Hi Chris.

You seem to be called Christopher in your Medium profile, did your mother write that? Only joking.

I'm not actually familiar with the far-right twisters you mention, and you accept that this was not the original message. Just to be clear, are you aware of any actual original Traditionalists who had, or appeared to have, far-right views?

Interesting use of the word 'universal' truth. That's a little vague. I'm interpreting you to mean something like 'eternal', in which case it could not evolve, although our understanding might perhaps deepen. In connection with that and with “new ways, new truths which eluded us previously”, a good example might be Amit Goswami, who interprets the eternal truths of Hinduism from the perspective of cutting-edge quantum physics.

Agree with you reasonably about Islam and Sufism. Not so sure about Christianity and Gnosticism. It's not clear that Christian Gnosticism was a later development. Dates are disputed and argued about, perhaps because of the agenda of those involved. And in any case the ideas of Gnosticism preceded Jesus. Who was the first Christian? Arguably Paul. And although the Church may furiously deny it, he seems to have been a Gnostic. See, for example, Elaine Pagel's The Gnostic Paul. And if Paul thought he was following the teachings of Jesus, then perhaps he was a Gnostic too?

What you say about Zen is true, but isn't that just a question of methods and practice, rather than beliefs? The original Buddhism also focused on seeking enlightenment, so how is that different from Zen? If Zen helped people to get there quicker, that's great. But I don't see how that's an evolution of the beliefs of Buddhism.

I thought that the Judeans' idea of the Messiah was that of a descendant of David, a sort of warrior king who would overthrow the Romans. The idea of a redeeming saviour in Christianity was a challenge to this idea, which may have had some roots in Zoroastrianism, but can also be found in other, even earlier traditions; it is, in fact, an archetypal idea.

Every generation may evolve religious belief and experience into something new, the question is whether or not that is a good idea, or whether it would be better to retain the eternal ideas.

The Pope may have said that, but is he right? Christians have bizarre ideas about heaven, a great example of how we should return to the eternal truths of Hinduism and Buddhism, who understood that 'heaven' was a state of consciousness, Enlightenment. The Pope's statement could be considered ignorance rather than evolution.

Regarding the New Age. There may well be unscrupulous people who capitalise and profit from those looking for answers. This again sounds like something similar to those who have twisted Traditionalist ideas. There are always some dodgy people around in all walks of life. But that does not necessarily devalue the underlying ideas.

Undoubtedly, true liberal democracies are better that authoritarianism.

Can't agree with your next point. A move towards atheism means living a lie, which can't be a good idea. Science should not be the enemy of faith. But much science is no longer conducted as it should be, an objective search for truth, rather through the lens of materialist philosophy with a barely concealed atheist agenda. It descends into an authoritarian scientism, the worship of science, which is very unfortunate if the science has a false grip on reality.

What the Buddha told his disciples is good advice. The problem is that modern 'science' often claims to have demonstrated something as truth, when it clearly hasn't. Then who do we believe?

“There is little in Buddhism which requires faith in things which cannot be experienced oneself”. Indeed, but personal experience, introspection, is rejected by the modern scientific method.

Regarding the Abrahamic faiths, they would indeed have a lot to learn from Hinduism, Buddhism and Taoism. You may have noted that Judaism and Christianity do not feature much in Traditionalist literature, no surprise there. Sufism, of course, does.

“We know that the universe is not what our ancestors thought it to be”. I assume you are still referring here to the Abrahamic faiths. Not obviously so true of the Hindus, Egyptians, who had, I would say, a very good understanding.

“We have used science to understand evolution... and that our place in it is not one of divine intervention, but a natural part of evolution”. Well, that's your opinion, unproven but assumed, and insisted upon, by materialist science.

Best wishes