nor illusory, but contingent and real. There is a sense in which the created world is ordered in a hierarchy of levels of being, but this is not a hierarchy of degrees of reality, but rather one of mutual service and honor.

As in the perennial philosophy, humanity includes all the levels of reality, but with one exception: humanity has no divine element, but is entirely creature. Furthermore, the problematic character of human life is not the involvement of humanity in bodily life, but is rather a matter of the perversity of the human will, of turning away from the divine will. The seat of the problem is in the human spirit, not in the human body. So, the way of salvation is the transformation of the will through the divine presence. The merciful and forgiving divine love draws the human will out of bondage into freedom.

From the fundamental affirmations of biblical religion, certain tendencies emerge which are the opposite of those of the perennial philosophy. In biblical religion, individuality in general and human individuality in particular are not ambiguous, but are affirmed as very

³ Forgotten Truth: The Primordial Tradition (New York: Harper and Row, 1976), p. 52.

263 - Christianity and the Perennial Philosophy

good. The goal of individual fulfillment is not to be absorbed into the divine undifferentiated unity, but to live in personal communion with the divine and with one's fellow creatures. Accordingly, human bodily life is not to be turned away from, but is to be affirmed and will be transfigured in the fulfillment. (Thus a dualism between creator and creature always tends to produce a monism or holism in regard to the body and the physical world.) Similarly, human personal relations and community are not seen as ambiguous, but rather as of the highest importance and value. Finally, therefore, history as the story of human communities and their relations is taken very seriously as the arena of human responsibility and divine activity aiming at the fulfillment of all the creation.

III

These are the ideal types or constructs of the perennial philosophy and biblical religion. They have never existed in their pure forms as described. In any particular historical form of either one, the fundamental themes will be described in different ways and the tendencies mentioned will be modified accordingly. As I have suggested, Christianity has never existed as simply biblical religion, but has always been from the very beginning a mixture, amalgam, or synthesis of biblical religion with some form of the perennial philosophy. (Occasionally, the mixture has occurred with other types of philosophy, such as Stoicism. But most often it has been with some form of the perennial philosophy, which has been the dominant form of Western philosophy from Plato to Hegel.)

This amalgamating began in the Bible, and first in the Wisdom literature, and especially in the Wisdom of Solomon which was influenced by Middle Platonism, and also in the Gospel of John (although this is debated). It continued in Philo and the early Christian theologians, such as Clement of Alexandria, in whose writings the perennial philosophy was dominant. A real synthesis was achieved by such thinkers as Augustine, Bonaventure, and Aquinas. Pseudo-Dionysius represents the perennial philosophy in almost pure form. Very few theologians exemplify biblical religion in pure form, but Irenaeus, Luther, and, on the Jewish side, Martin Buber, come close.

A historical sidelight is that by the time of the Renaissance most people identified Christianity with the individual and world-denying aspects of the perennial philosophy, which we have noted above. So the Renaissance can be interpreted as the cultural manifestation of some of the individual and world-affirming themes of biblical religion, as seen, for example, in Renaissance humanism, Renaissance naturalism in art, the beginnings of modern science, and the emergence of a progressive view of history. These were seen, therefore, as anti-Christian in character. Finally, since the Renaissance can in many ways be seen as the birth of the modern world, we have the strange reversal in which the modern world sees itself as an anti-Christian rebirth of classical culture, whereas

264 - Christianity and the Perennial Philosophy

it is in fact more the result of the cultural working out of the fundamental themes of biblical religion. All of this can be seen as the result of the fact that Christianity was widely understood to be a form of perennial philosophy.

A continuing manifestation of the perennial philosophy since the medieval period can be seen in Romanticism. Denis de Rougemont has argued that Catharism, a religious movement based on the perennial philosophy with a Christian veneer, was the source of the tradition of courtly love which exalted the passion of Romantic love and looked down on marriage.⁴ According to de Rougemont, this tradition of Romanticism influenced many areas of Western culture, flowered in the Romantic movement of the last century, and emerged philosophically in German idealism, the main modern Western version of the perennial philosophy.

Today, we are experiencing a new Romantic movement which is also pervasively informed by the perennial philosophy.⁵ Beginning with the youth culture movement of the 'sixties and continuing down to the present in many religious and cultural manifestations, this new Romantic movement has influenced all of us and produced a new popularity for the many religious and philosophical groups which embody the perennial philosophy today.⁶ As a result, many are drawn today to the perennial philosophy in these groups and also to the forms of Christianity in which the perennial philosophy is dominant, in particular the mystical traditions. Much of the interest in spirituality in the churches today grows out of the current Romantic movement and its grounding in the perennial philosophy. Also, many have argued that the new physics and the hallucinogenic drug experience both support the validity of the perennial philosophy, especially in the form of Eastern mysticism. But this is hotly debated.⁷

IV

So, as I suggested at the beginning, the perennial philosophy seems to be the main option to Christianity today. This demonstrates the universal appeal and power of this tradition. The fundamental question emerges whether the authentic Christian tradition lies in biblical religion, in the perennial philosophy, or in a synthesis of the two. This raises the further question whether a true and stable synthesis of these

⁴ Love in the Western World (New York: Harper and Row, 1956).
⁵ See the works of Theodore Roszak, The Making of a Counter Culture (Garden City: Doubleday and Co., 1969) and Where the Wasteland Ends (Garden City: Doubleday and Co., 1972).
⁶ See the Ellwood study mentioned above and also his more recent work Alternative Altars (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1979).
⁷ For a critique of the former, see Ken Wilber, "Physics, Mysticism, and the New Holographic Paradigm," The Holographic Paradigm, ed. Wilber (Boulder, Col.: Shambala, 1982). For a critique of the latter see R. C. Zaehner, Mysticism Sacred and Profane (London: Oxford University Press, 1957).

265 - Christianity and the Perennial Philosophy

two traditions is possible. Many students of religion have struggled with this question, but no consensus has emerged.⁸

Few theologians see this as a critical issue in theology. Earlier in this century, Karl Barth did see the issue and came down on the side of biblical religion. This is also generally true of the theologians in the tradition of political and liberation theology. Huston Smith sees the authentic Christian tradition to be squarely in the perennial philosophy. Some theologians engaged in the inter-religious dialogue have begun to explore the possibility of a synthesis of Christianity with Buddhism, which stands generally in the perennial philosophy tradition.⁹

Other interpretations of the relation of these two traditions from the point of view of one of them tend to explain away the other tradition or treat it as a lower level of understanding. (Radhakrishnan and Buber are examples of this approach.) But religious traditions of such widespread power and appeal can hardly be distinguished in terms of truth and error. They must both have a firm hold on some aspects of ultimate reality. Complementarity and synthesis seem to be the more appropriate way of understanding their relation. Needless to say, any synthesis would have to be carried out from the point of view of one of the traditions.

Paul Tillich is the main theologian in this century who has argued forcefully that the authentic Christian tradition lies in a stable synthesis of the two traditions. He has carried this out in his Systematic Theology, and I will conclude by indicating briefly how he does this.¹⁰ Tillich's synthesis appears clearly at three main points in the system: God as being itself and personal, creation and fall as the transition from essence to existence, and the fulfillment as essentialization or the transition from existence back to essence. I will speak only of the first.

As I suggested above, the One of perennial philosophy is the ineffable, nameless, undifferentiated ultimate reality which is substantial to the world. The divine reality in biblical religion is the transcendent and immanent personal God who creates the world. Tillich synthesized these views by means of his ontology. In his three sets of polar ontological elements which characterize all of finite being, the key one in this connection is the polarity of individualization and participation. All of finite reality from the sub-atomic particle to the human being is informed by this polarity. On the human level, it takes the form of person and community. Since God is the ground of finite being, aspects

⁸ See The Other Side of Go& A Polarity in World Religions, ed. Peter Berger (Garden City: Anchor Press, 1981).
⁹ See John B. Cobb, Jr., Beyond Dialogue: Toward a Mutual Transformation of Christianity and Buddhism (Philadelphia: Fortress Press, 1982).
¹⁰ See Systematic Theology, 3 vols. (Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1951-63), 1, pp. 174-78, 243-45. Others who have attempted such a synthesis are John A. T. Robinson in Truth is Two-Eyed (Philadelphia: Westminster Press, 1979), and George Rupp in Beyond Zen and Existentialism (New York: Oxford University Press, 1979).

266 - Christianity and the Perennial Philosophy

of finite being can and must be used to speak symbolically of God. When the polarity of individualization and participation is applied to God symbolically, God is seen not as a person but as the ground of everything personal, not as the substance of all things but as the ground of all. things. God is, thus, both the absolute individual and the absolute participant.

The human experience of the divine is informed by and varies, according to this polarity of individualization and participation. Sometimes, as in biblical religion, it is nearer the individualization end of the polarity and is understood as a relation to the personal God. Other times, as in the perennial philosophy tradition, it is nearer the participation pole and is understood as a participation in or union with God. But Tillich's point is that, according to his ontology, individualization and participation can be actualized only in relation to each other. There can be no pure individualization which does not involve participation, and vice versa. Therefore, the religious experiences of these two traditions are not entirely alien, but rather constitute complementary views of the divine reality.

This, at least, is the implication of Tillich's synthesis. It is carried out primarily from the point of view of the biblical religion tradition. Other syntheses have been attempted on the basis of the perennial philosophy tradition. What I am suggesting is that Christianity, in line with its earliest formulations, should proceed to clarify its self-understanding as a synthesis of the biblical tradition and perennial philosophy traditions, and thus broaden its appeal to those whose experience stands more in the latter tradition.