How Hindus view interfaith

S

Senthil

Well-Known Member
Messages
522
Reaction score
81
Points
28
There are several takes on this, depending on who you talk to. Some see it as totally necessary in order for the planet to get along. Others are more, 'You do your thing, I'll do my thing. If you don't bother me, I won't bother you.' and leave it at that.

Some also say they benefit from incorporating, amalgamating, using several religions, and others like to just sit back and enjoy the diversity. I think at many actual real life interfaith forums, you'll find a Hindu or two there representing us. Of course that individual has a hard time representing all of us.
 
Last edited:
Actually, I've never encountered 2 Hindus that believed or worshiped in exactly the same way. Although, of those I've known they seem to be extremely tolerant of other faiths. Adopting an as you say, 'If you don't bother me, I won't bother you' attitude. Then again, I like to apply Hindu philosophy to Christianity... so what do I know?
 
That has never made any sense to me personally. The two are just too far apart, totally differing paradigms. The people I've actually met who've done that do double-speak, depending on the day. But if you feel it works for you, what can I say, it's a free country.
 
What can I say? I married a Hindu girl and after more than 25 years I find the differences in our 2 faiths to be more cultural than anything else. The overall goal is the same.
 
I don't understand. The link, or this thread?

editted .. sorry, I got it. Not sure if it was discussed at all, or just closed after awhile. Regardless, it is a summary of differences. Personally, I prefer to celebrate the differences rather than try to erase them through amalgamation. It's a whole lot easier, for one thing.
 
Last edited:
Well there's the Bede Griffiths Trust and there's Christianity and The Doctrine of Non-Dualism by 'A Monk of the West', which shows there's ample room for dialogue. It's when one starts assuming that what A says about A must determine B that one gets into a muddle, or invents all sorts of syncretic explanations to explains differences and distinctions away.

Also there's a lot of twaddle abroad, so finding informed and coherent commentary is often problematic, especially as such texts tend not to get noticed, or widely distributed, whereas the more 'sensational' works which tend to 'play to the gallery' get more exposure and comment.
 
As you know Bede Griffiths was very controversial amongst Hindus.
 
I would have thought the utter distinction between the two is the idea of the 'person'.

In the West, the 'person' (the egoic self) has become paramount, to the point where even religion is subject to personal whim. So the ancient Western traditions are rationalised and reworked until the ego identifies itself as the eternal soul destined to rest in the bosom of God, regardless ... if anything in any religious text can be interpreted to support that view, there you go, the Word of God. If anything in a religious text seems to cast doubt, then that's just the product of human invention, and can be dismissed.

In the East, the person was always seen as transient and ephemeral. In Buddhism it's even more extreme. And yet the West, in its infinite creative and dynamic capacity to reinvent continually, has and continues to rework and represent Eastern doctrines with a more Western self-oriented focus, so the Self of the Asiatic Traditions becomes synonymous with the 'self' of the West.

I would agree with Senthil that the paradigm of each differs from the other. Both place a different set of demands and obligations upon the believer to overcome this transient and reflective sense-of-self-importance. What people do is ignore that aspect, focus on the transcendent similitude, and thereby quite cleverly bypass any onerous obligations towards self-effacement and detachment by following a much more amenable pick-n-mix approach, which in reality is nothing more than the ego calling the tune.
 
Since this thread was originally just about how Hindus view interfaith, I'm not really interested in debating the merits of syncretic faiths such as described, and done by many groups, including one mentioned here, as well as myriads more. I consider them as new faiths, neither Christian nor Hindu, and if it works for the individual, then so be it. It just doesn't work for me, just as any non-Hindu faith on its own doesn't. To use a simple analogy, I prefer orange juice, milk, mango juice, coffee, beer, etc. all on their own as they each have individual wonderful flavor. Once mixed in any or all combinations, they turn into a blurry tasteless mess.
 
Senthil said:
Since this thread was originally just about how Hindus view interfaith, I'm not really interested in debating the merits of syncretic faiths such as described, and done by many groups, including one mentioned here, as well as myriads more. I consider them as new faiths, neither Christian nor Hindu, and if it works for the individual, then so be it. It just doesn't work for me, just as any non-Hindu faith on its own doesn't. To use a simple analogy, I prefer orange juice, milk, mango juice, coffee, beer, etc. all on their own as they each have individual wonderful flavor. Once mixed in any or all combinations, they turn into a blurry tasteless mess.
Click to expand...
Fair enough!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top