I take a stride from this discussion from Quotations relevant to the Path:
obnoxion wrote: ↑Wed May 13, 2020 11:49 amSeyyed Hossein Nasr is of the Traditionalist school, and he is inspired especially by Frithjof Schuon. As Frithjof Schuon considers the classical depth psychology to be satanic, it is only to be expected that Nasr subscribes to the same Traditionalist dogma. Another Traditionslist dogma is that post-renaissance art is degenerate. It might seem strange that such movent should have so strong stance on art, but it has to be remembered that Traditionalism was first concerned with art history. I am an avid reader of Traditionalist writers, but I disagree on many importan topics with them. For example, I admire modern art and consider C.G. Jung one of the most important Western thinkers.
This was a funny coincidence, since I touch this problem between Jung & traditional(ist) occultists in an article I just today sent to be published in our web site.
It made me think once again, however, this deep problem in antagonism between the different esoteric schools. Sometimes those chasms open because of some actual differences in ethics (ethical differences being difficult to bridge, because they are so fundamental), but sometimes the differences seem to be in emphases and would seem to be mutually complementing rather than excluding.
I would very much like to encourage discussion about this subject: What are the unbridgeable differences between esoteric schools of thought & practice, and which are not? How to unite the hands where that would be welcome & possible, regarding these theories & practices?
When stumbling upon one of these schisms which to me as an outsider often seem hard to accept as absolutely dividing, I try to go to myself and think about the problems I have with some of the esoteric schools. I think that is a process every one of us has to keep in mind: trying to be alert where compromises can & should be made, and what are truly problematic differences in paradigms, and why.