How do you syncretize religions?

[Sha'irullah]

So many syncretists appear on RF and in new theology but how do they rationalize this approach?

Imagine trying to syncretize conflicting religions? how do you accept either's validity?

Do you pick and choose? If you do then do you not view this religion as non perfect and not divine in nature?

I myself am A deist and pick elements of the 2 faiths I found to have the post impact on me....Hinduism and Islam. But because I am a deist at core I do not view either as divinely created and I view both religious structures as man-made and based upon personal opinion. They may have divinely appointed sages, prophets, gurus and saints but I view them as theological theorists and philosophers. Anything not holding up to scientific validity or personal understanding is immediately rejected until otherwise proven correct.

Is this approach similar to how syncretist handle their views?

 

[Rainbow Mage]

Well its not hard to syncretise Polytheistic pantheons like I do. Nature based religions are pretty similar at their core.

Not sure you'd even call it syncretism.

 

[StarryNightshade]

Simple: I'm primarily a Hindu in terms of my beliefs and rituals; and I mix some Buddhist philosophy and ritual as well. What I mix does not contridict each other (as far as I know ) and it 100% works for me. It's especially easy when you mix either Zen (which is primarily meditation) or any esoteric Buddhist practice; like Tibetan, Shingon, or to an extent Pureland .

 

[John Martin]

So many syncretists appear on RF and in new theology but how do they rationalize this approach?

Imagine trying to syncretize conflicting religions? how do you accept either's validity?

Do you pick and choose? If you do then do you not view this religion as non perfect and not divine in nature?

I myself am A deist and pick elements of the 2 faiths I found to have the post impact on me....Hinduism and Islam. But because I am a deist at core I do not view either as divinely created and I view both religious structures as man-made and based upon personal opinion. They may have divinely appointed sages, prophets, gurus and saints but I view them as theological theorists and philosophers. Anything not holding up to scientific validity or personal understanding is immediately rejected until otherwise proven correct.

Is this approach similar to how syncretist handle their views?

Syncretism is state in the evolution of our consciousness. We do not arrive at truth by taking from belief systems and creating a new belief system. Belief systems are human constructions, of course inspired by the divine. Truth has no boundaries. Belief systems are like putting a boundary to the truth that has no boundaries. Every belief system creates a subtle ego.
Let us take the example of the earth. The earth is one but people divide it into different nationalities by making boundaries. These boundaries are not God made but man-made, but still there is some truth in it. Religious truths are bounded truths. Syncretism is still working between different religions.
When an astronaut goes above the hemisphere of the earth, he or she sees only one earth. Spiritually it means going beyond the ego. Where there is no ego there is no belief. A person becomes the way, the truth and the life.
Hence syncretism is a state in the evolution of our consciousness but we need to go beyond syncretism.

 

[Breathe]

I cherry pick the good philosophical views from multiple sources, and may use different practices accordingly.

 

[LuisDantas]

So many syncretists appear on RF and in new theology but how do they rationalize this approach?

Imagine trying to syncretize conflicting religions? how do you accept either's validity?

Do you pick and choose? If you do then do you not view this religion as non perfect and not divine in nature?

It is all in the expectations, I suppose. Coming from a Muslim background you might find natural to expect the religion to be "perfect as received", for lack of a better expression to describe it. But for many (most?) non-Muslims it is painfully obvious that even if they happen to be following a Monotheistic religion, religion itself is of course imperfect and largely human-made.

People are IMO to take responsibility for their beliefs in any case. So it is completely fair and wise to pick and choose and interpret and explain.

I guess if I were a Muslim (not really my vocation, but let's roll with that for a moment) I would be very much not a Quranist. I see the role of Hadiths are unavoidable and all too necessary, although they, too, shouldn't be treated as complete and with no need of personal interpretation and even the occasional exception.

 

[BruceDLimber]

It's very simple given that our scriptures already provide as good a beginning as this quote from our scriptures!:

"There can be no doubt whatever that the peoples of the world, of whatever race or religion, derive their inspiration from one heavenly Source, and are the subjects of one God. The difference between the ordinances under which they abide should be attributed to the varying requirements and exigencies of the age in which they were revealed. All of them, except a few which are the outcome of human perversity, were ordained of God, and are a reflection of His Will and Purpose. Arise and, armed with the power of faith, shatter to pieces the gods of your vain imaginings, the sowers of dissension amongst you. Cleave unto that which draweth you together and uniteth you."

—(Gleanings, CXI, pp. 217-8)


Best!

Bruce

 

[Gjallarhorn]

Start with the mindset that all religions and paths are part of a larger picture or are flawed in some way in order to remove their sacredness, then blend at will.

 

[Jainarayan]

Simple: I'm primarily a Hindu in terms of my beliefs and rituals; and I mix some Buddhist philosophy and ritual as well. What I mix does not contridict each other (as far as I know ) and it 100% works for me.

I plead the same case.

I'm primarily Hindu in belief and practices, but as a henotheist I incorporate some Mahāyāna Buddhism (leaning towards Tibetan) and Taoism. To me, the buddhas and bodhisattvas are emanations and extensions of Vishnu, as are the Taoist deities. I have my main Hindu altar, but I have small Taoist and Buddhist altars. In fact, I do have Manjushri, Green Tārā, White Tārā, Shakyamuni Buddha, Medicine Buddha, and Avalokiteshvara and Guanyin (I know... the same) in my Hindu shrine. If and when I ever have the space for one altar, I will merge them, as I don't find them contradictory in the least.

Philosophical Taoism is either heavily influenced by Vedanta, or it's a huge coincidence that there are so many similarities. There is a Taoist prayer that, if one did not know differently, could be a Vedic prayer. It even references Universal Mother, and merging with The Way (Tao). Religious Taoism is flavored by Chinese folk religion, which again, has similarities and overlaps with Buddhism and Hinduism. Imo, it's only because Taoism arose in China and not India that it's not considered one of the "dharmic religions". It should be considered as such, however.

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I may actually be looking to incorporate some Shinto into my Polytheism. My pantheon is pretty eclectic.

Amaterasu and Susanoo are primarily responsible for attracting me

I have some Hindu and Buddhist deities Jaina- Krishna and Buddha, Shiva, we'll say Vishnu because of the first two, Ma Durga, Kali and Ganesh. Kuan Yin too

 

[Rainbow Mage]

I like the Buddhist shrine look though with all the stringed amulets and such almost like a Chinese shrine, so you'd call my shrines for the devas more Buddhist looking

 

[Titanic]

I am a bit of a buddhist myself. I also really click with the greek god's. I do have my apatheist day's though mostly. Really weird overall. I say mix whatever you want as long as you feel a sort of uh I guess the word I am looking for is "faith" in it.

 

[Windwalker]

Syncretism is state in the evolution of our consciousness. We do not arrive at truth by taking from belief systems and creating a new belief system. Belief systems are human constructions, of course inspired by the divine. Truth has no boundaries. Belief systems are like putting a boundary to the truth that has no boundaries. Every belief system creates a subtle ego.

Let us take the example of the earth. The earth is one but people divide it into different nationalities by making boundaries. These boundaries are not God made but man-made, but still there is some truth in it. Religious truths are bounded truths. Syncretism is still working between different religions.

When an astronaut goes above the hemisphere of the earth, he or she sees only one earth. Spiritually it means going beyond the ego. Where there is no ego there is no belief. A person becomes the way, the truth and the life.
Hence syncretism is a state in the evolution of our consciousness but we need to go beyond syncretism.

As always, you speak my thoughts. I hesitate to identify myself by these boundaries, though the languages of some are more native to me. I would say I am the same religion Jesus is, which if you ask yourself what religion that is, the answer may surprise. I would expect at such an understanding the answer is "I am all religions, I am none".

Which by the way lends itself to this topic I started which fell off the radar quickly for some reason and missed there being any responses to it. I think it ties in nicely to this discussion: http://www.religiousforums.com/foru...tes/149268-dictating-spiritual-practices.html

 

[Sha'irullah]

I have always pondered if a more appropriate way to mesh multiple religions into a solid framework could be done with a Bible, Shiva Purana and the Bhagvad Gita and then use a mallet and pound the books till you get one singular entity. Thus one has successfully syncretized 3 religions.

Perhaps this only works in cartoons but it is still a good endeavoring

 

[Almustafa]

names & forms aside, whether or not its valid or can be proved, etc. the prophets & saints were talking about SOMETHING, just because our tiny itty bitty brain cant handle the Truth does'nt mean its there...
God, energy, life, Tao, Luck, Higher Self, whatever name ya give it....

"The Tao that can be spoken is not the eternal Tao
The name that can be named is not the eternal name
The nameless is the origin of Heaven and Earth
The named is the mother of all things(God)" - Tao Te Ching

all religions at there core share the same truth, on that note all philosophies, even atheistic or empirical models of thought are just more methods to reach the truth...

there is one truth, or it would Not be the Truth....

"Truth is one, sages call it by many names" - Rig-Veda
"hath we all not one father?" -book of Malachi
"84,ooo(infinite symbolic number) paths to enlightenment"- the Buddha
"there is no religion; higher than the truth" - madam Blavatsky
"all is true, nothing is false" - Thelmea

 

[Jainarayan]

I have always pondered if a more appropriate way to mesh multiple religions into a solid framework could be done with a Bible, Shiva Purana and the Bhagvad Gita and then use a mallet and pound the books till you get one singular entity. Thus one has successfully syncretized 3 religions.

Perhaps this only works in cartoons but it is still a good endeavoring

About the only portions of the Bible that mesh with other scriptures are Ecclesiastes, Proverbs, Psalms and the "red letter" portions of the gospels. The "red letters" being the convention used for what Jesus actually said.

 

[Windwalker]

I have always pondered if a more appropriate way to mesh multiple religions into a solid framework could be done with a Bible, Shiva Purana and the Bhagvad Gita and then use a mallet and pound the books till you get one singular entity. Thus one has successfully syncretized 3 religions.

Perhaps this only works in cartoons but it is still a good endeavoring

The problem is the vantage point. From one vantage point they are incompatible. From another they aren't. One point you need to smash them together. Another you see them from "above", and they are portraits.

 

[Almustafa]

the idea is that all religions have the same spiritual origin, human ignorance is responsible for differences in religion.

 

[Sha'irullah]

the idea is that all religions have the same spiritual origin, human ignorance is responsible for differences in religion.

This is the primary reason why I do not believe any religion can be taken so seriously as they are all created by humans. Humans are fallible creatures with biases and often construct religions according to that bias.
The removal or rejection of an aspect about a religion means nothing to me. As by syncretizing desire aspects is no different then finding the faults within a hypothesis.

 

[LuisDantas]

Do you have a better alternative, though? If "created by humans" is a flaw, it is a darned hard to avoid one.