Abstract (Lang: English):

In a previous essay in this journal, I suggested that the kind of perennialism associated with the names of René Guénon and Fritzjof Schuon may—despite its obvious defects—remain relevant to our thinking about religious pluralism. Anything that seems to echo the perspectives of their classic perennialism is, however, often dismissed by scholars in the field of religious studies as invalid. Here, I suggest that this dismissal is often based on what sociologists call “recipe knowledge” and that a number of factors point toward the possibility of developing a more nuanced kind of perennialism. These factors include developments within the cognitive science of religion and of anthropology, which are reinforced by considerations related to psychology and sociology that allow a new appreciation of the notion of archetypes to be found in the writings of C. G. Jung and Mircea Eliade. All these factors, when viewed in light of empirical research into religious experience of the kind initiated by Alister Hardy, point toward the way in which religious experience is to be understood as a significant factor in exploring religious pluralism. In the “neo-perennialism” that I shall advocate, the valid aspects of current thinking within religious studies are affirmed, while, at the same time, the recipe knowledge that tends to distort judgments within that field is discarded.

摘要（语言：英语）：

在本刊之前的一篇文章中，我认为与 René Guénon 和 Fritzjof Schuon 的名字相关的那种常年论可能——尽管有明显的缺陷——仍然与我们对宗教多元主义的思考相关。然而，任何似乎与他们经典的永恒主义观点相呼应的东西，往往被宗教研究领域的学者视为无效而予以驳回。在这里，我建议这种解雇通常是基于社会学家所说的“食谱知识”，并且许多因素都指向发展一种更微妙的常年主义的可能性。这些因素包括宗教和人类学认知科学的发展，与心理学和社会学相关的考虑得到了加强，这些考虑允许在 CG Jung 和 Mircea Eliade 的著作中找到对原型概念的新理解。所有这些因素，当根据阿利斯特·哈代 (Alister Hardy) 发起的那种对宗教体验的实证研究来看时，都指出了将宗教体验理解为探索宗教多元主义的重要因素的方式。在我要提倡的“新常年论”中，肯定了宗教研究中当前思想的有效方面，同时摒弃了该领域内容易扭曲判断的秘方知识。指向将宗教经验理解为探索宗教多元主义的重要因素的方式。在我要提倡的“新常年论”中，肯定了宗教研究中当前思想的有效方面，同时摒弃了该领域内容易扭曲判断的秘方知识。指向将宗教经验理解为探索宗教多元主义的重要因素的方式。在我要提倡的“新常年论”中，肯定了宗教研究中当前思想的有效方面，同时摒弃了该领域内容易扭曲判断的秘方知识。