Constructive postmodern critique of the perennial philosophy. Jorge Ferrer (2002) takes issue with the perennial philosophy and the view that “the various spiritual traditions and insights correspond to different interpretations, dimensions, or levels of a single spiritual ultimate that is both pregiven and universal” (Ferrer, 2002, pp. 3-4). Ferrer does not argue with the possibility that there may not be common elements among the various religious traditions or that the perennial philosophy is necessarily mistaken, only that “the commitment of transpersonal theory to the perennial philosophy may have been not only premature, but also misleading and counterproductive” (p. 73).
Revisioning the perennial philosophy. Ferrer (2002, pp. 87-105) identifies what he considered to be fundamental problems of the perennial philosophy, including the following:
1. Religious diversity is not artifactual. The diversity of religious traditions (e.g., the Christians who encounter a personal God and the Buddhists who do not) is neither accidental nor the result of historical and cultural artifact, but may represent essential and unique solutions to spiritual experiences of transcendence. “The spiritual history of humankind suggests that spiritual doctrines and intuitions affected, shaped, and transformed each other, and that this mutual influence led to the unfolding of a variety of metaphysical worlds – rather than to one metaphysic and different languages” (Ferrer, 2002, pp. 93-94).
2. Pregiven ultimate reality is not to be assumed. The perennial philosophy is geared to an objectivist epistemology that posits a pregiven ultimate reality that can be known by taking a really good look at the already out there now real. “What the spiritual literature suggests is that neither the order of emergence of dual and nondual insights is preordained nor is their spiritual value universal or pregiven” (Ferrer, 2002, p. 105).
|
3. Tendency toward intolerance exists despite inclusive appearance. The perennial philosophy tends to fall into religious dogmatism and intolerance in spite of its avowed inclusive stance. It dismisses traditions that are dualistic, pluralistic, theistic or that do not posit a metaphysical Absolute or transcendent ultimate reality by calling them inauthentic, less evolved, lower in level of spiritual insight, merely relative in relation to the single Absolute that perennialism champions, or simply false. “Wilber’s neoperennialism priviledges a nondual spirituality, of which he himself is a practitioner (Wilber, 1999). This bias leads him ipso facto to prejudge as spiritually less evolved any mystic or tradition that does not seek the attainment of nondual states” (Ferrer, 2002, p. 105).
4. Overemphasizes commonalities while overlooking differences. The perennial philosophy leans toward the belief that what is common among religious traditions is what is essential or more explanatory, instead of looking to the distinctive, unique, individual practices and understandings of a religious tradition.
The nature of this problem can be illustrated by the popular story of the woman who, observing her neighbor entering into an altered state of consciousness three consecutive days first with rum and water, then through fast breathing and water, and finally with nitrous oxide and water, concludes that the reason for his bizarre behaviors was the ingestion of water. The moral of the story, of course, is that what is essential or more explanatory in a set of phenomena is not necessarily what is most obviously common to them. (Ferrer, 2002, p. 91)
|
