Some thoughts about the difference between Hinduism and the Abrahamic Faiths

[Jainarayan]

That is a common stereotype i.e. "mystical Orthodox, legalistic Catholic, Bible-bashing Protestant" but like most everyday perceptions, it is heavily flawed.

If you have a quick perusal of my posting history, you will find that the mystical tradition native to Catholic (Western) Christianity is both rich and deep (every bit as much as Orthodoxy).

With Protestant denominations, if you look in the right places the same can be said as well (albeit there are some branches that do flat-out reject mysticism). Ever heard of the distinction between the 'Radical' Reformation and the 'Magisterial' Reformation within Protestantism?

I was both Catholic and Eastern Orthodox for many years and am quite familiar with both. I didn't say the Catholic Church is without its mystical elements. I didn't mention that at all. As far as I'm concerned it's largely legalistic. The EOC doesn't have nearly the edicts, encyclicals, bulls the RCC has. Wait... it doesn't have any. The Patriarch of Constantinople aka Ecumenical Patriarch has only primacy of honor, primus inter pares, first among equals. No more spiritual or administrative authority than any other Orthodox bishop. The RCC in Mexico is not autonomous or autocephalous; the Orthodox Church in Greece is fully autonomous. The same can be said of any national church of either the RCC or EOC. They are light years apart in their structure and governance.

 

[Jainarayan]

Interesting.

You don’t know how much Brahman and Allah parallel each other without the pantheon stuff. But I learned a lot

Well, the Rig Veda says "One Truth the sages call by many names". Originally it used examples of Vedic deities being named as one and the same, in later times it's been taken by many people to be referring to any form of God people worship... Allah, Jesus, Yahweh/Jehovah, but without any of the negative attributes people ascribe.

I joke that I cannot for the life of me understand why Vishnu (the Preserver and maintainer of cosmic order and law) lets Yahweh run amok in the universe. But the image of a vengeful, angry God is the image people create. There's another saying in an Indian language that loosely translates as "God shows himself as the believer wants to see him". That includes what appear to be so many gods and goddesses. They are what we want to see God as. If you want to see an angry hot-tempered bloodthirsty God, that's what you'll see, worship and fear. Others of us have a different view of God.

 

[Fool]

Recent threads made me wonder whether a key difference between the two groups are not, generally speaking, centered on the contrast between an expectation of a submission to authority in the Abrahamics (be that authority God or some form of prophet, guide or priest) while the Dharmic Faiths such as Hinduism don't really have such a notion.

Instead, Dharmics seem to learn from teachers and establish some form and degree of relationship of mutual trust with them. There is no particular expectation of faithfulness to written scripture, and there is very often an expectation of instead actualizing the teachings in oneself.

The end result are frequent but usually uneventful disagreements and divergent understandings and interpretations. Perhaps so frequent that they are perceived as unavoidable and inconsequential.

I may be mistaken, but I also get the sense that most adherents end up learning from other religious teachers to some extent and building their own personal doctrines from bits and pieces taken from various sources and customized by personal understanding.

That probably sounds odd for some. But I don't know that a better strategy for religion exists.

there is no love in all the world greater than that of a friend.


A friend loveth at all times, and a brother is born for adversity.

Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

 

[Marcion]

Recent threads made me wonder whether a key difference between the two groups are not, generally speaking, centered on the contrast between an expectation of a submission to authority in the Abrahamics (be that authority God or some form of prophet, guide or priest) while the Dharmic Faiths such as Hinduism don't really have such a notion.

Instead, Dharmics seem to learn from teachers and establish some form and degree of relationship of mutual trust with them. There is no particular expectation of faithfulness to written scripture, and there is very often an expectation of instead actualizing the teachings in oneself.

The end result are frequent but usually uneventful disagreements and divergent understandings and interpretations. Perhaps so frequent that they are perceived as unavoidable and inconsequential.

I may be mistaken, but I also get the sense that most adherents end up learning from other religious teachers to some extent and building their own personal doctrines from bits and pieces taken from various sources and customized by personal understanding.

That probably sounds odd for some. But I don't know that a better strategy for religion exists.

I think you are wrong to compare these two large faith cultures as if they were fundamentally two unified blocks on a deeper level.
They aren't.

If you want to make a more meaningful contrast, I think you should better compare the exoteric and esoteric sides of both these two cultures with each other.

On the vedic or extroversial side of both the so-called dharmic traditions and so-called abrahamic traditions the emphasis is on prayers (requesting boons), religious myths, rituals and superstitious beliefs.
On the tantric or mystic side of both these broad traditions the emphasis is on self-realisation through selfless conduct and introspective meditations.

Of course there may also be some mixture of both exoteric and esoteric aspects here and there but generally people will feel attracted to the vedic or to the tantric (mystic) type of practising within either of these two blocks.

E.g. a sufi will have more in common with a tantric yogi than with a regular shia muslim and a mystic christian will have more in common with a mahayanist buddhist monk than with a conservative evangelic christian.

I would however say that the so-called dharmic paths have a much richer and more varied spiritual philosophy and a richer variety in spiritual pactices than the so-called abrahamic religions have. And they are usually more tolerant towards sectarian differences because they agree more often that their paths will eventually lead to the same end result for each and every individual.

 

[SomeRandom]

Well, the Rig Veda says "One Truth the sages call by many names". Originally it used examples of Vedic deities being named as one and the same, in later times it's been taken by many people to be referring to any form of God people worship... Allah, Jesus, Yahweh/Jehovah, but without any of the negative attributes people ascribe.

I joke that I cannot for the life of me understand why Vishnu (the Preserver and maintainer of cosmic order and law) lets Yahweh run amok in the universe. But the image of a vengeful, angry God is the image people create. There's another saying in an Indian language that loosely translates as "God shows himself as the believer wants to see him". That includes what appear to be so many gods and goddesses. They are what we want to see God as. If you want to see an angry hot-tempered bloodthirsty God, that's what you'll see, worship and fear. Others of us have a different view of God.

To be fair, if you're taught the God of the Bible, you will see the God of the Bible. And there are deities in Hinduism that are literally bloodthirsty as well. Kali Ma comes to mind.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Well, the Rig Veda says "One Truth the sages call by many names". Originally it used examples of Vedic deities being named as one and the same, in later times it's been taken by many people to be referring to any form of God people worship... Allah, Jesus, Yahweh/Jehovah, but without any of the negative attributes people ascribe.

I joke that I cannot for the life of me understand why Vishnu (the Preserver and maintainer of cosmic order and law) lets Yahweh run amok in the universe. But the image of a vengeful, angry God is the image people create. There's another saying in an Indian language that loosely translates as "God shows himself as the believer wants to see him". That includes what appear to be so many gods and goddesses. They are what we want to see God as. If you want to see an angry hot-tempered bloodthirsty God, that's what you'll see, worship and fear. Others of us have a different view of God.

I've always wondered whether God in the history of time shows "himself" as what people want to see him, but I rather want to see who God is in reality.

 

[Jainarayan]

I've always wondered whether God in the history of time shows "himself" as what people want to see him, but I rather want to see who God is in reality.

That’s what we strive for. We have the concept of māyā which is usually taken to mean illusion, though it’s really more than that. This illusion doesn’t necessarily mean the world isn’t real. Ask anyone who’s ever had a kidney stone if it’s an illusion. I can tell you it isn’t.

What the illusion is, is that we don’t see reality as it really is. Huh? What I mean is that māyā makes us think this is reality. That also goes for what God really is. We think we know what God is like but māyā is saying “haha fooled ya!” Once we get beyond this “veil” of māyā we come to know God and ourselves.

We don’t necessarily have to die for this to happen. Many people have obtained this in their lifetimes. I’m sure there are Muslim mystics who have achieved this. They don’t write about it because it’s something you experience... that experiential knowledge I mentioned earlier.

Of course, this is my understanding of it, not anything authoritative.

 

[Jainarayan]

To be fair, if you're taught the God of the Bible, you will see the God of the Bible. And there are deities in Hinduism that are literally bloodthirsty as well. Kali Ma comes to mind.

Unquestionably! Our view of God is also influenced by what we’re taught, and not only by our own perception or intuition.

 

[Epic Beard Man]

That’s what we strive for. We have the concept of māyā which is usually taken to mean illusion, though it’s really more than that. This illusion doesn’t necessarily mean the world isn’t real. Ask anyone who’s ever had a kidney stone if it’s an illusion. I can tell you it isn’t.

What the illusion is, is that we don’t see reality as it really is. Huh? What I mean is that māyā makes us think this is reality. That also goes for what God really is. We think we know what God is like but māyā is saying “haha fooled ya!” Once we get beyond this “veil” of māyā we come to know God and ourselves.

We don’t necessarily have to die for this to happen. Many people have obtained this in their lifetimes. I’m sure there are Muslim mystics who have achieved this. They don’t write about it because it’s something you experience... that experiential knowledge I mentioned earlier.

Of course, this is my understanding of it, not anything authoritative.

But the irony and perhaps the parallel in Islam to Hinduism is that Allah has a hijab of noor, or light and perhaps this light is so all-encompassing that it perhaps creates the illusion for limited minds. The thing is, Allah reveals "himself" to whom he wills. So knowledge about the divine, according to Islam isn't just about the acquiring of truths that we come across but also what God allows. People forget God is perceived to be sentient and autonomous of creation.

 

[LuisDantas]

Fair enough... but then we have to deal with the logical problems of the Qur'an, starting with its dubious grasp of basic ethics.

 

[atanu]

Yep, I think it's more like surrender, śaraṇa. 'Submission' just leaves a bad taste in my mouth.

Yes. Saranagati or Prapatti is the final way in Hinduism. It is said that Jnana leads to Saranagati and vice versa.

 

[atanu]

Recent threads made me wonder whether a key difference between the two groups are not, generally speaking, centered on the contrast between an expectation of a submission to authority in the Abrahamics (be that authority God or some form of prophet, guide or priest) while the Dharmic Faiths such as Hinduism don't really have such a notion...

I seem to be the second odd man not fully agreeing to this. Sharanagati or Prapatti towards God/Guru is required. Some may think that intellectual knowing of Advaita is sufficient. Probably that is not. Teachers like Ramana Maharshi have said that do not apply Advaita to God or Guru till you have experienced and are settled in non-duality. Buddhists also have a mantra "Buddham Sharanam Gachami".

The main difference that I see between the abrahamic and dharmic religions is the degree of tolerance for an alternative view. That I think comes from the idea that God is the warf and woof of the universe and of all beings. God stands apart yet is all of us.

 

[LuisDantas]

I seem to be the second odd man not fully agreeing to this. Sharanagati or Prapatti towards God/Guru is required. Some may think that intellectual knowing of Advaita is sufficient. Probably that is not. Teachers like Ramana Maharshi have said that do not apply Advaita to God or Guru till you have experienced and are settled in non-duality. Buddhists also have a mantra "Buddham Sharanam Gachami".

The main difference that I see between the abrahamic and dharmic religions is the degree of toleration for an alternative view. That I think comes from the idea that God is the warf and woof of the universe and of all beings. God stands apart yet is all of us.

Yes, you and I never saw quite eye to eye regarding the proper role of deity concepts, now did we?

I think that both of us will simply have to accept that. It does not look like either of us can change this situation.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Henceforth I call you not servants; for the servant knoweth not what his lord doeth: but I have called you friends; for all things that I have heard of my Father I have made known unto you.

Thanks and no thanks. We hear you. But now, do you think it is necessary for us to go by what you believe?

I've always wondered whether God in the history of time shows "himself" as what people want to see him, but I rather want to see who God is in reality.

Don't ask for reality, because in reality there is no God.

The thing is, Allah reveals "himself" to whom he wills.

Right, and blinds some to his glory without any particular reason.

 

[atanu]

I think that both of us will simply have to accept that. It does not look like either of us can change this situation.

Yeah. I will go by authentic teachers as below:

Importance Of Bhakti (Devotion)

 

[LuisDantas]

Yeah. I will go by authentic teachers as below:

Importance Of Bhakti (Devotion)

Authentic according to who, child?

 

[cuvtixo]

Fair enough... but then we have to deal with the logical problems of the Qur'an, starting with its dubious grasp of basic ethics.

Ha! I don't think this is a fair criticism from anyone coming from the western world, which nominally based its ethics on the Herbrew scriptures/Old Testament: start with God forever condemning humanity for a couple eating a piece of fruit, which almost certainly wasn't an apple, as apples are not only not in the Middle East at that time, but are also cultivars which are bitter, and often inedible when grown in the wild. Then, not only in the original Hebrew, but even in the King James translation; Then the LORD God said, “Behold, the man has become like one of Us, knowing good and evil. And now, lest he reach out his hand and take also from the tree of life, and eat, and live forever...”22 WTF? Even without mentioning who the heck "Us" is supposed to be, God condemns women forevermore to have difficult childbirths, often fatal for both mother and infant through most of history. And as much as Christians like to think Jesus' message transcends Old Testament ethics, the Gospels are indeed based on the assumption that Jesus came to redeem his followers from Adam and Eve's "Original Sin".
Cain is "marked"- in a passage vaguely enough worded to justify racism forevermore, plus with no explanation where Abel or Cain's children came from (Is it not incest happening throughout Genesis?). AND God's commandment "thou shalt not suffer a witch to live" (Exodus 22:18), which inspired mass killings through Europe (and Salem Massachusetts). I'd expect better from a "Advocate of letting go of theism. Buddhist with an emphasis on personal understanding". Yet you're still going to single out Islam like that? The excesses of Communism make atheists an easy target in modern times, but I have to call out fellow agnostic Buddhists, too. Let's remember how many Japanese Zen Buddhists clergy looked past the humanitarian crimes, including murder, by Japanese soldiers in WWII. Or Tibetan Buddhism whose adherents are meat-eaters unlike the vast majority of Buddhists. Tibetan Buddhism is really syncretic with shamanistic Bon, a fact which many Western fans of the Dalai Lama don't seem to grasp.

 

[atanu]

Authentic according to who, child?

Chandrasekhara Saraswati was Shankaracharya of Kamakoti Peetham and is authentic according to me and many Hindus.

But may be that I do not understand your 'child' comment, which at face value seems childish, IMO.

 

[LuisDantas]

Ha! I don't think this is a fair criticism from anyone coming from the western world, which nominally based its ethics on the Herbrew scriptures/Old Testament:

Then we will disagree something fierce, among other reasons because you seem to have missed my posts' point.

 

[Segev Moran]

I may be mistaken, but I also get the sense that most adherents end up learning from other religious teachers to some extent and building their own personal doctrines from bits and pieces taken from various sources and customized by personal understanding.

That probably sounds odd for some. But I don't know that a better strategy for religion exists.

It is unavoidable that some religions will have similarities.
An interesting issue is those similarities that are "across the board".

Have you studied those religions you compare?