Talk:Aldous Huxley

Missing information

Could someone update the article to include the quotes from his work - "Confessions of a Professed Atheist"

Does he wrote this work? (Also quotes are more appropriate to wikiquote than wikipedia) AnyFile (talk) 05:51, 4 September 2022 (UTC)

Maria Nys

The Maria Nys link takes one back to the Huxley page. She is described very briefly as a Belgian refugee, although we know she was at Garsington in 1910 [1]https://huxleyandthebloomsberries.wordpress.com/important-relationships-are-born-at-garsington/. I think a separate page for Nys would help resolve these concerns. Everybody got to be somewhere! (talk) 18:01, 7 December 2022 (UTC)

Place of Huxley's Death

I dispute the recent (Nov 24, 2023) article change, re Huxley's place of death, by 202.142.67.236. This person has changed the place from Los Angeles to London, England. Huxley died on November 23, 1963. Nicholas Murray's exhaustive biography Aldous Huxley (listed among the article's references) presents what seems reliable information concerning where, on pages 452-455. Murray says that Huxley died in the Cedars of Lebanon Hospital, which in 1963 was located at 4833 Fountain Avenue, Los Angeles, California.

No service for Aldous Huxley was held in California, but his ashes were sent to England and a memorial gathering was held on December 17, 1963 at Friends House (in London).

I'd give this issue some time. Maybe someone has better information, contradicting what Murray presented. If not, I will undo the recent change and put in Murray's information.Joel Russ (talk) 02:05, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Hello. And sorry, I've reverted before I read your message here. The death certificate of Huxley is on familysearch.org (free registration required) and specifies the address of death at 6233 Mulholland Highway (same address than his "last usual residence") but no hospital is cited. Other source with same address here. Regards, Xavier 90.6.144.196 (talk) 14:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Thanks for reverting that, I applaud your good research. It could be that Murray was unaware (or uncertain) that Huxley was brought home from the hospital before he actually passed.Joel Russ (talk) 19:03, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

He died at the home of friends, according to NYT. Regards, Xavier 90.6.144.196 (talk) 20:32, 25 November 2023 (UTC)

Huxley's Personal Religious Views

I added a section about Huxley's Personal Religious Views, as they were not covered, for the most part, in the article. Saying that Huxley was religious is controversial, but a fact, none the less. He felt the quest to "know your real self" in the Vedantic sense was the whole purpose of life. He was explicit about this in his essay The Minimum Working Hypothesis, "to achieve this unitive knowledge of the Godhead is the final end and purpose of human existence." I welcome corrections or additions, but maintain that this section is needed to let the readers know Huxley's views on religion. Ellis408 (talk) 03:27, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

@Ellis408: Frankly, this falls more under spirituality than religion. I will change the heading to reflect this. Skyerise (talk) 15:15, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Also, you appear to be making assumptions and arguing from primary sources, such as Huxley's Introduction. That's considered original research. If you want to call something a "religious view", you must cite a reliable secondary source that explicitly uses the term with respect to Huxley. You can't derive conclusions, only report the conclusions of others. See also our prohibition against synthesis: "Do not combine material from multiple sources to reach or imply a conclusion not explicitly stated by any source." Skyerise (talk) 15:38, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Hi Skyerise - Thank you for the editing and comments. I will go through all the notes you made and dig out more sources and references. I really do appreciate your help to make this article better and complete. I have almost everything written about Huxley and will find the relevant source material - and make corrections or deletions, if needed. Ellis408 (talk) 16:49, 22 June 2024 (UTC)

Can the note about Original research come down now? I think I addressed your concerns. Thanks, Ellis408 (talk) 17:39, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

Religion or Spiritual or Both?

I was having a discussion with Skyerise about the use of the word religion in regards to Huxley on my talk page, and now moving it to here at his suggestion. This is mostly an FYI as my ideas seem out of touch. I feel a bit defensive about the use of the word Religion, as I feel that many have an allergy to the word, in context of today's spiritual seekers. I know Huston Smith was wary of Spiritual but Not Religious, as he felt it too often digressed into do whatever feels good, rather than picking a path and sticking with it. Here is Skyerise's discussion:

Aldous Huxley's engagement with Vedanta and the Perennial Philosophy was primarily philosophical and spiritual rather than strictly religious. His explorations centered on universal spiritual truths and the mystical dimensions shared across various religious traditions. Using "spiritual views" accurately reflects his focus on inner experience, transcendence, and the quest for ultimate meaning beyond the confines of institutionalized religion.

Throughout his writings, Huxley emphasized the importance of personal spiritual experience over adherence to dogma or institutional structures. His approach to Vedanta and the Perennial Philosophy sought to uncover the common mystical insights and transformative practices that transcend specific religious affiliations. "Spiritual views" captures this emphasis on the inward journey and the exploration of consciousness, which were central to Huxley's philosophical outlook.

In today's context, the term "spiritual" often resonates more broadly and inclusively than "religious," which can be associated with organized doctrines and institutional practices. Huxley's advocacy for the Perennial Philosophy encourages a non-sectarian approach to spirituality, where individuals from diverse religious backgrounds can find common ground in their quest for spiritual awakening and understanding.

While Huston Smith championed the Perennial Philosophy alongside Huxley, he also recognized the evolving nature of religious discourse. Smith acknowledged the validity of spiritual exploration outside traditional religious frameworks and advocated for a deeper understanding of spirituality that transcends rigid categorizations. "Spiritual views" aligns with Smith's broader vision of embracing spirituality as a universal human endeavor rather than limiting it to specific religious affiliations.

There's a reason it's called "Perennial Philosophy" rather than "Perennial Religion". Skyerise (talk) 12:45, 23 June 2024 (UTC)

My issue with this approach (not saying it's wrong, just that there's more to it), is that Huxley and Huston Smith used the word religion frequently and meant it. This is not necessarily to suggest any specific wording changes for this article - just food for thought.

Some people say that Krishnamurti and Huxley had similar philosophies. But, KM said, “I maintain that Truth is a pathless land, and you cannot approach it by any path whatsoever, by any religion, by any sect. That is my point of view, and I adhere to that absolutely and unconditionally.”

Huxley said in his Minimum Working Hypothesis essay, “That there is a Law or Dharma which must be obeyed, a Tao or Way which must be followed, if men are to achieve their final end.” He's talking about religions.

Huxley also said, “…the thing finally resolves itself into a religious problem — an uncomfortable fact which one must be prepared to face and which I have come during the last year to find it easier to face.”

In his introduction to the Gita (which is really an essay on the Perennial Philosophy), he says, “(…realization of the Perennial Philosophy) makes good Christians. He might have added that it also makes good Hindus, good Buddhists, good Taoists, good Moslems and good Jews.”

He’s urging that all religions of the world can be practiced with a PP attitude; it all works together to achieve unity with the Godhead. And he finishes with this:

There will never be enduring peace unless and until human beings come to accept a philosophy of life more adequate to the cosmic and psychological facts than the insane idolatries of nationalism and the advertising man's apocalyptic faith in Progress towards a mechanized New Jerusalem. All the elements of this philosophy are present, as we have seen, in the traditional religions. But in existing circumstances there is not the slightest chance that any of the traditional religions will obtain universal acceptance. Europeans and Americans will see no reason for being converted to Hinduism, say, or Buddhism. And the people of Asia can hardly be expected to renounce their own traditions for the Christianity professed, often sincerely, by the imperialists who, for four hundred years and more, have been systematically attacking, exploiting and oppressing, and are now trying to finish off the work of destruction by "educating" them. But happily there is the Highest Common Factor of all religions, the Perennial Philosophy which has always and everywhere been the metaphysical system of the prophets, saints and sages. It is perfectly possible for people to remain good Christians, Hindus, Buddhists or Moslems and yet to be united in full agreement on the basic doctrines of the Perennial Philosophy.

Huxley is talking about the world’s religions, practiced with the PP in mind.

Although Huxley dismissed the idea of needing a guru, like Krishnamurti, how many of us have the intellect of Huxley to practice Jnana Yoga without a teacher? In his novel Island, which he used to collect his ideas of an ideal society, he has a swami-figure giving initiation to all, as a rite of passage into adulthood. I think it’s a nod to realized gurus/teachers. Ellis408 (talk) 23:54, 27 June 2024 (UTC)

Your arguments have nothing to do with what the sources say and everything to do with what you personally believe. That's called POV pushing and is discouraged on Wikipedia. You need to argue from what is written in secondary sources like biographies. You should not be arguing from primary sources – for the simple reason that we are not allowed to interpret primary sources and reach a conclusion. We should report the consensus of the secondary sources, including the majority and significant minority positions. You are wasting editors' time by arguing based on quotes from the subject. That's simply not how we do things. Present quotations from secondary sources that support your position or give it up, okay. Skyerise (talk) 10:28, 28 June 2024 (UTC)