Syncretic assumptions

This is just an observation of syncretism based on a comment in the Hinduism DIR thread. I think that people who know more about a variety of faiths also assume incorrectly others do. So many of us here actually know nothing about other (scriptures) of faiths. So if someone (because they are naturally syncretic) reads something, they immediately start comparing, or thinking that way.

I confess to knowing nothing of the Koran or Bible. I know they exist, and that's about it. So if you want to quote the bible to me (or I the Upanishads to you) we might just as well be speaking Greek to a Mandarin speaker. The assumption that there is an understanding is just incorrect.

But luckily that doesn't make either of us wrong, just because there isn't understanding.

Finding the right 'language' to speak to others with a singular religious-spiritual commitment, imo, is what part of being a 'good' sycretist does.



Thanks for coming in with an honest,straight up opinion.

Helping us know you, helps us know ourselves

:namaste
SageTree

SageTree said:

But luckily that doesn't make either of us wrong, just because there isn't understanding.

:namaste
SageTree

Click to expand...

So true. There is no right or wrong. I cannot take the wrong road in Chile if I'm travelling in Africa. The other aspect is just being able to admit you know nothing, which seems a rather difficult proposition for some.

I don't tend to assume people know much about religion. It's generally not taught in public schools because of the stupid snags regarding separation of church and state. Folks will interpret simply educating people about the basic principles of world religions and theology as endorsement even when it is not. Religious ignorance in America is appalling. I'd hazard to say it's even worse than your typical American's scientific ignorance, because at least science is rigorously taught to anyone who goes through the public school system. I tend to assume any given person I'm talking to is generally ignorant of non-Western religious thought and completely ignorant regarding my own religion.

Part of the fun, I think, of being on a forum like this is to gain understanding of other ways of thinking. It can be a challenge to be sensitive to that when you're writing your posts. The word "god" for example has no agreed upon meaning among the world's religions, though you could maybe outline some vague characters they usually have in common (such as "god" being in some ways ineffable and "god" being sublime).

This happens outside of Syncretism just as much IMO, you'll be answering something and the person holding the religion/belief will be incredulous if you don't already know what they're talking about. lol

I guess being a syncretist I can post in here without getting an infartion?

Seriously, I am as guilty as the next person (actually the guy a few rows away) who is innocently and unwittingly oblivious to the fact that not everyone has been exposed to more than one religion, much less a multiplicity, or even has the desire, just because I have been.

In thinking on this, though I'd like to use the word meditating, for a deeper connotation, it seems especially prevalent that anyone who has come from an agnostic, atheistic, non-theistic, or "meh, who cares about religion" background is more likely to not be concerned with or understand or care about other religions when s/he finds the religion that suits them.

I always say that having come from several traditions, all admixtures to some degree: Roman Catholicism, Eastern Orthodoxy (yes, they are very different); an attraction to Hindu and Buddhist thoughts while still RC and/or EO; (panen)deism); agnosticism; in short: being in everyone's backyard and seeing the differences in their gardens, I'm rather pliable in my religious beliefs and willingness to cherry-pick.

To that end, it is unfair to assume that everyone knows about everyone else's faiths, and/or expects them to. On the other hand, there are times that comparative religion comments do surface, mostly unintentionally, I think. But I also think that maybe it's best to make a conscious effort to confine those subjects (rather than a passing comment) to a comparative religion area.

the thing about syncrinism is that assuming there is only one Absolute truth amoung the Religions...
the assumption made by many about other religions is that they are simply wrong...
which really P.O.s christians & muslims whos theology is often considered made up by syncrinists, while at the same time they draw resource from Abrahamic scriptures...

when a country rapidly becomes spiritual many new religions will pop up based on older ones...
the indian sect of the Bauls did the same thing.... they would quote the Hindu veda & mock Hindu rituals as foolish, as people can imagine Bramins were unhappy...

people are going to think whatever they want & thats going to make churches angry because churches want people to think their way or the high way. Then they are called heretics, but with the constitution(& similar documents ) we can now diversify spiritually as human beings once again.
whatever people think about this cultural phenomenon it seems to just be the flow of things..
when religion gets dogmatic, imagineers step in

namaskaram :namaste

Vinayaka said:

This is just an observation of syncretism based on a comment in the Hinduism DIR thread. I think that people who know more about a variety of faiths also assume incorrectly others do. So many of us here actually know nothing about other (scriptures) of faiths. So if someone (because they are naturally syncretic) reads something, they immediately start comparing, or thinking that way.

Click to expand...

this whole idea of syncretism as a title was totaly new to me before entering into conversations here ,

however I have allways felt that it does not harm anyone to try to understand anothers beleif , in fact I find it extremely interesting to read .

but because I am interested to make the effort to try to understand anothers faith does that make me syncretic ?
or does it only make a person syncretic if one chooses to see the validity of each path ?

I confess to knowing nothing of the Koran or Bible. I know they exist, and that's about it. So if you want to quote the bible to me (or I the Upanishads to you) we might just as well be speaking Greek to a Mandarin speaker. The assumption that there is an understanding is just incorrect.

Click to expand...

I confess to know little of the bible or the koran either , but I have found it extremely helpfull to try to understand the basic principles behind the faiths of my fellow human kind , and if I dont understand I have two choices by which I might learn to understand , that is to ask , or consult a book , ..... prehaps others prefer to google it , either way the information is at our fingertips .

quote ..Almustafa .....
the thing about syncrinism is that assuming there is only one Absolute truth amoung the Religions...

Click to expand...

I think many come to this 'realisation' without concidering themselves syncretic .

the assumption made by many about other religions is that they are simply wrong...

Click to expand...

sadly this is simply a state of illusion .

but does seeing through that illusion make one a syncretist ?

to me it is just some thing that comes with age and the blessing of a little wisdom .

Vinayaka said:

This is just an observation of syncretism based on a comment in the Hinduism DIR thread. I think that people who know more about a variety of faiths also assume incorrectly others do. So many of us here actually know nothing about other (scriptures) of faiths. So if someone (because they are naturally syncretic) reads something, they immediately start comparing, or thinking that way.

I confess to knowing nothing of the Koran or Bible. I know they exist, and that's about it. So if you want to quote the bible to me (or I the Upanishads to you) we might just as well be speaking Greek to a Mandarin speaker. The assumption that there is an understanding is just incorrect.

Click to expand...

Are you saying that it is collection of different faiths?

drakek said:

Are you saying that it is collection of different faiths?

Click to expand...

Depends. What do you mean by 'it'?

And yet, I wonder what is worse? Assuming people know about your religion, or talking to them like they don't. Some people are more educated and worldly then we give them credit for, and when we talk to them like they are children, it can come off as condescending.

Perhaps a more balanced approach is to begin a discussion about one's faith with a question. "Are you familiar with X,Y, or Z faith?"

At least for cases when you are talking to someone in person. On a forum like this, I think it's okay to assume people are at least a little familiar with your faith - there are after all sticky-notes for every subforum, explaining each faith in general terms. People can read those, come back and continue a discussion with a little more to start with.

Shanti :camp:

Fireside_Hindu said:

And yet, I wonder what is worse? Assuming people know about your religion, or talking to them like they don't. Some people are more educated and worldly then we give them credit for, and when we talk to them like they are children, it can come off as condescending.

Perhaps a more balanced approach is to begin a discussion about one's faith with a question. "Are you familiar with X,Y, or Z faith?"

At least for cases when you are talking to someone in person. On a forum like this, I think it's okay to assume people are at least a little familiar with your faith - there are after all sticky-notes for every subforum, explaining each faith in general terms. People can read those, come back and continue a discussion with a little more to start with.

Shanti :camp:

Click to expand...

It can be tricky. If I remember correctly, I started the thread because somebody quoted the bible to me, which was about as helpful (to me) as quoting my cat. But generally, with open honesty as to what we don't know (letting your ego go, and admitting it) all this can be overcome.

I don't so much think that people know about religions as much as I do, but that they are not so open minded about it. I live in Georgia, where Catholicism is considered a "minority" faith. Since I blend Hinduism with Buddhism, generally one of three reactions comes into play:

1.) You aren't Christian? Do you want to go to hell?

2.) You can't blend the two. They are incompatible. You are making a mockery of both. Only one is true/needed.

3.) Who is Ganesha/Shakyamuni/any other deity or Bodhisattva?

Of course, there are those who don't care that I blend the two, as well as some who encourage it; but my practice is my practice and it works for me.

This is just an observation of syncretism based on a comment in the Hinduism DIR thread.

I think that the real (scientific) syncretism is not some mechanical mixing of religions, rituals or by taking several points of view.
The best thing here - this selection of the common core teachings and practices.
In fact, this research work.