June 12, 2025 • 59 mins
Tracking Wisdom
Episode 28
Exploring Perennial Wisdom: Universalist vs. Traditionalist Perspectives
Recorded - 04/19/25
The salient point of this podcast centers on the exploration of perennial wisdom through two distinct schools of thought: the universalist perspective and the traditionalist perspective. We engage in a detailed discussion about the essence of perennial philosophy, positing that it embodies a shared core truth found within all religions and philosophical frameworks. The universalist perspective embraces the notion that various religious traditions are mere pathways leading to a singular truth, emphasizing personal mystical experiences over established doctrines. Conversely, the traditionalist perspective asserts the uniqueness and divinely inspired nature of each religion, advocating for the preservation of sacred teachings and cautioning against the dilution that may arise from syncretism. Throughout this discourse, we reflect on our own positions within this dichotomy, acknowledging the merits and criticisms inherent to each viewpoint while seeking deeper understanding of the implications they hold for spiritual seekers.
Takeaways
- The perennial philosophy posits that all religions share a foundational truth about reality and humanity.
- Universalist perennialism emphasizes the mystical experience as a unique path to understanding underlying truths.
- Traditionalist perspectives argue for the preservation of religious purity against the dilution that comes from syncretism.
- Critics of traditionalism point out that rigid adherence to doctrine can lead to exclusion and a failure to adapt to modern spiritual needs.
- The discussion highlighted the importance of discernment when choosing a spiritual path or teacher.
- Both perspectives, universalist and traditionalist, offer valuable insights into the nature of spiritual exploration and understanding.
If this content has been meaningful or entertaining for you,
consider showing your support to help make this content possible.
Review us on Podchaser
We are grateful for your gifts.
Have a discussion topic idea or show feedback? Use the Suggestion Box link below!
Tracking Wisdom Reflections (Substack)
Social Media:
Episode Transcript
Available transcripts are automatically generated. Complete accuracy is not guaranteed.
(00:00):
Views, interpretations andopinions expressed are not advice
nor official positionspresented on behalf of any organization
or institution. They are forinformational and entertainment purposes
only. Now join Ryan and Peterfor another episode of the Tracking
Wisdom Podcast.
(00:23):
Good morning and welcome backto another episode of the Tracking
Wisdom Podcast. My name is Ryan.
My name is Peter.
And today we arespringboarding off of our last episode
where we talked aboutperennial wisdom. And today we're
going to expand on thatperennial wisdom and explore the
two different schools ofthought. On perennial wisdom, there's
(00:47):
the universalist perspectiveand a traditionalist perspective.
And so we'll go into kind ofoutlining what the perennial philosophy
is, discuss the universalistperspective and the traditionalist
perspective at a high level,discuss the strengths and criticisms
(01:09):
of each, and then Peter and Iwill kind of give our own take and
reflection on the concept andwhat we take away from it. So to
start, the perennialphilosophy, which we discussed last.
Last episode, is the idea thatrooted in all religion, and that
(01:30):
is what the perennialphilosophy speaks to. Last episode,
we expanded that broader toinclude science and culture and a
number of different areas. Butthe idea being that at the core,
there is a shared core truthabout reality, consciousness and
the human experience, humannature, the fundamental nature of
(01:53):
humanity. And this idea was.What was his name? Aldous Huxley.
Thank you, Peter. Coming tothe rescue. But the idea emerged
during the Renaissance and wasalso integrated in neoplate Platonism,
hermetics, and other religiouselements. And Then in the 19th century,
(02:17):
Aldous Huxley wrote the bookthe Perennial Philosophy. Now, out
of that, the idea ofperennialism, which is what we just
discussed, this universalityor this core element, there's the
universal universalistperennialism. And they see religion
(02:38):
as different paths to the sametruth. So, so, kind of using the
pointer metaphor that Peterhas shared many times before, where
we come from differentperspectives, and each of our paths
are pointers to a singularcommon destination, if you were to
(02:59):
put a destination to it, or,you know, a truth. Another element
of universalist perennialismis that it emphasizes the mystical
experience and the innerrealization over tradition and doctrine,
which is common ininstitutional religions. And it supports.
And this is one of the keyitems in universalist perennialism.
(03:22):
And where the critique comesis it supports a syncretism, which
is a blending of the insightsfrom various traditions. Counter
to that is the traditionalistperspective, which holds that each
religion has a unique anddivinely inspired form, meaning that
underlying truth andcommonality to be preserved. But
(03:46):
the core of this perspectiveis that it believes in guarding that
purity of the traditionalteaching against blending. So there's.
That's really the biggestdifference between these is the traditionalists
view syncretism as. Asdiluting the spiritual truth. And
they hold dear and prioritizethe importance of the religion and
(04:13):
tradition as being divinelyinspired and being the foundational
element to teaching andguiding down the path towards the
common knowledge. So strengthsin the universalist perspective would
be that it's can be consideredmore inclusive and adaptable to modern
(04:34):
spiritual teachers or seekers.It values that inner experience and
intuition, emphasizing themystical experience and the mystical
core. I kind of align thiswith that general kind of awakening
experience that has commonelements that describe the experience.
(04:55):
And obviously we just talkedabout Aldous Huxley as being a prominent
figure in this. There was alsoTheosophists and Transcendentalists
that were prominent in theuniversalist perspective. The criticisms
from the traditionalists onthis is that the. The syncretism
is super, can lead tosuperficial and relativistic understandings
(05:20):
and mixing these traditions,diluting the authenticity that came
from the original so calleddivinely inspired tradition that
held that core element. And soit's perceived as losing that sacred
specificity by merging thesepaths. Alternately, the traditionalist
(05:41):
perspective, in emphasizingthe integrity of tradition, preserving
the rituals and doctrines assacred, focuses on initiation. So
the idea of having aninitiation within the tradition that
sets people on the path. And Iimagine this, or think of this in
(06:03):
certain shamanic traditionswhere, you know, there's an event,
there's a celebration and anembarkation on the journey and that
the traditionalists hold thisas a dear part of following whatever
(06:25):
traditional path towardsachieving the recognition of the
ultimate truth andunderstanding. So the criticisms
from the universalists on thisperspective is that it can be viewed
as rigid and exclusive andresistant to modern interpretation,
can be perceived as failing toadapt to contemporary spiritual needs.
(06:49):
So for us, which resonatesmore so for me. So in the last episode
at the end when I introducedthis topic, I asserted that I think
Peter and I are probably oneither side of the center line here.
I think we may land. Bear withme. Bear with me. Peter's giving
(07:09):
me faces. I think that Petertends slightly on the traditionalist
side and I will back thatassertion up with some objective
evidence. And I think it'sprobably fair to say that I lean
universalist. However, I dorecognize the critique and this critique
(07:35):
has come up, actually Peterhas shared the critique and the critique
came up. And in other areas,for me, the idea that. So if I was
taking the perspective ofsupporting the tradition, the I'M
sorry, the universalistperspective. This aligns with me
specifically because I haveembarked on an organic path. I have
(07:59):
strong hesitation, rejection.It's literally resistance to institutional
doctrine. And, and Ipersonally have found huge value
in that blending of differenttraditions. Now I'm not blending
(08:19):
practices as much. It's reallymore that I recognize this perennialism
and I explore the variety ofdifferent teachings, so to speak,
but also recognizing it inother areas. And it's in identifying
those consistencies, thosealignments with the perennialism,
(08:42):
that I find not gratifying butinspiring and indicative of the path
that I follow. But I recognizemostly to your point, Peter, where
you've brought up theimportance of teachers. No. You haven't
said that?
No, I'm just curious. Well,keep on going.
(09:05):
In my recollection, Peter hastalked about the importance of teachers
in certain circumstances. Ithink you have not been rigid on.
That's why I'm saying, I thinkby and large we're very fluid across
the center line here. But Ithink I would definitely align more
towards the universalistperspective, however, acknowledging
(09:28):
in certain, if not manycircumstances there is a valid need
for that guidance and thatblending different traditions can
lead to confusion. And I mean,one of the critiques about this,
and it reminded me of New Age,your perception of New Age being
(09:53):
that when we're blending thesetraditions, the meaning gets diluted,
to use the previous term, butit gets lost and it becomes more
of whatever I want andwhatever I feel and then can be co
opted by charlatanism andthings like that. And I think that
that's in part yourperspective or perception of New
(10:17):
Age.
Okay. Okay. So. Okay.
Are you, do you want to. Areyou, Are you done? Yeah, I mean,
I think that, that I recognizethat I will be done in one moment.
I. I recognize that thatcritique is legitimate, that there
(10:38):
is a. A risk of dilution,dilution of the teaching, but also
being deluded in your ownpath, in whatever it is that you're
feeling or wanting. But I dothink that we are in agreement that
the mystical experience andprimacy of that inner experience
(11:01):
over perhaps a doctrinal typeapproach. And what I would critique
specifically about thecritique from the traditionalists
is, and granted this isprobably a couple hundred years old,
this critique, but it missesthe point it basically creates. So
(11:24):
I agree with thetraditionalists insofar as and as
we've discussed, the originalheart of orthodox religion had this
element of. And they do speakspecifically to Orthodoxy. So I don't
want to conflate non orthodoxtraditions with their perspective,
(11:49):
because their perspective isspecific to Orthodoxy. However, they
would. They do incorporateCatholicism in that orthodoxy. And
the point that I would make isthat things have come so far and
it ignores the fact that overtime, the institution itself deviates
(12:11):
from the original teaching.And so that's an additional critique
that I make in a critique thatI make to their critique, which is,
yes, there's a risk ofdiluting the original teaching in
blending different traditions,but I also think that in taking that
(12:32):
perspective, it's missing. Ithas a blind spot, that orthodoxy,
while the original true natureof orthodoxy may have strong alignment
to this core teaching, that itignores the fact that over time that
orthodoxy kind of loses itsedge, so to speak. Now I'm done.
(12:56):
So I. Yeah, so I'm reactingbecause I think it's interesting
that you peg me as atraditionalist because. Or even traditional
leaning, because as soon as Iread the outline of universalist
versus Traditionalist, myreaction was, oh, we clearly fall
(13:20):
squarely into universalistperennialism. So. So the idea that
I'm leaning. I think that'sinteresting. I mean, I can understand
historically, from things Isaid early on how you might interpret
me as a traditionalist, but Ithink where I am now, I'm. I'm completely
(13:43):
not a traditionalist. I mean,I think the. The risk for. For universalists
is that you have to. Itrequires discernment and critical
thinking.
Right.
That's what I. That's what Iwould say. Because you have to create
your own guardrails.Basically, that's the universalist
(14:04):
approach is we're taking offthe guardrails. We're not locking
you into this structure, andwe're not locking ourselves into
a structure and we can explorefreely, which means you can end up
in the mud, you can get in theweeds, but that's just a hazard.
I think that from myperspective, the hazards of traditionalism
(14:29):
are more serious.
Yeah.
And I think that. I mean, Ithink that's the central thesis of
our conversation throughout,is that you have to recognize the.
The limitations and hazards oftraditional paths and organized religions
and that explicitly they'renot wrong because they do carry the
(14:54):
core truth. But the, thestructure introduces hazard because
not all leaders and teachersare able to say, here's what's essential.
Right.
This stuff is just to help youalong the way. It's just to get you.
It's just to funnel you in,basically. Right? There's a lot of
(15:15):
structure in all paths that isthere to guide you in when you're
coming from a very lost Placeof inexperience. And I think traditional
paths are designed as funnelswhere you go deeper and deeper. You
(15:37):
get, you know, the deepermysteries or you get kind of more.
The more sophisticated views,the farther you go. But behind it
all is the. The truth is very,very simple as we've come around
to very, you know, again andagain. And the problem is that so
(15:59):
many people. And I would. I'mgoing to place a disclaimer on my
perception of the way theworld is, because I was just gonna
say most people. I'm gonna.I'm saying most people with the disclaimer
that, yeah, I don't reallyknow what, you know, most people
think, but my perception isthat most people get lost in the
(16:23):
structure, and most people arevery honestly, in my opinion, not
even interested in the coretruth. So I guess I'm not going to
go into detail because I don'twant to take a position of criticizing
a particular religion. Butthat's what I. That's what I think.
(16:45):
And so. So what I thought youwere going to focus on, or I thought
your evidence was kind of myreference to Buddhist structures
and my. My kind of alignmentwith Buddhist tradition.
It. So, I mean, I didn'tactually outline my. My objective
evidence to my position onthat. But yeah, it. I mean, it's.
(17:10):
It's in line with that. Butalso, I think more broadly in your.
You're a bit of a dichotomy. Irecognize part of you very much follows
this. There's a part of youthat clings to institutional knowledge.
And I don't know if that'sjust historical conditioning or not,
(17:34):
but there's a. Whenever I hearsomething like I need a teacher or
practice things like that,that indicates to me this.
Attachment.
Attachment.
No. Okay, fair. Yes.
But beyond that, I agree.That's why I was kind of saying.
Yeah, maybe either side.
(17:56):
So intellectually. So. Sointellectually, I disagree. Like,
intellectually, I'm firmlyuniversalist, and intellectually,
I don't want to be. Right. ButI am. I do have a lot of conditioning
around structure. I mean, mycore conditioning is around rules
(18:17):
and criticism.
Right.
Like, and being right. That.That's really deep core conditioning
that I'm working on. Butthat's the thing is that I recognize
that as conditioning that I'mworking on. So it's not that it doesn't
come out and that you won'thear me say those things, but I'm
saying those things against myinner wisdom.
Sure.
And they're just. They'recoming out of my Mouth. And I'm trying
(18:39):
to learn not to say them, so.Fair enough. I mean, you're right.
So if I could turn this backon you, I. Yeah, I mean, I mean,
I think. But we talked aboutthis last episode where, where we
have these two. We're comingto the same path from different places
(19:06):
of origin.
Yeah.
Right. So you're. You'recoming from this pre. I don't know,
pre awakened. I don't knowwhat you call it, but this is like
very early. I think youdescribed it as there was no time
when you remember not being asaware as you are now. Yeah, kind
of. Right.
(19:26):
What I would frame itspecifically with the fundamental
well being.
Right.
Jeffrey Martin's matrix. Afundamental well being. And I can't
recall a time when I didn'thave that base fundamental.
Right. So. So Martin's. InMartin's model, there's a transition
(19:47):
away from conditioning wherewe start out in this conditioned
state and then we have thistransition experience which pulls
us towards awakening, onto thepath of awakening. And he like, he's
very. Well, his research isall about finding that transition
and helping people make thattransition. And you don't have a
(20:12):
transition point.
That I recall at least. Right.
And so. And whereas I'm reallypainfully aware of decades of conditioned
experience prior to what Irecognize as my first transition
in my 60s. And so those aretwo different. Those are very different.
(20:34):
Yeah.
You know, coming to the pathin two very different ways. So. So
I think. Just caution you. Ithink the fact that I have conditioning,
or rather your interpretationof me being more traditionalist because
of my traditioning is anartifact of you're not recognizing
(21:01):
a pre transition experienceand being able to say I'm a dichotomy
because I have a pre and postand you're not because you're just
there, you know, so.
But which is not to say I haveno conditioning or anything like
that, just the fundamentalwell being.
Which is a really interestingquestion which I would really like
(21:23):
to explore. I don't know howto explore.
This comes up.
Yeah, I know. Well, yeah. Imean, because I'm so. So this is,
I mean, this is our essential,I guess dynamic. Right. Is that I'm
really deep into myconditioning. Like I'm really focused
on. I'm really aware of it. Ihave a lot of it. And because you
(21:46):
have this, this long, longperiod of fundamental well being,
my postulation or myhypothesis is that you have conditioning
mass by fundamental wellbeing, whereas most people have fundamental
being mass by conditioning.
Yeah.
I mean, and this Is, I thinkit's an interesting model because
(22:06):
it's kind of like I, I thinkof it kind of along the lines of,
you know, Jeffrey coming upwith his model based on talking to
a lot of people about theirexperience of awakening. And then
he developed his matrix andhis model of the awakening path.
And I think I'm seeingsomething, you know, between us in
our conversations and in thecontrast between our experiences.
(22:29):
It's like, oh, well, is thisanother model? You know, is there.
It's not the Martin's matrix,but is definitely the model that
Jeffrey uses that and manyteachers use. I mean, Tara Brock
and Jack Kornfeld also usethis model, I think of the ever present
inner wisdom being obscuredby, you know, the true self or the
(22:54):
Buddha nature, being obscuredby the spacesuit self or the conditioned
self or the, all this, theseother terms that they use to describe
the, the smaller self, theego. Right. The psychological ego.
So there's that, there's the,the Buddha nature being covered by
(23:16):
the ego. But is it possible tohave the ego be covered by Buddha
nature when someone has kindof an earlier awakening or can't
recognize a pre transitioncondition state? And yet there's
still clear conditioningbecause as we've said, awakening
(23:37):
doesn't. Right. Materialexistence is conditioning. Right,
Right. So just being awakened,even if you're awakened from birth,
it doesn't mean that you'refree of conditioning any more than,
you know, having a verydramatic awakening at the age of
23 means that you're free ofall your conditioning. If you don't
(23:58):
address your conditioning,you're not free of it. And you might
be subject to, you know, beingcontrolled by your conditioning.
Right.
So anyway, but, so I, I thinkthat's a very interesting contrast
or I guess dynamic is what Iwould say.
(24:18):
Right.
It's like there's somethingbetween the two of us as, as much
as we have in common, there'sthis, there's this difference that's
very interesting and I, Istill don't understand it. I mean,
I mean, I don't think, I don'tthink, I mean, I don't think you
understand. I don't think weunderstand our experience, each other's
experiences overall very well.I think we, we understand each other's
(24:44):
awakening experiences quitewell because that's the nature of
awakening. Like if you have anawakening experience, you talk to
someone else who's had anawakening experience, you're kind
of like, oh yeah. So I thinkit's interesting to see that the
transcendentalists are centralto the universalist school of thought.
(25:11):
The universal perennialism.Universalist version of perennialism.
Because there is. Well,basically the, the center of transcendentalism
is in Massachusetts andthere's a museum called Fruitlands
Museum, which I visited manytimes and it's famous for being the
(25:33):
home of transcendentalism. AndI didn't know who the transcendentalists
are. So now I see anotherconnection. Oh, there are they interesting
into this. Yeah. So they're.One of their things was they were.
They envisioned a communitywhere they could live free of like
all kinds of modernentanglements. Okay. And. But one
(25:58):
of their things was they weregoing to grow all their own clothes.
I don't really know howthey're gonna. Maybe it wasn't. They're
gonna grow it because I knowthey didn't grow cotton. They only
wore, I think, cotton. Cotton.Part of their thing was they, they
made this commune and theywere going to like live and be self
sufficient. And they didn'tmake it through the first winter
because they got too cold. Andpart of the reason they got too cold
(26:18):
is I think they didn't want towear wool. Was like part of their
thing. Like, we're not goingto wear animal products, so they're
trying to wear just cotton. Ididn't learn enough from my trips,
my many trips to the museumwith my kids because it's for my
kids. I'm not payingattention. But anyway. Yeah, so Fruitlands
Museum.
Interesting.
(26:38):
Take a trip. Yeah, it's kindof interesting. So, yeah, so now
I can go back there and say,oh, they were universalist perennialists.
Yeah. I mean, definitely mycomment about traditionalist perennialism
was kind of like, oh, this isthe kind of the interfaith party
(27:01):
line of, you know, the formal,like the religious leaders to get
together and say, yes, we allapprove of each other as long as
kind of you stay in your ownlane. Right, right. And it's like,
yeah, I'm not going to speakout against your religion, you know,
but mine is the only true oneor something like that. Right. Like,
(27:22):
if you're gonna be. You haveto commit. Like if you're gonna be
in my religion, you can'tstray and, and go to these other
religions. I mean, I don'tknow that it's really that negative,
but that's. Reading thisoutline made me feel like, oh, it's
those people.
Right. What do you think aboutthe, the assertion from the traditionalist
(27:46):
that veering outside of a, ofa established path can dilute or
risk.
Yeah. I mean, it's kind of.So. So they're not saying my way
is the only true way. They'resaying I have a true way and you
have a true way. But if you'renot on my path or your path or this
(28:09):
other path, then you're notgonna see the truth.
Right. I think that's kind ofwhere it points.
And I think I said in the endof the last episode that it's not
essential.
Yeah, right.
Because. Because the truththat they're pointing to is essential
human experience. And so youdo not need a path and a teacher,
(28:34):
essentially. Now, having saidthat, the vast, vast majority of
us have conditioning such thatwe need a path and we need a teacher
or, you know, some variety orcombination of that in order to start
(28:54):
to get the experience that weneed to recognize the direction that
we need to go in.
Right.
So. Yeah, I mean, I, I hopethat's not too subtle. I mean, it's,
it's. Yeah, I, I just, Idon't, I don't buy. Well, most especially
here's, here's the problemthat I have, which is again, going
(29:15):
back to our original centralthesis, which is that organized religions
are full of non essentialstructure that they make essential.
Right.
And that's a problem. So youmay already be on the edge of awakening,
but you must follow this path.And if you haven't, then that means
(29:37):
you can't be saved.
Right.
Or that you still need to besaved, even though. Yeah, I mean,
that's the whole thing. Whenin reality, in my understanding.
And while I'd love to getsomeone from like a seminary or theological
background. Right. To. Toweigh in on this, because in my view.
(29:58):
So my new model, keeping itsaying this is teaching to the bell
curve. Right. In my view,institutions are designed to optimize
impact by hitting the majorityof people.
Right.
Which, and kind of bydefinition, structurally, they're
not interested in the tailsbecause there's very little return.
(30:22):
Because the objective of theinstitution is to maximize their
impact. Because now that's aninstitution, it wants to kind of
own everything. It kind ofwants to get as many people in the
door as possible. And the wayyou do that is you focus on the middle
of the bell curve and yousacrifice the tails. And that's where
I think the hazard oftraditionalist perennialism is. Is
(30:49):
that designed to sacrifice thetrails. With the exception of exceptional
leaders and teachers that havetheir eyes open for, oh, these people,
there are some special peopleor these people who inhabit the tails
of the bell curve where thismainstream doesn't apply. Because
(31:12):
they don't have this kind ofconditioning that we're designed
to deal with, and because theydon't have that kind of conditioning
and because we don't know howto deal with it, because it's not
built into our structure,there must be something wrong with
them.
Right.
And. And that's what it comesdown to is. Is institutions making
(31:33):
people feel like there'ssomething wrong with them aside from
the bigger idea of originalsin, which is kind of the big, the
ultimate. There's somethingwrong with you. But I mean, even
barring that. Right. Likepeople who can't. I don't want to
get into details, but, youknow. Yeah, I think it's pretty clear
what.
Yeah.
(31:53):
You know, this kind ofconcept. Yeah, that's my. That's
my. That's my perspective onthat. I mean, I think it's really
interesting. I wish we hadmore people to talk to because we're
kind of. We are in a bit of anecho chamber, literally. There's
just the two of us here. And.Yeah, I'd really like to get some
(32:16):
perspective and discussionabout these kind of approaches to
perennial wisdom, because Ithink, you know, just like you were
attributing things to me andhow I would view this, obviously
I'm attributing things to, youknow, people who align differently
(32:40):
on this in this model.
Right.
Than I think I do.
Well, I think, too, thattraditionalist perennialism is probably
hard to come by at this point,because specifically focusing on
Orthodoxy, which in and ofitself is waning. I mean, we're.
There's. There's very little.And I don't even know if I would
(33:02):
personally consider theCatholic Church orthodoxy, but that
would be probably the mainset. The point that I'm trying to
make is many of the moremodern religions think, what is the
Judaism, you guys thought?
There's Reform.
Reform Judaism and ProtestantChristianity, things like that. These
(33:27):
in and of themselves, to me,are forms of the universalist perspective
because they are blending.They are not the pedigree of the
Orthodox religion.
But I think. Yeah. I mean,okay, so there's technical orthodoxy,
which I guess is what we haveto be talking about. Because what
(33:48):
I'm thinking about is, well,what about fundamentalism? Right,
right. I mean, all kinds of.What I'm saying, what I'm suggesting
as well, there's a semanticaspect to Orthodoxy.
Sure.
Right. I mean,fundamentalists, I think, by definition,
are calling themselvesOrthodox. Right. They're not saying,
(34:10):
oh, we're a new way of lookingat it.
Right.
They're saying, we're thefundamental way of looking at it
yet. And yet they're often new.
I mean, I guess the right.Taking the Christian approach, the
each denomination ofProtestantism probably takes. Maybe
they're not articulating thatthey're orthodox, but they are likely
(34:35):
believing that they arefollowing the core essence of the
original truth.
Yeah, that's a good point.
You know.
Yeah, yeah.
But I do see certainly strictorthodoxy. But I would say in the
context of strict orthodoxy,definitely there's a challenge and
(34:56):
a valid critique from theuniversalist perspective that translating
that teaching that wasdesigned in a culture and world that
was completely different thannow makes it difficult. This is my
perspective that interpretingthat into a modern context creates.
(35:20):
Following a strict orthodoxythat is thousands of years old is
going to complicate things ina modern world. And then translating
that into a modern world. Imean this is where we kind of get
in this back and forth chickenand egg thing where, where I think
the universalist is trying toallow for the growth and the variety
(35:44):
of experience. And obviouslythey're in embodying the primacy
of mystic experience, mysticalexperience over tradition. That when
you're taking thetraditionalist perspective, I guess
I just kind of reject thisidea that following the original
(36:04):
air quotes, divinely inspiredway that this was designed. Number
one, I would, I would arguethat those don't exist anymore in
so far as like, yeah, the, thepri. The, the majority of the religions
are, are not pure pure unlesswe're following the way or Gnosticism
(36:25):
or something that was.
But I mean, so to your earlierpoint is that many, I'm not going
to say all, but manydenominations that identify as a
traditional religion, Judaism,Christianity, Islam maybe I really
don't know anything aboutIslam. Variations of Islam would
(36:49):
call themselves essential. Imean, okay, so I'm thinking about
what I know about ReformJudaism. So there's a focus on the
Torah as a structure. Right.And then a very active interpretation
(37:09):
of this traditional document.But there's a faith that we can adhere
to this traditional documentand follow the cycle of the Torah
through the year. And thisserves us in our modern life because
it's the word of God. Butbecause we're intelligent modern
(37:30):
humans, it's our design tointerpret and reinterpret this. And
that's our work, that's oursacred work is to engage with this
traditional document andinterpret it. So that's, that's one.
So is that. I don't thinkthat's inherently universalist. I'm
(37:53):
not sure this is why I'm aLittle confused because it's like
it's adopting a traditionalstructure in this specific document
and in many, many rituals andholidays. It's a whole thing. It's
not just a document. It's awhole structure of holidays and traditions.
(38:13):
But it's reinterpreted.
Right.
And it's not just like, well,it's what the rabbi says. It's. No,
every person has to engagewith this and interpret, and we can
argue and disagree, and that'spart of the process. But overall,
it will guide us. Right. Andin our disagreements, and we'll.
(38:36):
We'll be doing the best thatwe can. I'm not sure whether that's
universalist or traditionalist.
I don't think it fallssquarely in either case.
Right, right. So for me, Imean, I have a fair amount of background.
I have enough background inBuddhist traditional teachings that
(38:57):
it guides my thinking. Likethat structure and the references.
I can make references to it inways that I find useful, but I'm
not dogmatic about it.
Right.
And that's. And that's why,you know, at one point, not too long
ago, I wanted to be dogmaticabout. I'm like, oh, I'm not a good
(39:19):
enough Buddhist. I have tobecome a better Buddhist. And then
I was like, oh, wait, oh,that's what awakening is. Oh, never
mind. You know? And now I'mnot concerned with being a better
Buddhist, but I'm also notsaying, oh, that Buddhist stuff is
garbage. I'm like, oh, this isreally great. This is the best teaching
that I've found. I really likeit. I really find it useful. I'm
(39:40):
just not dogmatic about it.I'm not just. I'm just not gonna
say, hey, you've got to seethat. You've got to read this. You've
got to believe this. Andthat's the. But see, that's not what
they're describing astraditionalist Universalist either.
Right. They're not saying,you've got to believe this.
They're saying, you got tobelieve one of these.
(40:01):
You've got to believe orfollow this path or that path. Right,
Right. So I don't know. Yeah.I feel like we're kind of like, not
quite well enough equipped toreally grapple fully with these questions.
I mean, it's a reallyinteresting introduction which raises
really interesting questions.I think that I'm much more of a universal.
(40:24):
Universalist and that I don'treally understand what this material
is describing as traditionalist.
Sure.
Right.
Yeah.
It's like, how does that work?I Mean, I kind of have the flavor
of it because of these, youknow, interfaith conclaves and things
like that where, you know,these clergy get together and they
(40:47):
say, you know, we've, we'vetalked to each other and we respect
each other and all this, but,you know, I'm still an Orthodox Jew
and you're still a Catholic.And, and so what does that mean?
I. I don't know in, in, indetail. I don't know what it means.
I only know that thoseconversations happen. I know that
the Dalai Lama has beenengaged with interfaith dialogues.
(41:08):
Yeah, right. Are thosedialogues traditionalist or universalist?
Are they inherentlyuniversalist? It seems that they
wouldn't be.
No.
I mean, if you're a clergy, ifyou're, if a cleric, if you're clergy
in an organized religion, itseems like you can't be. Well, I
don't know. It seems to pointaway from being a universalist.
(41:31):
Yeah, no, I agree. I think tothink about it from a broader perspective
as traditionalist, meaningmore along the lines of adhering
to an established framework,more so than just strict orthodoxy
like I was framing. It makessense. And I think the, I mean, essentially
(41:58):
the underlying. The concernseems to be around efficient direction,
and I don't want to use theword achievement, but, you know,
more advancement, but thiskind of progression, progression
towards both schools ofthought agree that there's an underlying
(42:22):
essence that is theperennialism in both schools of thought,
that there's this underlyingteaching. One preserves the value
or prioritizes the value ofthe established frameworks in progressing
and achieving, recognizingthat universal truth and cautioning,
(42:46):
blending and taking your ownorganic path, because you might get
lost. And I think that, likeyou said, that there is a counter
risk to taking that position,that the established framework, in
and of itself certainly overtime, can do the very thing that
(43:09):
it's trying to not do, whichis to distract specifically people
who might be on the tail endsof the bell curve, who might be experiencing
more unique or lessconventional experiences, that it
doesn't serve that community.And I think I'm not taking a perspective
(43:33):
that either one of these isabsolutely right or wrong. I think
they both have value. Andcertainly I think even from a universalist
perspective, even thoughtranscendentalism seem to reject
established religion. Andpersonally, I don't reject. I don't
reject established religion,but I have reservation and. Come
(43:58):
on. Trying to pull it out ofmy head.
I mean, I think the problem isthat it's so easy to see from our
perspective how traditionalPaths can go wrong.
Right.
Which doesn't mean they haveto go wrong. Doesn't mean that it
mostly goes wrong. It's justthat they can go wrong very dramatically.
(44:21):
And it's.
Yeah, well, in a universalistpath doesn't preclude following a
traditional establishedreligion. That's the way I would
see it. You could still value,you could pick.
Your own path, which happensto be exclusively one traditional
path. But you recognize, yourecognize that that's just your path.
(44:47):
And I think to touch back onone thing that you mentioned, and
I think it was absolutely onpoint, I think also missed the counter
to it, which was you said youneed to be aware of the limitations
of established tradition orsomething along that line. And I
(45:09):
think that in fairness, itgoes both ways. Right. Whatever path
we use, it's incumbent upon usto be discerning and to recognize
the limitations with eitherapproach or any approach we take
so that we can move forwardwith confidence and not fall victim
(45:31):
to traps.
Well, I mean, okay, so from a,from a universalist, perennialist
perspective, if I'm going tosay that's the one. I take I. Making
the argument that traditionalpaths are designed to a bell curve,
which means that they work formost people, like, by definition,
(45:55):
like, oh, they actually workfor most people, or they can. And
I think that's the problem, isthat there's the design and then
there's the application.
Right, right, right.
There's the design, thenthere's the way people hack it. It's
like, no, it wasn't designedto be used that way. Yes, but this
is the easiest way to use it.Yeah, but it doesn't work if you
(46:15):
do that. You know, I mean,this is our, this is coming back
to our professionalexperience. Like, you have to use
it the way it's designed to beused in order to get the benefit
that it was designed to produce.
Correct.
So, which comes down to, Ithink, what I said before. And this
(46:36):
is not a weakness. This, thisis not a weakness. What I'm, what
I'm trying to say is thattraditional paths require good teachers.
Yes.
And if you have skilledteachers, then that path is going
to work really, really well. Ibelieve the problem is, it's like,
it's so hard to find a goodleader or a good teacher. There's
(46:57):
so many bad ones out there.Now, just because there are so many
bad teachers out there doesn'tmean that if you go out on your own,
you're going to do better.Right, Right. Then, then you have
to be your own better teacher.And then all that means is it doesn't
mean that what you do on yourown becomes right. It means that
(47:18):
you have to do, you have totake on more responsibility for yourself.
And that's what I was sayingabout critical thinking, that it's
not an easy path. That's,that's, and that's the misinterpretation
of all of this stuff, right?Oh, if I just do this, if I just
do everything this guy saysblindly, then I'm going to be saved,
(47:39):
right? Because that's thepath. I just have to not be responsible
for myself and do whatever myteacher says or do whatever my leader
says. And then it's all goodbecause it's in the Bible. And so,
you know, I don't have anyresponsibility and that's the way
I want it to be. And that'swhere the whole everything falls
apart.
Right?
(48:00):
So whatever path you choose,you've either got to be responsible
for finding a really goodteacher or leader and rejecting any
teacher or leader who is notgood. That's the hard part. Or you've
got to be your own really goodteacher or leader. And I guess, I
(48:24):
mean, that's the communitythat I'm involved with, which is
a community where, which isdedicated to helping each member
of the community be their ownbest teachers and leaders. And that's
what we do. Like we gettogether and we learn from each other
(48:44):
and teach each other whilewe're teaching ourselves. I mean,
if you, in my community,someone comes with a problem and
the leader guides them totheir inner wisdom, working through
the problem and they'reworking on their own problem, right?
They're not working on myproblem. But by seeing them succeed
(49:07):
in working their problem, Ilearn how to work on my problem.
I learn how to be my own bestteacher. And that's why, that's why,
that's why I work with myteacher, because that's what she
does. And, and I had theopportunity to observe many hours
(49:32):
of practice before decidinglike, oh, I think this person knows
what they're doing andactually observing real time outcomes.
Right.
Which is not, in myexperience, not the typical opportunity
you get in any kind oforganized religion. I mean, you get
(49:55):
to hear that so and so is areally good teacher or you get to
hear that, oh, they saidsomething when I went to their talk
and they seem really good, butthat's not an outcome. Right, right.
That's like, I liked what theysaid. I mean, I thought Mingyur Rinpoche,
after reading a bunch of hiscontent and watch listening to a
bunch of his content. I waslike, oh, this is. This is when I
(50:17):
was like on my way to becominga more serious Buddhist because it
was like, wow, this is great.I really connect with this. But I
don't think that's the mostlegitimate way to evaluate. To evaluate.
I think if you have theopportunity to see results in real
time, you know, I don't knowhow you find that. I mean, other
(50:37):
than like, I have a veryspecific path that's my own, that
I had my own opportunity tocome to this specific class that
had the specific teacher. Imean, it's. It's a very unique thing.
I mean, it doesn't even help.I don't think it's particularly helpful
for me to name the class andname the teacher because it's not
(51:00):
like, oh, you can just. Imean, I guess I should name the class
the teacher. I mean, it wasPower of Awareness and teachers Clear
passing. And I'm still withher and. But you know, it's like,
she's not the only teacher.
Right.
It's just my. That's my point.It's like, yeah, I don't want to
create a funnel here whereeverybody has to join Cleopasty because
(51:22):
she's the only good teacher.It's like, no, I had this unique
ability, a unique opportunityto find a good teacher because I
was able to observe and evaluate.
Right.
And I don't know how you get that.
It's hard. I mean, in a way,you had some luck insofar as the
person that you.
(51:43):
I mean, that's where mysynchronicities, that's what I'm.
You know, when we talk about,you know, the synchronicity of awakening
and all the. Yeah, that'swhere. That's where I see it.
Because if that wasn't thecase, you'd be in the same boat as
everybody else, which is howdo you. How do you get the opportunities
to observe real time outcomeslike that?
(52:03):
Right. Yeah. I mean, yeah, Ithink it's unique. I. Unfortunately,
I think I just got reallylucky because if you. It does not
particularly helpful for me totell you to go register for Power
of Awareness because. Well, Imean, she is still active in power
awareness and you still canpick her as a teacher. But, you know,
they used to have a dozenmentors. Not all of them did this.
(52:27):
In fact, maybe two of them did it.
Yeah.
I mean, Clea's the only onewho did it the way she did it.
Yeah.
And I just happened to. Ididn't. I don't even know how I picked
her. Maybe I don't know if Ihave access to materials where I
could see a list of people andsay, oh, that's what it said. That's
why I picked her.
Is that when you got incontact with her was.
(52:48):
Yeah.
Power of awareness.
Yeah. So I know what it lookslike, but I don't know how to tell
you to find it.
Sure. Yeah.
That's very frustrating.
It is. The crux of the pathsis either being your own best teacher
or I think discernment is the key.
How. This is the. This is theso frustrating part that I'm very
(53:11):
frustrated with, trying tosay, this is what you need to do.
And it's like, I can't tellyou how to do it.
Yeah.
I mean, it's true. I have nodoubt that what I'm saying is true.
You need to find a reliableteacher. I mean, not that you can't
do it on your own.
(53:32):
Right.
So how do you learn how to.How do you. Okay, I guess I gotta
plug. I'm gonna plug my. Theprograms I've attended, because this
is the path that I've been on.
Sure.
So I'm gonna plug. It doesn'tmean that. It doesn't mean it's gonna
work for you. Like, for me,going to MMTCP with Jack and Tara
worked for me very well, butit's very circumstantial.
(53:55):
Right.
So in the end, I genuinelyfeel like as a teacher, I am a direct
product of Jack's teachingtowers teaching. Because there. I
know there are things thatthey've taught that I've completely
internalized. Like, I would.That is absolutely correct.
You were studying their workbefore the class.
I was familiar. I wasn'tstudying it. I mean. Well, I mean,
(54:16):
they're. They're prolific.
Right.
Teachers, and so they have alot of content out there. So, yeah,
I was. Had a lot of contactwith their content. Yeah. And I was
aligned with, you know, theway they were doing things. But I
remember going in think, likea lot of people, like, oh, I want
to become Jack's student, or Iwant to become terrorist. I was like,
(54:38):
yeah, I don't know. You know,and then coming out, as I was talking
to my wife the other day aboutmy intentions for teaching, I was
like, oh, that's exactly whatTara teaches. Like, oh, I really
internalize that. She'sabsolutely right.
Yeah.
You know, but that's not theonly way to be a good teacher. And
that's the only. Not the onlyway to be a good self. Guide. And
(55:00):
that's the point. That. Right.I'm trying to be a little helpful.
It's like, how can I helpsomeone point, point someone in the
right direction? All I can dois say if you invest in mmtcp, you
might find it's. But that'shardly. I guess you, you have to
(55:21):
go on a tasting adventure.And, and certainly I'm mad. I have
done that. I have listened tomany teachers, but even that didn't
help me choose Jack and Tara.I got there by serendipity.
Yeah.
So which sucks. I mean itsucks in terms of wanting to help
(55:43):
people. Like, oh, I got thereby serendipity. Well, that's totally
useless. Like how can, how canyou re right, we want. What's it
called? Repeatability. Yeah, right.
Maybe, maybe it is the tastetesting. Maybe it's the taste testing
that brings.
Things into a line. Sorry, my apologies.
(56:07):
Maybe it is Peter. Yeah, Imean, I think that, I mean it's my
perception, Belief, faith thatknocking the door shall open that
earnest seekers followingtheir intuition will be brought to
(56:28):
where they're supposed to be.Whether that's a traditional pathway
or a more organic or intuitivepathway. That wherever you're brought,
if you're, if you're beingdiscerning and open minded and an
earnest, honest seeker thatyou will find.
And yeah, and I do agree thattrust in your path and trust in your
(56:54):
inner wisdom is essential.Like if I didn't do that, I wouldn't
have followed this pathexactly. Like I absolutely trusted
where I was going. Which isdifferent from trusting whatever
you read or trusting whoeveryou hear.
Yes, absolutely. And I thinkthat that may be where the discernment
comes with the, you know, thecritique of the traditionalist who
(57:18):
is concerned that just doingwhatever you want and listening to
whoever and you know, blendingall this stuff creates havoc on the
path. But I think theuniversalist perspective is, is that
understanding that if you arelistening to that inner wisdom and
that inner guidance, that youwill find the right way.
(57:40):
So, okay, so now I can addsomething concrete. So yes, do, do
your investigation, do yourexploration, listen to your inner
wisdom. When it resonates withyou deeply, that's the right way
for you. And it doesn't meanit's a permanent way.
Right.
It's just that's the next stepto take and keep on listening. And
(58:01):
when you have another turn,you take that turn. Don't just stay
on the path because I said Iwas going to do this. On the other
hand, here's where thediscernment comes in, make sure that
the content or the teacher isnot playing on your conditioning.
Sure.
If you, if you are moved by asense of guilt or fear or obligation
(58:22):
or short should or I want todo the best. All of these things
are different from your innerwisdom and your true heart. And that's,
that's the best we can do. Imean trying to tell you how like
what your inner wisdom soundslike that's on you. I'm afraid that's,
(58:42):
that's the, that's the tough part.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So perennialism. Thanks forthis discussion. This was fun. Was
interesting to kind of explorethose two different avenues, I guess.
Until next time, thanks for listening.
See you then. Bye bye. Thankyou for listening to the Tracking
(59:07):
Wisdom Podcast. Join us nexttime as we continue the discussion.
Don't forget to follow us onFacebook, Instagram and YouTube and
visit www.ethstudio.com formore information and content.
Views, interpretations andopinions expressed are not advice
nor official positionspresented on behalf of any organization
or institution. They are forinformational and entertainment purposes
only. Now join Ryan and Peterfor another episode of the Tracking
Wisdom Podcast.
(00:23):
Good morning and welcome backto another episode of the Tracking
Wisdom Podcast. My name is Ryan.
My name is Peter.
And today we arespringboarding off of our last episode
where we talked aboutperennial wisdom. And today we're
going to expand on thatperennial wisdom and explore the
two different schools ofthought. On perennial wisdom, there's
(00:47):
the universalist perspectiveand a traditionalist perspective.
And so we'll go into kind ofoutlining what the perennial philosophy
is, discuss the universalistperspective and the traditionalist
perspective at a high level,discuss the strengths and criticisms
(01:09):
of each, and then Peter and Iwill kind of give our own take and
reflection on the concept andwhat we take away from it. So to
start, the perennialphilosophy, which we discussed last.
Last episode, is the idea thatrooted in all religion, and that
(01:30):
is what the perennialphilosophy speaks to. Last episode,
we expanded that broader toinclude science and culture and a
number of different areas. Butthe idea being that at the core,
there is a shared core truthabout reality, consciousness and
the human experience, humannature, the fundamental nature of
(01:53):
humanity. And this idea was.What was his name? Aldous Huxley.
Thank you, Peter. Coming tothe rescue. But the idea emerged
during the Renaissance and wasalso integrated in neoplate Platonism,
hermetics, and other religiouselements. And Then in the 19th century,
(02:17):
Aldous Huxley wrote the bookthe Perennial Philosophy. Now, out
of that, the idea ofperennialism, which is what we just
discussed, this universalityor this core element, there's the
universal universalistperennialism. And they see religion
(02:38):
as different paths to the sametruth. So, so, kind of using the
pointer metaphor that Peterhas shared many times before, where
we come from differentperspectives, and each of our paths
are pointers to a singularcommon destination, if you were to
(02:59):
put a destination to it, or,you know, a truth. Another element
of universalist perennialismis that it emphasizes the mystical
experience and the innerrealization over tradition and doctrine,
which is common ininstitutional religions. And it supports.
And this is one of the keyitems in universalist perennialism.
(03:22):
And where the critique comesis it supports a syncretism, which
is a blending of the insightsfrom various traditions. Counter
to that is the traditionalistperspective, which holds that each
religion has a unique anddivinely inspired form, meaning that
underlying truth andcommonality to be preserved. But
(03:46):
the core of this perspectiveis that it believes in guarding that
purity of the traditionalteaching against blending. So there's.
That's really the biggestdifference between these is the traditionalists
view syncretism as. Asdiluting the spiritual truth. And
they hold dear and prioritizethe importance of the religion and
(04:13):
tradition as being divinelyinspired and being the foundational
element to teaching andguiding down the path towards the
common knowledge. So strengthsin the universalist perspective would
be that it's can be consideredmore inclusive and adaptable to modern
(04:34):
spiritual teachers or seekers.It values that inner experience and
intuition, emphasizing themystical experience and the mystical
core. I kind of align thiswith that general kind of awakening
experience that has commonelements that describe the experience.
(04:55):
And obviously we just talkedabout Aldous Huxley as being a prominent
figure in this. There was alsoTheosophists and Transcendentalists
that were prominent in theuniversalist perspective. The criticisms
from the traditionalists onthis is that the. The syncretism
is super, can lead tosuperficial and relativistic understandings
(05:20):
and mixing these traditions,diluting the authenticity that came
from the original so calleddivinely inspired tradition that
held that core element. And soit's perceived as losing that sacred
specificity by merging thesepaths. Alternately, the traditionalist
(05:41):
perspective, in emphasizingthe integrity of tradition, preserving
the rituals and doctrines assacred, focuses on initiation. So
the idea of having aninitiation within the tradition that
sets people on the path. And Iimagine this, or think of this in
(06:03):
certain shamanic traditionswhere, you know, there's an event,
there's a celebration and anembarkation on the journey and that
the traditionalists hold thisas a dear part of following whatever
(06:25):
traditional path towardsachieving the recognition of the
ultimate truth andunderstanding. So the criticisms
from the universalists on thisperspective is that it can be viewed
as rigid and exclusive andresistant to modern interpretation,
can be perceived as failing toadapt to contemporary spiritual needs.
(06:49):
So for us, which resonatesmore so for me. So in the last episode
at the end when I introducedthis topic, I asserted that I think
Peter and I are probably oneither side of the center line here.
I think we may land. Bear withme. Bear with me. Peter's giving
(07:09):
me faces. I think that Petertends slightly on the traditionalist
side and I will back thatassertion up with some objective
evidence. And I think it'sprobably fair to say that I lean
universalist. However, I dorecognize the critique and this critique
(07:35):
has come up, actually Peterhas shared the critique and the critique
came up. And in other areas,for me, the idea that. So if I was
taking the perspective ofsupporting the tradition, the I'M
sorry, the universalistperspective. This aligns with me
specifically because I haveembarked on an organic path. I have
(07:59):
strong hesitation, rejection.It's literally resistance to institutional
doctrine. And, and Ipersonally have found huge value
in that blending of differenttraditions. Now I'm not blending
(08:19):
practices as much. It's reallymore that I recognize this perennialism
and I explore the variety ofdifferent teachings, so to speak,
but also recognizing it inother areas. And it's in identifying
those consistencies, thosealignments with the perennialism,
(08:42):
that I find not gratifying butinspiring and indicative of the path
that I follow. But I recognizemostly to your point, Peter, where
you've brought up theimportance of teachers. No. You haven't
said that?
No, I'm just curious. Well,keep on going.
(09:05):
In my recollection, Peter hastalked about the importance of teachers
in certain circumstances. Ithink you have not been rigid on.
That's why I'm saying, I thinkby and large we're very fluid across
the center line here. But Ithink I would definitely align more
towards the universalistperspective, however, acknowledging
(09:28):
in certain, if not manycircumstances there is a valid need
for that guidance and thatblending different traditions can
lead to confusion. And I mean,one of the critiques about this,
and it reminded me of New Age,your perception of New Age being
(09:53):
that when we're blending thesetraditions, the meaning gets diluted,
to use the previous term, butit gets lost and it becomes more
of whatever I want andwhatever I feel and then can be co
opted by charlatanism andthings like that. And I think that
that's in part yourperspective or perception of New
(10:17):
Age.
Okay. Okay. So. Okay.
Are you, do you want to. Areyou, Are you done? Yeah, I mean,
I think that, that I recognizethat I will be done in one moment.
I. I recognize that thatcritique is legitimate, that there
(10:38):
is a. A risk of dilution,dilution of the teaching, but also
being deluded in your ownpath, in whatever it is that you're
feeling or wanting. But I dothink that we are in agreement that
the mystical experience andprimacy of that inner experience
(11:01):
over perhaps a doctrinal typeapproach. And what I would critique
specifically about thecritique from the traditionalists
is, and granted this isprobably a couple hundred years old,
this critique, but it missesthe point it basically creates. So
(11:24):
I agree with thetraditionalists insofar as and as
we've discussed, the originalheart of orthodox religion had this
element of. And they do speakspecifically to Orthodoxy. So I don't
want to conflate non orthodoxtraditions with their perspective,
(11:49):
because their perspective isspecific to Orthodoxy. However, they
would. They do incorporateCatholicism in that orthodoxy. And
the point that I would make isthat things have come so far and
it ignores the fact that overtime, the institution itself deviates
(12:11):
from the original teaching.And so that's an additional critique
that I make in a critique thatI make to their critique, which is,
yes, there's a risk ofdiluting the original teaching in
blending different traditions,but I also think that in taking that
(12:32):
perspective, it's missing. Ithas a blind spot, that orthodoxy,
while the original true natureof orthodoxy may have strong alignment
to this core teaching, that itignores the fact that over time that
orthodoxy kind of loses itsedge, so to speak. Now I'm done.
(12:56):
So I. Yeah, so I'm reactingbecause I think it's interesting
that you peg me as atraditionalist because. Or even traditional
leaning, because as soon as Iread the outline of universalist
versus Traditionalist, myreaction was, oh, we clearly fall
(13:20):
squarely into universalistperennialism. So. So the idea that
I'm leaning. I think that'sinteresting. I mean, I can understand
historically, from things Isaid early on how you might interpret
me as a traditionalist, but Ithink where I am now, I'm. I'm completely
(13:43):
not a traditionalist. I mean,I think the. The risk for. For universalists
is that you have to. Itrequires discernment and critical
thinking.
Right.
That's what I. That's what Iwould say. Because you have to create
your own guardrails.Basically, that's the universalist
(14:04):
approach is we're taking offthe guardrails. We're not locking
you into this structure, andwe're not locking ourselves into
a structure and we can explorefreely, which means you can end up
in the mud, you can get in theweeds, but that's just a hazard.
I think that from myperspective, the hazards of traditionalism
(14:29):
are more serious.
Yeah.
And I think that. I mean, Ithink that's the central thesis of
our conversation throughout,is that you have to recognize the.
The limitations and hazards oftraditional paths and organized religions
and that explicitly they'renot wrong because they do carry the
(14:54):
core truth. But the, thestructure introduces hazard because
not all leaders and teachersare able to say, here's what's essential.
Right.
This stuff is just to help youalong the way. It's just to get you.
It's just to funnel you in,basically. Right? There's a lot of
(15:15):
structure in all paths that isthere to guide you in when you're
coming from a very lost Placeof inexperience. And I think traditional
paths are designed as funnelswhere you go deeper and deeper. You
(15:37):
get, you know, the deepermysteries or you get kind of more.
The more sophisticated views,the farther you go. But behind it
all is the. The truth is very,very simple as we've come around
to very, you know, again andagain. And the problem is that so
(15:59):
many people. And I would. I'mgoing to place a disclaimer on my
perception of the way theworld is, because I was just gonna
say most people. I'm gonna.I'm saying most people with the disclaimer
that, yeah, I don't reallyknow what, you know, most people
think, but my perception isthat most people get lost in the
(16:23):
structure, and most people arevery honestly, in my opinion, not
even interested in the coretruth. So I guess I'm not going to
go into detail because I don'twant to take a position of criticizing
a particular religion. Butthat's what I. That's what I think.
(16:45):
And so. So what I thought youwere going to focus on, or I thought
your evidence was kind of myreference to Buddhist structures
and my. My kind of alignmentwith Buddhist tradition.
It. So, I mean, I didn'tactually outline my. My objective
evidence to my position onthat. But yeah, it. I mean, it's.
(17:10):
It's in line with that. Butalso, I think more broadly in your.
You're a bit of a dichotomy. Irecognize part of you very much follows
this. There's a part of youthat clings to institutional knowledge.
And I don't know if that'sjust historical conditioning or not,
(17:34):
but there's a. Whenever I hearsomething like I need a teacher or
practice things like that,that indicates to me this.
Attachment.
Attachment.
No. Okay, fair. Yes.
But beyond that, I agree.That's why I was kind of saying.
Yeah, maybe either side.
(17:56):
So intellectually. So. Sointellectually, I disagree. Like,
intellectually, I'm firmlyuniversalist, and intellectually,
I don't want to be. Right. ButI am. I do have a lot of conditioning
around structure. I mean, mycore conditioning is around rules
(18:17):
and criticism.
Right.
Like, and being right. That.That's really deep core conditioning
that I'm working on. Butthat's the thing is that I recognize
that as conditioning that I'mworking on. So it's not that it doesn't
come out and that you won'thear me say those things, but I'm
saying those things against myinner wisdom.
Sure.
And they're just. They'recoming out of my Mouth. And I'm trying
(18:39):
to learn not to say them, so.Fair enough. I mean, you're right.
So if I could turn this backon you, I. Yeah, I mean, I mean,
I think. But we talked aboutthis last episode where, where we
have these two. We're comingto the same path from different places
(19:06):
of origin.
Yeah.
Right. So you're. You'recoming from this pre. I don't know,
pre awakened. I don't knowwhat you call it, but this is like
very early. I think youdescribed it as there was no time
when you remember not being asaware as you are now. Yeah, kind
of. Right.
(19:26):
What I would frame itspecifically with the fundamental
well being.
Right.
Jeffrey Martin's matrix. Afundamental well being. And I can't
recall a time when I didn'thave that base fundamental.
Right. So. So Martin's. InMartin's model, there's a transition
(19:47):
away from conditioning wherewe start out in this conditioned
state and then we have thistransition experience which pulls
us towards awakening, onto thepath of awakening. And he like, he's
very. Well, his research isall about finding that transition
and helping people make thattransition. And you don't have a
(20:12):
transition point.
That I recall at least. Right.
And so. And whereas I'm reallypainfully aware of decades of conditioned
experience prior to what Irecognize as my first transition
in my 60s. And so those aretwo different. Those are very different.
(20:34):
Yeah.
You know, coming to the pathin two very different ways. So. So
I think. Just caution you. Ithink the fact that I have conditioning,
or rather your interpretationof me being more traditionalist because
of my traditioning is anartifact of you're not recognizing
(21:01):
a pre transition experienceand being able to say I'm a dichotomy
because I have a pre and postand you're not because you're just
there, you know, so.
But which is not to say I haveno conditioning or anything like
that, just the fundamentalwell being.
Which is a really interestingquestion which I would really like
(21:23):
to explore. I don't know howto explore.
This comes up.
Yeah, I know. Well, yeah. Imean, because I'm so. So this is,
I mean, this is our essential,I guess dynamic. Right. Is that I'm
really deep into myconditioning. Like I'm really focused
on. I'm really aware of it. Ihave a lot of it. And because you
(21:46):
have this, this long, longperiod of fundamental well being,
my postulation or myhypothesis is that you have conditioning
mass by fundamental wellbeing, whereas most people have fundamental
being mass by conditioning.
Yeah.
I mean, and this Is, I thinkit's an interesting model because
(22:06):
it's kind of like I, I thinkof it kind of along the lines of,
you know, Jeffrey coming upwith his model based on talking to
a lot of people about theirexperience of awakening. And then
he developed his matrix andhis model of the awakening path.
And I think I'm seeingsomething, you know, between us in
our conversations and in thecontrast between our experiences.
(22:29):
It's like, oh, well, is thisanother model? You know, is there.
It's not the Martin's matrix,but is definitely the model that
Jeffrey uses that and manyteachers use. I mean, Tara Brock
and Jack Kornfeld also usethis model, I think of the ever present
inner wisdom being obscuredby, you know, the true self or the
(22:54):
Buddha nature, being obscuredby the spacesuit self or the conditioned
self or the, all this, theseother terms that they use to describe
the, the smaller self, theego. Right. The psychological ego.
So there's that, there's the,the Buddha nature being covered by
(23:16):
the ego. But is it possible tohave the ego be covered by Buddha
nature when someone has kindof an earlier awakening or can't
recognize a pre transitioncondition state? And yet there's
still clear conditioningbecause as we've said, awakening
(23:37):
doesn't. Right. Materialexistence is conditioning. Right,
Right. So just being awakened,even if you're awakened from birth,
it doesn't mean that you'refree of conditioning any more than,
you know, having a verydramatic awakening at the age of
23 means that you're free ofall your conditioning. If you don't
(23:58):
address your conditioning,you're not free of it. And you might
be subject to, you know, beingcontrolled by your conditioning.
Right.
So anyway, but, so I, I thinkthat's a very interesting contrast
or I guess dynamic is what Iwould say.
(24:18):
Right.
It's like there's somethingbetween the two of us as, as much
as we have in common, there'sthis, there's this difference that's
very interesting and I, Istill don't understand it. I mean,
I mean, I don't think, I don'tthink, I mean, I don't think you
understand. I don't think weunderstand our experience, each other's
experiences overall very well.I think we, we understand each other's
(24:44):
awakening experiences quitewell because that's the nature of
awakening. Like if you have anawakening experience, you talk to
someone else who's had anawakening experience, you're kind
of like, oh yeah. So I thinkit's interesting to see that the
transcendentalists are centralto the universalist school of thought.
(25:11):
The universal perennialism.Universalist version of perennialism.
Because there is. Well,basically the, the center of transcendentalism
is in Massachusetts andthere's a museum called Fruitlands
Museum, which I visited manytimes and it's famous for being the
(25:33):
home of transcendentalism. AndI didn't know who the transcendentalists
are. So now I see anotherconnection. Oh, there are they interesting
into this. Yeah. So they're.One of their things was they were.
They envisioned a communitywhere they could live free of like
all kinds of modernentanglements. Okay. And. But one
(25:58):
of their things was they weregoing to grow all their own clothes.
I don't really know howthey're gonna. Maybe it wasn't. They're
gonna grow it because I knowthey didn't grow cotton. They only
wore, I think, cotton. Cotton.Part of their thing was they, they
made this commune and theywere going to like live and be self
sufficient. And they didn'tmake it through the first winter
because they got too cold. Andpart of the reason they got too cold
(26:18):
is I think they didn't want towear wool. Was like part of their
thing. Like, we're not goingto wear animal products, so they're
trying to wear just cotton. Ididn't learn enough from my trips,
my many trips to the museumwith my kids because it's for my
kids. I'm not payingattention. But anyway. Yeah, so Fruitlands
Museum.
Interesting.
(26:38):
Take a trip. Yeah, it's kindof interesting. So, yeah, so now
I can go back there and say,oh, they were universalist perennialists.
Yeah. I mean, definitely mycomment about traditionalist perennialism
was kind of like, oh, this isthe kind of the interfaith party
(27:01):
line of, you know, the formal,like the religious leaders to get
together and say, yes, we allapprove of each other as long as
kind of you stay in your ownlane. Right, right. And it's like,
yeah, I'm not going to speakout against your religion, you know,
but mine is the only true oneor something like that. Right. Like,
(27:22):
if you're gonna be. You haveto commit. Like if you're gonna be
in my religion, you can'tstray and, and go to these other
religions. I mean, I don'tknow that it's really that negative,
but that's. Reading thisoutline made me feel like, oh, it's
those people.
Right. What do you think aboutthe, the assertion from the traditionalist
(27:46):
that veering outside of a, ofa established path can dilute or
risk.
Yeah. I mean, it's kind of.So. So they're not saying my way
is the only true way. They'resaying I have a true way and you
have a true way. But if you'renot on my path or your path or this
(28:09):
other path, then you're notgonna see the truth.
Right. I think that's kind ofwhere it points.
And I think I said in the endof the last episode that it's not
essential.
Yeah, right.
Because. Because the truththat they're pointing to is essential
human experience. And so youdo not need a path and a teacher,
(28:34):
essentially. Now, having saidthat, the vast, vast majority of
us have conditioning such thatwe need a path and we need a teacher
or, you know, some variety orcombination of that in order to start
(28:54):
to get the experience that weneed to recognize the direction that
we need to go in.
Right.
So. Yeah, I mean, I, I hopethat's not too subtle. I mean, it's,
it's. Yeah, I, I just, Idon't, I don't buy. Well, most especially
here's, here's the problemthat I have, which is again, going
(29:15):
back to our original centralthesis, which is that organized religions
are full of non essentialstructure that they make essential.
Right.
And that's a problem. So youmay already be on the edge of awakening,
but you must follow this path.And if you haven't, then that means
(29:37):
you can't be saved.
Right.
Or that you still need to besaved, even though. Yeah, I mean,
that's the whole thing. Whenin reality, in my understanding.
And while I'd love to getsomeone from like a seminary or theological
background. Right. To. Toweigh in on this, because in my view.
(29:58):
So my new model, keeping itsaying this is teaching to the bell
curve. Right. In my view,institutions are designed to optimize
impact by hitting the majorityof people.
Right.
Which, and kind of bydefinition, structurally, they're
not interested in the tailsbecause there's very little return.
(30:22):
Because the objective of theinstitution is to maximize their
impact. Because now that's aninstitution, it wants to kind of
own everything. It kind ofwants to get as many people in the
door as possible. And the wayyou do that is you focus on the middle
of the bell curve and yousacrifice the tails. And that's where
I think the hazard oftraditionalist perennialism is. Is
(30:49):
that designed to sacrifice thetrails. With the exception of exceptional
leaders and teachers that havetheir eyes open for, oh, these people,
there are some special peopleor these people who inhabit the tails
of the bell curve where thismainstream doesn't apply. Because
(31:12):
they don't have this kind ofconditioning that we're designed
to deal with, and because theydon't have that kind of conditioning
and because we don't know howto deal with it, because it's not
built into our structure,there must be something wrong with
them.
Right.
And. And that's what it comesdown to is. Is institutions making
(31:33):
people feel like there'ssomething wrong with them aside from
the bigger idea of originalsin, which is kind of the big, the
ultimate. There's somethingwrong with you. But I mean, even
barring that. Right. Likepeople who can't. I don't want to
get into details, but, youknow. Yeah, I think it's pretty clear
what.
Yeah.
(31:53):
You know, this kind ofconcept. Yeah, that's my. That's
my. That's my perspective onthat. I mean, I think it's really
interesting. I wish we hadmore people to talk to because we're
kind of. We are in a bit of anecho chamber, literally. There's
just the two of us here. And.Yeah, I'd really like to get some
(32:16):
perspective and discussionabout these kind of approaches to
perennial wisdom, because Ithink, you know, just like you were
attributing things to me andhow I would view this, obviously
I'm attributing things to, youknow, people who align differently
(32:40):
on this in this model.
Right.
Than I think I do.
Well, I think, too, thattraditionalist perennialism is probably
hard to come by at this point,because specifically focusing on
Orthodoxy, which in and ofitself is waning. I mean, we're.
There's. There's very little.And I don't even know if I would
(33:02):
personally consider theCatholic Church orthodoxy, but that
would be probably the mainset. The point that I'm trying to
make is many of the moremodern religions think, what is the
Judaism, you guys thought?
There's Reform.
Reform Judaism and ProtestantChristianity, things like that. These
(33:27):
in and of themselves, to me,are forms of the universalist perspective
because they are blending.They are not the pedigree of the
Orthodox religion.
But I think. Yeah. I mean,okay, so there's technical orthodoxy,
which I guess is what we haveto be talking about. Because what
(33:48):
I'm thinking about is, well,what about fundamentalism? Right,
right. I mean, all kinds of.What I'm saying, what I'm suggesting
as well, there's a semanticaspect to Orthodoxy.
Sure.
Right. I mean,fundamentalists, I think, by definition,
are calling themselvesOrthodox. Right. They're not saying,
(34:10):
oh, we're a new way of lookingat it.
Right.
They're saying, we're thefundamental way of looking at it
yet. And yet they're often new.
I mean, I guess the right.Taking the Christian approach, the
each denomination ofProtestantism probably takes. Maybe
they're not articulating thatthey're orthodox, but they are likely
(34:35):
believing that they arefollowing the core essence of the
original truth.
Yeah, that's a good point.
You know.
Yeah, yeah.
But I do see certainly strictorthodoxy. But I would say in the
context of strict orthodoxy,definitely there's a challenge and
(34:56):
a valid critique from theuniversalist perspective that translating
that teaching that wasdesigned in a culture and world that
was completely different thannow makes it difficult. This is my
perspective that interpretingthat into a modern context creates.
(35:20):
Following a strict orthodoxythat is thousands of years old is
going to complicate things ina modern world. And then translating
that into a modern world. Imean this is where we kind of get
in this back and forth chickenand egg thing where, where I think
the universalist is trying toallow for the growth and the variety
(35:44):
of experience. And obviouslythey're in embodying the primacy
of mystic experience, mysticalexperience over tradition. That when
you're taking thetraditionalist perspective, I guess
I just kind of reject thisidea that following the original
(36:04):
air quotes, divinely inspiredway that this was designed. Number
one, I would, I would arguethat those don't exist anymore in
so far as like, yeah, the, thepri. The, the majority of the religions
are, are not pure pure unlesswe're following the way or Gnosticism
(36:25):
or something that was.
But I mean, so to your earlierpoint is that many, I'm not going
to say all, but manydenominations that identify as a
traditional religion, Judaism,Christianity, Islam maybe I really
don't know anything aboutIslam. Variations of Islam would
(36:49):
call themselves essential. Imean, okay, so I'm thinking about
what I know about ReformJudaism. So there's a focus on the
Torah as a structure. Right.And then a very active interpretation
(37:09):
of this traditional document.But there's a faith that we can adhere
to this traditional documentand follow the cycle of the Torah
through the year. And thisserves us in our modern life because
it's the word of God. Butbecause we're intelligent modern
(37:30):
humans, it's our design tointerpret and reinterpret this. And
that's our work, that's oursacred work is to engage with this
traditional document andinterpret it. So that's, that's one.
So is that. I don't thinkthat's inherently universalist. I'm
(37:53):
not sure this is why I'm aLittle confused because it's like
it's adopting a traditionalstructure in this specific document
and in many, many rituals andholidays. It's a whole thing. It's
not just a document. It's awhole structure of holidays and traditions.
(38:13):
But it's reinterpreted.
Right.
And it's not just like, well,it's what the rabbi says. It's. No,
every person has to engagewith this and interpret, and we can
argue and disagree, and that'spart of the process. But overall,
it will guide us. Right. Andin our disagreements, and we'll.
(38:36):
We'll be doing the best thatwe can. I'm not sure whether that's
universalist or traditionalist.
I don't think it fallssquarely in either case.
Right, right. So for me, Imean, I have a fair amount of background.
I have enough background inBuddhist traditional teachings that
(38:57):
it guides my thinking. Likethat structure and the references.
I can make references to it inways that I find useful, but I'm
not dogmatic about it.
Right.
And that's. And that's why,you know, at one point, not too long
ago, I wanted to be dogmaticabout. I'm like, oh, I'm not a good
(39:19):
enough Buddhist. I have tobecome a better Buddhist. And then
I was like, oh, wait, oh,that's what awakening is. Oh, never
mind. You know? And now I'mnot concerned with being a better
Buddhist, but I'm also notsaying, oh, that Buddhist stuff is
garbage. I'm like, oh, this isreally great. This is the best teaching
that I've found. I really likeit. I really find it useful. I'm
(39:40):
just not dogmatic about it.I'm not just. I'm just not gonna
say, hey, you've got to seethat. You've got to read this. You've
got to believe this. Andthat's the. But see, that's not what
they're describing astraditionalist Universalist either.
Right. They're not saying,you've got to believe this.
They're saying, you got tobelieve one of these.
(40:01):
You've got to believe orfollow this path or that path. Right,
Right. So I don't know. Yeah.I feel like we're kind of like, not
quite well enough equipped toreally grapple fully with these questions.
I mean, it's a reallyinteresting introduction which raises
really interesting questions.I think that I'm much more of a universal.
(40:24):
Universalist and that I don'treally understand what this material
is describing as traditionalist.
Sure.
Right.
Yeah.
It's like, how does that work?I Mean, I kind of have the flavor
of it because of these, youknow, interfaith conclaves and things
like that where, you know,these clergy get together and they
(40:47):
say, you know, we've, we'vetalked to each other and we respect
each other and all this, but,you know, I'm still an Orthodox Jew
and you're still a Catholic.And, and so what does that mean?
I. I don't know in, in, indetail. I don't know what it means.
I only know that thoseconversations happen. I know that
the Dalai Lama has beenengaged with interfaith dialogues.
(41:08):
Yeah, right. Are thosedialogues traditionalist or universalist?
Are they inherentlyuniversalist? It seems that they
wouldn't be.
No.
I mean, if you're a clergy, ifyou're, if a cleric, if you're clergy
in an organized religion, itseems like you can't be. Well, I
don't know. It seems to pointaway from being a universalist.
(41:31):
Yeah, no, I agree. I think tothink about it from a broader perspective
as traditionalist, meaningmore along the lines of adhering
to an established framework,more so than just strict orthodoxy
like I was framing. It makessense. And I think the, I mean, essentially
(41:58):
the underlying. The concernseems to be around efficient direction,
and I don't want to use theword achievement, but, you know,
more advancement, but thiskind of progression, progression
towards both schools ofthought agree that there's an underlying
(42:22):
essence that is theperennialism in both schools of thought,
that there's this underlyingteaching. One preserves the value
or prioritizes the value ofthe established frameworks in progressing
and achieving, recognizingthat universal truth and cautioning,
(42:46):
blending and taking your ownorganic path, because you might get
lost. And I think that, likeyou said, that there is a counter
risk to taking that position,that the established framework, in
and of itself certainly overtime, can do the very thing that
(43:09):
it's trying to not do, whichis to distract specifically people
who might be on the tail endsof the bell curve, who might be experiencing
more unique or lessconventional experiences, that it
doesn't serve that community.And I think I'm not taking a perspective
(43:33):
that either one of these isabsolutely right or wrong. I think
they both have value. Andcertainly I think even from a universalist
perspective, even thoughtranscendentalism seem to reject
established religion. Andpersonally, I don't reject. I don't
reject established religion,but I have reservation and. Come
(43:58):
on. Trying to pull it out ofmy head.
I mean, I think the problem isthat it's so easy to see from our
perspective how traditionalPaths can go wrong.
Right.
Which doesn't mean they haveto go wrong. Doesn't mean that it
mostly goes wrong. It's justthat they can go wrong very dramatically.
(44:21):
And it's.
Yeah, well, in a universalistpath doesn't preclude following a
traditional establishedreligion. That's the way I would
see it. You could still value,you could pick.
Your own path, which happensto be exclusively one traditional
path. But you recognize, yourecognize that that's just your path.
(44:47):
And I think to touch back onone thing that you mentioned, and
I think it was absolutely onpoint, I think also missed the counter
to it, which was you said youneed to be aware of the limitations
of established tradition orsomething along that line. And I
(45:09):
think that in fairness, itgoes both ways. Right. Whatever path
we use, it's incumbent upon usto be discerning and to recognize
the limitations with eitherapproach or any approach we take
so that we can move forwardwith confidence and not fall victim
(45:31):
to traps.
Well, I mean, okay, so from a,from a universalist, perennialist
perspective, if I'm going tosay that's the one. I take I. Making
the argument that traditionalpaths are designed to a bell curve,
which means that they work formost people, like, by definition,
(45:55):
like, oh, they actually workfor most people, or they can. And
I think that's the problem, isthat there's the design and then
there's the application.
Right, right, right.
There's the design, thenthere's the way people hack it. It's
like, no, it wasn't designedto be used that way. Yes, but this
is the easiest way to use it.Yeah, but it doesn't work if you
(46:15):
do that. You know, I mean,this is our, this is coming back
to our professionalexperience. Like, you have to use
it the way it's designed to beused in order to get the benefit
that it was designed to produce.
Correct.
So, which comes down to, Ithink, what I said before. And this
(46:36):
is not a weakness. This, thisis not a weakness. What I'm, what
I'm trying to say is thattraditional paths require good teachers.
Yes.
And if you have skilledteachers, then that path is going
to work really, really well. Ibelieve the problem is, it's like,
it's so hard to find a goodleader or a good teacher. There's
(46:57):
so many bad ones out there.Now, just because there are so many
bad teachers out there doesn'tmean that if you go out on your own,
you're going to do better.Right, Right. Then, then you have
to be your own better teacher.And then all that means is it doesn't
mean that what you do on yourown becomes right. It means that
(47:18):
you have to do, you have totake on more responsibility for yourself.
And that's what I was sayingabout critical thinking, that it's
not an easy path. That's,that's, and that's the misinterpretation
of all of this stuff, right?Oh, if I just do this, if I just
do everything this guy saysblindly, then I'm going to be saved,
(47:39):
right? Because that's thepath. I just have to not be responsible
for myself and do whatever myteacher says or do whatever my leader
says. And then it's all goodbecause it's in the Bible. And so,
you know, I don't have anyresponsibility and that's the way
I want it to be. And that'swhere the whole everything falls
apart.
Right?
(48:00):
So whatever path you choose,you've either got to be responsible
for finding a really goodteacher or leader and rejecting any
teacher or leader who is notgood. That's the hard part. Or you've
got to be your own really goodteacher or leader. And I guess, I
(48:24):
mean, that's the communitythat I'm involved with, which is
a community where, which isdedicated to helping each member
of the community be their ownbest teachers and leaders. And that's
what we do. Like we gettogether and we learn from each other
(48:44):
and teach each other whilewe're teaching ourselves. I mean,
if you, in my community,someone comes with a problem and
the leader guides them totheir inner wisdom, working through
the problem and they'reworking on their own problem, right?
They're not working on myproblem. But by seeing them succeed
(49:07):
in working their problem, Ilearn how to work on my problem.
I learn how to be my own bestteacher. And that's why, that's why,
that's why I work with myteacher, because that's what she
does. And, and I had theopportunity to observe many hours
(49:32):
of practice before decidinglike, oh, I think this person knows
what they're doing andactually observing real time outcomes.
Right.
Which is not, in myexperience, not the typical opportunity
you get in any kind oforganized religion. I mean, you get
(49:55):
to hear that so and so is areally good teacher or you get to
hear that, oh, they saidsomething when I went to their talk
and they seem really good, butthat's not an outcome. Right, right.
That's like, I liked what theysaid. I mean, I thought Mingyur Rinpoche,
after reading a bunch of hiscontent and watch listening to a
bunch of his content. I waslike, oh, this is. This is when I
(50:17):
was like on my way to becominga more serious Buddhist because it
was like, wow, this is great.I really connect with this. But I
don't think that's the mostlegitimate way to evaluate. To evaluate.
I think if you have theopportunity to see results in real
time, you know, I don't knowhow you find that. I mean, other
(50:37):
than like, I have a veryspecific path that's my own, that
I had my own opportunity tocome to this specific class that
had the specific teacher. Imean, it's. It's a very unique thing.
I mean, it doesn't even help.I don't think it's particularly helpful
for me to name the class andname the teacher because it's not
(51:00):
like, oh, you can just. Imean, I guess I should name the class
the teacher. I mean, it wasPower of Awareness and teachers Clear
passing. And I'm still withher and. But you know, it's like,
she's not the only teacher.
Right.
It's just my. That's my point.It's like, yeah, I don't want to
create a funnel here whereeverybody has to join Cleopasty because
(51:22):
she's the only good teacher.It's like, no, I had this unique
ability, a unique opportunityto find a good teacher because I
was able to observe and evaluate.
Right.
And I don't know how you get that.
It's hard. I mean, in a way,you had some luck insofar as the
person that you.
(51:43):
I mean, that's where mysynchronicities, that's what I'm.
You know, when we talk about,you know, the synchronicity of awakening
and all the. Yeah, that'swhere. That's where I see it.
Because if that wasn't thecase, you'd be in the same boat as
everybody else, which is howdo you. How do you get the opportunities
to observe real time outcomeslike that?
(52:03):
Right. Yeah. I mean, yeah, Ithink it's unique. I. Unfortunately,
I think I just got reallylucky because if you. It does not
particularly helpful for me totell you to go register for Power
of Awareness because. Well, Imean, she is still active in power
awareness and you still canpick her as a teacher. But, you know,
they used to have a dozenmentors. Not all of them did this.
(52:27):
In fact, maybe two of them did it.
Yeah.
I mean, Clea's the only onewho did it the way she did it.
Yeah.
And I just happened to. Ididn't. I don't even know how I picked
her. Maybe I don't know if Ihave access to materials where I
could see a list of people andsay, oh, that's what it said. That's
why I picked her.
Is that when you got incontact with her was.
(52:48):
Yeah.
Power of awareness.
Yeah. So I know what it lookslike, but I don't know how to tell
you to find it.
Sure. Yeah.
That's very frustrating.
It is. The crux of the pathsis either being your own best teacher
or I think discernment is the key.
How. This is the. This is theso frustrating part that I'm very
(53:11):
frustrated with, trying tosay, this is what you need to do.
And it's like, I can't tellyou how to do it.
Yeah.
I mean, it's true. I have nodoubt that what I'm saying is true.
You need to find a reliableteacher. I mean, not that you can't
do it on your own.
(53:32):
Right.
So how do you learn how to.How do you. Okay, I guess I gotta
plug. I'm gonna plug my. Theprograms I've attended, because this
is the path that I've been on.
Sure.
So I'm gonna plug. It doesn'tmean that. It doesn't mean it's gonna
work for you. Like, for me,going to MMTCP with Jack and Tara
worked for me very well, butit's very circumstantial.
(53:55):
Right.
So in the end, I genuinelyfeel like as a teacher, I am a direct
product of Jack's teachingtowers teaching. Because there. I
know there are things thatthey've taught that I've completely
internalized. Like, I would.That is absolutely correct.
You were studying their workbefore the class.
I was familiar. I wasn'tstudying it. I mean. Well, I mean,
(54:16):
they're. They're prolific.
Right.
Teachers, and so they have alot of content out there. So, yeah,
I was. Had a lot of contactwith their content. Yeah. And I was
aligned with, you know, theway they were doing things. But I
remember going in think, likea lot of people, like, oh, I want
to become Jack's student, or Iwant to become terrorist. I was like,
(54:38):
yeah, I don't know. You know,and then coming out, as I was talking
to my wife the other day aboutmy intentions for teaching, I was
like, oh, that's exactly whatTara teaches. Like, oh, I really
internalize that. She'sabsolutely right.
Yeah.
You know, but that's not theonly way to be a good teacher. And
that's the only. Not the onlyway to be a good self. Guide. And
(55:00):
that's the point. That. Right.I'm trying to be a little helpful.
It's like, how can I helpsomeone point, point someone in the
right direction? All I can dois say if you invest in mmtcp, you
might find it's. But that'shardly. I guess you, you have to
(55:21):
go on a tasting adventure.And, and certainly I'm mad. I have
done that. I have listened tomany teachers, but even that didn't
help me choose Jack and Tara.I got there by serendipity.
Yeah.
So which sucks. I mean itsucks in terms of wanting to help
(55:43):
people. Like, oh, I got thereby serendipity. Well, that's totally
useless. Like how can, how canyou re right, we want. What's it
called? Repeatability. Yeah, right.
Maybe, maybe it is the tastetesting. Maybe it's the taste testing
that brings.
Things into a line. Sorry, my apologies.
(56:07):
Maybe it is Peter. Yeah, Imean, I think that, I mean it's my
perception, Belief, faith thatknocking the door shall open that
earnest seekers followingtheir intuition will be brought to
(56:28):
where they're supposed to be.Whether that's a traditional pathway
or a more organic or intuitivepathway. That wherever you're brought,
if you're, if you're beingdiscerning and open minded and an
earnest, honest seeker thatyou will find.
And yeah, and I do agree thattrust in your path and trust in your
(56:54):
inner wisdom is essential.Like if I didn't do that, I wouldn't
have followed this pathexactly. Like I absolutely trusted
where I was going. Which isdifferent from trusting whatever
you read or trusting whoeveryou hear.
Yes, absolutely. And I thinkthat that may be where the discernment
comes with the, you know, thecritique of the traditionalist who
(57:18):
is concerned that just doingwhatever you want and listening to
whoever and you know, blendingall this stuff creates havoc on the
path. But I think theuniversalist perspective is, is that
understanding that if you arelistening to that inner wisdom and
that inner guidance, that youwill find the right way.
(57:40):
So, okay, so now I can addsomething concrete. So yes, do, do
your investigation, do yourexploration, listen to your inner
wisdom. When it resonates withyou deeply, that's the right way
for you. And it doesn't meanit's a permanent way.
Right.
It's just that's the next stepto take and keep on listening. And
(58:01):
when you have another turn,you take that turn. Don't just stay
on the path because I said Iwas going to do this. On the other
hand, here's where thediscernment comes in, make sure that
the content or the teacher isnot playing on your conditioning.
Sure.
If you, if you are moved by asense of guilt or fear or obligation
(58:22):
or short should or I want todo the best. All of these things
are different from your innerwisdom and your true heart. And that's,
that's the best we can do. Imean trying to tell you how like
what your inner wisdom soundslike that's on you. I'm afraid that's,
(58:42):
that's the, that's the tough part.
Yeah.
Yeah.
So perennialism. Thanks forthis discussion. This was fun. Was
interesting to kind of explorethose two different avenues, I guess.
Until next time, thanks for listening.
See you then. Bye bye. Thankyou for listening to the Tracking
(59:07):
Wisdom Podcast. Join us nexttime as we continue the discussion.
Don't forget to follow us onFacebook, Instagram and YouTube and
visit www.ethstudio.com formore information and content.
Popular Podcasts
On Purpose with Jay Shetty
I’m Jay Shetty host of On Purpose the worlds #1 Mental Health podcast and I’m so grateful you found us. I started this podcast 5 years ago to invite you into conversations and workshops that are designed to help make you happier, healthier and more healed. I believe that when you (yes you) feel seen, heard and understood you’re able to deal with relationship struggles, work challenges and life’s ups and downs with more ease and grace. I interview experts, celebrities, thought leaders and athletes so that we can grow our mindset, build better habits and uncover a side of them we’ve never seen before. New episodes every Monday and Friday. Your support means the world to me and I don’t take it for granted — click the follow button and leave a review to help us spread the love with On Purpose. I can’t wait for you to listen to your first or 500th episode!
Crime Junkie
Does hearing about a true crime case always leave you scouring the internet for the truth behind the story? Dive into your next mystery with Crime Junkie. Every Monday, join your host Ashley Flowers as she unravels all the details of infamous and underreported true crime cases with her best friend Brit Prawat. From cold cases to missing persons and heroes in our community who seek justice, Crime Junkie is your destination for theories and stories you won’t hear anywhere else. Whether you're a seasoned true crime enthusiast or new to the genre, you'll find yourself on the edge of your seat awaiting a new episode every Monday. If you can never get enough true crime... Congratulations, you’ve found your people. Follow to join a community of Crime Junkies! Crime Junkie is presented by audiochuck Media Company.
Ridiculous History
History is beautiful, brutal and, often, ridiculous. Join Ben Bowlin and Noel Brown as they dive into some of the weirdest stories from across the span of human civilization in Ridiculous History, a podcast by iHeartRadio.