Are all mystical traditions essentially the same?

>>9422299
>>9422299
>You will find them wherever you find a true spiritual path, and that is just all there is to it.

My guess is that this guy would simply call any system that falls outside his description as "not truly spiritual". The whole 'many paths, one truth' thing doesn't hold up to well against something like the Aztec Blood Cult or Esoteric Hitlerism or probably even some things like Bushido, Confucianism or Wahhabism which all preach unquestioning authority to one's superior (generally in the form of an Emperor, at at least your parents).

Comparitive Religion is interesting because it ferrets out the similiarties AND differences between systems of thought. Those who only focus on the similarities are being reductionist and ignoring big differences like human sacrifice.

>>9422335
>which all preach unquestioning authority to one's superior (generally in the form of an Emperor, at at least your parents).
This should not be a problem because the keys of a valid spiritual tradition (according to his definition, from the buddhist pov) is the gain of insight from the exploration of the three marks of existence: impermanence, suffering, selflessness. Obedience and such things would in this case simply be artifacts, part of the ritualistic religious layer and not of the mystic core. Does esoteric hitlerism explore the three marks in some way, regardless of differences in nomenclature? idk. Maybe. It might be a "valid spiritual path".

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Hick

Look under pluralism

>>9422427
ALL paths are valid if you walk them spiritually. The key factor is the walker, not the path.

>>9422738
You can find enlightenment on a chewing gum wrapper if you know how to look.

>>9424240
yeah and the "knowing how to look" part means insight into the three marks

File: Aquinas.png (52KB, 1030x269px) Image search: [Google]

52KB, 1030x269px

>>9422299
Buddhism has problems, namely the assertion that direct insight is salvific in itself and by itself. In reality all knowledge is meta and no knowledge (regardless of kind) can bring total happiness or contentedness or what ever.
Catholic mysticism, in contradistinction, is the task of -becoming- knowledge, quite literally. The difference between mysticism and philosophy is that for the philosophers all knowledge remains meta-existent, and therefor the knower can only obtain what little blessedness there is to gain from knowing, though as if from a distance , like a distant dream. Mystics know the same things as philosophers, but are not satisfied with knowing. So they attempt to literally -become- that knowledge and in doing so take part in the divine intellect itself through connaturality as the divine intellect is know the knower and the mystic is the thing known.
Buddhism on the other hand is quite trite in comparison, and is totally incompatible with certain philosophies (very good ones too) such as the hegelian ones and probably critical theory in general. And there are very good arguments against it. But nobody can touch Mysticism.

Also pic related, straight from the source.

>>9425448
*is now