Syncretism

[Tomoz]

Coming from a background full of yoga and Hinduism there is one thing that I might mention.
One of the things that drew me to that path in the first place was the teaching that there are many valid paths to the divine. But in actual fact, in my experience (and I emphasise that it was only in my experience, and may not represent how it is always) when it all boiled down to it, it wasn't that christianity, islam, judaism, buddhism etc were equal paths with hinduism/yoga, but rather christian yoga, islamic yoga, jewish yoga, buddhist yoga etc.
So what I would ask is, is a person truly accepting all paths as valid when they are really only superimposing their own beliefs into the context of the other religious paths?

Only helpful, constructive replies please!!!!

 

[Vedant]

I don't understand your post and what it has to do with syncretism. Could you explain further?

 

[Tomoz]

Sorry I'm not clear!
Well, people I have known (and myself at one time) have held a belief that all paths are valid. But the way that those paths are defined are essentially their own beliefs presented in the context of another belief system e.g. Jesus was a great yogi who was teaching advaita vedanta, and christians who believe that Christ is the only way haven't got it right (can I PLEASE emphasise again that this is what I have come across only in my experience and may not represent the general view).
So in that way those beliefs are syncretistic (I think - I hope I haven't got my definitions wrong!) because they are attempting to merge two distinct traditions. But isn't there a paradox there? Because when I would say that all paths were valid, I wasn't really saying that. I was saying that MY path was valid and that all others were valid as long as their belief lined up with mine in their own context.

 

[Vedant]

Sorry I'm not clear!
Well, people I have known (and myself at one time) have held a belief that all paths are valid. But the way that those paths are defined are essentially their own beliefs presented in the context of another belief system e.g. Jesus was a great yogi who was teaching advaita vedanta, and christians who believe that Christ is the only way haven't got it right (can I PLEASE emphasise again that this is what I have come across only in my experience and may not represent the general view).
So in that way those beliefs are syncretistic (I think - I hope I haven't got my definitions wrong!) because they are attempting to merge two distinct traditions. But isn't there a paradox there? Because when I would say that all paths were valid, I wasn't really saying that. I was saying that MY path was valid and that all others were valid as long as their belief lined up with mine in their own context.

Well, I think the generally accepted term for syncretic religions are ones that draw from more than one tradition. A common modern one is Unitarian Universalism.

I think I understand what you mean though. People often teach religion in comparison to other religions. However, I don't think this is really syncretism at all, but simply comparative religious studies.

 

[elijah115]

what he means I think is that His religious view is syncretic because christianity and other non-Hindu religions are absorbed into pantheism of Hindu gods to explain the world in the Hindu mind.

 

[Vedant]

But Hinduism is not syncretic. That's an inaccurate description, even to a person who sees and understands everything from the Hindu perspective.

Perhaps his worldview is something related to Hinduism, but not entirely Hindu? That would be more "syncretic"

 

[little_wing]

It's more religious revisionism than syncretism. Syncretism implies some sort of merger, and what you're describing is more a reappropriation or reinterpretation of one faith's religious leader in terms of the worldview of another faith. It's a fuzzy line, and I think technically it is syncretism, but I understand where you're coming from.

 

[Tomoz]

Perhaps his worldview is something related to Hinduism, but not entirely Hindu? That would be more "syncretic"

Sorry guys, just to clarify, I'm a christian, I've been referring to my previous belief system

 

[Vedant]

Ahhhh, so you're a convert to Christianity, but still use certain elements of Hinduism?

 

[Tomoz]

No...sorry, I've been totally confusing!! Let me start from the start...
Just forget about the syncretism part, I think I have my terminology wrong. Here is my question:
My old yogi friends say that all paths are equal and valid. But really, when you get down to it, they only believe that all religions are valid when they take the form of their own beliefs, transmuted into a christian context, or islamic context, or buddhist context etc. etc. Someone like me, who nowadays has pretty orthodox christian beliefs and doesn't believe that Jesus was a great yogi who was teaching advaita vedanta, would be seen to be ignorant.
So, if someone says that they believe that all paths are valid, but actually think the other faiths are only truly valid when their own beliefs are written into the context of the other faiths (eg Jesus was a great yogi who was preaching advaita), are they really being so tolerant and accepting?

 

[sanaa]

hi ,
hindus have diverse views when it comes to Jesus ranging from he is a yogi to he did not exist to he was a prophet to he was an incarnation of God to complete indifference etc. etc. so rather than going by what a few hindus think lets see what the scriptures say . in the Gita Krishna says that whatever form of God u worship ur worshipping Him only , hence hindus believe we may call God by different names or think of Him in a different way but in the end we are worshipping the same God , so ur religious path is valid .