What do you think?
Rate this book
Forgotten Truth: The Common Vision of the World's Religions – The Classic Companion to the Unity Underlying World Religions
This classic companion to The World's Religions articulates the remarkable unity that underlies the world's religious traditions
192 pages, Paperback
First published October 9, 1992
17 people are currently reading
818 people want to read
About the author
Huston Smith
125 books319 followersSmith was born in Suzhou, China to Methodist missionaries and spent his first 17 years there. He taught at the Universities of Colorado and Denver from 1944–1947, moving to Washington University in St. Louis, Missouri for the next ten years, and then Professor of Philosophy at MIT from 1958–1973. While at MIT he participated in some of the experiments with entheogens that professor Timothy Leary conducted at Harvard University. He then moved to Syracuse University where he was Thomas J. Watson Professor of Religion and Distinguished Adjunct Professor of Philosophy until his retirement in 1983 and current emeritus status. He now lives in the Berkeley, CA area where he is Visiting Professor of Religious Studies at the University of California, Berkeley.
During his career, Smith not only studied, but practiced Vedanta Hinduism, Zen Buddhism (studying under Goto Zuigan), and Sufism for over ten years each. He is a notable autodidact.
As a young man, Smith, of his own volition, after suddenly turning to mysticism, set out to meet with then-famous author Gerald Heard. Heard responded to Smith's letter, invited him to his Trabuco College (later donated as the Ramakrishna Monastery) in Southern California, and then sent him off to meet the legendary Aldous Huxley. So began Smith's experimentation with meditation, and association with the Vedanta Society in Saint Louis under the auspices of Swami Satprakashananda of the Ramakrishna order.
Via the connection with Heard and Huxley, Smith eventually experimented with Timothy Leary and others at the Center for Personality Research, of which Leary was Research Professor. The experience and history of the era are captured somewhat in Smith's book Cleansing the Doors of Perception. In this period, Smith joined in on the Harvard Project as well, an attempt to raise spiritual awareness through entheogenic plants.
He has been a friend of the XIVth Dalai Lama for more than forty years, and met and talked to some of the great figures of the century, from Eleanor Roosevelt to Thomas Merton.
He developed an interest in the Traditionalist School formulated by Rene Guenon and Ananda Coomaraswamy. This interest has become a continuing thread in all his writings.
In 1996, Bill Moyers devoted a 5-part PBS special to Smith's life and work, "The Wisdom of Faith with Huston Smith." Smith has produced three series for public television: "The Religions of Man," "The Search for America," and (with Arthur Compton) "Science and Human Responsibility." His films on Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism, and Sufism have all won awards at international film festivals.
His latest DVD release is The Roots of Fundamentalism - A Conversation with Huston Smith and Phil Cousineau.
During his career, Smith not only studied, but practiced Vedanta Hinduism, Zen Buddhism (studying under Goto Zuigan), and Sufism for over ten years each. He is a notable autodidact.
As a young man, Smith, of his own volition, after suddenly turning to mysticism, set out to meet with then-famous author Gerald Heard. Heard responded to Smith's letter, invited him to his Trabuco College (later donated as the Ramakrishna Monastery) in Southern California, and then sent him off to meet the legendary Aldous Huxley. So began Smith's experimentation with meditation, and association with the Vedanta Society in Saint Louis under the auspices of Swami Satprakashananda of the Ramakrishna order.
Via the connection with Heard and Huxley, Smith eventually experimented with Timothy Leary and others at the Center for Personality Research, of which Leary was Research Professor. The experience and history of the era are captured somewhat in Smith's book Cleansing the Doors of Perception. In this period, Smith joined in on the Harvard Project as well, an attempt to raise spiritual awareness through entheogenic plants.
He has been a friend of the XIVth Dalai Lama for more than forty years, and met and talked to some of the great figures of the century, from Eleanor Roosevelt to Thomas Merton.
He developed an interest in the Traditionalist School formulated by Rene Guenon and Ananda Coomaraswamy. This interest has become a continuing thread in all his writings.
In 1996, Bill Moyers devoted a 5-part PBS special to Smith's life and work, "The Wisdom of Faith with Huston Smith." Smith has produced three series for public television: "The Religions of Man," "The Search for America," and (with Arthur Compton) "Science and Human Responsibility." His films on Hinduism, Tibetan Buddhism, and Sufism have all won awards at international film festivals.
His latest DVD release is The Roots of Fundamentalism - A Conversation with Huston Smith and Phil Cousineau.
Ratings & Reviews
Friends & Following
Create a free account to discover what your friends think of this book!
Community Reviews
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews
July 23, 2016
Even this book is not beach reading. You should have an interest in religions beyond your own denomination, if any, or in understanding how thinkers of the past used to see the world.
You will be hard pressed to find a clearer and more readable explanation of the common framework for the great religions of the world. Other traditionalists tend to write a dense prose, expecting the student to be desperate to learn the Truth and well versed in mystical theory and practice. Huston Smith draws on his experience as an educator to try to make the topic more accessible. It will probably still not make sense to a large number of people, simply because the topic is unfamiliar and they may want (or be told) to disbelieve it. Smith uses a friendly, rational tone to make the reader consider and understand the topic regardless of whether one will ultimately let it influence one's own religious faith and practice (or lack thereof).
It seems strange that religions that are usually thought to be in conflict, actually have a lot of common ground in their underlying worldview. It is as if the same rough sketch of the invisible world has emerged again and again in different ages and on different continents. Perhaps it was once the commonly accepted view of the world, as Smith seems to believe. Or perhaps it was actually only ever perceived by a small minority, but this minority included the great lights that lit up those religions that have lasted (with some changes) into our age.
You will be hard pressed to find a clearer and more readable explanation of the common framework for the great religions of the world. Other traditionalists tend to write a dense prose, expecting the student to be desperate to learn the Truth and well versed in mystical theory and practice. Huston Smith draws on his experience as an educator to try to make the topic more accessible. It will probably still not make sense to a large number of people, simply because the topic is unfamiliar and they may want (or be told) to disbelieve it. Smith uses a friendly, rational tone to make the reader consider and understand the topic regardless of whether one will ultimately let it influence one's own religious faith and practice (or lack thereof).
It seems strange that religions that are usually thought to be in conflict, actually have a lot of common ground in their underlying worldview. It is as if the same rough sketch of the invisible world has emerged again and again in different ages and on different continents. Perhaps it was once the commonly accepted view of the world, as Smith seems to believe. Or perhaps it was actually only ever perceived by a small minority, but this minority included the great lights that lit up those religions that have lasted (with some changes) into our age.
March 11, 2023
Es una lástima que toda la disertación sobre la importancia de no olvidarnos de las múltiples dimensiones del ser en nuestra exploración de la realidad quede opacada por un capítulo que trata de denostar al darwinismo. La Selección Natural "es" y, lejos de que su evidencia sea fina y se tambalee ante un análisis crítico como Smith sugiere, no deja de robustecerse con el paso del tiempo.
Se puede entender el reproche al argumento teleonómico del neo-darwinismo, pero de ahí a proponer mecanismos alternativos esencialistas y salir indemne de ello hay un trecho. La crítica al cientificismo es fundamental, pero no se puede dar la espalda a determinadas evidencias.
Se puede entender el reproche al argumento teleonómico del neo-darwinismo, pero de ahí a proponer mecanismos alternativos esencialistas y salir indemne de ello hay un trecho. La crítica al cientificismo es fundamental, pero no se puede dar la espalda a determinadas evidencias.
August 30, 2007
"Itself occupying no more than a single ontological plane, science challenged by implication the notion that other planes exist. As its challenge was not effectively met, it swept the field and gave the modern world its soul. For this is the final definition of modernity: an outlook in which this world, this ontological plane, is the only one that is genuinely countenanced and affirmed."
Smith challenges this "modern" outlook with brilliance, wisdom, and style. Read it.
Smith challenges this "modern" outlook with brilliance, wisdom, and style. Read it.
December 20, 2007
The foundation of Wilbur's "integral" ideas was written by Huston Smith in this humble masterpiece.
October 27, 2024
Favorite excerpts:
“The best way to characterize Quine’s worldview is to say that… there is fundamentally only 1 kind of entity in the world, and that is the kind studied by natural scientists – physical objects; and second, that there is only one kind of knowledge in the world, and it is the kind that natural scientists have.” Willard Quine is the most influential American philosopher of the last 20 years.
That the scientific outlook should, in Carl Becker’s word, have “ravished” the modern mind is completely understandable. Through technology, science effects miracles: skyscrapers that stand; men standing on the moon. Moreover, in its early stages these miracles were in the direction of the heart’s desire: multiplication of goods and the reduction of drudgery and disease. There was the sheer noetic majesty of the house pure science erected, and above all there was method. By enabling men to agree on the truth because it could be demonstrated, this method produced a knowledge that was cumulative and could advance. No wonder man converted. The conversion was not forced. It did not occur because scientists were imperialist but because their achievements were so impressive, their marching orders so exhilarating, that thinkers jostled to join their ranks.
We ourselves were once in their number and would be so today were it not for a fact that has become increasingly unblinkable. Strictly speaking, a scientific world view is impossible; it is a contradiction in terms. The reason is that science does not treat of the world; it treats of a part of it only. One world at a time, one hears. Fair enough, but not half a world, which is all that science can offer.
… The conclusion is this: Though man’s conversion to the scientific outlook is understandable psychologically, logically it involves a clean mistake. Insofar as we allow our minds to be guided by reason, we can see that to try to live within the scientific view of reality would be like living in a house’s scaffolding, and to love it like embracing one’s spouse’s skeleton. Page 8
Science can deal with instrumental values but not intrinsic ones. If health is valued over immediate somatic gratification, smoking is bad, but the “if” itself signs cannot adjudicate. Again, science can deal with values descriptively but not prescriptively. It can tell us what men do prize, but not what they should prize. Normative values elude its grasp.
… Science itself is meaningful from beginning to end, but on certain kinds of meanings – ones that are existential and global – it is silent. What is the meaning of our days? Does life make sense? Does the cosmic drama have point and purpose? As a human being, a scientist may become engaged with such questions, but his science will not help him answer them.
… Values, life meanings, purposes, and qualities slip through science like sea slips through the nets of fishermen. Yet man swims in the sea, so he cannot exclude it from his purview. This is what was meant when we noted earlier that a scientific world view is in principle impossible. Taken in its entirety, the world is not as science says it is; it is as science, philosophy, religion, the arts, and everyday speech say it is. Not science but the sum of man’s symbol systems, of which science is but one, is the measure of things.
With science itself there can be no quarrel. Scientism is another matter. Whereas science is positive, contenting itself with reporting what it discovers, scientism is negative. It goes beyond the actual findings of science to deny that other approaches to knowledge are valid and other truths true. In doing so it deserts science in favor of metaphysics – bad metaphysics, as it happens, for as the contention that there are no truths save those of science is not itself a scientific truth, in affirming it scientism contradicts itself. It also carries marks of a religion – a secular religion, resulting from overextrapolation from science, that has seldom numbered great scientists among its votaries. Science has enormous difficulty dealing with things that cannot be measured, yet David Bohm, who is a great scientist, says that “the immeasurable is the primary and independent source of all reality… Measure is a secondary and dependent aspect of this reality.”
… As long as modernity was captive of an outlook presumed to be scientific but in fact scientistic, reality was taken to be as science mirrored it. Now that it is apparent that science peers down a restricted viewfinder, we are released from that misconception. The view that appears in a restricted viewfinder is a restricted view. Page 17
Theism is true. It is not the final truth; G-d’s personal mode is not His final mode; it is not the final reality. Even so, it is vastly more real than are the creatures who encounter him in this mode, so the fact that the mode is not final presents no problem. Only persons who sense themselves to be not finally real, will sense the same of the G-d of theism. And for them it does not matter that in the last analysis G-d is not the kind of G-d who loves them, for at this level there is no “them” to be loved. Insofar as one takes oneself seriously, as all of us do most of the time and most of us do all of the time, the G-d of theism is to be taken seriously too. Not only do we love; we are loved. Not only do we hope; we are hoped for. Not only do we find or miss meaning; we are meant. Nevertheless:
Theism is not the final truth. Its vision of G-d is modeled after capacities that are distinctively human, and noble as these capacities are – the capacity to make discriminating judgments, the capacity to exercise responsible decision and choice, the ability to carry out long range purposes – they require for their exercise contexts that stand over and against their subject and thereby limit him. Being persons ourselves, we tend to see in G-d the part or aspect of his nature that is kin to us.
Several paragraphs above we noted that God is anthropomorphic. Now we add that there is a sense in which he is not; to wit, the sense in which he transcends all descriptions, anthropomorphic ones included – mystics often use the word “G-dhead” for this transpersonal mode. Page 53
Body. We begin with man’s surface aspect, his body. 150 pounds, more or less, of protoplasm that we can see, touch, and maneuver, it is the most evident part of our makeup, so need not detain us long. Pages could be given to its wonders. We could describe the cells that that are its building blocks, each equipped with hundreds or thousands of allosteric enzyme molecules a million billion times finer than the most delicate cybernetic relays man can devise. Or we could note the brain that is the body’s apex with its 10 billion neurons any one of which can be related to as many as 25,000 others for a number of possible associations that exceeds the number of atoms in the universe, it is the most highly organized 3 pounds of matter we know. There is no need to dwell on details. We leap over them to consider the sentience that infuses the human frame. – page 63
The polite word for the predicaments language leads to in these areas is “paradox,” but the unvarnished fact is contradiction. “If we ask whether the electron’s position changes with time,” writes Robert Oppenheimer, “we must say ‘No’; if we ask whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say ‘No’; if we ask whether the electron is at rest, we must say ‘No’; if we ask whether it is in motion, we must say ‘No.’”
On hearing a statement of this sort Francois Mauriac shook his head, remarking, “What this professor says is far more incredible than what we poor Christians believe.” Page 107
As Angel that has fallen, science turns demonic. It presumes to control too much and to disclose more of reality than in fact it does. To approach existence as if it were purely or even primarily physical and mathematical is to falsify it. The approach could end in smashing our planet, for if a hammer is the only tool one learns to use, it is tempting to regard everything as if it were a nail. Page 117
Readers who feel that the notions of the last several chapters have already pressed credulity to the limit may find the point we are about to make, the last major one of this work, excessive; de trop, as the French would say: too much. In traditional China a gentleman might be found protesting that a friend’s modesty “exceeds the permitted limits.” Readers may feel that what we are about to say likewise exceeds limits; the limits of credulity most obviously, but possibly of propriety as well. Page 121
The contribution of this book lies in the clear distinction it draws between “micro-evolution” (evolution on a small scale and within narrow limits), which no one contests, and “mega-evolution” (the theory that the class of birds, for example, evolve from the class of reptiles), which is “really a philosophy dating from the days of biological ignorance; it was a philosophical synthesis built up in a biological kindergarten.” Page 132 footnote
“I firmly believe,” writes Jean Rostand, “that mammals have come from lizards, and lizards from fish, but… when I think such a thing, I try not to avoid seeing its indigestible enormity and I prefer to leave vague the origin of these scandalous metamorphoses rather than add to their improbability that of a ludicrous interpretation.” Page 134
Even assuming that in specifics and details what we have ourselves postulated in these pages may be quite mistaken, we feel certain of this: if modern science continues, the current working premises in biology, Darwinism included, will in time show themselves to have been as inadequate as were Newton’s. The life sciences will crash through them as through a sound barrier. On that glad day biologists will begin to talk like physicists. Like Richard Feynman, say: “We have to find a new view of the world.” Or Freeman Dyson: “For any speculation which does not at first look crazy, there is no hope.” Page 142
“The best way to characterize Quine’s worldview is to say that… there is fundamentally only 1 kind of entity in the world, and that is the kind studied by natural scientists – physical objects; and second, that there is only one kind of knowledge in the world, and it is the kind that natural scientists have.” Willard Quine is the most influential American philosopher of the last 20 years.
That the scientific outlook should, in Carl Becker’s word, have “ravished” the modern mind is completely understandable. Through technology, science effects miracles: skyscrapers that stand; men standing on the moon. Moreover, in its early stages these miracles were in the direction of the heart’s desire: multiplication of goods and the reduction of drudgery and disease. There was the sheer noetic majesty of the house pure science erected, and above all there was method. By enabling men to agree on the truth because it could be demonstrated, this method produced a knowledge that was cumulative and could advance. No wonder man converted. The conversion was not forced. It did not occur because scientists were imperialist but because their achievements were so impressive, their marching orders so exhilarating, that thinkers jostled to join their ranks.
We ourselves were once in their number and would be so today were it not for a fact that has become increasingly unblinkable. Strictly speaking, a scientific world view is impossible; it is a contradiction in terms. The reason is that science does not treat of the world; it treats of a part of it only. One world at a time, one hears. Fair enough, but not half a world, which is all that science can offer.
… The conclusion is this: Though man’s conversion to the scientific outlook is understandable psychologically, logically it involves a clean mistake. Insofar as we allow our minds to be guided by reason, we can see that to try to live within the scientific view of reality would be like living in a house’s scaffolding, and to love it like embracing one’s spouse’s skeleton. Page 8
Science can deal with instrumental values but not intrinsic ones. If health is valued over immediate somatic gratification, smoking is bad, but the “if” itself signs cannot adjudicate. Again, science can deal with values descriptively but not prescriptively. It can tell us what men do prize, but not what they should prize. Normative values elude its grasp.
… Science itself is meaningful from beginning to end, but on certain kinds of meanings – ones that are existential and global – it is silent. What is the meaning of our days? Does life make sense? Does the cosmic drama have point and purpose? As a human being, a scientist may become engaged with such questions, but his science will not help him answer them.
… Values, life meanings, purposes, and qualities slip through science like sea slips through the nets of fishermen. Yet man swims in the sea, so he cannot exclude it from his purview. This is what was meant when we noted earlier that a scientific world view is in principle impossible. Taken in its entirety, the world is not as science says it is; it is as science, philosophy, religion, the arts, and everyday speech say it is. Not science but the sum of man’s symbol systems, of which science is but one, is the measure of things.
With science itself there can be no quarrel. Scientism is another matter. Whereas science is positive, contenting itself with reporting what it discovers, scientism is negative. It goes beyond the actual findings of science to deny that other approaches to knowledge are valid and other truths true. In doing so it deserts science in favor of metaphysics – bad metaphysics, as it happens, for as the contention that there are no truths save those of science is not itself a scientific truth, in affirming it scientism contradicts itself. It also carries marks of a religion – a secular religion, resulting from overextrapolation from science, that has seldom numbered great scientists among its votaries. Science has enormous difficulty dealing with things that cannot be measured, yet David Bohm, who is a great scientist, says that “the immeasurable is the primary and independent source of all reality… Measure is a secondary and dependent aspect of this reality.”
… As long as modernity was captive of an outlook presumed to be scientific but in fact scientistic, reality was taken to be as science mirrored it. Now that it is apparent that science peers down a restricted viewfinder, we are released from that misconception. The view that appears in a restricted viewfinder is a restricted view. Page 17
Theism is true. It is not the final truth; G-d’s personal mode is not His final mode; it is not the final reality. Even so, it is vastly more real than are the creatures who encounter him in this mode, so the fact that the mode is not final presents no problem. Only persons who sense themselves to be not finally real, will sense the same of the G-d of theism. And for them it does not matter that in the last analysis G-d is not the kind of G-d who loves them, for at this level there is no “them” to be loved. Insofar as one takes oneself seriously, as all of us do most of the time and most of us do all of the time, the G-d of theism is to be taken seriously too. Not only do we love; we are loved. Not only do we hope; we are hoped for. Not only do we find or miss meaning; we are meant. Nevertheless:
Theism is not the final truth. Its vision of G-d is modeled after capacities that are distinctively human, and noble as these capacities are – the capacity to make discriminating judgments, the capacity to exercise responsible decision and choice, the ability to carry out long range purposes – they require for their exercise contexts that stand over and against their subject and thereby limit him. Being persons ourselves, we tend to see in G-d the part or aspect of his nature that is kin to us.
Several paragraphs above we noted that God is anthropomorphic. Now we add that there is a sense in which he is not; to wit, the sense in which he transcends all descriptions, anthropomorphic ones included – mystics often use the word “G-dhead” for this transpersonal mode. Page 53
Body. We begin with man’s surface aspect, his body. 150 pounds, more or less, of protoplasm that we can see, touch, and maneuver, it is the most evident part of our makeup, so need not detain us long. Pages could be given to its wonders. We could describe the cells that that are its building blocks, each equipped with hundreds or thousands of allosteric enzyme molecules a million billion times finer than the most delicate cybernetic relays man can devise. Or we could note the brain that is the body’s apex with its 10 billion neurons any one of which can be related to as many as 25,000 others for a number of possible associations that exceeds the number of atoms in the universe, it is the most highly organized 3 pounds of matter we know. There is no need to dwell on details. We leap over them to consider the sentience that infuses the human frame. – page 63
The polite word for the predicaments language leads to in these areas is “paradox,” but the unvarnished fact is contradiction. “If we ask whether the electron’s position changes with time,” writes Robert Oppenheimer, “we must say ‘No’; if we ask whether the position of the electron remains the same, we must say ‘No’; if we ask whether the electron is at rest, we must say ‘No’; if we ask whether it is in motion, we must say ‘No.’”
On hearing a statement of this sort Francois Mauriac shook his head, remarking, “What this professor says is far more incredible than what we poor Christians believe.” Page 107
As Angel that has fallen, science turns demonic. It presumes to control too much and to disclose more of reality than in fact it does. To approach existence as if it were purely or even primarily physical and mathematical is to falsify it. The approach could end in smashing our planet, for if a hammer is the only tool one learns to use, it is tempting to regard everything as if it were a nail. Page 117
Readers who feel that the notions of the last several chapters have already pressed credulity to the limit may find the point we are about to make, the last major one of this work, excessive; de trop, as the French would say: too much. In traditional China a gentleman might be found protesting that a friend’s modesty “exceeds the permitted limits.” Readers may feel that what we are about to say likewise exceeds limits; the limits of credulity most obviously, but possibly of propriety as well. Page 121
The contribution of this book lies in the clear distinction it draws between “micro-evolution” (evolution on a small scale and within narrow limits), which no one contests, and “mega-evolution” (the theory that the class of birds, for example, evolve from the class of reptiles), which is “really a philosophy dating from the days of biological ignorance; it was a philosophical synthesis built up in a biological kindergarten.” Page 132 footnote
“I firmly believe,” writes Jean Rostand, “that mammals have come from lizards, and lizards from fish, but… when I think such a thing, I try not to avoid seeing its indigestible enormity and I prefer to leave vague the origin of these scandalous metamorphoses rather than add to their improbability that of a ludicrous interpretation.” Page 134
Even assuming that in specifics and details what we have ourselves postulated in these pages may be quite mistaken, we feel certain of this: if modern science continues, the current working premises in biology, Darwinism included, will in time show themselves to have been as inadequate as were Newton’s. The life sciences will crash through them as through a sound barrier. On that glad day biologists will begin to talk like physicists. Like Richard Feynman, say: “We have to find a new view of the world.” Or Freeman Dyson: “For any speculation which does not at first look crazy, there is no hope.” Page 142
July 30, 2023
Un producto prescindible.
Hay citas interesantes, especialmente las de carácter apofatico y neoplatónico, y una crítica al cientifismo (primer capítulo) que se deja leer. Pero quién haya leído "La sabiduría perenne" de Huxley no dudará en sentirse incómodo con la ausencia de sugerente poesía mística en Smith pese a que haya un aire epocal similar en ambos autores.
El problema tiene que ver con el menjunje y aspiraciones del Smith. La peor tradición del universalismo cae como un plomo sobre el lector, que añorará a Eliade o a Campbell. Además, Smith tiene como compañeros de viaje a tradicionalistas un tanto crípticos (Schuon, Guenon...), lo que se traduce en un texto excesivamente simbólico y abstracto. Para eso mejor leer directamente a estos (y a Henri Corbin), y paladear su conservadurismo religioso de primera mano.
Por otra parte, las críticas al darwinismo son abtrusas. En definitiva, una suerte de esencialismo psicótico se pasea por el libro.
Para los interesados en teorías universalistas y místicas de lo sagrado mejor leer a Uzdavinis o Kingsley (más literarios y estimulantes, aun fantasiosos) o a Eliade y Campbell (más fundamentados y de amplia cultura). Por supuesto, mejor todavía si se acompaña de autores críticos y expositivos (Carlos Domínguez, Hanegraaf, William Franke, Hoos...), alejados de apasionamientos new age.
Hay citas interesantes, especialmente las de carácter apofatico y neoplatónico, y una crítica al cientifismo (primer capítulo) que se deja leer. Pero quién haya leído "La sabiduría perenne" de Huxley no dudará en sentirse incómodo con la ausencia de sugerente poesía mística en Smith pese a que haya un aire epocal similar en ambos autores.
El problema tiene que ver con el menjunje y aspiraciones del Smith. La peor tradición del universalismo cae como un plomo sobre el lector, que añorará a Eliade o a Campbell. Además, Smith tiene como compañeros de viaje a tradicionalistas un tanto crípticos (Schuon, Guenon...), lo que se traduce en un texto excesivamente simbólico y abstracto. Para eso mejor leer directamente a estos (y a Henri Corbin), y paladear su conservadurismo religioso de primera mano.
Por otra parte, las críticas al darwinismo son abtrusas. En definitiva, una suerte de esencialismo psicótico se pasea por el libro.
Para los interesados en teorías universalistas y místicas de lo sagrado mejor leer a Uzdavinis o Kingsley (más literarios y estimulantes, aun fantasiosos) o a Eliade y Campbell (más fundamentados y de amplia cultura). Por supuesto, mejor todavía si se acompaña de autores críticos y expositivos (Carlos Domínguez, Hanegraaf, William Franke, Hoos...), alejados de apasionamientos new age.
Want to read
April 20, 2007includes a "treatment of the contrast between the modern worldview and the worldview of virtually every other culture in history" (Marcus Borg)
March 2, 2013
Excellent overview of the world's religions by a true, openminded scholar. Signed copy.
April 9, 2023
The theological equivalent to “I don’t see race.”
The author sees fit to combine all attributes of the nonWestern religions (Hinduism, Daoism, indigenous religion, etc.) as part of a single ethos. In chapter two, for example, he fails to distinguish when he moves from the Way of the Dao, to Hinduism, to Zen Buddhism, and back again to Daoism over the course of a single paragraph, lumping it all together as though the individual practices and cultures from which they sprung are just incidental and not by design. In chapter three, he does it again, but with “Native American” religion, as though there isn’t a rich diversity of indigenous cultures just in North America.
Again. And again. And again.
To say nothing of his emphasis that religion is “fact,” and science has forced mankind to lose its way (especially those poor Westerners). That science has become a religion in itself; but this is a bad thing, whereas when other religions (especially the Abrahamic ones) do it, it’s kosher.
Though I somewhat agreed with his premise coming in—that the religions of the world and science are all grasping at the same Universal Truth—I could not find a single argument convincing. Which made me question the validity of that line of study in Religious Studies.
What a bunch of self-aggrandizing rubbish. It’s this kind of bloated lack of self inspection that makes me glad I left academia.
Save yourself an afternoon. Don’t bother with this book.
The author sees fit to combine all attributes of the nonWestern religions (Hinduism, Daoism, indigenous religion, etc.) as part of a single ethos. In chapter two, for example, he fails to distinguish when he moves from the Way of the Dao, to Hinduism, to Zen Buddhism, and back again to Daoism over the course of a single paragraph, lumping it all together as though the individual practices and cultures from which they sprung are just incidental and not by design. In chapter three, he does it again, but with “Native American” religion, as though there isn’t a rich diversity of indigenous cultures just in North America.
Again. And again. And again.
To say nothing of his emphasis that religion is “fact,” and science has forced mankind to lose its way (especially those poor Westerners). That science has become a religion in itself; but this is a bad thing, whereas when other religions (especially the Abrahamic ones) do it, it’s kosher.
Though I somewhat agreed with his premise coming in—that the religions of the world and science are all grasping at the same Universal Truth—I could not find a single argument convincing. Which made me question the validity of that line of study in Religious Studies.
What a bunch of self-aggrandizing rubbish. It’s this kind of bloated lack of self inspection that makes me glad I left academia.
Save yourself an afternoon. Don’t bother with this book.
December 28, 2024
An ecumenical inquiry that seeks to provide an antidote to "matter"ialism. Smith constructs a cosmology that is at once spacio-temporal as it is substantively mental. It is a religious book that aspires towards ontology. The presentation is formulaic and concise. Mathematics is touted as the most objective means of discovery available to us, but we are reminded that "the map is not the territory", and that the perceptual, cognizable Universe gives us an illusive but informative glimpse of the Infinite, with many paragraphs paraphrazing passages of the Upanishads. All religions are "fingers pointing to the moon." Science, with its many advancements, is seen as astoundingly useful but ultimately reductionist. It is a fantastic and intriguing read. The language is also highly accessible to non-academics and folks new to philosophy/theology. There are also pictorial demonstrations of many of the ideas, making it even more digestible and compelling.
December 2, 2017
Buku klasik ini bisa dibilang sebagai bahan perbandingan dari modernitas yang sangat menagung-agungkan kemajuan sains modern, pada dasarnya sang penulis dalam buku ini berusaha menyampaikan cara pandang mengenai alam semesta yang perlu dilihat berdasarkan banyak sudut pandang. Tidak terpaku pada angka, dalam beberapa hal dunia tidak bisa dijelaskan secara kuantitatif.
Pada dasarnya, buku ini sangat teologis dan psikologis sekali berdasarkan semua bahasan yang disajikan oleh penulis. Secara garis besar sangatlah baik namun buku ini sangat tidak cocok bagi seseorang yang sangat menggembor-gemborkan rasionalitas.
Pada dasarnya, buku ini sangat teologis dan psikologis sekali berdasarkan semua bahasan yang disajikan oleh penulis. Secara garis besar sangatlah baik namun buku ini sangat tidak cocok bagi seseorang yang sangat menggembor-gemborkan rasionalitas.
April 4, 2019
¿Quieres encontrar un libro que te permita hacer una bella y clara síntesis de las religiones del mundo, donde te explica los niveles de realidad, niveles del ser y te abre un panorama donde el reduccionismo positivista no puede explicar? este es el libro indicado para iniciarse o reiniciarse a una lectura más seria en teología comparada. A mi parecer, todo, todo el libro es una joya pero fue un gran placer tanto el primero como el último capítulo.
February 19, 2022
Amazing, paradigm breaking. Challenged me greatly to see the world a different way. The part about drawings still escapes me and I look forward to trying to understand his point better
February 23, 2021
This is a complicated book on religion with bits of mantra physics in it, but very dense and hard to understand at times. If this was not for Uni I wouldn’t read it.
March 7, 2007
A great book, lots of good info here. Well thought out and presented.
February 21, 2009
I don't think I understood everything in this book. I wish that I had.
July 9, 2012
Second fav book by him that shows we're all connected! Beautiful! Look at similarities not differences
July 22, 2012
grandma recommended this book to me. Interesting thesis, but I don't know if you can really boil down the world's religions into Platonism
September 15, 2008
Find this hard to read, much heavier and more complex than most of my bedtime reading.
Displaying 1 - 19 of 19 reviews