Thank you so much brother, I truly appreciate the kind words. I absolutely will keep that in mind and may do a few more opinion videos. Thanks for the feedback. Have a great weekend. God bless 🙏

@Ason Abiff Thanks for the well written thoughtful comment. I see exactly what you're saying and there is a lot to explore there. I don't necessarily disagree with you. Thanks again. God bless 🙏

Yea it is a kind of romanticism. Especially about the material world. Hope all is well in your neck of the woods. God bless 🙏

Thank you so much brother. Glad to hear that. God bless 🙏

Logos Rising. God bless 🙏

What about it? I'm not sure I understand what you're insinuating. Kearney is spouting a sort of Deism?

@@ChurchoftheEternalLogos My fault for not being clear. You had mentioned pantheism, which made me curious to know if you also discuss deism in your videos. First time here.

Oh Got Ya! My bad. You know I haven't specifically addressed Deism but that would be a good video. Thanks for the comment and suggestion I will definitely follow through with that. Thanks for coming and checking out the content. Hope you stay around. Have great weekend. God bless 🙏

@Empire of the Eternal Thank you for watching the content. Sorry I hadn't got to your comments earlier I guess I hadn't seen them. Yes, I'm familiar with Rene Guénon, Schuon, Houston Smith and so on. Rene is an important figure in the field of Western Esotercism and his project of continuing the philosophia perennis/prisca theologia tradition which was the craze in the mid 15th cen. with ppl. like Ficino, Pico, and so on. My critique with perrenialism is yes it does lead to a relativistic epistemology. It is also extremely monistic. These basic presuppositions which I believe to be false are why they became Muslims. Islam is a monistic framing of God. It's basically a sort of emanationism of concentric circles with God in the center, very similar to Neoplatonism, and Aristoltealean in regards to causal relationships and problems with definitions of God. You can see this desire to take from Advaita Vedanta (monism), Neoplatonism, Islam, Kabbalah, Christianity and so on is reminiscent to a sort of consumeristic mindset coming out of Capitalism after the industrial revolution i.e. this tendency being picked up by Blavatsky, Crowley, and so on in the 19thcen. My work tries to focus on presuppositions and world-views. Each world religion has different presuppositions and an entirely different conception of reality. Yes world religions are full of similarities and various truths, symbolically, mythologically, ritually, and so on, but it doesn't mean their worldview/paradigm (WHICH IS EXTREMELY IMPORTANT FOR FRAMING/FUNDAMENTAL BASIS FOR THE TRADITION) is the same. Therefore to pick and choose various aspects of world religions, taking it out of its original context and placing it into a new context is misleading. I reject that all paths lead to the same God. I also get why one could say, "see we recognize specific truth found in each tradition, not relativistic truth." But it really doesn't, it insinuates each tradition is incomplete without the full collage of perennialism. But it doesn't provide a coherent metaphysics for the basis of epistemology itself because it is takes aspects from very different epistemologies in the first place and trying to put them together. Its basically just patterns. I reject that. I see Religions are superficially similar and fundamentally different. The monistic model of God is easily refutable because it equates being with God fullstop. This is problematic in regards to dialectics, and fails to have a God that is totally transcendent to all formal categories. Mind you other forms of Christianity fall into this same problem like Catholicism with Absolute Divine Simplicity and you can see how this has lead the church since Aquinas to the Amazonian Synod and Pachamama, essentially accepting paganism. The presuppositions of the paradigm/worldview will inevitably lead you to the same place. Logos theology accords being to the second person in the trinity, but the source of the Logos' origination is from the Father (symbolic can't be described) entirely outside creation. To use the example above, Logos Theology (roughly is more complicated than this with energy/essence distinctions) is that concentric layering of circles leading to the Logos at the center point, but the Father, head of the trinity, the essence of the Trinity, is entirely outside the graph in the first place and gave existence to the Logos and all creation through the Logos. You can't therefore describe God the Father with any category, and it is only through the Logos, God's Son that we can know the Father. I've really simplified it here but I think you may catch my point. I see why you could say perennialism doesn't lead to relativism but it does at the presuppositional level and this is why it has really gone out of style in formal debate. Its common amongst pagans, the New Age, and Spiritual but not Religious crowd. I recommend watching debates with Jay Dyer against perennialism if you're interested. You may still prefer perennialism but it would be good to know how that worldview is handled in formal debate and apologetics. I don't think perennialism can hold a candle to Logos Theology of the Orthodox Church. You may disagree and that is totally fine. If you end up diving deeper into it I'd like to hear your grounding for metaphysics and epistemology. The general critique is perennialism tries to use the same structures found in Christianity while denying the basis for the Christian worldview. Thereby having a contradictory system. Hope that helps you see where I am coming from. Hope all is well wherever you may be. God bless 🙏

Thank you for the effort you have put into your response. I apologize in advance if my reply is a little long winded and jumps from one place to another but I have simply responded as different elements of your post brought different thoughts to the fore. As such I apologize as well if I repeat myself at all. I'll first put thoughts I had to specific elements of your post and then finish with my ramblings. Much appreciated if you take the time to read th entire post. RE: the Consumerist Mindset. This is a blatant misrepresentation of the Perennialist worldview via the Traditionalist School. To insinuate that a consumerist mindset lies behind it is disingenuous and borderline slanderous considering the vast amounts of material put out by these gentleman critiquing modernity and it's truly consumerist and quantitative spirit. Blavatsky is heavily criticised by Traditionalist authors and there is not a single one that supports syncretism. This is because the Traditionalist School (nor Perennialism in general) is not at all a new religion, it is not even a really a school. On the contrary the Traditionalist School authors are insistent in the necessity of the individual fully immersing themselves exclusively in a legitimate Orthodox tradition. This immediately disproves your claim that they insinuate that each tradition is incomplete. What they recognize is that each tradition is incomplete without the esoteric element that is the essence of the tradition. In addition to which they recognize the unitive principles that give birth to the esoteric element. RE: Presuppositions and Worldviews. This is where you are really sounding like Mr Dyer. If that's what you want to focus your work on I'm not going to tell you otherwise because I haven't listened to enough of your content but I didn't get that impression from your earlier videos. Such a focus is futile in regards to "proving" one religion over another. As Jay insists you can only fully understand and comprehend Orthodoxy within the boundaries of Orthodoxy. This is because a comprehensive religious doctrine is circular and I in no way mean that in a derogatory sense. They are supposed to be circular I.e. whole. They are supposed to be thorough and comprehensive to instill a degree of certainty. Both for the esoterist so that he might have clear direction toward the Absolute and for the layman who requires a feeling of purpose in who they are. Jay hasn't yet proven Orthodoxy to be especially more (to any significant degree anyway) comprehensive than any other Traditional religion (there is a video by some Catholic gentlemen done recently that shows this well). And there are a number of issues with the Orthodox worldview that Jay explains away as being either outside the bounds of logic to understand or within God's right as sovereign authority and therefore unquestionable. RE: All paths lead to the same God. Another blatant misrepresentation of the worldview. It is not at all said that all paths lead to the same God, but that certain paths that fulfill certain criteria lead to the Absolute. It is absolutely correct within the Christian Tradition to say that the Triune God is not Allah, is not Zeus, is not Odin… and in no way should they be treated as interchangeable. RE: Equating God with Being and Logos Theology. This is exactly as described by most Traditionalist School authors especially Frithjof Schuon who consistently and constantly speaks of "Beyond-Being" and "Being". In fact in his book "The Fullness of God" he lists the Father and the Son as corresponding to "Beyond-Being" and "Being" respectively. RE: Perennialism leads to relativism. I should hope it went out of style in formal debate because those who were debating realized that one does not debate the truth of the Metaphysical principles. Nevertheless, it does not lead to relativism, it simply acknowledges the relative in light of the Absolute. It presupposes that knowledge, truth and morality (in as far as true morality is the goodness of God) is indeed absolute. How does it lead to relativism when it presupposes the Absolute? RE: Using the same structures Christianity. Which structures in particular, considering you just spent the whole post explaining how it doesn't align with the Christian system? It's irrelevant either way because as I've explained they are not opposing worldviews. Perennialism "uses the same structures" in as much as it recognizes Christianity as a legitimate Traditional form. Perennialism denies little to nothing of Christianity save the salvific exclusivity preached by the bulk of its adherents and even that it concedes because it recognizes that most people cannot devote themselves to a path in the way that God calls us to without feeling as though they are on the One True Path; it's an ego thing, you know?.

If you've made it this far and continue to read you will see the manner in which I've jumped around. Never the less... Funnily enough before I had read your reply in its entirety and following on from inclinations I was getting from some of your more recent videos (including this one) I was going to ask how influenced you are by Jay Dyer. Jay has a brilliant brain there is no doubt about that. He has a knack for remembering information and he is well versed in philosophy and logic. But it is rather obvious that he has an ego issue. For all his talk of the "transcendental", even to the point of hammering the "transcendental argument for God", which I'm not implying is not strong evidence for God, it simply misses the point that whilst the argument is based in the transcendental it is still argued via reason on a purely human level, especially in Jay's case where he'll argue it vehemently and vitriolically for hours against persons who are obviously his intellectual inferior. Name calling and all. His debates against Perennialists from what I've heard have relied on his own misrepresentations of the Perennialist worldview (including the same ones you have put forth) and refusal to engage in understanding the worldview proper. It is glaringly obvious that he loves being right more than he loves truth. That being said, as I mentioned, he does have a brilliant mind, he is Theologically sound within the Orthodox system and I'm sure he was Theologically sound within the Roman Catholic before that and the Calvanist before that and so on. Which brings me to my main point (because I realise the point of discussion wasn't Jay Dyer 🙃) which is that none are saved via Theology, at least not on the plane of the mental as Jay Dyer has trapped himself. The church fathers urge us to draw our faith from the head into the heart. Theosis is not an intellectually sound mind but a humble heart. The church fathers received their brilliant (on a whole nother level than Jay) theological understandings via the Nous. They humbled themselves. Engaged in ascetic practice. Filled their heart with the name of Christ and positioned themselves to receive the grace of God. This is the principle unifying element in all Traditional religions. To die whilst one is alive so that one might truly live. To sever ones identity with the temporal to allow God to come into ones heart and fill you with the eternal. None are saved because they can perfectly remember and recite theology in their head but because they perfectly remember God and recite his name in their heart. This doesn't mean Theology is unimportant. It is absolutely necessary that any Traditional form has a coherent and cohesive doctrine that allows the individual a degree of virtual knowledge on their way to True Knowledge... and Orthodoxy, there are no doubts, is excellent in this regard, especially when one considers the Theology of hesychasm and ascesis. But unless you can argue convincingly that theology or religion (in your case Orthodoxy) for that matter is equivalent to Absolute Truth (Which is absurd because, as you pointed out the Absolute is beyond formal categories) then there is little point to arguing religion, theology, etc. beyond arguing its merit as a legitimate and effective path to Absolute Truth. In which case, as I've made clear, you'll receive no argument from a Perennialist. It is therefore irrelevant to ask whether or not Perennialism can hold a candle to Orthodoxy because Perennialism does not claim to be a path to the Absolute itself. Orthodoxy does and, in respects to it holding onto its esoteric heart and overall Traditional form (Which is becoming increasingly difficult in the current age), Perennialism would agree. There is therefore no Orthodoxy vs Perennialism debate to be had. No candles to be held against the other. Debate and apologetics becomes somewhat superfluous when one enters the heart. I say somewhat because 1 Peter 3:15,16 shows the importance of being able to "give answer as to the reason for your hope" and with gentleness and respect it goes on to say... as if to speak through time directly to Jay Dyer himself. Which is a point of digression almost within a digression (my apologies) but to hammer home an earlier point, Jays insistence on debating atheists for hours on end is the height of egoism. The correspondence with an atheist is simple. Simply relay to them that God, who is metaphysical, is known through religious method that allows one to perceive the metaphysical. If they are unwilling to engage in religious method then they are also unwillingly to learn the truth of God. In a somewhat insufficient analogy if someone says they do not believe in the Sun despite the illumination of the world around them and the heat on their brow when they walk outside and you tell them to simply look up but they refuse to then the correspondence is over. All my ramblings therefore do not constitute an apologetic for Perennialism. If at first my urgency was for you to familiarize yourself with the Traditionalist School authors and respecting your insistence that you are familiar (though I have my doubts as to how familiar given the few basic misrepresentations I've outlined above) I would urge you then simply to avoid the dry intellectualisation of religion that has Jay Dyer in its grips. Your videos relaying the brilliance and beauty of the writings of the Fathers are themselves enveloped in the same brilliance and beauty. I look forward to more of the same.