• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Hindu View on Other Religions

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I have never seen the logic in projecting our beliefs onto others. If you want to know what a Christian believes, ask a Christian. That's respecting them, and their beliefs. I'm quite sure you won't get the idea of moksha there. Similarly, if you want to know what Hindus think, ask Hindus. To say all paths lead to the same goal is projecting our ideas on all paths. I don't know what other people think. (Some days I don't even know what I think.)
If someone from another faith projects their beliefs onto me, (i.e... You're going to hell.) it seems odd. So out of mutual respect, and humanity, I just go along. Let them believe what they want, as will I believe what I want. There is no dire need to combine it all.
 
Last edited:

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
I have never seen the logic in projecting our beliefs onto others. If you want to know what a Christian believes, ask a Christian. That's respecting them, and their beliefs. I'm quite sure you won't get the idea of moksha there. Similarly, if you want to know what Hindus think, ask Hindus. To say all paths lead to the same goal is projecting our ideas on all paths. I don't know what other people think. (Some days I don't even know what I think.)
If someone from another faith projects their beliefs onto me, (i.e... You're going to hell.) it seems odd. So out of mutual respect, and humanity, I just go along. Let them believe what they want, as will I believe what I want. There is no dire need to combine it all.
The day Christian rigorists start prostrating en masse before a statue of Maa Kali; the day Muslim rigorists lessen their sense of complacency and look upon kafirs as anything besides subhuman; is the day that I'll even contemplate about "opening up". Unfortunately, I don't see anything like that happening any time soon. What I have noticed instead is Christian yoga, mass-funding of proselytism groups that would rather have families be torn apart than give was-Raj-now-Jacob an opportunity to interact with his family of infidels, and insanely high levels of hypocrisy and intolerance towards the kafir in countries like Pakistan, Bangladesh, and Afghanistan (not to mention the recent events in Iraq and Syria). With exclusivist paradigms comes an inherent sense of intolerance. And what I have articulated in my previous posts should not be confused with exclusivism. Irrelevancy =/= exclusivism.
 
Last edited:

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
(I hope you don't mind. Just one post and I'm taking my leave, I promise)

I disagree. We have no statistics on the matter, but most I know are henotheists, or inclusive monotheists, believing in God and Gods. Every Hindu temple 've ever been to has more that one God in it.

How well-known and well-understood do you expect henotheism to be among the greater masses of Hindus?

On the one hand, it looks fairly sophisticated as theological concepts go. On the other hand, it is such a natural approach that I would not be surprised to learn that it is in fact very well understood and well accepted even among very simple people. But that is just my blind guess.

(...)

The notion that "all paths lead to the same place" is, in reality, falsely derived from one of the worst misappropriations of a phrase from the Rgveda: "truth is one, but the Vipra-s call it by many names". Apart from "vasudaiva kutumbakam" ("the world is one big family"), no other Hindu line has been so hopelessly misused and mis-attributed, parceled to far corners of the world as if it were idealistically the greatest thing that Hinduism had to offer. In fact, the verse is dedicated to the All-Gods as per the Vedic indices.

But no, IMHO, not all paths lead to the same place. Mine surely doesn't. Universality, as many Rishis have articulated, is an exaggeration. However, this is just my view. You are free to proudly hold your own, as always.

Thanks! This is a pet peeve of mine. It always feels odd to see people saying such a thing as "all paths lead to the same place". To my mind that means taking responsibility for all other paths as well as one's own, which I do indeed see as a dangerous exageration, even if a well-meaning one.
 

Maya3

Well-Known Member
To be really honest. I don´t think God cares one way or another how we worship. We will figure out what God is one way or another.

I have never said that religions are the same, I said that God is the same.

Maya
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
How well-known and well-understood do you expect henotheism to be among the greater masses of Hindus?

Luis, they wouldn't know it as Henothism at all. That stuff is Greek in origin, I think. But, for example, if you went to a Murugan temple in South India, and asked the devotees there who was Supreme God, 90% would say Siva. So they'd get the concept without getting the scholarly stuff. Most can see a difference in various Gods, and go to different temples to reflect that, but at the same time have one they consider Supreme. So it's both: God and Gods. Inclusive monotheism, which is very different from classical monotheism.

This idea that all Gods are but a reflection of the Supreme is the most common variety presented in the west, and was started by various Smarta swamis like Vivekenanda. But other approaches are more common back in India. The information in the west is skewed. Course I could be very wrong too.
 

Fireside_Hindu

Jai Lakshmi Maa
To be really honest. I don´t think God cares one way or another how we worship. We will figure out what God is one way or another.

I have never said that religions are the same, I said that God is the same.

Maya

I am still contemplating many of the posts in this thread so I will decline to make a formal opinion but I will say this:

I once told my Catholic husband (as I was leaving for temple) that I would ask Ganesh to help him with his new project.

My husband, "But I don't believe in Ganesh."

Me: "He doesn't care."

=)
 

StarryNightshade

Spiritually confused Jew
Premium Member
I have never said that religions are the same, I said that God is the same.

^ This.

The methods may be very different, but I ultimately believe that God, at the end of the day, is the same. It's not God that is different in every religion, but rather people's various understanding of him/her.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I honestly don't know if it's the same God or not. Maybe, maybe not. Other people are welcome to their beliefs on it. I doubt if many people actually know.

A former colleague (long time ago) , an evangelical Christian and I used to discuss it occasionally. He definitely didn't think my God was anywhere near his. Mine was the devil in disguise, after all. My God loved him, for my God loves everyone. But my friend's God (or at least his understanding of it) hated me, quite willing to send me to hell for eternity.

If it is the same God, most certainly we all have different understandings of it. To use an analogy, let's take a person. It's always the same person. To the parents, he/she is the child, always their kid. To the spouse, he/she is more than that. To a friend, it's different again. To a colleague, different again. No individual sees that one person the same way. Still, it is always the same person.

So I don't pretend to know. It might be, but then again, it might not be. I know how I lean, but there's doubt in that.
 

StarryNightshade

Spiritually confused Jew
Premium Member
A former colleague (long time ago) , an evangelical Christian and I used to discuss it occasionally. He definitely didn't think my God was anywhere near his. Mine was the devil in disguise, after all. My God loved him, for my God loves everyone. But my friend's God (or at least his understanding of it) hated me, quite willing to send me to hell for eternity.

If it is the same God, most certainly we all have different understandings of it. To use an analogy, let's take a person. It's always the same person. To the parents, he/she is the child, always their kid. To the spouse, he/she is more than that. To a friend, it's different again. To a colleague, different again. No individual sees that one person the same way. Still, it is always the same person.

Like I said, I don't think Divinity itself differs, but rather people's , culture's, and religious/philosophical understandings of it. In regards to that, I actually quite like your analogy.
 

Maya3

Well-Known Member
Exactly, we are little measly humans in an enormous universe. We cannot possibly know what God is. Or if there is a God.
But religion is for us. God sees/is the whole universe, Earth is a tiny little blue dot, I´m sure if he/she/it feels that we are trying to connect in some way he/she/it connects back. That´s it really.

Maya
 

ShivaFan

Satyameva Jayate
Premium Member
The Hindu view of other religions can vary over time, and can depend on how other religions view Hinduism.

Or more to the point, how other religions TREAT Hindus.

Also, I might add to the point, do not assume the Hindu word ahimsa (non-violence) means Hindus will not fight. Let me just put it this way, believe me, you do not want to mess with Hindus too far or cross a certain line or you are going to see sorry like nobody's business.
 

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
.. even a "advaitic atheist" who has respect for Hindu Gods is better than an atheist who mocks Hindu Gods or is indifferent.
Thanks, The drinks are on me. What would you like Almond Thandai, Rose, Chandan, Khus, Lassi, even Rabri, whatever? (Poeticus, please note, it is not Raabdi)
 

Pleroma

philalethist
What is the view of Hinduism on the existence of other faiths that have come after it, namley Islam and Christianity? Are they believed to be deviant religions made by man according to Hinduism since they teach adharmic philosophy, or valid religions?

We do not accept that Yahweh or Jehovah and Allah as the supreme God. They are one of the gods among many gods and they are inferior to the supreme deity. There is a God above Yahweh and Allah. This is my view of orthodox Christianity and Islam as a Hindu.
 

Amrut

Aum - Advaita
Namaste,

The Rig vedic verse often quoted to our tolerance and acceptable to all religions is a misnomer, "Truth is one, wise call it by many names'. during vedic times, there was no 'other' religion. Hence how could it be applied to other religions. Swami Vivekananda and other monks used this verse so that all Indian can unite. dvaita and advaita are hopelessly opposite. Still without us being united to fight for freedom, one cannot drive Britishers. Hence all those tolerance theories. They were necessary at that time.

Ramakrishna Paramhansa established that all paths lead to same goal, but is he acceptable to all? Ramakrishna never celebrated ID or Christmas, but only religious festivals that were celebrated by Temple authorities like Durga astami, etc. But today, Ramakrisha mission will celebrate Christmas, ID, etc, etc.

Even though we believe in tolerance and that all paths leads to one, it is a one way traffic, else there is no need for any conversion procedure for any religion.

Dalits and out-caste were ill-treated and so they may have willingly converted to other faiths, but conversion of higher caste is rare as compared to mass conversion of Dalits. But this is good. Now Hindus are starting to give respect to Dalit and outcaste, though initially we may remember them only when they leave our faith :) - yes this is truth. Better late than never :) Kanchi Shankaracharya has made great efforts in uniting shudras with others and building temples for them. In Puri rath yatra, all castes are given opportunities to pull the rath (chariot-car)

But westerners earlier British and now America have systemically destroyed our culture in the name of development. Hence in their study, everything must be before 1500 BC or say 2000 BC, else they will loose their edge. They have not given us credits for our discoveries in field of maths and science, but things are now changing in 21st century. aache din aa gaye hai (good days have come) :)

Technically, the final destination of jiva w.r.t to God is important and also the creation theory.

According to Christianity, as said by Rajiv Malhotra, all humans are born sinners. A sinner cannot free other sinners. Only that who is free of sin can get rid of others sin. so God incarnated or his part (son) incarnated through mother marry Jesus had to be born out of virgin Mary. Hence God was father of Jesus and Jesus was not born out of normal intercourse. Hence he was free from sin. So virgin birth was a pre-requisite for Jesus. It is not the case with us. Soul is originally pure. We have forgotten our true nature and our journey is to know our true nature (or be eternally in company of Sriman Narayana or Siva).

They do not believe in reincarnation but the judgement day. All Abraham-ic (from Saint Abraham) religions, Judaism, Christianity and Islam (and sometimes Bahai is categorized as Abrahamic) believe in all prophets upto Adam and Eve. Even Islam believes in Jesus, Noah, etc and that God directly spoke to Moses.

There is christian good news. I dont remember these good news, but it is a way to free oneself from sins by accepting 5 things like accepting Jesus as your saviour, etc. Their final destination is heaven.

There i.e. Christian Good news do not apply to us as we are not born sinners. We have to uproot all desires, de-merits, by meditating on God (tapa)

Islam's final destination is 72 virgins waiting for you in jannat (heaven). Even Muhammad's father according to Muhammad is in hell (jahannum), as he died before 3 months of Muhammad's birth (Sahih Muslim). So you got to accept Allah as the only God (La lilla illila) and Muhammad as the only prophet. (This is not found in Qurran, but scholars say, it's components are found). There may be a lot of things that are fundamentally different and their moral and ethical codes like Sari'a Law is not acceptable to Hinduism. Islam does not recognize country boundaries, but only distinguishes between Muslims and Non-Muslims.

Recently, there was a case in India (in 2014) where a daughter-in-law was raped by father-in-law. She approached Sharia Court. The judgement was the, now she i.e. daughter-in-law is father-in-law's wife and her earlier husband is now her son. She objected and approached Indian court. Finally she got justice. Father-in-Law was jailed for raping her.

Hindu is a geographic denomination and not a name of religion. Ours is a religion without any name as once it was the only religion. We hav ea separate texts for dharma (civil codes, law), household duties (grihya sutras), vedas for upliftment of humanity and vedanta for GYAna. We have our own history in Mahabharat and Ramayana and Purana-s are there for all. People following, charvakism, sankhya, yoga, nath sampradaya, vedanta, purva mimamsa, nyaya, etc are all categorized under 'Hinduism' only. vedic dharma is sanAtana dharma, which is the philosophical part of our shastras.

I would not write all my views or I may end up in bashing Islam, but I do not agree in todays version of Islam.

But media morons and other sickular politicians will accept

Bharat - Bharatiya
Aryavarta - Aryavartians
Hindu-sthan - Hindusthanis
India - Indian

but will not accept

Hind - Hindus

Hind, Indu river, Indus valley, Hind Mahasagar, etc ??? :)
Indu --> Hindu
Indu, Indus - Indians
It is people living in Indian subcontinent are all hindus (I am not an RSS worker)

In short our final destination is different than theirs.

Advaita says, Moksha is possible here and now and it is a state of consciousness.
Vaishnava-s live eternally in Vaikuntha (different from heaven of Indra)
Shaiva-s believe that Siva not only as forms, but is also formless, but their formless is not attributeless (as that of advaitic concept of brahman)

We Hindu-s in general believe that God is capable of manifesting as any form, can directly or through a medium can contact humans, while Allah cannot incarnate in flesh and bones, nor can communicate directly. Muhammad received revelations via Gabriel, which initially he thought to be a demon, a Satan or he thought he was possessed by Satan. Allah created universe out of need, while Christians and Hindu-s believe that God created world our of his wish and not because he was lonely, etc.

Hari OM
 
Last edited:

Aupmanyav

Be your own guru
"Truth is one, wise call it by many names'.
'Eko sad, vipra bahudha vadanti'. 'Sad', 'Asīt' translates into 'what exists'. So, the meaning of the line is 'What exists is one, good people describe it variously'.
 
Last edited:

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
Ahem, it's not that hard to type out the full rica. I understand that it's easier to butcher the rica by only saying one-fourth of it, and I understand that it's even easier to strangle it to death by taking it out of its anukramani-context, but it's not that difficult to just type out the whole rica from the existing recension available to us:

indram mitram varuNamagnimAhuratho divyaH sa suparNo garutmAn /
ekam sadviprA bahudhA vadantyagnim yamam mAtariSvAnamAhuH //
Who is this "ekam sad"? It is none other than the All-Gods, as per the anukramani-s.
 

Poeticus

| abhyAvartin |
As I have said earlier, let other religions also agree on this :) - Are you sure they will agree with this rik
Whether people of other religions agree with it or not, doesn't really matter. It's not for them. It doesn't apply to them. To see it parceled outside of its Vedic context into universalistic realms does a disservice to any and all parties involved, especially the rica in question since it is of the Shabda. If we are to be good conscious Hindus, let us uphold Aitihasika properly.
 

Amrut

Aum - Advaita
Whether people of other religions agree with it or not, doesn't really matter. It's not for them. It doesn't apply to them. To see it parceled outside of its Vedic context into universalistic realms does a disservice to any and all parties involved, especially the rica in question since it is of the Shabda. If we are to be good conscious Hindus, let us uphold Aitihasika properly.
It matters as they convert us. When vedas were revealed there were no other dharma-s. So other dharma-s may be classified on basis of vedic or non-vedic. If they give non-vedic interpretation then their God is not equal to our God (supreme reality, Brahman). Hence there heaven is not our final destination nor we want 72 virgins waiting for us in heavenly bedroom. This is not moksha.

It is like comparing non-vedic Gods with vedic Gods. If they agree with veda-s and their final destination is one and the same but they call it by different name (God or Allah) instead of Brahman, then this shruti vacan holds true.

They dont even believe in re-incarnation. So how are these dharma-s same or they ask us that they reach same destination. Their life begins with adam and eve and all are born sinners. Please read my previous post.
 
Top