The Divine Philosophy

With a Critique of one of my areas of specialization Traditionalist School of Esotericism

I decided to reflect upon the Bahá’í concept of the Divine Philosophy vis–à–vis Almighty Wisdom. I only included languages with at least one cognate to the Arabic or Hebrew. Obviously, this listing is not comprehensive:

• Arabic, حِكْمَةٌ الإِلٰهِيَة, Ḥik°maẗuṇ ʾal•⫰Ɪlꞌahiyyaẗ

• Arabic, فَلْسَفَةٌ الإِلٰهِيَة Fal°safaẗuṇ ʾal•⫰Ɪlꞌahiyyaẗ

• Hebrew, חָכְמָה הַאֱלֹהִית, Ḥoḵəmāh hạ•ʾĔlōhiyṯ

• Hebrew, פִילוֹסוֹפְיָה הַאֱלֹהִית, P̄iylôsôp̄əyāh hạ•ʾĔlōhiyṯ

• Yiddish, דִּי גּאָטְלֶעְכְע חְכְמְה, diy Gʾoṭələʿḵəʿ Ḥəḵəməh

• Yiddish, דִּי גּאָטְלֶעְכְע פִֿילאָסאָפִֿיְע, diy Gʾoṭələʿḵəʿ P̄iylosʾop̄iyəʿ

• Iranian Persian, حِکْمَتِ اِلَهِی, Ḥiḱ°mat•i ʾꞮlahí

• Iranian Persian, فَلْسَفَهِ اِلَهِی, Fal°safah•i ʾꞮlahí

• Dari Persian, حِکْمَتِ اِلٰهِی ، Ḥiḱ°mat•i ʾꞮlꞌahí

• Dari Persian, فَلْسَفَهِ اِلٰهِی, Fal°safah•i ʾꞮlꞌahí

• Tajik (Tajiki Persian), Ҳикмати Илоҳӣ, Hikmat•i Ɪlohī

• Tajik (Tajiki Persian), Фалсафаи Илоҳӣ, Falsafa•i Ɪlohī

• Pashto, حِکْمَت دَ اِلَهِي, Ḥiḱ°mat da ʾꞮlahī

• Pashto, فَلْسَفَه دَ اِلَهِي, Fal°safah da ʾꞮlahī

• Uyghur, ئىْلَاھْىِي ھېكْمەت, ⫯Ɪ̃ỳ°lāh°ỳī Hek°met

• Uyghur, ئىْلَاھْىِي پەلْسەپە, ⫯Ɪ̃ỳ°lāh°ỳī Pel°sepe

• Sindhi, اِلَاهِي جَي حِڪَمَتَ, ʾꞮlahī ǧay Ḥik̀amata

• Sindhi, اِلَاهِي جَي فَلَسَفو, ʾꞮlāhī ǧay Falasafō

• Balochi/Baluchi/Balòci, اِلَہِی حِکَمَت, ʾꞮlahí Ḥiḱamat

• Balochi/Baluchi/Balòci, اِلَہِی فَلَسَفَہ, ʾꞮlahí Falasafah

• Urdu, اِلَاحِی حِکْمَتَ, ʾꞮlaḥí Ḥiḱamata

• Urdu, اِلَاحِی فَلَسَفَہَ, ʾꞮlāḥí Falasafaha

• Hindi, इलाही हिकमत, Ilāhī Hikamata

• Hindi, इलाही हिकमत, Ilāhī Falasafā

• Turkish, Hikmet–i İâhî

• Turkish, Felsefe–i İlâhî

• Azerbaijani, İlahi Hikmət

• Azerbaijani, İlahi Fəlsəfə

• Turkmen, Ylahy Hikmet

• Turkmen, Ylahy Filosofiýa

• Soranî Kurdish, حیکْمەت ئیْلاهِی, Ḥíḱ°met ⫯Ɪ̃ý°lāhí

• Soranî Kurdish, فهٓلَسْهِٓفْهِِٓی ئیْلاهِی, Felas°hiỳfiỳí ⫯Ɪ̃ý°lāhí

• Kurmanjî Kurdish, Hîkmet Îlahî

• Kurmanjî Kurdish, Felsefeya Îlahî

• Malay (using Jawi script), كِبِيجَقْسَنَأن اِلَهِي, Kibīǧaq°san⫯ān ʾIlahī

• Malay (using Jawi script), فَلَسَفَه اِلَهِي, Falasafah ʾIlahī

• Malay, Ilahi Kebijaksanaan

• Malay, Ilahi Falsafah

• Chuvash, Илаһи Хикмәт, Ɪlaḫi Hikmət

• Chuvash, Илаһи Фәлсәфә , Ɪlaḫi Fəlsəfə

• Crimean Tatar, Иляхий Хикмета, Ɪlyahiý Hikmeta

• Crimean Tatar, Иляхий Фельсефе, Ɪlyahiý Felʾsefe

• Indonesian, Kebijaksanaan Ilahi

• Indonesian, Filsafat Ilahi

• Javanese, Kabecikan Ilahi

• Javanese, Filsafat Ilahi

As a side note related to the above translations and transliterations: In Tajik, ilahī (илаҳӣ), while grammatically correct, is rare. Ɪlohī (Илоҳӣ) is, instead, the common Tajik morphology for divine (or my preference, mighty).

Now the tentative result of my reflections is this: Whether the Divine Philosophy, as the moral precepts revealed by God’s Prophets, should be considered as a perennial philosophy might, as with many things, be a matter of one’s own perspective. Epistemology, in ᙖᙍⴽ, is relative. Ontology, however, is not. Indeed, as elucidated in this cogent summary, the perennial philosophy has, normatively, been a highly variable epistemic human construct:

« … the few mystics who lived in areas of religious conflict tried to transcend religious boundaries—e.g., Kabir and the mystics that led to Sikhism and Baha’i—did not all espouse the full metaphysics of perennial philosophy. And the vast majority of known classical mystics accept the significance of a tradition’s “exoteric” teachings: even if they believe that the full truth of what they experienced cannot be expressed, the doctrines of their traditions are accepted as the best possible and are what mystics accept and live by—nothing in classical Christian mystics’ writings suggest that there are more fundamental truths transcending Christian ones. Transcendent realities may be ontologically “wholly other” than the phenomena of the world, but something can be said accurately of them (at least in relation to the phenomenal world) even if what is said is misleading to the unenlightened. That is, mystics have specific beliefs about what was experienced—that is the knowledge that they gained, not some transcendent esoteric perennial doctrine. »

〜 Richard H. Jones, “Perennial Philosophy and the History of Mysticism.” Sophia: International Journal of Philosophy and Traditions. Volume 61, May 2021. Pages 659–678.

A progressive revelation of the Divine Philosophy is a matter of faith. As a sociologist of religion and a historian of religions, I do not know how one could study progressive revelation academically. Perhaps someone will eventually devise an appropriate methodology. That notwthstanding, many metaTradder Schoolers have attempted it and, in my view, failed miserably. Although they can be found in academia, their views are accurately regarded, by many other religions scholars, as essentialist and reductionist. The Traditionalists reduce all religions to those denominations which, to one extent or another, resemble advaita (nondual) Vēdānta and the Neoplatonism of Plotinus and Proclus. Dualist and non–monist religions are dismissed as inauthentic. As a result, metaTradder Schoolers have their own journals and publishing houses. Many of their publications would be immediately rebuffed by the educated peer reviewers for mainstream journals. In that respect, the Traditionalist School resembles biblical creationism, including the intelligent design movement. It too has its own specialized journals. The articles found in the creationist literature would, with some exceptions, not be accepted by most refereed publications in the life sciences, including biology.

To briefly expand upon that subject, the existence of one or more creators cannot be proven rationally. The classical cosmological argument states: Because everything has a cause, existence must too have a cause. That first cause is usually assumed to be one or more Gods or Goddesses. But the cosmological argument is deeply flawed. Say, I agree: “Yes. There is a First Cause—one or more deities.” What then caused that First Cause? The predictable result would be an infinite chain of first causes. A second argument, really an updating of the cosmological argument, is intelligent design. According to its proponents, the order of the universe presupposes a designer. Some supporters of intelligent design believe that the designer was not a divinity but an extraterrestrial species. However, once again, the same problem surfaces: Who or what designed that designer? Logical arguments can lend support to a position. And many or most positions have their own internal syllogisms. However, belief in a cosmic creator is based upon faith, not upon reason.

In any event, major metaTradder Schoolers talk to, and are known to, each other but are generally ignored by outsiders to their new religious movement. That is to say, they are, for the most part, only taken seriously by people who identify with that particular school of thought. Outside the Traditionalist School, the majority of serious scholars, including myself, argue that it is a clear illustration of essentialism. Those religions which do not neatly fit under the categories of advaitism and Neoplatonism are generally rejected or, worse, defined as counter–initiatory. That odd designation, though arcane to many outsiders, is perhaps the most disparaging insult one could receive from a metaTradder Schooler. Factually, traditions are either invented, as suggested Eric Hobsbawm and Terence Ranger, or reinvented and recontextualized, the approach taken by Guy Beiner. There is no seamless thread which connects the present with the past.

More directly to the point, the Traditionalist School of esotericism (𖣁ᔕ𖢩)—by incorporating only those religious denominations which agree with 𖣁ᔕ𖢩 and rejecting all others—is perhaps the most vulgar and élitist illustration of an intentionally systematized perennial philosophy. But non–Traditionalist perennialisms have generally followed a similar course. The perennial philosophies are largely the mental projections of writers. If, to the contrary, morality is, as I believe it is, real and eternal, then the Divine Philosophy would, it seems to me, be perennial, a term which must, in light of the metaTradder Schooler movement, be used only with the utmost of caution.

The standard for evaluation of that radically redefined perennialism should, however, be religious scripture and not mere human judgment. Which scriptures to include and exclude would, at some point, likely become a matter of considerable contention. Nevertheless, the designation, the perennial philosophy, has, regrettably, been contaminated by the neofascistic toxicity of the metaTradder School. On that basis alone, I question whether the divers and diverse formulations of a perennial philosophy, even though referenced initially by name in the late Renaissance, can currently be beneficial to serious public intellectuals. They include: public sociologists, public historians, public or civic journalists, public theologians, public philosophers, public political scientists, public political ecologists, public geographers, public anthropologists, public psychologists, and public health professionals, such as public and community health nurses. At this point in time, considerable skepticism may be justified. However, time, as with most human affairs, may tell.