--- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, "Marek Reavis" <reavisma...@...> wrote: > > Vaj, you may be correct, but as a species we all seem > to be far more alike than different. We all apprehend > the being that we are from different angles and with > different approaches, but at some point all that > evaporates, certainly, and what 'is' is all that remains. > > That's my take, at least, and that same apprehension of > the imminent trancendent has been reiterated in many > cultures and in many times in the past. But maybe that > only means that I've fallen for one of the oldest scams > in the book.
If it's a scam, many of the greatest thinkers throughout history and across cultures have been taken in by it. Given the almost infinite variety of contexts in which the Perennial Philosophy is found, many of them arising entirely independently of each other, it seems rather odd that they'd all *converge* on this single idea, and testify to it experientially, if there wasn't something to it. I wonder what evidence Vaj finds for its being "totally imaginary." I also have to wonder whether his disagreement is a matter of definition rather than substance. > --- In FairfieldLife@yahoogroups.com, Vaj <vajradhatu@> wrote: > > > > I'm sorry to say Marek, but I feel illusion of a > > philosophia perennis as a continuing thread of generic > > gnosis, same-awakening, across time, as some universal > > spiritual awakening (for different human-folk) to be > > totally imaginary and anti-inner-anthemic. It goes > > against the grain of the fact that we're all unique, > > each holding his/her own mythos, our own Rig Ved (but > > not a synthetic thought-plane projection of our > > imaginings of 'that'). > > > > On Aug 11, 2009, at 11:26 PM, Marek Reavis wrote: > > > > > The Perennial Philosophy in practice.
