Whom here is against syncretism (cobbling religions together)?

[DerekG]

While the reactionaries draw a great deal of my ire (as I understand, that doughfaced charlatan, Mssr. Robertson, recently called for the murder of Chavez), I confess that well-meaning liberals give me pause when they say such things as "All religions are the same" and "Buddha, Jesus...they're all interchangeable."

This is syncretism, and I can't abide it. Such proclamations rend asunder the rich tapestries of the world religions. It sacrifices nuance for "we-are-the-world" sentimentalism.

Yes, the religious faiths are similar in that they demand some degree of reverence (most pronounced, perhaps, in Islam; the least in Confucianism) and encourage brotherhood (the Golden Rule had been uttered/credited to Zarathustra and Confucius long before Christ).

Still, there are stark differences between the faiths; and, if you'll allow me to get personal, as a Christian, I must depart from my Unitarian brothers and sisters in saying I only recognize one messiah. I may look upon Kung Fu-tse and Muhammad as great wisdom teachers but, for me, they are just that. Wisdom teachers. (And I would never expect Muslims to perceive Jesus to be a greater prophet than the aforementioned Muhammad. If they did, they wouldn't be Muslim.)

Hans Kung, in his masterwork, "On Being a Christian," was correct: "How different indeed is Jesus' message from the absolute validity of the continually expanded written law (Moses); from the the ascetic retreat into monastic silence and meditation under the rules of a religious community (Buddha)..."

You get the picture. No one religion should be deemed superior to all others, but there are distinctions. So let us not be lazy.

[autorank]

1. How about the Sikhs and Sufis (many paths) -- syncretic or sublime...

"the attainment of the knowledge that comes with such intimacy with God, Sufis assert, is the very purpose of the creation. Here they mention the hadith qudsi in which God states, "I was a hidden treasure and I loved that I be known, so I created the creation in order to be known." Hence for the Sufis there is already a momentum, a continuous attraction on their hearts exerted by God, pulling them, in love, towards God. They experience the joyful ecstasy of being gently drawn to their Eternal Beloved, yet this primordially blissful return seems to have been interrupted."
http://www.uga.edu/islam/sufismintro.html

[kestrel91316]

2. Syncretism may be against your religion, but it's not against mine........

I think you will just HAVE TO abide it. Doesn't mean you have to practice it. To each his own.

As for me, I am a neopagan ecofeminist with anabaptist sympathies. But I only practice my religion inside my head and through my actions, not at any "church" and not with any group.

[wli]

3. that's a very harsh assessment of syncretism

c.f. the story of Serapis.

[VPStoltz]

4. Indeed, which is exactly why I abhor missionaries.

[trotsky]

5. Every modern religion is a product of syncretism.

Including (and perhaps most foremost) Christianity.

No religion is "pure" - they've all got parts that are borrowed from others as conquered people were absorbed and/or converted.

So in a very real sense, Buddha and Jesus ARE interchangeable.

[DerekG]

6. I never asserted that the world religions are "pure"

As I pointed out, the Golden Rule has been credited to nearly every religious leader of the East and West; and I'm well aware of the pagan/Hellenist influences on Christianity (among others).

Despite this, there are distinctions to be made. (The Buddha, unlike Christ, was not rooted in a Hebrew culture that anticipated an ever-encroaching Kingdom of God. This prophetic tradition is omnipresent in the four canonical gospels. So in another sense, Buddha and Jesus are not interchangeable; yes, they both sparked revolutions of the spirit, but their visions are not entirely analogous.)

What I take offense to are the proclamations, blithely made, that the world religions are "one and the same"; as if Hinduism and Judaism were Coke and Pepsi. One can heed the call for tolerance without losing sight of eccentricities and divergences.

[trotsky]

7. All religions are an attempt by humans

to create meaning in a universe that appears to be cold and uncaring.

In that sense, Buddhism is just like Christianity is just like Islam is just like Hinduism.

Sure you may differ in the particulars, but ultimately your religion is Coke and the other guy's is Pepsi. Syncretism is the reality of religion.

[DerekG]

8. How do you respond when people equate socialism with communism?

It could be said that both systems are attempts to bring justice to the world, but should we not make distinctions?

[trotsky]

9. I say they're introducing a red herring.

You may have some individual differences between religions, but ultimately they are all the same thing: an attempt by humans to explain the universe in the absence of any other supporting evidence.

[smirkymonkey]

11. Thank you!

Well said.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

15. Yes, but.

A religion/religious position consists of a set of statements about how the universe is, usually coupled with a social structure.

For any two religious positions, many of the statements they make are mutually contradictory.

At most one religious position is objectively true, all the others are objectively false.

We can't be totally certain which position is valid, or if no-one's yet hit on the truth, if only be Descarte's invisible demon argument, although we can make very good guesses by looking at which sets of statements do and don't conflict with the obeserved evidence or contain inconsistencies.

Imagine a set of canvas bags. One of them holds a white pebble, and all the others have red pebbles in them. You can't be sure which bag has the white pebble in it, but that doesn't mean all the pebbles are pinkish.

By all means treat the bags the same (although by feeling them, talking to the people who put the pebbles in etc you can try and work out where the white pebble is, and so have grounds to discriminate between them), but never lose sight of the fact that the *pebbles* are different.

[trotsky]

18. I'm trying to make sense of your bag analogy.

In the comparing that to religion, you have to allow for the possibility that there is no white pebble (or even ANY pebbles) at all. Each person holding a bag swears they've not only got a pebble, but THE white pebble, though they've never directly seen it, they have every reason to believe they do.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

19. It's not a great analogy.

Let me try again.

The universe exists. Statements about it can be either true or false (or subjective, or meaningless, or undefined, but lets leave those possibilities aside).

An element (by far the most important element, I'd argue) of a religion or a religious position is a set of statements about how the world works. There are often other bits - moral and social systems - but the definiting point of a religious position is the
set of claims it makes about existance - claims like "After death we are reincarnated" or "No supreme being exists".

A claim like this can be either objectively true or objectively false (although not all are either, e.g. "X was a good person").

There is a complete set of objectively true statements (my white pebble). A set of statements is a religious position. The religious position is correct, and all others are in some degree wrong.

We can, by looking at evidence about the truth or falsity of given statements, make good guesses about which is the correct position, but we don't have enough evidence to be absolutely certain. As such, it behoves us to bare in mind the possibility that we may be wrong.

However, we can be as sure as we can be sure of anything that there *is* one, and exactly one, correct position, and all others are wrong.

[carl_pwccaman]

23. Deep vs. Shallow Syncretism?

I think what you just said helps alot, pointing towards distinctions, eccentricities, divergencies that make traditions rich and allows them to make their own contribution.

I like to point out that there is a difference between deep and shallow syncretism.

I think when people express concerns about postmodernism, much of it is because the overwhelming influx of information without any bearings to orient oneself, can become unworkable, unfruitful, the tools we might use become meaningless or shift into something else before our eyes. When evidence, language, terms, and images, shift into any and everything, much can be lost.

When people use syncretism in a negative sense, I think they are responding to superficial attempts to merge everything, shallow resemblances between words, images, rites, concepts, and processes, or a mish-mash that seems to disregard the very themes, issues, concepts, and concerns that are crucial to the individual traditions that are manipulated/combined.

I like to contrast that with what I prefer to see as a deep syncretism. As a Gnostic myself, I differentiate between traditions and various religions, I see evidence of spiritual teaching or insight wherever it can be found and use it, but I know my own tradition as my home, and things take on special meaning within the context of my own tradition. If another tradition points to an insight of my own tradition, I thank that other tradition for reminding me. Yet traditions can understood to be distinct and different. That is often necessary.

The deepest sort of syncretism, in my view, is when there is a blending between traditions, myths, symbols, themes, etc., that ADDS TO the ongoing exploration of these themes/etc. in the traditions involved, along a line of development already inherent or manifest in the traditions involved. Two traditions develop their issues and themes in their own way, and at some point they come into contact, and eventually people aware of both traditions see how there is a way to answer crucial unresolved or as yet imperfectly resolved issues in each tradition, by mixing the imagery/themes of both traditions, and arriving at an insight.

What may result is a new religion (Manicheanism, though explaining how this is an example would take too much space). Or perhaps one or both religions, develop in their own way after such insights and contact, each bearing the marks of this contact and resolution of an issue (Hebrew traditions start separating out implied evil aspects of their god after contact with Zoroastrians, and earlier actions of their god are now speculatively attributed to angels or even demons)

Another deep sort of syncretism is when a story from one tradition highlights the themes that are important to another tradition, and there are many examples of this. If it furthers important themes and comes closer to resolving difficult issues currently creating tension in the religion, this is what makes it deep rather than shallow.

Superficial mixing is just shallow. And claiming all are the same is simply untrue.

Not all religions are worthwhile. I.e., fanatics and authoritarians are not doing it right, they are in error, and the same spirit is apparently not inspiring them as is inspiring others who are not fanatic or authoritarian.

[trotsky]

24. "Not all religions are worthwhile."

How does one judge this?

Don't you essentially have to use your own religion to make this decree, and doesn't that mean someone like Pat Robertson is equally justified in calling YOUR religion not "worthwhile"?

[More Than A Feeling]

10. Mystics of each religion have more in common

with each other than with non-mystics of their own faith. Check out The Perennial Philosophy by Aldous Huxley for clear examples of that.

Likewise, fundamentalists have more in common with each other than with non-fundamentalists of their own faith.

It is probably among non-mystic, non-fundamentalists that the greatest differences are to be found.

[sweetheart]

27. lucidly put

What is there in life but synergy, and a mystic would surely see the
connectedness of all things whilst the fundamentalist of any ilk..not.

[Lydia Leftcoast]

12. I believe that the Ultimate Truth is unfathomable by the human mind so

that all religions are to greater or lesser degrees allegories and approximations.

I'm a Christian of the liberal Episcopal variety because that's the allegory and the way of life that fits me.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

14. I don't agree.

I agree that we can't be certain of Ultimate Truth, but I think the correct response is "One of these religious positions is absolutely and objectively true, and all the others are false (or possibly they're all false, and something else is true), but we can't be totally sure which", not "All of these religions are valid allegories of the truth".

Just because we can't be totally certain what the truth is, doesn't mean it doesn't exist.

[carl_pwccaman]

21. Not just one-many

One could also say that different questions are answered by different traditions, and that there things to be found in different religions, but one or more may be more generally reliable or spiritually fruitful.

Just because there are spiritual truths or merit in religion, doesn't mean that one has answered all the questions correctly.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

13. I am, broadly.

The traditionalist view of religion, characteristic of conservatives of all stripes, is "There are these dozen stories about how the world works, and I know that this one is true and all the others are false". This world-view produces crusades and witchburnings and all the other worst manifestations of religion.

A more rational approach, characteristic of the more intelligent liberals, is "There are these dozen stories about how the world works, of which one is true and all the others are false. I think the true one is this one, and I will procede accordingly, but I will bear in mind that I may be wrong".

However, a depressingly high fraction of liberals go further. They say "There are these dozen stories about how the world works, all of which are in some sense true". This approach leads to syncretism, postmodernism, and other kinds of wooly thinking.

That said, no-one ever slaughtered anyone in the name of syncretism. However, I think being expedient is a poor substitute in a philosophical approach for being true.

[carl_pwccaman]

22. I partly agree

There are true and false statements in many religions, wouldn't you agree?

Because of that, I prefer to say whether or not I've found any particular tradition that I think is particularly true, and to explore it and see how true it may be.

In the process, I'd prefer not to dismiss whatever might be true or spiritually fruitfull elsewhere, even if I find that other religious tradition lacking in some way, because where it may contradict my own I find value in my own over the other.

I agree there is a certain kind of wooly thinking that can be unfortunate.

[Nihil]

25. "More rational"?

> A more rational approach, characteristic of the more intelligent
> liberals, is "There are these dozen stories about how the world works,
> of which one is true and all the others are false. I think the true
> one is this one, and I will proceed accordingly, but I will bear in
> mind that I may be wrong"

Maybe it's just the phrasing but that comes across as surprisingly
judgemental and condescending. Not a lot different from your option 1.

If you are prepared to accept that at least one contains truth, why
not more than one? If you are prepared to declare that "the others"
are false, why not all of them? or none of them?

If you use the word "rational" with respect to your beliefs then you
should accept the above.

At the end of the day, the whole essence of religion is based upon
faith, it is by definition unprovable. This means that there is NO
"right" or "wrong" answer, just opinions. There is no "absolute truth"
or "confirmed falsehood", just opinions.

Every man and woman is entitled to their own opinion.
You may choose to agree with someone else or disagree but your opinion
(or mine) is no more valid than theirs.

People who can recognise that can get along in the human race.
Those who don't tend to be well represented in the witch-burning and
crusades department.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

29. I disagree.

While it's true that as religious positions are sets of statements and not single ones, and that for almost any possible position (all but two, in fact) some of those statements will be true and some false, it's technically the case that all religions contain some truth, it's not the case that that truth is in some way "mixed in" with the falsehood - any religious position will have some bits which are true, and some bits which are false (except for one completely true position, and one completely false one, almost certainly neither of which is held by anyone).

Any statement about the way the world is which is "based upon faith" and "by definition unproveable" is meaningless and worthless, I'm afraid. To be worth considering, a claim has to be capable of being debated.

Absolute truth almost certainly does exist, but confirmed falsehood doesn't - the whole point of my post is that there's a difference between saying "I think this is absolutely true, but I am not certain" and either "I am absolutely certain this is true" or "I think this is trueish."

Every man and woman is entitled to their own opinion, but to say that all those opinions are equally valid is wooly thinking of the worst kind - some are right, and some are wrong; some have more or less evidence to support them. In certain contexts All those opinoins should be *treated* as equally valid, but that's a totally different thing.

The people who burn witches an go on crusades are the ones who not merely believe in absolute truth, but are convinced that they have it.

[Nihil]

34. You're allowed to! :-)

> Any statement about the way the world is which is "based upon faith"
> and "by definition unproveable" is meaningless and worthless, I'm
> afraid.

Please re-read my post as I didn't say that ... my words were:

>> At the end of the day, the whole essence of religion is based upon
>> faith, it is by definition unprovable. This means that there is NO
>> "right" or "wrong" answer, just opinions. There is no "absolute
>> truth" or "confirmed falsehood", just opinions.

i.e., not "the world" but "religion".

Religions are belief systems and so are not only based on faith but
rely on faith for their very existance.

Now if you are a priest/pastor/<other religious title> then *your*
world may be encompassed in your religion but "the world" isn't.

> Every man and woman is entitled to their own opinion, but to say
> that all those opinions are equally valid is wooly thinking of the
> worst kind - some are right, and some are wrong;

You forgot the "in my opinion" in the above.

Or maybe you forgot that you have no more grasp of the ineffable truth
than I do.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

35. But the essence of a religion *is* a set of statements about the world.

There are usually also social structures and ethical commandments, but the most important thing is a set of claims - claims about things which exist, claims about things which happened in the past, and so on.

I agree that the *reason* many people hold the religious positions they do is faith, not logic, but that doesn't have anything to do with whether or not the statements of that position are true.

[NAO]

16. I LOVE Syncretism! Mme. Blavatsky was the best ever at extreme synthesis

The Secret Doctrine
THE SYNTHESIS OF SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND PHILOSOPHY.
By H. P. Blavatsky
ONLINE
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd-hp.htm


The finest work of syncretism I have ever seen is Blavatsky's "The Secret Doctrine". She subsumes every religion, plus classical AND modern philosophy, AND 19th century science! It's grand. You could spend a lifetime studying this 2,300 page, 2 volume tome.

Description:

This massive study is an astonishing document. Blavatsky synthesizes science and spirituality into an exhilarating journey of spiritual awareness.

Continuously in print for over 100 years, the Secret Doctrine remains today the most comprehensive sourcebook of the esoteric tradition, outlining the fundamental tenets of the "Secret Doctrine of the Archaic Ages." Challenging, prophetic, and strikingly modern, it directly addresses the perennial questions: continuity of life after death, purpose of existence, good and evil, consciousness and substance, sexuality, karma, evolution, and human and planetary transformation. Based on the ancient Stanzas of Dzyan with corroborating testimony from over 1,200 sources, these volumes unfold the drama of cosmic and human evolution -- from the reawakening of the gods after a "Night of the Universe" to the ultimate reunion of cosmos with its divine source. Supplementary sections discuss relevant scientific issues as well as the mystery language of myths, symbols, and allegories, helping the reader decipher the often abstruse imagery of the world's sacred literature

Just a few of the topics in this book - only a partial listing of the contents:

One Key to all Sacred Books;
The ABC of Magic; Chaldean Oracles;
The Book of Hermes;
Three Ways Open to the Adept;
Names are Symbols;
Characters of the Bible;
The Book of Enoch;
Hermetic and Kabalistic Doctrines;
Numbers and Magic;
Occult Weapons;
The Duty of the True Occultist;
Two Eternal Principles;
St. Paul the real founder of Christianity;
Apollonius no Fiction;
Biographies of Initiates;
Kabalistic Readings of Gospels;
Magic in Antioch;
The Septenary Sephira;
Seven Keys to all Allegories;
The Mystery of the Sun;
Magical Statutes;
Masonry and Jesuits;
Mysteries and Masonry;
Egyptian Initiation;
Root of Races;
Celestial Wheels;
Christian Star Worship;
Defense of Astrology;
The Seven Rays;
Secret Books;
Tibetan Prophecies;
Swedenborg;
Occult Secrecy;

and much more!

The Secret Doctrine
THE SYNTHESIS OF SCIENCE, RELIGION, AND PHILOSOPHY.
By H. P. Blavatsky
ONLINE
http://www.theosociety.org/pasadena/sd/sd-hp.htm

[NAO]

17. Carl Jung and Ken Wilber are Masters of Synthesis (aka syncretism)

Jung is at his best in his works on Gnosticism and Alchemy. His Magnum Opus, "Mysterium Coniunctionis: An Inquiry Into the Separation and Synthesis of Psychic Opposites in Alchemy" and the related volume "Alchemical Studies" are among his finest works.

Ken Wilber's "Sex, Ecology, Spirituality" is the most comprehensive theory of everything I have ever seen. His shorter, popularized version of the same work, titled "A Brief History of Everything" is also delightful and breathtaking in perspective.

[Zhade]

20. This thread is hilarious when you consider how much Christianity stole...

...from other religions and spiritual practices.

[PatsFan2004]

26. Trying to look at this from "God's" point of view.

Let's say that there is a God who designed creation in a certain way and science and math seems to indicate that the universe follows certain laws. And now He has put men and women on this planet. Based upon the logic of the universe around us, it would make sense that if God cared about us, He would interact with us and provide guidance as to what His rules are or else how best to live the life we have (a bit above a loving dog owner). It would not be logical for God to put out contradictory rules or to "hide" His guidance. (Imagine telling your dog Yes and No simultaneously). Therefore, it would seem to be the most logical to presume that His guidance and rules would be available from one source and to avoid corruption that source would most likely be written.

So even though "truth" might be found in various religions, it makes no sense for God to speak in contradictions or to play hide and seek with the truth. The truth should be made obvious by some kind of exclamation point in human history.

For me that exclamation point is Jesus Christ and His death and resurrection. The source of truth is the Bible.

[sweetheart]

28. Are they different?

Don't cobble them together, see each as a cultural manifestation of an
incarnation of enlightenment, and each of those incarnations, of varying
levels and accuracy of historical record.

And each world religion, if you go back to the "founding" was formed by
an enlightened person, who taught directly some disciples how to become
enlightened. And these living practices are written down as rules after
the death of the teacher, and a thousand years later, the storys are
repeated by lineages as watered down truth.

And each of those religions has that enlightenment right now. As how
else could we know of a religion's truth if it did not resonate with
the present icons, metaphors and allegories of the mind right now.

So each religion cannot ever be removed from its context, and all that
has come down from the ages is the advise of long dead enlightened
persons, dead leaves pressed in a book. What of the flower of this
now's awakeness, that spark of life forever present, inextinguishable
containing all the aspirations of every human being for divine
contemplation of the totality.

[catbert836]

30. All the major religions are syncretic

Christianity- Burrowed mostly from Persian, Egyptian and Greek paganism. Examples: God's image is Zeus, minus a lightning bolt, the Persian god Mithras was born on December 25th, and the image of Mary cuddling Jesus was taken from a similar image of Isis suckling her child Horus. Could have developed Trrinity concept from Hinduism (Brahma, Vishnu, and Siva). Lots of Greek philosophy in there too.

Judaism- Heavily influenced by other Middle Eastern faiths, including Zoroastrianism, and Caananite, Egyptian and Arabian local religions.

Islam- Burrowed a LOT from Judaism and Christianity, including the abstract version of Allah (Judaism), the prophets of these religions, etc.. Also burrowed from the philosophy of the time's Arabian religious leaders.

Hinduism- Now this I have to say is probably almost totally original. Obviously, the Aryans who invaded India thousands of years ago probably took some of their subjects religious ideas while crafting their own.

Buddhism- Reincarnation concepts from Hinduism, as well as Nirvana idea. Many of the Hindu gods are also worshipped by some Buddhists.

So, you see, it's almost impossible to start a new religion thats going to catch on without burrowing from others heavily.

Note: none of this is intended to offend adherents of the above religions. I'm just tellin' it like it is.

[manic expression]

31. One thing....

The "Aryan Invasion" never happened. It is perhaps the most debunked historical theory in modern times. It is completely wrong in every way, and here is just some evidence to prove it:

(a lot of this is taken out of other sources) The theory's inventor, Frederick Max Muller made it because he wanted to fit it into the Biblical story of the creation of Earth. He believed that the world had been created in 4004 BCE, and he also believed the Great Flood ended in 2448 BCE. Therefore, he reasoned that immigration and population of India would have taken until 1200 BCE. With the discovery of the Indus Valley civilizations, people came up with the Aryan Invasion Theory. Obviously, both Muller and these scholars were woefully incorrect.

The Northern people of India have no recollection of invading, and the Southern people of India (supposedly the invaded and subjugated race...which is wrong) have no recollection of ever being driven out of anywhere, or living in Northern India at all. There is much evidence to show this:
The Vedas themselves describe the landscape of northern India and Pakistan. There is no trace of any reference to anything besides the subcontinent (scholars then reasoned that the Aryans must have been fantasizing of what they wished their homeland was!).
The Vedas repeatedly mention a river called the Sarasvati, a place where Aryan communities thrived. There is no such river in India today, but satellite images have revealed the dry bed of a river in the Punjab (northwestern India/Pakistan). This was actually the Sarasvati River that the Vedas had mentioned. Geologists established the river dried up around 1900 BCE...700 years AFTER Muller said the Vedas had been composed.
Archaeologists have not found any evidence of any invasion.
There was no abrupt break of culture, as would happen if there was an invasion of a foreign culture (supposedly made up of nomadic warriors, no less).
There have been many discoveries of Shiva and other deities popular in India today in the ancient Indus Valley ruins. Also, fire pits meant for Vedic rituals were also found in abundance. However, these rites were not supposed to have been in India for another 1,500 years.
No Dravidian-like culture has ever been found in Northern India, and DNA evidence shows almost no difference whatsoever between northern and southern Indians.

All this points to the conclusion that the Aryan Invasion Theory is false.

Thanks for reading.

[catbert836]

33. Thank YOU for posting

I'd never heard that about the Aryan Invasion, and I see myself as a very historically concious person. Thanks a bunch. I really appreciate that.
Peace.

[manic expression]

32. Through many, one.

Ultimately, religions are all about the same entity. That entity is pervasive, so it can be worshiped through anything.

The details of that is when disagreements start.

How many lines can one make from the outside of a circle to the center? Infinite. They all connect to the same thing, and they are very much the same, but their paths are different.

Also, think about the proverb of the four blind men and the elephant. That sums it up pretty well.