Read on Twitter
There is a tendency among many educated H to subscribe to philosophical perennialism of the form that all H religious systems, or even all world religious systems culminate in the same escathon. When I raised the question of why the escathons need to be the same, when there is no
evidence for that from within the systems, I never received a satisfactory answer. For example, is prancing as gaNa in rudra's retinue the same as a station on the moon as pitR^i? They tend to push those away as arthavAda concealing the same basic endpoint. Of course instead of
the lunar station, if we ask them if it might be same as finding a place in the retinue of viShvaksena, more than one has tried to tell has rudra = viShNu = brahman (n). I think H more generally need to come to terms with the idea that perennialism is a flawed & baseless
philosophical position unless they really can produce that extraordinary evidence to support it (I don't think it exists). Instead, we should be content that even within our own religion, leave alone others, there is multiplicity of escathons much like adaptive peaks on the
evolutionary landscape. Once you have climbed peak, you cannot pass on to another without passing through a valley. We concede some of them might be connected by narrow ridges that are hard to discover, but that does not mean perennialism is vindicated.
• • •
Missing some Tweet in this thread? You can try to
force a refresh
