October Edition


Wisdom October 2012 Issue

Special Edition – Religious Genius

News: Elijah Receives Templeton Grant to Study Saints and Religious Genius


Why Saints?


The Boston Meeting


Sharing Wisdom: Defining Religious Genius in Relation to Saints

  • The category of Religious Genius (RG) is not identical to the category of saints, broadly construed. Not all saints are religious geniuses, and as will be noted below – not all religious geniuses are saints. RG has cognitive associations, related to knowledge, teaching, understanding and discovery, as these apply to questions that are fundamental to the religious quest and to the historical traditions within which religious geniuses are found, and to their canons. Thus, a religious genius is a sage-saint. In some way, directly or by example, he or she teaches.
  • One looks to the RG for understanding, illumination, wisdom of a high order. What distinguishes RG from the philosopher is the grounding of wisdom and insight in a higher order of reality, a higher state of consciousness. This contrasts with more common expectations of the saint (who is not a sage), where one looks to the saint for intercession. At times the same personality might provide both functions, but it is often the case that there will be a difference between the ingroup of students who seek the wisdom and the outgroup that seeks the blessings and intercession.
  • A RG provides an answer to a question, rather than bringing aid to a situation. The question that is answered may be a collective religious problem, specific to the tradition, or more broader question, relating to the meaning of existence. Because RG in some way addresses the meaning of reality, RG can have appeal across traditions.
  • According to this definition, a religious genius may be considered as someone who is innovative in the field of religion, providing solutions to religious problems, or making the teaching of religion more broadly available to others, through how he or she configures or restates the tradition and its teaching, whether in terms of theory or of practice.
  • This distinction has implications for the kinds of materials to be studied. Recognizing that the RG is the sage-saint, we will be drawn to teachings and to such autobiographical or biographical materials that provide a window unto the unique interior vision of the RG. Miracles and intercessory activities typically are expressed in more stereotypical ways in the hagiographical literature, that is not of major significance for our project.
  • The upshot of relating saints to RG is that we are not studying saints as examples of RG. Rather, the focus of our study is religious genius, using saints as examples. With the primary emphasis on RG, our study might open up to the study of religious geniuses who are not saints. Because the primary focus is on RG, this means we will be considering the theological questions as first order questions, rather than many of the second order questions, typically associated with the study of saints.
  • One of the implications of focusing on RG, as distinct from saints, is the choice of a category that does not carry the same evaluative associations or weight. The term “saints” carries with it an evaluative dimension, whereas RG could be considered more descriptive, even if implicitly admirable. In constructing the category of “religious genius” one does not deal with a pre-populated category, that one seeks to make sense of. Rather, one can construct the category so that it is descriptive of specific aspects that one seeks to highlight.
  • A working assumption of our project is that the the cognition of the RG is often grounded in a transformed state of awareness. As a function of this broader awareness, the RG exhibits extraordinary capacity for identifying with others and of loving or otherwise living for others.
  • The tension between cognitive, on the one hand,  and moral and relational dimension, on the other, in the person of the RG, plays itself out in relation to what might be called the “flawed religious genius”.  Flaws, ostensibly, would not relate to his or her genius, as far as the more cognitive dimensions are concerned, but rather to the relation between these dimensions and aspects of the person typically associated with sainthood. Whether moral or relational imperfections, we would need to consider whether the “flawed religious genius” could sustain a greater degree of imperfection than the “flawed saint”. While we could construct a category that assumes a great degree of perfection on both fronts, our discussion of a broad range of personalities, listed below, does problematize the possibility of limiting “religious genius” to only those individuals who were extremely saintly and who attained great perfection, in all aspects of RG as spelled out in the model described in the concept paper. The tension between the “saint” and “genius” dimensions of the RG will thus need to be tested out with reference to a large base of case studies, as we seek to apply the category in ways that are contiguous with application of “genius” in other fields, while continuing to appeal to a broader range of perfections, usually associated with “saints”.

The Elijah Interfaith Institute relies on the support of friends in order to conduct its ongoing activities, including responding to actions motivated by ignorance and religious intolerance:

The Elijah Interfaith Institute
Chopin St.
91040 Jerusalem
