Between the Abrahamic (usually dualistic) and Eastern (like Advaita or Buddhist or Dao) religions? I was discussing this in another thread and came upon the following. Sharing this for feedback and debate/discussion.
The Abrahamic religions are fundamentally dualistic tradition in which there is a God and a distinct world created by Him that does not share His essence. That is why a distance can grow between the world and God, and God's purpose for the world can get frustrated. This is the reason why God has to communicate through messengers, or that the messengers get rejected, or that the message gets corrupted with time. I see a lot of wordplay, but these ideas do not make sense unless there is a world that is distinct from God which has somehow turned away from Him so that His purpose for the world is being frustrated and He is trying (with limited success) in making this right through messengers etc. All of this then goes to eschatology that there will be some sort of "final solution" to this persistent problem with an "end-time" decisive action from His end that will transform everything as we know it. This is the key idea in every Abrahamic religions and some of the dualistic Indian traditions as well.
These ideas are fundamentally incompatible with a monistic understanding of the Absolute where the World and the transcendent is One Absolute only and that everything (including the God(s)) is the creative manifestation of this One Absolute and hence share the same essence and same innate perfection that is simply being actualized through the various action-reaction processes that constitute the worlds and the heavens. Because of this fact, all that is required of a person is to actually viscerally "see" this unity and thus be able to play a more proactive role in this creative process from a position of knowledge (the state of bliss) rather than a reactive role from a position of ignorance (the state of suffering). And because you yourself is that "unity", the ability to see this is also innately present in you. All that is needed is a catalyst that get the process of comprehension going. And that catalyst can, frankly, be anything (like just seeing suffering as happened with Buddha) but may including following a religious tradition or meditative path as well created by religious founders who were able to gain a clearer understanding of this unity and were able to teach it in an effective manner to other people. But this remains optional and many equivalently effective ways of doing this can exist simultaneously.
All these Abrahamic ideas are doing...the world is alienated from God or there is an active force of evil (like Satan), and there is going to be prophets, incarnations or a final eschatological event etc. are trying to provide ontological explanations of suffering and the way out of it from their dualist perspective while Eastern monism (this includes several forms of Hinduism, Buddhism and Daoism also) is eliminating all such ontology and is providing an epistemological explanation of suffering and the way out of it.
Now which of them is true? That is for everyone to decide. But the Abrahamic model requires you to believe in external saviors and the reliability of their words and deeds from history and a promised future. The monistic epistemological model requires you to believe in yourself and your own experiences as you embark (through some guidance) on the journey to transform the way you know the world and yourself.
What do you think?
Yes. I know that there are many differences between the traditions that I have not included here within each of these broad categories as well, and calling something Eastern or Abrahamic is also quite inaccurate. But as a first pass, how much truth is there in these musings?
The Abrahamic religions are fundamentally dualistic tradition in which there is a God and a distinct world created by Him that does not share His essence. That is why a distance can grow between the world and God, and God's purpose for the world can get frustrated. This is the reason why God has to communicate through messengers, or that the messengers get rejected, or that the message gets corrupted with time. I see a lot of wordplay, but these ideas do not make sense unless there is a world that is distinct from God which has somehow turned away from Him so that His purpose for the world is being frustrated and He is trying (with limited success) in making this right through messengers etc. All of this then goes to eschatology that there will be some sort of "final solution" to this persistent problem with an "end-time" decisive action from His end that will transform everything as we know it. This is the key idea in every Abrahamic religions and some of the dualistic Indian traditions as well.
These ideas are fundamentally incompatible with a monistic understanding of the Absolute where the World and the transcendent is One Absolute only and that everything (including the God(s)) is the creative manifestation of this One Absolute and hence share the same essence and same innate perfection that is simply being actualized through the various action-reaction processes that constitute the worlds and the heavens. Because of this fact, all that is required of a person is to actually viscerally "see" this unity and thus be able to play a more proactive role in this creative process from a position of knowledge (the state of bliss) rather than a reactive role from a position of ignorance (the state of suffering). And because you yourself is that "unity", the ability to see this is also innately present in you. All that is needed is a catalyst that get the process of comprehension going. And that catalyst can, frankly, be anything (like just seeing suffering as happened with Buddha) but may including following a religious tradition or meditative path as well created by religious founders who were able to gain a clearer understanding of this unity and were able to teach it in an effective manner to other people. But this remains optional and many equivalently effective ways of doing this can exist simultaneously.
All these Abrahamic ideas are doing...the world is alienated from God or there is an active force of evil (like Satan), and there is going to be prophets, incarnations or a final eschatological event etc. are trying to provide ontological explanations of suffering and the way out of it from their dualist perspective while Eastern monism (this includes several forms of Hinduism, Buddhism and Daoism also) is eliminating all such ontology and is providing an epistemological explanation of suffering and the way out of it.
Now which of them is true? That is for everyone to decide. But the Abrahamic model requires you to believe in external saviors and the reliability of their words and deeds from history and a promised future. The monistic epistemological model requires you to believe in yourself and your own experiences as you embark (through some guidance) on the journey to transform the way you know the world and yourself.
What do you think?
Yes. I know that there are many differences between the traditions that I have not included here within each of these broad categories as well, and calling something Eastern or Abrahamic is also quite inaccurate. But as a first pass, how much truth is there in these musings?
