Perennialism aims to point out that there are similar veins of truth amongst all religions, so much like a perennial flower will have various blossoms, below the surface lies the root from which all those flowers come. Just as simply, it can be compared to language, where we have different words across cultures to convey the same idea.
I believe it's correct to say that the Traditionalist thinkers believe this to be true as well, so where do they differ? While there are numerous similarities between the two, there seems to be one main difference.
The main distinction, as far as I can tell, is that Perennialists might pick and choose ideas they like, or that resonate with them, from different religious traditions, a la carte style, to form their own path to God. This rubs up against New Ageism quite closely, and even blurs the line at times, with some perennialists fitting into that New Age category. This is actually a postmodern approach to transcendence or union with God, very much individualist, assuming that down here at the lowliest levels, we as nafs, as lowercase-s selves, as egos, might be able to trailblaze a new path up the mountain that is somehow better than, or more true than, the hundreds of thousands of lives and years before us were able to carve out.
While a Traditionalist would hold that a particular path must be followed, and that the path up the mountain is there, and is so well worn, because it works, because it is true. Therefore, the primary distinction between Traditionalism and Perennialism is that the latter is more self-directed, picking and choosing--even kleptomaniac--while the former is established, disciplined, clearly laid out, and includes the larger scale such as social order and community.
This is a tough one for me.
I have felt that in this age, perhaps no priests, no gurus or sages, exist out there that I could trust enough to follow on such an important path as the one to Truth, to God, to the immortality of my own soul. Therefore, I've resolved to discover it on my own through personal study of the old texts and prayer, consulting God directly. When it comes to study though, we only have so much, so far we can go back, with the Rig Veda being the oldest text of this category. The Abrahamic approach does feel too modern and corrupted for me, and intuitively... not correct- like a newer modern religion in contrast to, say, Sanatana Dharma. Yet, following this path as an American is very difficult as it so easily gets tangled up in Orientalism and of course the God fabric around me is stamped with Christianity as the way to relationship with God, usually through a Protestant lens which feels very far from the truth, with little to no asceticism, no inward ontological restructuring, more externally focused, where prayer has been shamefully reduced to asking for favors.
So, for now, I continue to pray to the oldest name of God I can find--Narayana--and to replace as many of my profane thoughts with thoughts of Him, praying to be guided to Truth, to know it when I come across it, and guided away from distractions or knowledge that is not aligned with Truth. I learn as much as I can to discover the proper way to behave, to think, to be.
Jaya Srimannarayana.
