• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

Some thoughts about the difference between Hinduism and the Abrahamic Faiths

Loviatar

Red Tory/SpongeBob Conservative
I think actually there is traction to the idea of conscious or unconscious submission within a dharmic worldview. This is essentially an acknowledgement that in the context of the world of phenomena, everything proceeds according to what one might call the will of God, or destiny, or whatever you like. An awareness of this is one aspect of the fruits of cultivating a witnessing rather than a doing attitude.
That's completely fair, yeah. There's definitely an attitude where the universe is beyond the will of any one being. Reincarnation also creates a cyclical view where if people get things wrong now, they might get it right in the future, or vice versa.

So to life's ebb and flow, there seems like even more of an emphasis on submission than in Abrahamic faiths. But, the OP seemed like it was talking more about submission to deities and teachers specifically.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Unless he wasn't clear in this comment, he is alluding to the idea that Abrahamic faiths expect submission and the other does not require submission.

Quite.

My point thereafter was to demonstrate that submission in form or another is espoused in Dharmic faiths as well, and although one may say it differs, submission, willful or not, is stated in both religious philosophies.

That may be what you attempted to demonstrate, but I don't think that can be made into a central component of any Dharma. A submissive atttiude is IMO inherently Adharmic.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
That's completely fair, yeah. There's definitely an attitude where the universe is beyond the will of any one being. Reincarnation also creates a cyclical view where if people get things wrong now, they might get it right in the future, or vice versa.

So to life's ebb and flow, there seems like even more of an emphasis on submission than in Abrahamic faiths. But, the OP seemed like it was talking more about submission to deities and teachers specifically.

True, yes. Although of course for many that overarching will and pattern is identified with God, of one aspect or many, and very possibly identified with the Guru. So it's certainly there. There are people who talk of accepting everything as the grace of their respective guru. I've heard that in relation to Sathya Sai Baba and Ramana Maharshi.

But our friend @Epic Beard Man seemed to be referring to the will of the universal God, rather than of the manifested human Guru.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
Great post, Loviatar.
Meanwhile, Dharmics see any manifestation of divinity as not encompassing the all, just as part of it or beings on the cyclical path of merger with it. So, they're seen as guides significantly wiser than most people, but submission to them and enlightenment are not synonymous.
That leads to what I consider a very significant, usually overlooked realization: despite often being treated as comparable, the typical Dharmic conception of divinity and the typical Abrahamic view of the same word have very different meanings and roles.

Edited to add: One consequence is that it is inherently very difficult to make sense of charges of "idolatry" made by Abrahamics towards Dharmi. Much of what makes idolatry as a meaningful concept possible is difficult to find in the average Dharmic environment. There is simply not much room for "mistaken" worship.
 
Last edited:

Kirran

Premium Member
I think people are getting mixed up here, between submission to the teacher and to God. Dharmic traditions have a stronger tradition of one, and Abrahamic traditions have a stronger tradition of the other. Speaking very broadly.
 

sayak83

Veteran Member
Staff member
Premium Member
I think people are getting mixed up here, between submission to the teacher and to God. Dharmic traditions have a stronger tradition of one, and Abrahamic traditions have a stronger tradition of the other. Speaking very broadly.
The current level of devotion towards guru in India is a bit too much for my liking. Guru's are supposed to live away from the hustle and bustle in small huts/retreats with 15-20 disciples at most. I am not too sure what to make of what happens nowadays.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
The current level of devotion towards guru in India is a bit too much for my liking. Guru's are supposed to live away from the hustle and bustle in small huts/retreats with 15-20 disciples at most. I am not too sure what to make of what happens nowadays.

Ramana Maharshi tried to do that. But people kept gathering around him so he resigned himself to it :p

Nisargadatta Maharaj said that since 'I Am That' (the book that got his teachings heard about in the West) my living room has become a platform at central station.

Personally I don't see it as being necessarily a problem. If the disciple is genuine it'll work out.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
These recent posts make me realize another aspect of the contrast.

Abrahamic expectations often conclude that priests and people in general are unreliable when compared to God, and sometimes result in mistrust of Religion as a whole and attempts at communing directly with God.

Dharmic expectations tend to instead prefer to choose which teachers to trust, to which extent, and in which combination. There is an implicit yet unavoidable acceptance of one's personal responsibility over one's own practice and religious judgement.

I find the Dharmic approach much preferable, among other reasons because it is not vulnerable to the serious, obvious yet often neglected weaknesses of the Abrahamic one: there is basically no way to make God-conceptions accountable, nor is there much of a way to even attempt to make them comparable to each other. Far too often people end up trapped in their own self-serving conceptions with no way out of their validity flaws.

Worse still, such a situation leads to ever worse troubles at relating to others and establishing meaningful links of trust and cooperation. Which is a very bad situation for anything that intends to have religious significance.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
The current level of devotion towards guru in India is a bit too much for my liking. Guru's are supposed to live away from the hustle and bustle in small huts/retreats with 15-20 disciples at most. I am not too sure what to make of what happens nowadays.
Mass market Gurus have no time to help bring one or more close disciples into Self-Realisation, and that is their first-most dharma. The size of the crowd is really no indicator of the quality of the music.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
I think people are getting mixed up here, between submission to the teacher and to God. Dharmic traditions have a stronger tradition of one, and Abrahamic traditions have a stronger tradition of the other. Speaking very broadly.
Which is which, in your view?
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Which is which, in your view?

People seem to be speaking more about dharmic conceptions not being into submission to God here. I don't know if I necessarily agree with that.

But certainly the Abrahamic tradition talks a lot about surrendering to God, some sects within it especially, and the dharmic tradition goes in a lot for the guru tradition.
 

Vinayaka

devotee
Premium Member
People seem to be speaking more about dharmic conceptions not being into submission to God here. I don't know if I necessarily agree with that.

But certainly the Abrahamic tradition talks a lot about surrendering to God, some sects within it especially, and the dharmic tradition goes in a lot for the guru tradition.
Guru, God ... I full out prostrate to both ... yet most Hindus will also maintain it's your own superconsciousness ... and the ego/personalty is doing the submitting.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Guru, God ... I full out prostrate to both ... yet most Hindus will also maintain it's your own superconsciousness ... and the ego/personalty is doing the submitting.

I'm with you. Much the same thing, for me.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
People seem to be speaking more about dharmic conceptions not being into submission to God here. I don't know if I necessarily agree with that.

Fair enough. But I think that there is a subtle yet meaningful distinction between surrendering to God as portrayed in a scripture in defiance to the better judgement of oneself and others and acceptance of the Sacred as manifest in so many different ways.
 

crossfire

LHP Mercuræn Feminist Heretic Bully ☿
Premium Member
Buddhism is sort of like the odd man out in the Dharmic traditions in that only the individual can evolve themselves--a god can't do that for you, nor can a guru do that for you.
 

Muffled

Jesus in me
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 believe that means the Hindus don't believe in God as the Authority. I don't imagine He is ok with that.
 

Kirran

Premium Member
Fair enough. But I think that there is a subtle yet meaningful distinction between surrendering to God as portrayed in a scripture in defiance to the better judgement of oneself and others and acceptance of the Sacred as manifest in so many different ways.

You may well be right, although I think the boundary is nuanced.

But both approaches could be found in dharmic and abrahamic traditions.
 

LuisDantas

Aura of atheification
Premium Member
You may well be right, although I think the boundary is nuanced.

But both approaches could be found in dharmic and abrahamic traditions.
Definitely. They can also be found outside of any tradition, as well as in Paganism and other environments.

At the end of the day, one's personal actualization of the Sacred is indeed personal.

But environment can help and hinder that journey. Sometimes in extreme ways.
 

Epic Beard Man

Bearded Philosopher
True, yes. Although of course for many that overarching will and pattern is identified with God, of one aspect or many, and very possibly identified with the Guru. So it's certainly there. There are people who talk of accepting everything as the grace of their respective guru. I've heard that in relation to Sathya Sai Baba and Ramana Maharshi.

But our friend @Epic Beard Man seemed to be referring to the will of the universal God, rather than of the manifested human Guru.

But isn’t that who is referred to in the Bhagavad Gita?
 
Top