Very different paradigms

[Treks]

I've had the chance to watch the video this evening and, acknowledging this is not a debate forum, I'll just say I find it to be heavily biased and leave it at that.

 

[Firemorphic]

Which makes me question the value of treating so-called faith blocks or religions as categories of any significance beyond culture and history.

They are different things and I did outline the 'subjective vs objective' dichotomy present in different ways in both. My point is on the ontological propositions and connections each make and how they relate to each other regardless of whether someone takes one to be correct and the other false. One comes from objective revelation and the other subjective realization, from there they go vice versa in many ways.

The only reason that the video can make this point is because Hinduism is, generally speaking, somewhat more Tantric or Mystic than the Abrahamic group in general.

Hinduism (or, aka Sanatan Dharma) on the other hand culturally had mysticism thriving more freely on the surface (not to say that all Hindu religions/traditions are actually even experimental either, or that they're more or less than Abrahamic ones), I think first hand it's a difference of culture but also a consequence on one holding more objective views in it's orthodoxy than the other one.

On the Abrahamic side, we've got "the Ultimate Reality said this", whereas on the Dhamic side there is "I've realized this about the Ultimate Reality". Once you spot it, you'll see how brilliant they both are from their respective diametrically-coitus positions coalesce with each other.
With the mystic and tantric presence, it takes specifics to tell what is what. Each Abrahamic religion has it's own branches, as do Hindu religions. Certain forms of Judaism are far more in tune with it's own mysticism than others, same for forms of Christianity. Shia (mine) Islam is more connected to it than Sunni. Some Hindu branches are highly experimental with zero expected dogma, others stick to particular dogmas without considerable mystical experimentation. Much of it could be seen as "the intellectual's religion vs the laymans convenience".
Whether one does or doesn't, is not really crucial to the value or purpose of the religion, however I myself prefer mysticism over a form of blank, one dimensional orthodoxy (which many non-religious persons tend to see in all of these religions) which fails to account for much of the mystical and esoteric subtext of any given religion.

 

[Marcion]

however I myself prefer mysticism over a form of blank, one dimensional orthodoxy (which many non-religious persons tend to see in all of these religions) which fails to account for much of the mystical and esoteric subtext of any given religion.

Which failure possibly causes video's like this to be made.
I'm beginning to form the conviction that there is something crude or ignorant in judging whole religions or blocks of religions on such faulty viewpoints.

One can judge the xenophobia, dogmatism or lack of spiritual clarity or content in certain religious paths but treating the so-called Dharmic or Abrahamic blocks as consistently different groups paradigmatically seems false, wrongfooting people.

I would say Tantra or Dharma are not absent from the Abrahamic group of religions making the distinction between Dharmic or Abrahamic faiths useless beyond mere (shoddy) classification.

 

[Firemorphic]

Which failure possibly causes video's like this to be made.
I'm beginning to form the conviction that there is something crude or ignorant in judging whole religions or blocks of religions on such faulty viewpoints.

Did you read all of my comment?

One can judge the xenophobia, dogmatism or lack of spiritual clarity or content in certain religious paths but treating the so-called Dharmic or Abrahamic blocks as consistently different groups paradigmatically seems false, wrongfooting people.

I fully agree, and it's wrong that that kind of thing is a trend among any large (or growing) group of people (not only even in religion either).

I would say Tantra or Dharma are not absent from the Abrahamic group of religions making the distinction between Dharmic or Abrahamic faiths useless beyond mere (shoddy) classification.

I don't think those are defining factors of their respective religious surface traditions but when it comes to the notion of comparing Dharmic and Abrahamic religions (which to many, sadly look incompatible) one has to find their shared footing and recognize both their areas of convergence and both of their large array of diversity within.

If you've read anything else I wrote in this thread, you'd know I see them as very complimentary.
The post of mine you quoted however, accounts for my preference when it comes to my own practice as a religious person.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Unfortunately, that's not possible. It's like you speaking Japanese and Hindu German. While both of you in your languages probably saying the same thing, we can't know that at all for sure (nor can't assume) unless there is a translator. The translator needs to be someone both sides will agree on.

The example of languages is a useful one as many people are bi or multilingual. Its becomes an integral part of living in a multicultural world. At some point we learn another culture by immersing ourselves within it. We need to take the plunge. To be able to take this step requires certain attitudes and behaviours. Knowing we share we the same humanity makes it easier. We live in the same world whether we are Abrahamic, Dharmic or atheist.

How can you find a translator to know for sure both sides speak of the same thing before going deeper into religions foreign of each other?

Are our experiences of life fundamentally different if we live in the USA, Japan or India?

I mean, Adrian, I would love to learn more about Hindu, but like you, I don't know the language in the culture and practice in which the language is spoken. Where do we start?

We start by placing ourselves around people that are very different from ourselves and finding happiness and meaning experiencing diversity.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I've had the chance to watch the video this evening and, acknowledging this is not a debate forum, I'll just say I find it to be heavily biased and leave it at that.

I started watching, got a way into and noted the bias, could not finish. I do admit I see the Abrahamic line in quite a different light than what Christians and Muslims might do though. Thus many of the comments did not ring true for me and I did not see the intended 'Very different paradigms'.

I would much rather see a video that explores the great things about these Faiths and all Faiths.

Regards Tony

 

[Vouthon]

I came upon a nice video comparing the 2 main Abrahamic faiths with my own Sanatana Dharma. It's an articulate exposition, in my view. For anyone wishing to increase their understanding of the significant and important differences, I'd highly recommend it.

An interesting perspective, thank you for posting it @Vinayaka

Some personal thoughts, not in the interest of fomenting a debate but rather for further consideration and appraisal of the argument: the video states that Islam and Christianity are based upon "texts revealed by one founder, at one point in history, in one geographical location and one language". I wouldn't personally say this is true of the New Testament or the Jewish Bible.

The four gospels were written at different times in the first century, in distinct locations, by very different authors addressing totally disparate audiences throughout the polyglot, cultural melting pot of the Roman Empire. The sources used were clearly partially Aramaic, given that the Koine Greek texts quote Aramaic and Hebrew phrases of Jesus. Luke was a gentile Roman writing to other non-Jewish Romans, the author of Matthew was a Judean Jew writing to observant Jews, St. Paul was a Hellenized Jew from Tarsus (Turkey) writing to a multitude of gentile churches in places as far-flung as Corinth in Greece, Rome in Italy and Galatia in Anatolia. That's pretty diverse, if you ask me.

The New Testament is a library of books written by numerous people, and its literary styles are incredibly diverse - as are the theological ideas. The Old Testament is even more so - parts of the Catholic OT were composed entirely in Greek (like the Wisdom of Solomon and 2 Maccabees), others were written purely in Hebrew (the Torah) and others were composed partially in Aramaic (the Book of Daniel). In the OT, we find stories and teachings pulled from surrounding cultures, such as the Noah flood myth which is a Hebraic rendering of the earlier Sumerian epic of Utnapishtim and the Babylonian Ziusudra. The Book of Proverbs, likewise, is clearly based upon the ancient Egyptian Instruction of Amenemope (ca. 1300–1075 BCE) and even lifts whole verses directly from the former i.e.

(Proverbs 22:17–18):"Incline thine ear, and hear the words of the wise, And apply thine heart to my doctrine; For it is pleasant if thou keep them in thy belly, that they may be established together upon thy lips"

(Amenemope, ch. 1):"Give thine ear, and hear what I say, And apply thine heart to apprehend; It is good for thee to place them in thine heart, let them rest in the casket of thy belly; That they may act as a peg upon thy tongue"

(Proverbs 22:22):"Rob not the poor, for he is poor, neither oppress (or crush) the lowly in the gate."

(Amenemope, ch. 2):"Beware of robbing the poor, and oppressing the afflicted."​

St. Paul, likewise, quotes Greek and pagan aphorisms i.e.

1 Cor. 15:33, "Do not be deceived: “Bad company corrupts good morals.'

The words “Bad company ruins good morals” are first found in a play by the ancient Greek playwright Menander (4th-3rd century B. C.) Pseudo-Paul also quoted Epimenides in the book of Titus. Luke's Book of Acts has the most striking example of this, Acts 17:28, "for 'in Him we live and move and have our being' as even some of your own poets have said, ‘For we also are His children.'

The first part of verse 28 comes from Cretica by Epimenides, and the second part of the verse from the Hymn to Zeus, written by the Cilician poet Aratus. So, like @Treks explained in relation to Muslim and Hindu sages being incorporated into the Guru Granth Sahib ji, the Bible is likewise eclectic in its source material.

So, we have a whole multitude of different sacred writers with a plurality of agendas addressing distinct audiences over a widely dispersed landmass and at different times.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I genuinely think you missed my point.

The example of languages is a useful one as many people are bi or multilingual. Its becomes an integral part of living in a multicultural world. At some point we learn another culture by immersing ourselves within it. We need to take the plunge. To be able to take this step requires certain attitudes and behaviours. Knowing we share we the same humanity makes it easier. We live in the same world whether we are Abrahamic, Dharmic or atheist.

What I said actually was an analogy....

Are our experiences of life fundamentally different if we live in the USA, Japan or India?

In the analogy, if you spoke Japanese and Hindu spoke German, you two probably are saying the same thing. We wouldn't know without a translator. Regardless if you are in USA, Japan, or India, my question would be the same: if two people are not a like and want to communicate, where does one start with using a translator?

We start by placing ourselves around people that are very different from ourselves and finding happiness and meaning experiencing diversity.

Oh my gosh. Oh well. I did learn from interpreting studies and being around Deaf and hard of hearing individuals placing yourself in that environment even learning sign language isn't the same as being Deaf and using the language as a primary (not as a second language) and intimate means of communication.

Anyway, I can't explain it. It just makes so much sense that I never heard of anyone (not just you) that doesn't see it. Some people on RF are less willing to understand it; but, still... it's something else.

 

[Vinayaka]

I loved this. Thank you for sharing.

Thank you for taking the time to watch it.

 

[Vinayaka]

The picture representing the video seems needlessly demeaning to Muslims and Christians.

I agree, and I wish it wasn't there. I hope it doesn't stop people from watching it, as it's actually quite rational.

 

[Vinayaka]

An interesting perspective, thank you for posting it @Vinayaka

Some personal thoughts, not in the interest of fomenting a debate but rather for further consideration and appraisal of the argument: the video states that Islam and Christianity are based upon "texts revealed by one founder, at one point in history, in one geographical location and one language". I wouldn't personally say this is true of the New Testament or the Jewish Bible.

I agree the video is oversimplified ... probably just knowing the attention span of most of us.

 

[IndigoChild5559]

Why compare Hinduism with Christianity and Islam but not Judaism? Judaism is the original, the foundation upon which the other two are built. It seems to me as though the work misses out on the most important comparison of all.