Well, my friend, that's exactly what it is and claims to be, about itself and other modalities of thought and understanding; a pointer towards the truth. Nothing can contain truth because they are derived from it; everything is bits and pieces of the Truth and so always comes up short (according to the perennial philosophy) but so many things point to it.

One love

I only ask because you seem to be using this term enlightenment as though it has a single meaning, when at least on the surface, the various figures who have declared themselves enlightened teachers tend to disagree with other enlightened teachers, and their respective directed pointings. That said, there is considerable overlap, more than is sometimes recognized among the scholars (who are, often, also widely considered to be enlightened). And of course Huxley, though I am sure he would not describe himself as enlightened, was certainly no slouch in terms of his scholarly acumen, and he coined the very term “perennial philosophy”.

Had a feeling you were headed somewhere in this direction



I think he popularized it:





Just clarifying. It has some deep roots iirc

One love

Ah, yes. Well, the renaissance use of a term like “perennial philosophy” would have a very strong basis indeed. The Western religions a fellow like that would have been familiar with (Hellenistic paganism, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam) really would all articulate themselves in a single philosophy: Platonism, in three streams, with various sub-schools among those streams. There is Aristotle’s stream, Plotinus’, and Proclus’. All three are Platonisms. For the West, Platonism (not “Plato”, but Platonism) truly is the perennial philosophy.

The Neo-Vedantins on the other hand definitely made their claims in a truly global context. When I went to the Vedanta Temple in San Francisco, they had the Buddha and Christ up in the front. Both religions have largely repudiated their claim, but for Christianity’s part, the underlying Neoplatonism mentioned in that tradition is deeply parallel with the various Vedantas. Buddhism tends to be farther from both, but some parallel can be found, particularly in the Tibetan Jonang school, the Thai Forest tradition, and possibly the Yogacara school. There are still deep differences though, even with these parallels being granted. True commitment to a global perennial thesis requires a belief that at least some of the seemingly more crucial parts of these traditions are in error, and in the case of Buddhism, Huxley was forced to concede that the majority of the tradition was genuinely incongruent with the perennial philosophy he thought Vedanta was one representative of.

Because global religion is largely divided between Christianity, Islam, Hinduism, and Buddhism, and in the modern world Vedanta tends to be the most celebrated element in Hinduism, and Platonism underlies both Christianity and Islam, there is good reason to suggest that the majority of the world religions are in fundamental resonance with one another, even while accounting for some deep differences - and in some corners of the Buddhist world, there is a limited participation in these resonances. Generally, though, Buddhism tends to be the odd man out. The Neo-Vedantins disagree, but that is a new phenomenon - Adi Shankara and Ramanuja (the founders of the most prominent forms of Vedanta) both rejected Buddhism at length and in detail, and they were much more familiar with Buddhists in their time than modern India is, as that religion no longer exists in great numbers in India as it once did.

Regarding *why* one would attend to the teachings of enlightened figures at all, though, the reason is fairly simple. If the teacher is pointing to the moon, you need to see the finger first. And when more than one enlightened person is around, and each is claiming the others are not enlightened or perhaps just not enlightened enough, then we need to have a look at fingers and celestial bodies they point toward. The Buddha studied under two separate teachers, studied their fingers, and turned his gaze to the celestial bodies their fingers pointed towards - and then said “Nice stars, but those aren’t the moon”, and eventually, went off on his own, after which he came back and began doing some sky pointing of his own. Another virtue to studying these things, by the way, is to figure out if what you consider enlightenment, is what other figures consider enlightenment to be. If it is - then you either really were enlightened to what they were enlightened to, or you just think you are and you’re deluded. If there is *not* a correspondence - then you either figured out enlightenment and they didn’t, or, you’re deluded. Either way, it’s a helpful way of beginning to clarify: did I get what Buddha/Plotinus/Adi Shankara/whoever you want meant when they talked about enlightenment? Or am I doing something different? The Buddha seemed to think he had done something quite different (and better) than his predecessors.

It may be one needs to go off on one’s own, if no one else knows where the moon is. There are rare individuals in history who have done it.

I see all the belief systems as wagons that may enable you to travel a path to your 'higher' self. Each of the wagons are different of configuration. Some may be lighter, have less wheels, and could be more nimble. Others are heavier, have more wheels, are more rigid, and take longer to adapt to changes in the path.

When the path is smooth, the large vehicles carry more momentum, have a longer wheel base and therefore could be faster and more pleasant to travel with.

When the path is rocky and bumpy, the large vehicles are easier to get stuck. The smaller and simpler vehicles offer you more terrain negotiation.

And then there is the vehicle we are born with, it has no wheels, it can climb and negotiate most of the terrain changes on your path.

For some reason, or the other, we think that we need a vehicle to bring us there, but in my mind we are born with the optimal vehicle, our body. We just have to accept the fact that our body can bring us there and we don't need an external vehicle.

I see the Plants and Animals as sources that can enable us the negotiate the path back to our true Self. In fact I think that they are helping us and giving us clues on how to find our true Self.
After we have found our body back we may be able to travel the path further or it could be that finding your true Self is the destination. We can only find out after we have arrived by our true Self.

And therefore I say; Stay awake and Flux on!

I want to make my intentions here clear…

You may have stumbled on something that is highly sought after. People spend lifetimes (in my belief, in the plural - lots of them) - seeking bodhi. Bodhi is conceptualized in different ways by different Buddhist traditions. I’m going to speak strictly from a Buddhist perspective here. But one thing that the traditions have in common is: skepticism regarding attainments. Each and every one of them shares this. The reason is: when you embark on the religious life, howsoever it be constructed (and it is constructed - with the hope of it ending construction entirely), you are almost guaranteed to attain things on the way. What I love about my religion is the basic recognition of the vast plethora of possible spiritual attainments - none of which, short of bodhi itself, are bodhi. They can certainly appear like bodhi though.

Now, if you have in fact attained something - anything at all - that’s good. Rebirth as a god or an angel is not exactly frowned upon, it indicates great merit. However, if the attainment is not bodhi, but is taken as bodhi, this does not negate the attainment - but it does mean that, when it eventually fizzles out (probably in the next life as some exalted being) - you’ll be back where you are, possibly none the wiser.

For this reason, study is important. I can give examples.

Ajahn Mun, the founder of the Thai Forest tradition, was reputed to have been enlightened. But his enlightenment was not what his tradition understood enlightenment would be. He consulted a scholar monk he knew, who looked through the canon - and found examples in the Buddha’s teaching that appeared to confirm what Mun had found, and which the tradition’s interpretations had missed. Another example: Ajahn Maha Bua, Mun’s student, after Mun died, believed he had attained Nibbana…. But in his confidence, he held onto his skepticism. He looked, very carefully…. And on a deep, subtle level, realized there was a slight effort in his mind to sustain the attainment, meaning it was conditioned, which is not Nibbana as Theravada understands it - the unconditioned. Later, he claimed, he did attain, but even in the moments of utmost confidence, these monks checked to make sure. I cannot cite the exact passage by memory, but I have seen it cited, that the Buddha himself did the same - he checked to make sure - is this the unconditioned, the deathless?

That’s Theravada. Different traditions have different perspectives. But this is shared. Dogen, when he became enlightened, was recognized by his teacher - and he protested! He said no, wait, let’s see if it’s the real deal, don’t confirm me too soon. He later became confident that he had, in fact, been enlightened.

In the Tibetan tradition - boy. Philosophical understanding is unbelievably central to that tradition. They practice too - but the traditional geshe degree (kind of like a PhD, on steroids) takes an average of 20 years to attain (nine if you are a prodigy, but it’s a rare human who can do it) - and then, upon completion, there is a three year, three month, and three day solitary meditation retreat. Someone brings you food and leaves it an area where you will go to collect it - but you will never see that person. Utterly alone, meditating - armed with decades of learning. That’s their general approach. Whenever I’ve spoken to students of Tibetan teachers and asked how they differ from other traditions, they always mention how many books they expect their students to read.

If you are departing this life and have found enlightenment, well done. If you have attained, perhaps not enlightenment, but something, anything - also, well done. But either way - be very skeptical, and be mindful that in traditions where people are enlightened - really are, including the Buddha -! - skepticism is part of it. If you have attained something but it’s not enlightenment, that’s still progress, and that’s good. If it is enlightenment - really is bodhi - you are to be bowed to. If it isn’t though…. Progress is progress. Meditate more. Even Buddhas continue to meditate, so what the hey.

Just to be clear as well, I'm most certainly not enlightened. Not even close. I also have never studied any of the old ways and I don't meditate. I have repeatedly been told by a good friend that I should start meditating, but I'm not even sure I'm seeking that kind of enlightenment.

I'm very sceptical and I'm stubborn in my ideas until it is clear, to me, that my ways need to be changed. I've gone through quite a few fundamental changes and hope to keep running into more changes.

At the moment I see changing fundamental ideas as a path 'forward'. A reassurance that there is more to learn and that I'm still perceptive to learning.

I'm going to let the plants 'speak' and hope to get better at listening to what the Flux is revealing. Just now, as I'm typing this, a raccoon walked by, 10 feet from me. I got up to look at him, he did the exact same. We looked at each other for a second and he continued his way. The Flux is communicating.

For better or worse I will learn something along the path. I'm now going to be more of an observer. Read more, post less.

Flux on!

Ah, I was trying to be more subtle than that, or maybe just trying to eat my cake and have it, too . Obviously enlightened people don't have beliefs, so I have to deny subscribing to the philosophy while everything I just said sounds exactly like it.

Let's see if I can do a better job without saying complete and utter nonsense.

All religions point to truth.
All religions point away from truth.
Some religions point to truth, and others point away from truth. [And other permutations]
No religions points to truth, but none point away.
All religions simultaneously point both toward and away from truth at all times.
All religions can point toward truth or away from truth, depending on one's perspective.

None of these statements are true, but all of them are true. I don't believe any of these statements, but I believe all of them. None of these statements are helpful for a seeker, but they all are.

I don't subscribe to the perennial philosophy because I can't. I see the truth clearly in all things. I don't say things to describe truth or reality or my beliefs. I say things because they generally prove to be more help than hindrance for a seeker (based on my personal experience in seeking truth).

I never actually studied it enough to know. Nor do I know much of previous enlightened people save stories of Buddha and some modern authors, at least one of whom I'm quite sure is enlightened. I will bow to your greater knowledge in this arena and simply say that all I'm doing is describing from my perspective.

I'm glad you said this. There's been plenty of skepticism since, let's tentatively say, becoming enlightened. I still question it. But if I try to look for a way to continue, to go beyond where I am, all I see is truth. Or perhaps all I see is the most subtle of all illusions, keeping me trapped even deeper than I was before.



Interesting. I never really got much out of meditating before, but find myself more drawn to it lately.

Just a question: What would you say if someone would dispute your claims of enlightenment like you are disputing other people's claims of it?

In the ninth century, the Buddhist sage Lin Chi told a monk, "If you meet the Buddha on the road, kill him."