Therefore, both scenarios ultimately feed the clash of Christianity vs. Scenario #2 leads to the dissolution of Hinduism through a combination of hostile and friendly takeovers by Christianity, which, in turn, worsens the two-way jihad between Christianity and Islam. Scenario #1 leads to a three-way jihad among three History-Centric religions – Christianity vs. The essay cautions that Hinduism runs the risk of becoming either (1) History-Centric itself, or (2) losing its identity and becoming digested into Christianity via the Sameness Myth. These are: (1) how Hinduism is trying to become History-Centric, and (2) how Hinduism is self-destructing under the Myth of Sameness, by offering itself as a library of shareware for “generic” spirituality. In analyzing the predominantly non History-Centric Hinduism through this framework, the essay looks at the two main Hindu responses in its interface with the predominantly History-Centric religions of Christianity and Islam. The essay advances the thesis that non History-Centric faiths offer the only viable spiritual alternative to the religious conflicts that are inherent among History-Centric religions. Non History-Centric religious movements, on the other hand, do have beliefs about history, but their faith is not contingent on history. The former are contingent on canonical beliefs of their sacred history. It classifies religious movements as History-Centric and non History-Centric. To address these and other issues, this essay presents a new theoretical framework for looking at religions and global religious violence. Many Hindus have internalized these arguments, over simplifying the Hindu thought about there being one truth and all paths leading to it.
Often what Hindus really mean is that all religions are equal in the respect and rights they deserve, but they confuse this with sameness.Īt the same time, there are strong arguments that religious differences lead to tensions and violence. In particular, Hindus fail to understand the critical history-dependence of the Abrahamic religions and the way their core myths and institutions are built around these frozen smritis. The unity of all shruti is assumed to mean that all smritis must be the same. Furthermore, they fail to distinguish between shruti and smriti. Many Hindus misapply teachings about the Unmanifest when dealing with the diversity of the manifest, and the unity of transcendence in dealing with the diversity and conflict found in the worldly. Against this one may point out that the traditional Hindu teachings make a clear distinction between valid and not valid religious claims, by separating them as dharma and adharma, sat (truth) and asat (falsity), devika and asuric, etc.
Some common factors that cause many Hindus to slip into sameness are as follows: Hindus arrogantly assume that other religions want to be the same as Hinduism, and hence they feel that they are doing these other religions a favor. This essay examines the often repeated claim by Hindus and non-Hindus alike that Hinduism is the same as other religions.