Some thoughts about the difference between Hinduism and the Abrahamic Faiths

[IndigoChild5559]

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'm very into comparitive religion, but I admit I'm less familiar with the specifics of Eastern religions than Western monotheisms (my specialty). I can only say that if a person wants to spiritually grow in wisdom, virtue, and their relationship to God, they are best off attacking their drawbacks from as many different angles as possible.

The thing about Western monotheism (of which I am happily a part as a Jew) is that it doesn't sugar coat. God cares about how we treat each other. Period. Before Judaism, there were laws (such as the Hammurabi Code). Before Judaism, there were gods (and a gazillion of them. But the gods were fickle beings who only cared that appropriate sacrifices and such were made to them. The connection between God and Law was made for the first time when Moses climbed Mt. Sinai. One cannot underestimate the importance or the power of this. It is foundational. (And I don't think it's just my Jewish bias speaking here.)

I know it's kind of ridiculous to make generalizations about the East, but I'm kind of forced to. I would say the East is very concerned with self cultivation. I don't know if it has always been that way. It is more likely that Hinduism began as basic pantheistic polytheism (raw paganism) and only grew into a path to enlightenment with time. But certainly today, a Hindu, a Buddhist, and a Taoist may all concern themselves with cultivation of their virtues and their souls. This is a very good approach as well.

As the world has gotten smaller, East and West have influenced each other, and I think for the better. Hinduism, after the spread of Islam, has among some devotees a more focus nuance on a united divine or One God. Western Monotheism has developed greater contemplative disciplines and mysticism.

And quite honestly, East may very well meet West in the monotheistic animism of Traditional Native American Spirituality -- a path that every delighted by comparative religion should spend some time studying.

 

[KingSolomon]

I would have to disagree with you there Luis (but this is "general religious debates" anyway, so I'm in the right place!).
There are very real differences between the Dharmic and Abrahamic religions

Quite true. But I am now reading a book called THE JEW IN THE LOTUS, about the interaction between a group of Jews and the Dalai Lama. Apparently, some Tibetans are interested in how Jews, as a diaspora community, managed to survive for millennia without a nation-state. This also led to an interchange in religious ideas between the two groups..

 

[Kirran]

QUOTE="Vouthon, post: 5730027, member: 43237"]I would have to disagree with you there Luis (but this is "general religious debates" anyway, so I'm in the right place!).
There are very real differences between the Dharmic and Abrahamic religions

Quite true. But I am now reading a book called THE JEW IN THE LOTUS, about the interaction between a group of Jews and the Dalai Lama. Apparently, some Tibetans are interested in how Jews, as a diaspora community, managed to survive for millennia without a nation-state. This also led to an interchange in religious ideas between the two groups..

Hey KingSolomon. Welcome to the forums! I hope you have a great time here.

Just an FYI - when you quote somebody you have to put [ / quote] (but without the spaces) at the end of what's you're quoting!

Should do it automatically, just leave it in

I edited this in the post you just made, so you can see an example (just click edit to have a look at the post in HTML).

 

[KingSolomon]

Thank you. I think I was aware of that but not entirely sure how to do it. Thanks again

 

[loverofhumanity]

My understanding is that the dietary and social laws were according to the times these religions appeared and in accordance with the needs of that time but that the spiritual attributes such as love, service, selflessness, prayer, meditation, helping the poor and sick, sharing and caring - all these are common to all Faiths Dharmic or Abrahamic.

Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita says almost identical things to Jesus about being the Way and the Truth. Although Buddhists deny they believe in a God if you describe the attributes of say the Christian God to those of the Buddha you will find a striking similarity. Buddha is revered, Jesus is revered. I think a lot of it is expressions of the same reality in different ways.

We know that truth is one and cannot contradict itself so although outwardly the different Faiths appear to be clothed in diverse attire, inwardly they are but one and the same, all seeking to raise the spiritual level of the individual to become as nothing and a humble servant of all humanity.

 

[Marcion]

We know that truth is one and cannot contradict itself so although outwardly the different Faiths appear to be clothed in diverse attire, inwardly they are but one and the same, all seeking to raise the spiritual level of the individual to become as nothing and a humble servant of all humanity.

I think you are perhaps oversimplifying matters a bit here.
The truth is one, Dharma is also one and the same for all.
But religions claim themselves to be different from each other and it is those self-declared differences that define them as separate religions.
So saying that "the underlying truth is there" says little about why religions exist.
If you want to unify people under one flag of a shared spirituality you will have to teach them what is the actual spiritual cult and where irrationality and superstitions are keeping people unnaturally divided. In other words you will have to show them the defective sides of religions.

 

[loverofhumanity]

I think you are perhaps oversimplifying matters a bit here.
The truth is one, Dharma is also one and the same for all.
But religions claim themselves to be different from each other and it is those self-declared differences that define them as separate religions.
So saying that "the underlying truth is there" says little about why religions exist.
If you want to unify people under one flag of a shared spirituality you will have to teach them what is the actual spiritual cult and where irrationality and superstitions are keeping people unnaturally divided. In other words you will have to show them the defective sides of religions.

I think all religions can unite under the banner or flag of the oneness of humanity, that we are all one human race. If we view all people as one family, as equal fellow human beings then we can get along fine and have peace.

That one religion, belief or way is superior to another is a belief not supported by the texts of any religion, it is a man made egotistical concept not a spiritual one.

The irrationality is that one race, religion, nation or culture is superior intrinsically to another. That is known as prejudice and it takes time to break down these prejudices but humanity is slowly approaching the realization of its oneness.

 

[KingSolomon]

We know that truth is one and cannot contradict itself so although outwardly the different Faiths appear to be clothed in diverse attire, inwardly they are but one and the same, all seeking to raise the spiritual level of the individual to become as nothing and a humble servant of all humanity.

I seriously doubt there is any such thing as the "truth". Pontius Pilate got it right. Probably the ONLY thing that that murderer got right.

However, that said, in all cultures, in all ages, there is a commonality in the search for the Numinous, the godly. Since we all are human and wired to search for a Super Being, our search will take different forms but similarities will occur.

BTW, In the quantum universe, data does contradict itself

 

[paarsurrey]

Addressing the portion in red

I've told you this before, I don't think you have an academic grasp on the Abrahamic faiths themselves. In one form or another, people who want to get to the truth submits to something of authority. Dharmic faiths are no different:

Sikhism (monotheistic):

Need for a Guru

The Ultimate Truth is also unique, not understood by the intellect. It does not match any preconceived human ideas. This is why the Guru is compulsory, but only on the final path, the path to ultimate Truth. When the seeker submits to the Guru with this humility, the Guru quietly plants the way to Truth in his heart. This is called Naam.

Source:Sikhism Religion of the Sikh People

In Sikhism there is a word called "Hukam" similar to Islam's concept of submitting to the will of God. Hukam means "command" or "divine order." similar to Islam, this also designates opening up Sikh scripture to attain guidance from God on various situations. This, is also similar to Islam concerning a believer seeking guidance from the Creator.

Source:Concept of Hukam (Will) | Sikhism: Sikh Religion, Beliefs, Philosophy and Principles

Hinduism (Pantheistic):

And he who serves Me with the yoga of unswerving devotion, transcending these qualities [binary opposites, like good and evil, pain and pleasure] is ready for liberation in Brahman.

— Bhagavad Gita Chapter 14, Verse 26

Chapter 14, Verse 26 – Bhagavad Gita, The Song of God – Swami Mukundananda

Always think of me, be devoted to me, worship me, and offer obeisance to me. Doing so, you will certainly come to me. This is my pledge to you, for you are very dear to me.

-Bhagavad Gita Chapter 18 verse 65

Chapter 18, Verse 65 – Bhagavad Gita, The Song of God – Swami Mukundananda

Prophets, similar to Yogis, Gurus, or whatever are teachers and keepers of truth (and the law) so in a lot of ways obedience to them is obligatory to reach whatever end the believer is trying to reach similar to those of the Abrahamic faiths. So I'm not sure of your distinction.

A wonderful post to bridge gap between Islam and Hinduism religions.
Regards

 

[godnotgod]

... Submission to God/Brahman/Buddha is not the point, actually becoming God/Brahman/Buddha is the point.

Do you understand? Muhammad is not equal to Allah, but in Buddhism all Buddhas are equal to each other and in Hinduism all realized rishis, and the great Gods are equal to one another and to Brahman. There is nothing greater. A Muslim is not expected to become Allah, but a Buddhist is expected to become Buddha and a Hindu is expected to become Brahman (or a personal manifestation thereof).

While we do say that the jiva 'becomes' Brahman, or that the seeker 'becomes' the Buddha, that is not actually the case. Nothing 'becomes' anything else, because in these instances, the jiva is already Brahman, and has always been Brahman; the seeker of Nirvana is an illusion, which is why it is said that: "If you see the Buddha on the road, kill him". IOW, if you see something 'becoming' the Buddha, it is unreal, so purge it from your mind. What we call 'becoming' is in reality, realization of that which already is; that our true nature is that of Buddha-nature, or Brahman-nature. As the Hindus tell us: 'Tat tvam asi'

Gold does not 'become' the gold chain; it has always been gold from the very beginning. Only form changes from the formless to the form of the gold chain. The true nature of the chain is gold.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

My understanding is that the dietary and social laws were according to the times these religions appeared and in accordance with the needs of that time but that the spiritual attributes such as love, service, selflessness, prayer, meditation, helping the poor and sick, sharing and caring - all these are common to all Faiths Dharmic or Abrahamic.

Krishna in the Bhagavad Gita says almost identical things to Jesus about being the Way and the Truth. Although Buddhists deny they believe in a God if you describe the attributes of say the Christian God to those of the Buddha you will find a striking similarity. Buddha is revered, Jesus is revered. I think a lot of it is expressions of the same reality in different ways.

We know that truth is one and cannot contradict itself so although outwardly the different Faiths appear to be clothed in diverse attire, inwardly they are but one and the same, all seeking to raise the spiritual level of the individual to become as nothing and a humble servant of all humanity.

I'll be the first to say that there is a lot of commonality and this is significant. But you can't go too far with this point. Jesus claimed to be the ONLY begotten son of God -- God himself. That can't be true if Krishna is God as well. Judaism says God cannot be a man -- this can't be true if either Krishna or Jesus is God. These are basic contradictions. There are, in fact, a good many truth contradictions between faiths, and it is an injustice to simply sweep them under the carpet as if they don't exist.