I don't share some of his views - but he is interesting to read.
This interview comes from Single Eye Movement, a very cool site. If you have never been there, check it out.
Read the whole interview.The Nature of Consciousness: An Interview with Francis X. Charet
by Benton Rooks
Do you believe there is a way of apprehending trans-human laws and absolute truth outside of the conditions of time and mind? That the Soul may know the truth alone when it has become isolated from the default body-mind orientation?
This is a very complex question and involves the need to make clear what is meant by time, mind, and soul. On one level, these terms are ways of conceptualizing certain modes of perception and experience and are also subject to the conditions of particular historical contexts. In fact, these terms and what they represent of themselves have a history that reflects shifts and changes as well as a degree of continuity. The body/mind conception, Cartesian dualism etc. are influential ways that various persons in the West have attempted to understand the phenomenal world, sensation, and the correlation or not between the latter and the seemingly independent existence of consciousness. This dualism has, in the course of time, either collapsed into being reduced to "body" or "mind". There are Eastern parallels for this as well.
My own view is that there is a fundamental unity underlying "body" and "mind" and yet a distinction has emerged seemingly to initiate a dialectical process for the purpose of the differentiation of consciousness. Some have resisted this distinction in favor of one side or the other; there are others who have seen and experienced the unity behind it all and these are the visionaries. But to attain this level of consciousness, and not experience it as the consequence of regression into unconsciousness, is exceptional, transpersonal, and probably the work of several centuries on the collective level.
What are the ways we can make the metaphysical truths of the wisdom traditions more accessible to the public at large? Is there any hope for the perennial philosophy to become more mainstream, and to bridge the gap between various religions, ideologies, and philosophies? Could visionary art perhaps contribute to the effort of validating these universal experiences?
Well, I think many of the great wisdom traditions are becoming known but often the downside of allegedly making them more accessible has resulted in diluting, distorting and commodifying them, especially in America. Yoga is only one of the obvious examples. Most are unwilling to make the necessary sacrifices to follow a spiritual path and there are few true teachers in spite of the claims otherwise. Sadly, the so-called “spiritual supermarket” of this culture is proof, once again, that all too often the real religion of America is business and money!
If by perennial philosophy you mean the Traditionalist School, I think it will likely never become mainstream but also of limited influence because of its position on evolution and its largely anti-modern stance. While the best Traditionalists have managed to maintain a degree of integrity for their anti-modern vision by harnessing vast learning and some of the best scholarship in the service of their metaphysics, they can also come across as too dogmatic, judgmental, and even entrenched in their opinions of various other perspectives. In my view, the above two points are what prevents what is otherwise a fascinating and compelling combination of scholarship and spiritual vision from being accessible to most in the modern world. Nevertheless, the Traditionalist School is becoming more present in recent times by reprinting many of the works of the older scholars and publishing more recent ones.
Yes, I agree that visionary art, if taken in a broad sense, could be of considerable value in conveying universal spiritual themes.
When did you first encounter such thinkers known as the Traditionalist school such as Rene Guenon, Ananda Coomaraswamy and Frithjof Schuon? What kind of impact did they have on you personally?
I cannot quite remember when I came upon any of these authors but I actually read them individually at first not really connecting them to a particular school of thought. Later, when I read Eliade, Huston Smith and others as an undergraduate, I came to understand there was a perennial philosophy that is rooted in Guenon's work and built upon by Schuon, Comaraswamy and others.
As I said in my answer to the previous question, what I find most compelling in the Traditionalists is the fusion of scholarship, spiritual vision, and practice. This comes across to me as an expression of an authentic form of spirituality and a legitimate lineage of teaching that is deeply committed to seeking the unity behind the multiplicity on the religious level. The Traditionalists endeavor to accomplish what many others mistakenly do not do, and that is provide a way of respectfully honoring our planetary spiritual ancestors and to uncover the underlying unity in the scriptures, practices, rituals and institutions they transmitted and developed over time.
In my view, many today are seeking meaning and spirituality and their longing arises out of the emptiness and meaninglessness that a one sided materialism produces. In their desperation and laxness, they all too often turn to the New Age movement, much of which is shallow, self indulgent, and narcissistic; the blind leading the blind who band together in mutual admiration to invoke the same superficial platitudes in a bid to convince themselves that they are truly “spiritual but not religious”. In this respect, I believe the Traditionalists are right: if you are seeking authentic spirituality you need to follow an established path and not imagine that you can walk up and down the aisles of the so-call “spiritual supermarket” and pick and choose items to concoct one to suite your immediate needs.
No comments:
Post a Comment