Source: TW
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.
shaiva-siddhAnta view
We have previously argued that perennialism is a flawed philosophical. The saiddhAntika shaiva-s seem to have provided a clear exposition of this from their viewpoint. While I’m not a s.s, I see the essence of this as a useful position to build on, even for other philosophies.
Saiddhāntika Pūrvācāryas Bhagavān Sadyojyoti & Trilocana Śivācārya on the particular Apara-muktisthāna intended in such scriptural references:
254 Cf. Siddhāntasamuccaya (A p. 149, B p. 82, C pp. 31-2):
paurāņikās tu
sānkhyokta-vat prakṛtyādi-tattva-jātam
prakṛti-puruṣadhisthātāram ṣaḍvimśatikam iśvaram cabhyupagamya
tat-salokyādi-rūpāṁ tad-gaṇeśvara-praptiṁ caiva
param [parām B; paramām A; pară C] muktim āhuḥ.
teṣām vastutaḥ preryatvāt
tad-urdhva-vastv-aparijñānāc ca
na [na BC; om.A] para-muktiḥ.
yad uktam para-mokṣa-nirāsa-kārikāsu:gaṇendrāgnisamau preryāv a-sampūrṇa-mano-rathau |
ityādi.
evam paramādityāgny-ādi-sāmya-mokṣa-vadino ‘pi
tat-tad-bhuvaneṣu tat-tat-sālokyādi-rūpām muktiṁ vrajantīty arthataḥ siddham eva.‘The Pauranikas, accepting both prakṛti and the other principles as taught by the Sankhyas, and also the Lord as the twenty-sixth principle who oversees prakṛti and purusa, teach that the highest liberation takes the form of attaining the same world as that [Lord], or [proximity to, or yet closer relations with Him] and becoming a chief among his attendants. Because ultimately they are impelled, and because they do not recognise [levels of] reality above those [worlds], they do not achieve the highest liberation. As is taught in the Paramokṣanirasakärikā: “Those who become the same as a chief of the attendants (of the Lord] or Fire, (since they] are impelled, do not have their wishes completely fulfilled” etc. In the same way, those who teach that liberation is becoming the same as the Supreme Sun, Fire and the like reach a liberation that consists in attaining the same world as [, proximity to, etc.,] that [Sun, Fire and the like] in various worlds. That (although not stated explicitly] is certainly established from context.’
Drugs
Source: TW
If one analyzes the experiences of psychonauts using 5-MeO-DMT (O-methylbufotenin) it seems to mimic the soteriology of the bauddha-s. On the other hand, the experiences of DMT (N,N-Dimethyltryptamine) are reminiscent of some H soteriologies and visions (e.g., vishvarUpa-darshana of the Mbh). This may be used as an argument against perennialism. While we are not stating that the drug-induced states are the same as the soteriological endpoints we suspect that they give transient glimpses of those. Thus, we may imagine a landscape of soteriologies, with each tradition finding its way to some peak therein.