On Sat, 25 Dec 2004 18:28:53 -0600, Mark A. Foster <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > Gilberto, > I wrote: > >>>>The difference between the philosophia perennis and my understanding of > >>>>the Baha'i view is not necessarily seen the result, but in the cause.<<<< > You replied: > >>I'm not sure I follow?<< > In other words, there are eternal teachings, but the explanations given for > it in the Baha'i texts are, to my understanding, different from the common > perennialist argument.
Gilberto: Ok, maybe I'm just totally wrong but I have the impression that you are saddling them with unnecessary baggage. I mean, I would tend to be rather mellow about the term "perennialism" be more inclusive in how I use it. Gilberto: > >>But as long as you admit that there *are* eternal teachings of the prophets > >>which don't change, isn't that perennialism right there?<< Mark: > Outwardly. The problem is that proponents of the philosophia perennis > generally ground these eternal teachings in a static ontology of being. Gilberto: But is that a necessary connection? I mean, I wouldn't attempt to logically prove the truth of perennialism from axioms. I would just say that it seems like there are many deep and not so deep commonalities across world religions. We are all in the same boat. The validity of religion depends on the human condition, it doesn't change easily based on time or place. Belief in perennialism seems more true to me than insisting that perennialism is false. Gilberto: > >>Earlier, when I've heard you or Susan object to Perennialism it seemed like > >>you were giving the impression that there were no fixed rules. That any of > >>the commandments could change. And there were no eternal laws.<< Mark: > I would never say there are no fixed rules or eternal laws. However, if they > are fixed or eternal, it is because God desires them to be that way. They are > emanations from God, not manifestations of God. Gilberto: I'm not sure about the distinction you are making here. And I could have sworn that you did seem to have a problem with the idea of fixed rules. Because I think I remember suggesting the scenario of God willing the rules to stay hte same. Gilberto: > >>But the passage from Abdul Baha seems to allow for the possibility that > >>there is a core which doesn't change from prophet to prophet. The Holy of > >>Holies.<< Mark: > I agree there is a core, however expressed, which does not change from > Prophet to Prophet. > > >>I mean, am I missing something? This is saying that the fundamental basis, > >>the essnece of the laws of the various prophets does not change or alter. > >>It will never be abrogated.<< Mark: > Descriptively, the Baha'i approach is, as I see it, virtually the same as the > one used by most perennialists, including the traditionalists. Explanatorily, > there are considerable differences. Gilberto: Eh fair enough. Although I've heard from Susan many moons ago that there are some perennialist Bahais. After reading that passage in Some Answered Questions its not really surprising. > >>I mean seems pretty clear from this passage that Perennialism is basically > >>true. The only issue would be some technical detail here or there.<< > > I would say outwardly true, not basically true. > Why not basically true? Peace Gilberto __________________________________________________ You are subscribed to Baha'i Studies as: mailto:archive@mail-archive.com To unsubscribe, send a blank email to mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] To subscribe, use subscribe bahai-st in the message body to [EMAIL PROTECTED] Baha'i Studies is available through the following: Mail - mailto:bahai-st@list.jccc.edu Web - http://list.jccc.edu/read/?forum=bahai-st News - news://list.jccc.edu/bahai-st Public - http://www.escribe.com/religion/bahaist Old Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.net New Public - http://www.mail-archive.com/bahai-st@list.jccc.edu
