Rating: 
Summary: Reductionism's Finest Hour
Review: I'm not actually sure how perennial Huxley's philosophy is, but in reality there is very little, if any, philosophy in the book at all. What there is, is a discussion of Western religion, particularly Christianity, as judged by vedanta Hinduism. Not exactly an unbiased discussion!Aside from the absence of philosophical method in this book, a major flaw is the author's reduction of all religion to his version of mysticism. Religion is often defined, in a casual way, as "creed, code, cult," yet there is no mention of belief, morality, or liturgy. To reduce Judaism, Christianity, and Islam to just mysticism renders a very incomplete and totally inaccurate picture of Western religions. Huxley says in the beginning that he will not use the Bible to support his ideas as applied to this mysticism, and I notice he didn't use any of the Church Fathers either. With good reason, but not for the one he gave. No, it would have been too easy for the interested reader to look up scripture quotes cited to discover their original context. That would have been disastrous for Huxley's book. Instead he picked out people like Eckhardt, whose writings were condemned by the Church because he came perilously close to the edge of heresy in promoting a vedanta-like monism in what he had to say. Or St. Catherine of Genoa, with whom most readers, even Catholic ones, would not be familiar. Since she is a cannonized saint, her writings must have reflected authentic Christianity, but the little bits Huxley used to support his ideas must then have been lifted out of the original context, and certainly out of the larger context of St. Catherine's Catholic faith. Other quotes came mostly from members of fringe groups and were not representative of traditional Christianity. The book was well researched, at least from the point of view of digging up little snippets of quotes to support his ideas, and it was written in an enjoyable manner, but, ultimately, Judaism, Christianity, and Islam are fundamentally incompatible with Hinduism, especially in its advaita form, and there is no reconciliation possible. Westerners are so often accused of being "intolerant," but at least we are more honest than what Huxley presents in the "Perennial Philosophy."
Rating: 
Summary: A dazzling intellectual and spiritual treasure . . .
Review: I've never met this book's equal. It left me awestruck not only by the content but by its style. Every sentence is a jewel that could be studied over for years. While reading this book, I wondered at Huxley's genius. Possibly the best book I've ever read
Rating:
Summary: kinda nice, but
Review: Nice of Aldous Huxley to do his bit to get people to realise that the different wisdom traditions do have something to talk about. And contrary to what some reviewers have said his idea of a unity of religions is not the grossest kind imaginable. He does mentions that some concepts (like truth) can be understood in different ways and are actually understood differently by various traditions. However, says Hux, these differences are trivial and are merely superficial levels of paths that all lead to the same ineffable truth. Can we find fault with that? We had better. Because in making the differences between religions out to be trivial we would be robbing them of much that is essential to them and what is most beautiful about them. Spirituality is not just about the mystical experience. There is also ethics, there is also faith and shelter and community and many things that can be of value and that gives each spirituality its unique beauty.
So if you never have a mystical experience with blinking lights and a direct view of God and a melting into the oneness of al being - would that mean that all of your spiritual life has been a waste? The perennial philosophy would say yes. That is why Huxley subtly slags of Protestantism and Therevada Buddhism a number of times - both argue that religion can have value aside from mysticism through a slow process of spiritual growth and humility and sometimes an appreciation of God which is dreadfully ordinary and everyday and simple. Actually, the same argument is found in the Catholic Church, Mahayana, Daoism, Judaism . . . But to take that seriously you would have to accept the different traditions in there entirety. And they would have to have dialogue on how there differences can enrich each other, not just on how they are all actually the same old thing.
Rating:
Summary: One of my top five favorites
Review: One of the most comprehensive books I've read, and I've read thousands. So much is compacted into this one book, that it's one you would want on a deserted island. Its definitely one that will be referred to over and over. It has the wisdom of the world and the keys to higher consciousness. If you read only one book on spirituality, make it this one. It shows the common core among all religions , it may be slightly slanted towards the authors religion, but its easy to overlook that. I FOUND IT TO BE GREAT!!
Rating:
Summary: The Father and I are One.
Review: One reason Huxley titled this anthology The Perennial "Philosophy" was out of respect for the various religious traditions of the world. To suggest, as some of my fellow reviewers have, that Huxley had something up his metaphysical sleeve is to fail to see the forest for the trees. Philosophy is nothing if it is not the right to question anything. You and I have a right to our opinion, a keystone of Freedom-Religious, and otherwise. Huxley respected personal freedom. If you don't like his book, fine. To suggest Huxley had some sinister motive here is, in my opinion, a mistake. What Huxley was trying to do, and quite admirably I might add, was to share with the reader the fact that the mystic tradition is fundamental within all of the world's great religions. That there is a universal mystical experience that transcends the differences we might otherwise have. That our religious founders had more in common than we might suppose. That we have more in common than we might suppose. That we should cherish the essential while respecting our differences. One caveat. I am not preaching toleration for tolerations sake here. Nor do I believe was Huxley. We each need to make our stand. Some choose to make a stand for universal brotherhood. Some choose to stand for a chosen few. Some choose to stand alone. We can make such a personal choice without demonizing others, for it does not matter what we believe if we do not have love in our heart. I believe, as I believe did Huxley, that we are all God's children, made in the image of God. That we are both physical and spiritual beings. That God is Love. That is my kind of Philosophia Perennis.
Rating:
Summary: Thou art That.
Review: Simply stated the Perennial Philosophy is "Thou Essence is That Essence". Each of us is a unique iteration of the Spiritual Source of the Universe. A microcosm of the macrocosm. Created by God as a godlike being for it takes a god to worship God fully. We are gods, but not the God, lest any man should boast. To fail to see that we are a part of God is an illusion, to think that we are God is a delusion. God is not only within ourselves, but within all other people as well, even the rest of Creation, God is omnipresent. Pride is a tricky devil. I am an aspect of God, therefore I must be God. Wrong dear solipsist. I am here too. And so are others. God is a synergetic whole, more than one but less than two. The Kingdom of God is a family, not a person. This reality we find ourselves in isn't your dream or mine, we are however links in the great dream chain of existence. Though it is true that there are no lines of demarcation in Nature there are areas of confluence, fields of concentrated energy, such as you and I. All created things are such. That part of us that has not been created, that part of our essence that is divine, is found within the holy of holies, our heart, our soul. We are spirit. An awareness of our true selves is essential for the full expression of our potential to be godlike beings. As Teilhard de Chardin once said, "We are not human beings having a spiritual experience, we are spiritual beings having a human experience". Meditation is about coming to this realization. That we are spirit. This is a knowing that is beyond analytic thought. We cannot know God discursively, but we can experience God. Knowing God is an intuitive experience, not a rational conclusion. Nonduality, God, cannot be described in dualistic terms, rather merely suggested. Thus the use of Parables and Myths and other such forms of metaphorical expression. We cannot say what God is, only what God is like. I AM THAT I AM.
The essential part of us, our spirit, was never born and will never die. The purpose of life here in the realm of duality is not to play a game of Solitaire with ourselves, but to play a game of Hearts with each other. This is the message of all the great Mystics from all the great spiritual traditions of our world, past and present. Our material but insubstantial reality comes from an immaterial but substantial source. God is real, and so are we.
This book by Aldous Huxley is one of the greatest books ever written about the Perennial Philosophy. It is must reading if you want to know more about the truth of the universality of truth. No religion has a patent on God. As that great Christian Mystic Meister Eckhart once said, "God is like a great underground river". Meditation is the technique all great mystics have used to dig sacred wells into the great underground river of spirit that flows through and beyond every manifested thing. Dig your own well my friend. Just don't get to thinking your well is the only well. This is the Philosophia Perennis in a nutshell. Now Go.
For futher reading on the Perennial Philosophy may I suggest some of the following authors. Karen Armstrong, Ananda K. Coomaraswamy, Joseph Campbell, Meister Eckhart, Rene Guenon, Thomas Merton, Rumi, Frithjof Schuon, and Huston Smith, among others.
Rating:
Summary: I can't think of a title
Review: Some reviews on this book come from people who are not informed about the context, to the modern day teenager (I'm a teenager but I'm just better) who has such a "modern" view of life (close minded view of life) that they do not get a chance to fully appreciate the "Perennial philosophy", maybe it's because I'm a literature and philosophy person that I enjoyed this book, but I let my friend Julie read it and I hate to say this but I must, she isn't exactly the brightest spot on the wall and me and her sat at Starbucks and talked about this book for hours on end, after that, we went and had dinner and after that I am sitting at this computer and reviewing this book because I have a physics exam tomorrow and I am not studying for it because I am an idiot, oh and on top of that, I have a six page essay on Hamlet due tomorrow, I think it is my time to leave. Give the book a chance even if it is just to able to say that you have read it.
Rating:
Summary: An indispensable manual of right thinking and living
Review: Some time in the last century, Thoreau lamented that the "Bibles of mankind" were neglected even among those making a serious attempt to understand the Jewish and Christian ones. In the years since, many anthologies and expositions of sacred writings have endeavoured to repair the gap, few perhaps as successfully as this one. Like a Boethius for the modern age, Huxley delineates the universal and timeless truths enunciated by the sages of preceding centuries, interspersed with his own perceptive and serenely illuminating remarks. This is a book to be carefully pondered and studied with others. I can think of no other which so deserves to be the Vade Mecum of the spiritual journey -- the road map to guide you onward. Ultimately your conception of the "perennial philosophy" may differ from Huxley's, but I am sure you will value his contribution toward its elucidation, and may well agree that several of his original passages merit inclusion in its eternal canon.
Rating:
Summary: An indispensable manual of right thinking and living
Review: Some time in the last century, Thoreau lamented that the "Bibles of mankind" were neglected even among those making a serious attempt to understand the Jewish and Christian ones. In the years since, many anthologies and expositions of sacred writings have endeavoured to repair the gap, few perhaps as successfully as this one. Like a Boethius for the modern age, Huxley delineates the universal and timeless truths enunciated by the sages of preceding centuries, interspersed with his own perceptive and serenely illuminating remarks. This is a book to be carefully pondered and studied with others. I can think of no other which so deserves to be the Vade Mecum of the spiritual journey -- the road map to guide you onward. Ultimately your conception of the "perennial philosophy" may differ from Huxley's, but I am sure you will value his contribution toward its elucidation, and may well agree that several of his original passages merit inclusion in its eternal canon.
Rating:
Summary: Religion, Not Philosophy
Review: The title of this work suggests perennial philosophy, but the work is devoted to relgious "truths" that the author believes are transcendent and therefore permanent. From this angle, the book is an interesting read of different religious views that have helped humans live an interesting, meaningful, and ethical lives. But "philosophy" is not really involved except incidentally. There is no use of logical clarity, no evaluation of arguments, no use of the philosphical method, nor much of any tools that philosophers normally apply. Indeed, none of the usual philosophical issues are to be found: Epistemology, metaphysics, theories of language, ethics, mind, and anthropology. But, as a digest of religious views, it does a nice job of harmonizing religious "truths" across a wide spectrum of religious thought, from Buddhism, Christianity, Islam, Judaism, and Hindu thinkers. But the consequence of this "harmonization" is reductionism of different religious structures into an over-simplified, under-stated worldview and cosmology. So, even under the rubric of "theodicy," the book fails its philosophical foundations.
|
