PDA

View Full Version : Christian apologetics towards hinduism



Sagefrakrobatik
23 March 2008, 03:42 PM
A Christian Response to Hinduism



The editor of the periodical Hinduism Today said not long ago that a "small army of yoga missionaries" has been trained to "set upon the Western world." And in his own words, "They may not call themselves Hindu, but Hindus know where yoga came from and where it goes."
What should be the appropriate Christian perspective on this religion of the East that is making such an impact in the West? At the outset we must say that as Christians we concur with Hindus on a couple of points. Hindus are correct in their recognition that all is not right with the world and with human existence in it. They are correct as well in suggesting that the ultimate remedy to the human dilemma is spiritual in nature. Beyond these two points, however, there's little common ground between Hinduism and Christianity. Let's note just a few of the more important areas of divergence.
First, Hinduism lacks any understanding that God created this world for a good purpose. It is common for Hindus to speak of God bringing the universe into existence simply as a "playful" exercise of His power. Also lacking is a conception of God as infinitely holy and righteous and as the One to whom we as His creatures are accountable for the way we conduct our lives.
The second major area of contrast between Hinduism and Christianity is the conception of human nature and of the source of our estrangement from God. According to Hindu teaching, man is divine at the core of his being. He is one with God! The problem is that man is ignorant of this fact. He is deceived by his focus on this temporal and material world, and this ignorance gives rise to acts that result in bad karma and traps us in the cycle of reincarnation.
According to the biblical teaching, however, the source of our alienation from God (and ultimately of all that is imperfect in this world), is not ignorance of our divinity, but our sinful rebellion against God and His purpose for our lives.
This leads to the third and final point of contrast--the way of salvation. According to most Hindu teaching, salvation from the cycle of reincarnation is achieved by our own efforts--whether through good works, meditation, or devotion to a deity. According to the Bible, however, our spiritual need is for deliverance from God's judgment on our sin and for restoration to a life under His direction and care. This salvation can be provided only by God's gracious and undeserved action in our behalf.
It is true that in certain Hindu groups there is a similar emphasis on God's grace (probably as a result of past Christian influence). But even here, there is a major distinction. The Hindu teaching about grace sees no need for an atonement for sin, but simply offers forgiveness without any satisfaction of the judgment on sin required by a holy God.
In contrast, the Christian gospel is this: God the Son became a man, died a sacrificial death on the cross, making real forgiveness of real sins against the real God possible to those who place complete trust in Christ. All who do so can experience true forgiveness, know God and His purpose for their lives, and have the certainty of eternal life with Him!


What yall think. Is this true? What would you say if someone said this to you?

satay
23 March 2008, 09:45 PM
sage,
Your post sums up the view of 99% christians I know. While Hindu scholars are hell-bent on proving 'sameness' and thus even denying christians that their concept of god is something different and unique, christians are hell-bent on finding differences, and rightfully so.

Though it is nice to find sameness in ideologies, I subscribe to the theory that one should call a spade, a spade.

Who has the courage to tell the emperor that he is not wearing any clothes? :)

sarabhanga
25 March 2008, 02:41 AM
Namaste Sage,



There's little common ground between Hinduism and Christianity. Let's note just a few of the more important areas of divergence.

First, Hinduism lacks any understanding that God created this world for a good purpose.


The entire Creation arises from the first principle of sattvaguNa ~ “the quality of goodness”.

sattvam is “being or existence”, and everything that is (every entity that exists) partakes of that essence. And sattvam is “goodness”, which is synonymous with “nature, life, breath, and wisdom”.

Every substantive (noun) is regarded as a sattvam, and likewise every creature.

Everything that is natural is sattvavihita, which is equally “effected by nature” and “caused by goodness”.

sat indicates both “being or being present” and “good”. And sat names “the really existent” or “that which is good”, which the vedAnta knows as brahman.



Also lacking is a conception of God as infinitely holy and righteous and as the One to whom we as His creatures are accountable for the way we conduct our lives.

The first supposed divergence only shows ignorance of sattvam, while this objection depends on a complete ignorance of yama!



The second major area of contrast between Hinduism and Christianity is the conception of human nature and of the source of our estrangement from God.

According to Hindu teaching, man is divine at the core of his being. He is one with God! The problem is that man is ignorant of this fact. He is deceived by his focus on this temporal and material world, and this ignorance gives rise to acts that result in bad karma and traps us in the cycle of reincarnation.

According to the biblical teaching, however, the source of our alienation from God (and ultimately of all that is imperfect in this world), is not ignorance of our divinity, but our sinful rebellion against God and His purpose for our lives.

Hinduism suggests that ignorance of the true reality (God’s truth) is the reason for the apparent separation of jIvAtman and paramAtman; while Christianity suggests “sinful rebellion against God and his purpose” as the cause.

Ignorance of truth leads to wrong perceptions and wrong actions, which generate further wrongs, in a cycle of karma that ends only when true knowledge is attained.

Ignorance is an incorrect divergence from true wisdom. And the ignorant separation of one’s self from the one Self is the same “sinful rebellion against God”. And surely it is “God’s purpose” that every sentient being attains true knowledge of God, which assumes the realization of spiritual communion (or identity) with God.

There is no serious divergence between the two understandings, and Jesus himself, as the guru of Christianity, demonstrates the path that all true Christians should follow ~ and that path surely culminates in the realization of absolute spiritual unity.



This leads to the third and final point of contrast--the way of salvation.

According to most Hindu teaching, salvation from the cycle of reincarnation is achieved by our own efforts--whether through good works, meditation, or devotion to a deity.

According to the Bible, however, our spiritual need is for deliverance from God's judgment on our sin and for restoration to a life under His direction and care.

Release from the cycle of reincarnation (moksha) is not attained by any action or effort, only by the realization of advaitam. And advaitam is otherwise known as shiva (“the gracious one”). And worldly blessings (good fortune, prosperity, remission of sins, etc.) are sought and attained from shrI lakshmI (or viSNu), who is divine grace personified.

Good works, devoted actions, and yoga practices, all serve to extinguish accumulated “bad karma” or “sins”, and tend towards the destruction of ignorance and the realization of truth. But the final deliverance is only achieved by first satisfying the judgment of yama, after which the jIva is guaranteed life in continuous perfect communion with brahman.



This salvation can be provided only by God's gracious and undeserved action in our behalf. It is true that in certain Hindu groups there is a similar emphasis on God's grace (probably as a result of past Christian influence).

shiva and lakshmI are essential to Hinduism, and the Hindu understanding of “God’s grace” precedes Christianity by millennia !



But even here, there is a major distinction. The Hindu teaching about grace sees no need for an atonement for sin, but simply offers forgiveness without any satisfaction of the judgment on sin required by a holy God.

This comment makes no sense to me.



In contrast, the Christian gospel is this: God the Son became a man, died a sacrificial death on the cross, making real forgiveness of real sins against the real God possible to those who place complete trust in Christ. All who do so can experience true forgiveness, know God and His purpose for their lives, and have the certainty of eternal life with Him!

Just as yama, who was the first man to live and to die, and by his own self-sacrifice was reborn as a God. And just as the “son of God” (nArAyaNa) regularly appears as the “son of man” (both nArAyaNa and nAra), to right injustice, dispel ignorance, and dispense salvation. And just as the first prajApati (i.e. brahmA or nArAyaNa) quartered his own perfect being for the good of all mankind. And just as “true forgiveness” comes from yama, after whose satisfaction immortal existence in brahmaloka is guaranteed.

It should be clear that the whole of this final “major distinction” is only a minor variation on the age old Hindu theme.

sarabhanga
25 March 2008, 02:48 AM
Namaste Satay,

Christians (and many Hindus) may be “hell-bent” (i.e. directed towards hell) in their insatiable desire for differences (i.e. for duality, which destroys all perception of advaitam), but how can this be “rightfully so” ?

Who has the courage to tell the emperor that he is not wearing any clothes?

Superficial differences are obvious to anyone. But accentuating differences only serves to reinforce age old perceptions of ‘us’ and ‘them’, stirring up misunderstanding, hatred, and fear, for if my religion is by definition all good, then their religion must be all bad. :(

satay
25 March 2008, 02:15 PM
Namaskar,
First, thanks for the post to sage. It clears up a few of my own doubts.

Re the comment 'rightfully so'

I meant to say that 'christians (and some hindus as you said) want to find differences righfully so because they want others to understand and acknowledge the fact that they are separate, that they are not Hindus (in the case of christians) and not christians (in the case of hindus).'

Those who do not subscribe to advaitam 'rightfully' will find differences because advaitam denies their very existence! ;)


Re specific case of christianity, how should one study their religion? By looking at the actions of christians or by finding sameness in their guru's teachings to santana dharma?

To me the tactic of denying the very existence of other religions is a valid tactic yet I don't subscribe to it. It's like many indians think that 'pakistanis are our lost brothers and sisters' and thus with this thinking many indians show that they don't even accept the fact that pakistanis are separate nation. If I were a pakistani I would be very pissed off at that because the other party is not even accepting my existence as a citizen of a separate nation.

Similarly, If I were a christian or a buddhist or a sikh I would be very pissed off at someone suggesting that 'you are actually a hindu but you don't really know it yet because you haven't realized the truth of advaitam'. After all isn't this what advaitam suggests, please correct me. And similarirly, those hindus that do not accept the truth of advaitam or haven't realized it yet would also be ticked ...

What are your thoughts on this?



Superficial differences are obvious to anyone. But accentuating differences only serves to reinforce age old perceptions of ‘us’ and ‘them’, stirring up misunderstanding, hatred, and fear, for if my religion is by definition all good, then their religion must be all bad.


How should one judge adherents of any religion? By their actions? I should think that for all practical purposes, actions speak louder. What are the actions of christians of today, specifically in India?

What is the best way to ignore the actions of others? Will that happen when one is a 'realized being'? Because for me, for all practical purposes, I do see differences and I do see people blowing themselves up and I do see people distroying those cultures who supposedly are worshipping devil, the wearer of trishul and not the true god! Or maybe this is all paranoia? and it will all dis-appear in the realized state? But how should things be handled till that state is dis-covered?

yajvan
25 March 2008, 07:51 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~
satay wrote

How should one judge adherents of any religion? By their actions? I should think that for all practical purposes, actions speak louder. What are the actions of christians of today, specifically in India?


Namaste satay,
I hope I am not butting in?

I read your post and could only think of Krsna's guidence , from the Gita 3.35. He says,
Because one can perform it, one's own dharma, though of lesser merit, is better than the dharma of another. Better is death in one's own dharma. The dharma ( practiced) of another brings danger.

This informs me that often many feel 'their way' is better and wishes to 'offer it' (a.k.a. force feed, overwhelm, subscribe or prescribe it) to others thinking its much better then what you are practicing now.

Krsna suggests this is not a prudent choice. I have found it is by education, and opening new ideas to people, that others may entertain new concepts of belief. If they do not take it all is well. But once the force feeding happens, then the grief and angst becomes aplenty.

...just one way of looking at it, with a reliable source ( Krsna) as the author.


pranams

devotee
25 March 2008, 08:28 PM
Namaste yajvanji,


Becasue one can perform it, one's own dharma, though of lesser merit, is better than the dharma of another. Better is death in one's own dharma. The dharma ( practiced) of another brings danger.

IMO, in the above lines, "dharma" cannot be a translated to "religion". "Dharma" of every person is decided by his own Nature with which he is born. So, to understand the correct Dharma for oneself one must be aware of his true nature.

If we allow the translation to be religion, then all wrong teachings in the name of religion ( like killing of "idolators" & destroying their cities, killing/torturing innocents in the name of "Non-believers" ) will get justified. I don't think, Lord Krishna ever meant that !

Regards

saidevo
25 March 2008, 09:04 PM
Namaste Satay and others.



Similarly, If I were a christian or a buddhist or a sikh I would be very pissed off at someone suggesting that 'you are actually a hindu but you don't really know it yet because you haven't realized the truth of advaitam'. After all isn't this what advaitam suggests, please correct me. And similarirly, those hindus that do not accept the truth of advaitam or haven't realized it yet would also be ticked ...


A very practical outlook which is a must, even for an Advaitin. Absolute Truth does not lie in one extreme or the other but in the summation of both and all others in between.

I have absolutely no qualms about the differences in teaching between the major religions, specially Christianity and Sanatana Dharma, or even about the Christian religion calling Hindus pagans and idol worshippers. My only concern is about the teaching of 'harvesting of souls' even at the cost of 'dividing families' that is attributed to their Saviour, Jesus the Christ, and all sorts of fanaticism and aggression that the teaching spawns. The minimum the Abrahamic religions need to do is to remove or ignore as anachronism this teaching of 'conversion' from their dogma and opt for peaceful co-existence.

After all, when God is one and all forms and names are his manifestations, why not recognize that man is also one and has the right to have his own manifestations?

yajvan
26 March 2008, 12:04 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~~

Namaste yajvanji,



IMO, in the above lines, "dharma" cannot be a translated to "religion". "Dharma" of every person is decided by his own Nature with which he is born. So, to understand the correct Dharma for oneself one must be aware of his true nature.

If we allow the translation to be religion, then all wrong teachings in the name of religion ( like killing of "idolators" & destroying their cities, killing/torturing innocents in the name of "Non-believers" ) will get justified. I don't think, Lord Krishna ever meant that !


Namaste devotee,
A fair and reasonable assessment and I think what you say is valid.

Let me offer another view, not opposed to what you say, but how I view and study this.
With dharma and religion there is some 'pure concepts' that they just may share. I agree it does not translate to religion as you mention , but lets take a further look and see if there is some alignment.

Dharma
When I look to the word dharma ( धर्म ) it is 'that which upholds' also that which is established or firm , steadfast decree , statute , ordinance , law. There are various levels of dharma, yes? Varna, Sanatana, Sva, Apad, Yuga dharma, etc.

Religion
And this notion of religion comes from relig(āre) to tie, fasten + ligāre to bind. So what is this tieing and fastening to? Back to the Source of all, to the Universal SELF, or Purusa or Siva, Visnu, or Sri Devi, etc) So a most beautiful word that has come to mean other things in this day and age, yes?

An Intersecting Point ?
If indeed religion is capable of doing its work, it in fact would tie one back to the souce of all ( of this creation). In doing so, then ones varna ASrama dharma ( or in ones varna) and sva dharma, or individual dharma would be fulfilled.

How so? A person tied back to the Source, to pure consciousness, acts and behaves in accord with all the laws of natural law. Actions are done that are favorable to the Universe as a whole ( so say the wise). This then fulfills the notion of sanAtana dharma - the eternal dharma, and the foundation for a healthy society and environment. This then supports yuga dharma, the actions that are needed for this time ( yuga).

So if religion ( beyond dogma) was firing on all cylinders, it would most naturally support or be part of dharma.



pranams

sarabhanga
27 March 2008, 04:57 AM
I meant to say that 'christians (and some hindus as you said) want to find differences righfully so because they want others to understand and acknowledge the fact that they are separate, that they are not Hindus (in the case of christians) and not christians (in the case of hindus).'

Those who do not subscribe to advaitam 'rightfully' will find differences because advaitam denies their very existence!

Namaste Satay,

Once again returning to the dharma cakram, there is no reason for the devotees of any single spoke of the wheel (i.e. of any one guru) to conflict with those of another paramparA in their ultimate aim, nor any reason for the various lineages to deny their individual identity along the way.

And returning to kailAsa, there is no reason for the followers of one path to conflict with the followers of another path in their ultimate aim, nor any reason for the various routes to deny their individual identity along the way.

Residing at the hub of all dharmAs, every spoke is equivalent, and every path much the same. All roads lead to kAshI, so to speak.

The sages speak from every quarter, and in the north they say one must go south, in the east they say one must go west, in the south they say one must go north, and in the west they say one must go east.

And those who have never been to the destination, with faith in the particular instructions they have heard, squabble about the details of the true path. But anyone who has actually been to the origin of all true paths will realize the nature of the beast.

All monotheistic religions must be considering exactly the same ultimate deity. And all Christians, all Jews, all Muslims, and all Hindus, understand that in truth there is only one God-head, which in each case must be one and the same. Some see further than others, into finer levels of abstraction, but all are looking towards exactly the same aim (as various spokes leading back to the same hub that drives them all).

All names and forms are taken by that indefinable essence of immortal existence, yet no name or form is sufficient for the unborn advaitam. That unnamed rudra is know only in samAdhi (not by name or form, but only by the indescribable experience of absolute identity), but its apparently diverse rudrAs are followed by the various theologies, each adhering to its own expression of the one name that is truly beyond all names.

sanAtana dharma is founded in the wisdom of the dharma cakram and yama and yoga and advaitam. Whereas the devoted followers of an individual guru, following just one spoke of the eternal wheel, in ignorance (or denial) of any other true spokesman, take their dharma as a veritable sword cleaving a straight path to the source of all illumination.

Knowing the whole field of dharma (cf. kurukshetram) the wise guru understands that many different paths are valid for different individual circumstances, but that (when all true paths are considered) there is ultimately no difference at all. And Hindu understanding (the mother of all monistic religion) has always been tempered by this overriding thought of ultimate unity.

Sometimes naïve devotees get carried away by their obsession with apparent differences and the absolute truth of their own path. And in the absence of subsequent instruction from the advaita dharma cakram (the sun of dharma), which has over the centuries cast an occasional “bright spark of true illumination” (AryaHinduH) to the west, dvaitavAda rises to proud supremacy and adharma invariably results. An occasional ray of brilliant light shooting westwards into the darkness, from the dawning of immortal wisdom that eternally recurs in the east.

The original (forgotten) diaspora of bRMhan became abRMham in the west, and the subsequent diaspora has become what appears today as a range of separate religions.

Each spoke in the wheel of dharma has its own guided path, and while the language remains the same the sign posts on another path remain familiar instructions, but if the language is translated then the similarities soon become invisible to anyone unfamiliar with both tongues.

Religion was originally a personal matter of correct “selection” or “perception” of Truth. Over time, however, the various selections made by some inspired members of different cultural groups have become “set in stone” for those groups, and subsequently their particular cultural version of “religion” or dharma has been presented more dogmatically.




Re specific case of christianity, how should one study their religion? By looking at the actions of christians or by finding sameness in their guru's teachings to santana dharma?

How to study Christianity? I suppose there are various ways, depending on one’s intentions. “Christianity” could be the basis of a political or sociological study, with particular geographical and historical views, or it could be a study of ritual practices, or of texts. And the texts could be secondary sources from different ages and locations and lineages, providing particular interpretations of the primary scripture, which itself has numerous variations. And we could look at the views of common folk or the views of the nobility or the views given by priests, or the various saints, or only the direct disciples, or perhaps just the explicit words or the actions of Jesus himself. And of course we could study the teachings of Jesus’ own preceptor, John the Baptist, or the various Old Testament prophets. What are you seeking in your hypothetical investigation?




To me the tactic of denying the very existence of other religions is a valid tactic yet I don't subscribe to it.

Has anyone suggested denying the existence of diversity in dharma (except in samAdhi)?

Denying the existence of Christianity or Islam is exactly the same as denying the existence of ISKCON or the Ramakrishna Mission ~ or the paramparA arising from any single guru of Sanatana Dharma.

There is one God, and numerous gurus, and very many devotees, and the apparent diversity increases exponentially away from the source.

Inclusion under the umbrella of Sanatana Dharma certainly does not invalidate other Dharmas; indeed, once the appropriate associations are made, this shared knowledge greatly enhances the proper understanding of those divergent (and apparently irreconcilable) ways of Dharma, conflict between some elements of which has been the source of very much suffering over the centuries. And given the ancient roots of Judaism, modern Hinduism can learn something of its own roots by consideration of the ancient Judaic texts and practices. And I am certainly not suggesting that anyone changes their denomination, only seeking some common understanding in the midst of otherwise endless perceptions of separation and mysterious “otherness”. But I would always suggest that whatever Dharma is under consideration, it is best considered from the standpoint of Advaitam.




It's like many indians think that 'pakistanis are our lost brothers and sisters' and thus with this thinking many indians show that they don't even accept the fact that pakistanis are separate nation. If I were a pakistani I would be very pissed off at that because the other party is not even accepting my existence as a citizen of a separate nation.

There are many Indians who remember Partition, and many families torn apart and displaced by the forced imposition of previously non-existent borders. Why are there so many Sikhs living outside of India? Perhaps it has something to do with the fact that most of their homeland was given away to Islamic Pakistan (?)




Similarly, If I were a christian or a buddhist or a sikh I would be very pissed off at someone suggesting that 'you are actually a hindu but you don't really know it yet because you haven't realized the truth of advaitam'. After all isn't this what advaitam suggests, please correct me. And similarly, those hindus that do not accept the truth of advaitam or haven't realized it yet would also be ticked. What are your thoughts on this?

Similarly, a Frenchman or a German or an Italian, they are all Europeans! Why should anyone be “pissed off” at the suggestion of an overriding geographical unity?? If someone claimed “I am Italian (for example), but I am NOT European!” one might suspect that they had never gone beyond their limited horizons and never considered maps drawn by others with broader experience and understanding.

And returning to the analogy of Kashi as the one admitted destination of all monistic paths, in practical ignorance of their aim, many naïve seekers understand that “I am on the western path, which is the only true path, and all others are going the wrong way” or “I am on the eastern path, which is completely opposite to your path, which must be totally wrong”, etc. etc. Come on guys! You are all on “the road to Kashi” ! And when you get there you will understand. [But until they arrive and see for themselves, it is likely that no explanation will be entirely convincing.]

Superficial differences are obvious to anyone. But accentuating differences only serves to reinforce age old perceptions of ‘us’ and ‘them’, stirring up misunderstanding, hatred, and fear, for if my religion is by definition all good, then their religion must be all bad.




How should one judge adherents of any religion?

Judge not, that ye be not judged. ;)




What is the best way to ignore the actions of others? Will that happen when one is a 'realized being'? Because for me, for all practical purposes, I do see differences …

Whatever anyone does is no concern of anyone else, unless of course they are causing harm to others, in which case there is a rightful concern. All of this becomes irrelevant in meditation and disappears in samAdhi, but a householder is not expected to remain immersed in abstract devotion to such an extent that he becomes entirely divorced from the world around him!

yajvan
27 March 2008, 07:38 PM
Hari Om
~~~~~



Whatever anyone does is no concern of anyone else, unless of course they are causing harm to others, in which case there is a rightful concern. All of this becomes irrelevant in meditation and disappears in samAdhi, but a householder is not expected to remain immersed in abstract devotion to such an extent that he becomes entirely divorced from the world around him!

namaste sarabhanga (et.al)

Before I offer a POV, if this side-tracks the original post, then there is no need to respond, and I can re-enter it on a fresh post.

Moved to a new folder and new thread.