Hinduism and Christianity

[xibidix]

Hi, nice to meet all you folks!

Born and raised Christian here. Always been curious about other religions. Personally, I've found the most compelling answers to my questions of faith within Hinduism. One particular quote that has resonated with me strongly is from the Bhagavad Gita when Lord Krishna proclaims the following to Arjuna:

"I Brahma am! the One Eternal God, And Adhyatman is My Being's name, The Soul of Souls! What goeth forth from Me, Causing all life to live, is Karma called: And, Manifested in divided forms, I am the Adhibhuta, Lord of Lives; And Adhidaiva, Lord of all the Gods, Because I am Purusha, who begets. And Adhiyajna, Lord of Sacrifice, I - speaking with thee in this body here - Am, thou embodied one! (for all the shrines Flame unto Me!) And, at the hour of death, He that hath meditated Me alone, In putting off his flesh, comes forth to Me, Enters into My Being - doubt thou not! But, if he meditated otherwise At hour of death, in putting off the flesh, He goes to what he looked for, Kunti's Son! Because the Soul is fashioned to its like."

It is often thought that Hinduism is a polytheistic religion. On this website, even, we find the popular misconception that Hinduism believes in thousands of "gods". Here in this quote, however, we find that Hinduism is, in its purest form, a monotheistic religion. Within the Bhagavad Gita, Krishna tells Arjuna, “I am Brahma, the One Eternal God!” Imagine now the similarity to Jesus in the Gospels saying, "I am God." Is this to be interpreted to mean that Christians are polytheists? No. Christians clearly recognize that God's spirit was speaking through Jesus and thus when Jesus says, “I am God,” we are not left with the distinction of multiple gods but rather One God made manifest in flesh through the incarnation of Jesus. Krishna was also believed to be a manifestation of God by the ancients of India. “I-speaking with thee in this body here” suggests that it is the Spirit of God speaking through Krishna as well. Upon close examination, one finds that Hinduism teaches a very similar doctrine to that of Christianity. There is but One God, eternal, without beginning and end, acting by free-will, almighty, all-wise, living, life giving, ruling, preserving; He who in His sovereignty is unique and beyond all likeness and unlikeness. Different "gods" are but different emanations of this one Supreme Being like a single beam of light separated into different colors by a prism. As the Rig Veda says, "Truth is One, though the sages know it variously."

According to scripture, though, Jesus told his disciples that "no one gets to the father except through me". As such, how can we decide which of these prophets was speaking the truth? Furthermore, how can we reconcile these two different historical prophets teaching such similar lessons despite being separated by such great distances of both space and time? Well, according to the Gita, this divine incarnation is not an isolated occurrence. Such an incarnation takes place whenever and wherever such a manifestation is necessary. The Hindu conception of the incarnation of God is beautifully expressed in the Gita when the spirit of God, speaking through Krishna, says:

"Wherever irreligion prevails and true religion declines, I manifest Myself in a human form to establish righteousness and to destroy evil".

True religion derives from God, not Man. According to Lord Krishna, all religions are like pearls threaded upon a string. The string is God. The many pearls, religions, are simply the many ways of finding God. One should, however, try and make sure not to confuse the pearl for the string. Regardless of how you find your faith, the message is the same:

"Be fearless and pure; never waver in your determination or your dedication to the spiritual life. Give freely. Be self-controlled, sincere, truthful, loving, and full of the desire to serve...Learn to be detached and to take joy in renunciation. Do not get angry or harm any living creature, but be compassionate and gentle; show good will to all. Cultivate vigor, patience, will, purity; avoid malice and pride. Then, you will achieve your destiny."

Does that not sound similar to the teachings Jesus gave to Christians on the Sermon on the Mount? Of course, let's be honest here; it's a bit difficult to get too comfortable with some of these comparisons. To begin with, the gospels themselves were not written until between 40 to 90+ years after Jesus's life so we can only speculate at what written and oral sources were used in their composition. Not to mention, when you get right down to it, the Jesus of history as opposed to the Jesus of theology is a pretty elusive chap. Furthermore, the historical Krishna lived thousands of years ago - thousands of years before Christ even. Which makes anything said by him in the Bhaghavad Gita even more questionable in authenticity. Still, I cannot help but feel that the differences between these two faiths, or any other two faiths for that matter, are often exaggerated.

Does this mean I think all people should believe in Hinduism? That's a difficult question. Whether the non-believer should or should not choose faith at all is an interesting question in and of itself. The ontological argument and all that is great and all but doesn't point exclusively to Christianity. Faith is the necessary leap. The agnostic solution is to say that since faith transcends human reason one cannot, as a human, make any reasonable decisions regarding such matters. The atheist solution is to say that since faith transcends human reason then it should be done away with all together for it is naught but superstition. Both groups would insist that one should concern themselves with this life, not the next. I suppose such a viewpoint is logical in many ways. But man is a spiritual creature, and without God he often finds himself quite lost.

Most faiths do seem to produce genuine experience. And nearly all of them have lead to a system of reproduction of those feelings in art. On the most basic level, I suppose I seek faith on a sort of Platonic level. To enter into union with God seems to me to be the something that all human beings long for. We strive for truth and love and beauty. At least it's something that I long for. This is why I find beliefs like agnosticism and atheism to be unsatisfactory. It is not from the cold facts of science by which one learns to live a happy and fulfilling life - it is the subtle graces of art, music, poetry and spirituality which speaks to one's soul.

Of course, deciding which faith to choose is an equally interesting question. I suppose on some level that faith itself is a choice of utility. For the Hindu liberation and moksha must be seen as having some kind of value in and of itself. For the Christian salvation and heaven must have utility - etc, etc. To make things more difficult, in such matters, any metaphysical claims can only offer utility if they are true.

Faith is, in essence, a choice. At a fork in the road you have to choose the route you think will lead you to your destination; I, for one, have found Vedanta to be the best way of helping me to find God in my own life. Until one opens their heart and heads down the ancient path, however, I imagine that it will simply remain a mysterious act of faith to the non-believer. It is said in most traditions that faith that comes prior to understanding. This was the view held by Augustine, Kierkegaard, Luther and many others. Having made such a leap myself, my own experiences with prayer and meditation and yoga have only served to further enrich my appreciation of religious thought of all currents.

Thoughts? Criticisms? Concerns?

[Objectivitees]

Thoughts? Criticisms? Concerns?

Yes, we have a few, but we printed out your essay, to better be able to digest it all, make our little scribbly notes in the margins which we'll try to re-read later, assimilate it all, and then tear you to shreds. Ok, just kidding on the tearing shredding part... but we hope to comment soon.

First... welcome to our forum! Thanks for dropping in, but most important... bring your friends...we're lonely!

More later...

[Objectivitees]

Hello xibidix,
The following are a few thoughts we had on reading your post....

On opening you claim to be born and raised as a Christian, and said nonetheless, you found your most compelling ‘answers’ to your questions of faith in Hinduism. At first, we read this to mean you had converted, and were in fact Hindu. However we now realize that you MAY have meant you are still Christian, and now you simply think Christianity and Hinduism are reconcilable. You went on to cite many comparisons between the two, yet never made a definitive statement of your beliefs. In this, you have us at a disadvantage for discussion, as you know clearly where we are coming from. Would you be so kind as to clarify this issue for us?

On to the body of your text.... You took issue with our characterization of Hindu belief as being somewhat polytheistic, in that our site claims there are "millions" of "gods" in the Hindu faiths. While it is true that it is strictly not polytheistic, it does have enough of the characteristics to validate the label. More accurately, we should call it a pantheistic worldview, yet it can at times be even atheistic in it's application. Perhaps you misunderstood our use of the term 'gods'. As you explained, the different 'gods' of Hinduism are but different "emanations of this One Supreme Being". To the western mind, conceiving an emanation as distinct from another, giving it specific characteristics, creating a picture of it or forming an idol of some sort depicting it, constitutes the creation of a 'god'. We distinguish these from our understanding of the one 'Supreme Being', or 'God', in our written language by capitalization. It is in the manifestation and worship of these 'emanations' that we find in Hinduism, and the worship given them by Hindus that make the label 'Polytheistic' to be accurate, and our use of the term 'god' justified in the western mode of thinking. We grant you, that Hinduism by it’s own standards, utilizing the distinct “eastern” mode of thinking, could be described as monotheistic, but in no way would this be appropriate in western thought, as an important but often overlooked characteristic ontologically necessarily to ‘God’ is in fact, missing from the Hindu concept of God. Namely, this is the trait of personal being. Though there are a few notable divisions among Hinduism that perceive God as a personal being, they are clearly the minority belief. Therefore the closest we can get to agreement on this matter probably would be to describe Hinduism as Pantheistic.

Later in your text, you roughly equate Krishna and Jesus as prophets of God, asking the rhetorical question, “As such, how can we decide which of these prophets was speaking the truth?” This is an equivocation and fallacy of logic (false conundrum) exposed by the fact Christianity does not describe Jesus as a prophet, but rather as God Himself , a fact you tacitly expressed earlier when you attempted to demonstrate the Hindu belief as monotheistic where you quoted Jesus saying “I am God”.

Next, you state “true religion derives from God”, a simple statement on which we would actually agree with you. However you then asserted the difference between the exclusivity of Christianity and inclusive nature of Hindu thought, by referring to the teaching of Krishna, where “all religions are like pearls threaded on a string”, the ‘string’ being God. This was to make the point that Hindu thought believes there are many ways to God, and all paths are relevant. The one resounding problem we would have with this would be religions that expressly deny the existence of God, such as Naturalism, Evolution, (Philosophical Naturalism) or Atheism. How could these “paths” be valid? Of course you may say that we used ‘reason’ to arrive at this conclusion, and Hinduism implicitly denies the validity of reason as a means of becoming one with “The ONE”, but you would have to use reason to substantiate your claim. This is one of the fundamental problems we find with Hindu thought, which renders it a system, which by at least western modes of thinking is irrational, and therefore a system from which one could not possibly derive verifiable Truth, and ultimately meaningless . If one must use reason to claim reason is not valid, don’t you invalidate your own argument? We think that this difference cannot be demonstrated clearly enough, and shows aside from your feelings, that “any two other faiths”, or those we currently discuss, are in fact, not exaggerated, and when thoughtfully considered, eventually makes them, as opposed to Christianity, inherently nihilistic .

You go further to state the Ontological argument does not point to the exclusivity of Christianity, but it does not have to. Christianity does that plainly enough for itself. You say that a “leap of faith” is necessary and we agree with you, but not to the point of determining the identity of God. We go only to the point of believing faith is needed to presuppose God exists or does not exist in the first place. It is only after this initial assumption that we then can begin to evaluate ‘evidences’ for the validity of any competing ‘God’ claims. Here, then, is where Christianity points to the cross. When one opens himself up to accept God exists, and then knocks on the door, truly seeks God out, he will find Him only at the cross, and only because God’s spirit will enable him to do so.

Objectivitees bold claim is just this, all worldviews coming from other than a Christian biblical perspective, incorporate rational contradictions that render them neutral in allowing an individual to ascertain Truth with any certainty. As such, they may contain Truth in part, but because one can never be certain where that truth is due to foundational contradictions, the worldviews are then rendered literally meaningless. They become just so much conjecture. We believe anything meaningless is Nihilistic, and Nihilism always leads to self-destruction. (Just look at Nietzsche… though we do give him credit for living out his beliefs consistently) How can one have hope when all is meaningless, and how can one live without hope?

In concluding your essay, you point out you believe faiths like Atheism and Agnosticism are unsatisfactory to you. We applaud your evaluation of them. You said you seek faith on a platonic level, and believe union with God is what all humans long for. We agree with you yet again, but clarify the identity of the “God” most people seek is not the One True God. You seem to tacitly acknowledge this when you said, “Of course, deciding which faith to choose is an equally interesting question.” We ask you if that means you admit you aren’t certain of His identity yourself? It would seem so from our reading of your post. If that is indeed the case, we invite you re-examine your born and raised faith. If you see it as merely a function of utility, then you see it (and seek it) only as it serves you, and not as it is. God calls us to deny ourselves, and serve Him, for it is only in Him that we can be ourselves, and find His Truth.

God is Truth is Jesus.

[xibidix]

Thank you for for the response. I was curious to hear your answers and am glad to receive a response.

To clarify, first off, I was actually trying to say that utility cannot be used to choose your faith. Concepts such as nirvana, heaven, hell, hades, hel, etc. cannot all exist at the same time. Logically, only One True God can exist. This means other Gods must be false Gods. And hence faith cannot be a question of utility. I know what I believe. And I do not seek faith on my own terms. I seek Truth for the sake of Truth itself. The question of "choosing which faith" was rhetorical. I was really just trying to provoke greater thought and discussion.

In response to your question regarding my belief, I believe in God and I know he exists. I also believe in Christ. So I would have to consider myself much more of a Christian than a Hindu. I don't really like to label my beliefs though. I don't think that The Truth (God) can be bottled up inside one little tiny package. It's a big concept for our small minds. We should just try our best to worship Him and bring Him glory through our thoughts and actions.

It is merely my opinion that reading about different religions should reinforce one's own faith and aid one in understanding of other people's faith. Too often, it seems, people read about other religions for the sake of putting them down. So when I say I find certain "answers" in Hinduism, I merely mean to say that I find that they have a firmer grasp of Truth than most Christian seem to give them credit for.

While I'm sure that there a number of highly confused Hindus living out in the world. There are also a lot of confused Christians as well. In fact, there are divisions within any religion. Roman Catholicism could be considered polytheistic with its pantheon of angels, saints and devils which are believed in. Christian Science is either pantheistic or panentheistic with their odd beliefs in creation and creator being one and the same. Still, I do not use such examples to judge Christianity as a whole.

At the same time, one of my best friends is Hindu and while we sometimes disagree on matters of metaphysics and philosophy I usually find his thoughts are usually very interesting to entertain. He's a really nice person as well and I often feel that in his own way he contributes to the building of the kingdom of heaven.

I do not hold that all paths are created equal. Some paths may hold less of the truth than others. Not to mention, one can always choose to "run away from the truth" as you so eloquently state on your website. Many people do, unfortunately, go down the wrong path into the nothingness of sin and degradation. Still, I do believe that there is but one single path which leads to truth. To start with, there are thousands of different sects of Christianity alone!

While I suppose I can see where you're coming from when you characterize all other belief systems as nihilistic, I cannot help but feel you gloss over the subject a bit. Many forms of biblical Christianity leads to contradictions and nihilism. I, personally, take a more liberal view of Christianity than a number of my friends. Trinitarianism, for example, is one issue of faith I fear shall always remain a mystery to me.

[Objectivitees]

While I suppose I can see where you're coming from when you characterize all other belief systems as nihilistic, I cannot help but feel you gloss over the subject a bit. Many forms of biblical Christianity leads to contradictions and nihilism. I, personally, take a more liberal view of Christianity than a number of my friends. Trinitarianism, for example, is one issue of faith I fear shall always remain a mystery to me.

xibidix

We may understand why you think the main body of our website "glosses over" the subject a bit, for lack of room and time. The body is intended to be brief, because we don't want to bore people to tears. We wanted to communicate quickly and clearly, giving only enough to pique the interest, and demonstrate the essence of our 'mission', so leaving detail out was necessary. Detail is why we established this forum.

We'd be very interested in hearing which forms of Christianity you think lead to contradictions and nihilism, because definitively, we believe Christianity cannot be so. If a "form" did lead to these problems, we'd be more likely to classify them as not being Christian, rather than lumping them in, and using them as a way to critique orthodoxy as a whole. We acknowledge there are literally thousands of denominations, but when assessed, we find there are four or five beliefs common to all of them, (we're currently working on forming an 'official' statement of these) which make them Christian, and if denied, toss them out of the club so to speak. These common beliefs define Christianity and distinguish it from all other faiths. All other doctrinal issues are secondary, and not required for the 'salvation' of the individual, and therefore open to debate among the denominations. It is usually in these secondary issue areas, we find the "higher" criticisms of 'Christianity' as a whole, and these critiques usually arise out of a mischaracterization of the doctrine or even sometimes a core belief of orthodoxy.

Trinitarianism is not one of our favorite beliefs either, but only because it is difficult to grasp intellectually. Though not expressly taught by the bible, it is clear the bible presupposes it, and as a doctrine, it is the only answer to certain logical problems (we can't recall right now because it is too early in the morning) that would otherwise render the body suspect to the same defect as we critique other faiths by, namely their logical consistency.

Seems we may have more in common than first appeared. We invite you to help us take a bit of the gloss off.

[xibidix]

Sorry for taking so long to reply, I've been really busy with classes and exams lately. Just got finished actually (hurrah).

I've actually been re-reading a bit and digesting. There's quite a bit of wisdom here. But there are also some question I'm curious about...

It seems to me to be the opinion of this website that all forms of atheism and agnositicism are contradictory. This is I would agree with. For example, atheism presupposes that nothing outside the physical exists. Of course this begs the question, where do the laws of logic derive? They're clearly not physical objects. Furthermore, most atheists rely upon logic to do science and support their beliefs. At the same time, however, a godless universe must deny it's own laws of causality at some point by coming into existence if there exists no prime mover. Agnosticism, furthermore, states that "I can know nothing about the characteristics of God". This seems a bit contradictory because it's a statement of knowledge - a statement of knowledge much in line with apophatic theology.

At the same time, however, I'm curious as to why you view polytheism, pantheism and panentheism as self-contradictory. I'm also guessing it's a typo on the objectivity page (http://www.objectivitees.com/essay.php) when you say that animism isn't self-contradictory, right?

Another thing I was wondering was what is your opinion on the so-called "prisca theologia"? While the biblical view of history seems to support the opinion that all the children of God were as lost as babes in the wilderness aside from Israel whom alone God stood by, archaeological evidence seems to contradict that view. To take but one civilization as an example, can't one say that the ancient Greeks such as Plato and Socrates offered their people philosophical and ethical teachings much in line with the wisdom books such as Ecclesiastes or Psalms or Proverbs? Some of the earliest Christian apologists were of the opinion that Plato had, in fact, met Moses and that was the reason behind his pseudo-monotheistic teachings. Surely, you must know that the principle of non-contradiction derived from a pagan like Aristotle, right? Did God simply leave his heathen children in total ignorance? Or were there Abrahams and Isaacs and Ezekiels and Enochs and Elijahs among them? This I wonder because it has long been my own personal opinion. And, to the best of my knowledge, I don't think it leads to contradictions or nihilism within my faith.

[Objectivitees]

Welcome back, we missed you in our isolated little corner of cyberspace.

At the same time, however, I'm curious as to why you view polytheism, pantheism and panentheism as self-contradictory.

Well, if simple answers are ok, and since we noticed you are formally educated in the matter, we will point out that "worldviews" have three main components. These are, a 'metaphysic', an 'epistemology', and an 'ethic'. The views you noted are self-contradictory in their 'ethic'. Though these views provide an ethic, unlike the naturalistic views, it is impossible for them to provide an absolute or transcendent ethic. As such, their teaching will always contradict itself at some point.

I'm also guessing it's a typo on the objectivity page (http://www.objectivitees.com/essay.php) when you say that animism isn't self-contradictory, right?

Yes, that was unintentional. Thanks for noting that for our new editor. The old one has been sacked, and properly embarrassed.

Another thing I was wondering was what is your opinion on the so-called "prisca theologia"?

Being uneducated hacks, this is a concept we really haven't studied. If all you mean by it is 'is there only one true religion', we'd have to say yes. There can only be one. But if by this you mean that there was some cross cultural, transcendent theology revealed to ancient man apart from special or general revelation, we'd have to say no. This seems Gnostic to us.

archaeological evidence seems to contradict that view.

Did you have some specific evidence to cite? We'd be careful here, it almost seems you are saying the evidence speaks for itself, and being educated, we know you know that is not true. Evidence requires interpretation.

Surely, you must know that the principle of non-contradiction derived from a pagan like Aristotle, right?

We wouldn't say "derived". We know Aristotle was the earliest recognizable record of our modern expression of the Laws of logic, but we don't hold that he 'invented' them. We hold that Logic is an attribute of God. It is His nature. Since man was created in His image, we 'naturally' have a reasonable mind, with which it is possible to discern the Nature of God, pagan or not. The Bible holds that all men know the Truth of God in their heart. It's just that most suppress this knowledge. Since an argument can be made that 'heart' means 'mind' in much of biblical language, we find this understanding of the problem does not contradict the rest of scripture, and God does not "leave His heathen children in ignorance".

This I wonder because it has long been my own personal opinion. And, to the best of my knowledge, I don't think it leads to contradictions or nihilism within my faith.

While it is certainly possible that Plato had met Moses, we don't think that's the best explanation. If Plato had met Moses, and then brought the things he learned to his culture, wouldn't that contradict the concept of Special revelation?

[xibidix]

Thank you once again for the kind replies. I must confess that I created this topic slightly facetiously and I appreciate your patience with my stubbornness.

Being uneducated hacks, this is a concept we really haven't studied. If all you mean by it is 'is there only one true religion', we'd have to say yes. There can only be one. But if by this you mean that there was some cross cultural, transcendent theology revealed to ancient man apart from special or general revelation, we'd have to say no. This seems Gnostic to us.

If I recall correctly, it was a term used in the Renaissance with some mild popularity. I kinda regret using it because it does appear to have some gnostic underpinnings but I couldn't really think of any other term off the top of my head. What I really meant to ask was whether or not you thought Christianity could (or should) learn from other philosophical traditions? In my experience, and perhaps I have been misguided, I have often found wisdom in the works of non-Christian, and even secular, philosophers -- admittedly, without the proper guidance of revelation such philosophies are at best incomplete and at worst potentially dangerous to those who wish to tread the true path.

We wouldn't say "derived". We know Aristotle was the earliest recognizable record of our modern expression of the Laws of logic, but we don't hold that he 'invented' them. We hold that Logic is an attribute of God. It is His nature. Since man was created in His image, we 'naturally' have a reasonable mind, with which it is possible to discern the Nature of God, pagan or not. The Bible holds that all men know the Truth of God in their heart. It's just that most suppress this knowledge. Since an argument can be made that 'heart' means 'mind' in much of biblical language, we find this understanding of the problem does not contradict the rest of scripture, and God does not "leave His heathen children in ignorance".

I suppose that this later quote serves an excellent answer to my question, however.


Regarding Plato and Moses I merely thought it a curious footnote.


If you'd tolerate a final question, I would like to know your opinion on salvation. You mention that you thought that most denominational issues were secondary to the salvation of the individual. This I would agree with, I blame a lot of denominational issues upon the strains of describing a perfect God through the imperfect medium of language. Regardless there does seem to be some major issues between the protestant, catholic and orthodox views of grace and salvation. Do you jive with one particular group? Or do you have your own opinion?

[Objectivitees]

If you'd tolerate a final question, I would like to know your opinion on salvation. You mention that you thought that most denominational issues were secondary to the salvation of the individual. This I would agree with, I blame a lot of denominational issues upon the strains of describing a perfect God through the imperfect medium of language. Regardless there does seem to be some major issues between the protestant, catholic and orthodox views of grace and salvation. Do you jive with one particular group? Or do you have your own opinion?

Tolerate? We are desperate for questions here, and greatly appreciate your visits. Ask as many as you like, bring your friends. We do believe there is a much more vast array of theological thought open for discussion and debate which would not affect an individual's salvation if one were to be on the "wrong" side of the issue. Of course, that means we believe there are very few issues which will directly affect salvation. Recently, we completed a "Statement of Objective Fundamental Beliefs of Christian Fellowship", which was not posted the last time you touched on the topic. This statement is our own distilled vernacular of the minimum beliefs necessary an individual would have to believe for us to believe they have obtained God's gift of salvation. They kind of serve as our easier to remember version of the creedal formulations of traditional orthodoxy. Not that we judge. We'd never do that. We expect we will be torn to shreds concerning the theological accuracy of our "apostasy" if we ever get an audience here. In the mean time, take a look and see if they answer your question as to whether we hold to a tradition, or have our own opinions.

By the way, we really like the way you described the problem of denominational issues relating to imperfect language. We think you hit it on the nose.

What I really meant to ask was whether or not you thought Christianity could (or should) learn from other philosophical traditions?

Well, we're not going to go there. While we don't deny that "other traditions" contain some portions of the Truth and therefore have some wisdom, we find that ALL of the Truth can be found in the Bible, (philosophically speaking) and it is sufficient for use as a "lens" through which we can filter and interpret all other knowledge gained from any other source. As such, why waste the time trying to manually separate the wheat from the chaff in other traditions, when we have a threshing machine at our disposal?