Is it Possible to be a Hindu Follower of Christ? - Christian Post

[sm78]

> Lets dwell in the present.
> Lets define Christianity by 95% of the major beliefs and churches (Catholics, Baptists, Protestant etc.) and not by an obscure minority group somewhere.
> Lets define Hindu by the 4 broad sects of Smarta, Vaishnava, Saiva and Shakta as so very well characterized by Subramuniyaswami. Lets us look for the moment at vedas through the lens of these 4 sects and not by individual interpretations...it will divert the topic as we are talking about present hindus.

My answer is emphatic No.

[sm78]

Then why a person believing in Jesus Christ and having Gospel as his scripture cannot be a Hindu?

I wud be over joyed if people in the world who believe in Jesus Christ as the Saviour and the 4 gospels as scripture start calling themselves Hindu's!!!

But I guess, the question being asked is can/should a hindu (due whatever 1001 weird reasons for being known as so) believe Jesus Christ as saviour and gospel as scripture.

Again, my answer is emphatic No.

[Arjuna]

I wud be over joyed if people in the world who believe in Jesus Christ as the Saviour and the 4 gospels as scripture start calling themselves Hindu's!!!
But I guess, the question being asked is can/should a hindu (due whatever 1001 weird reasons for being known as so) believe Jesus Christ as saviour and gospel as scripture.
Again, my answer is emphatic No.

From the point of view of orthodox Christianity, a christian cannot be a hindu at the same time and vice versa.

But i cannot understand why it should be so from Hindu point of view. Finally, Hinduism in practice is social identity and not religios. If one accepts Hindu mode of life, what is the difference whether he believes in Jesus Christ + Gospels, Chaitanya + his Charitamritas, Haidakhan Baba + Sadashiva-charitamrita or Sai Baba + Sai-charitra?

[Eastern Mind]

Arjuna: This will probably be my last post on this subject. At some point in discussion, we will have to agree to disagree. In my earlier posts, by 'west' I meant Abrahamic. Sorry for any confusion. I live in the west, amongst the Abrahamics (Christian) mostly. I have, by observation, not by reading, seen the mixing first hand. I know personally 3 divorces that happened primarily from inter-faith marriage disputes. I have seen many 'western' families have great emotional suffering when a child had to from their personal karmas and understandings take on an eastern point of view. I can only assume from my readings that the same is true in the east, that moving into Abrahamic religions by Hindus or Buddhists leads to personal problems, and undermines family harmony. (This mental suffering that went on includes my own situation, but not to the same degree as others I have observed) I have no real idea as to my 'social identity'. I am a WASH. (White Anglo Saxon Hindu, my definition). From other Hindus, its more (one of the white guys at the temple) From the westerners I work with its 'that weird Hindu guy' sometimes, but more often just as a person, not a social identity at all. For me, then, Hinduism is a religion, not a social identity. I think whoever said "East is East, and West is West, ne'er the two shall meet" was spot on. I still remember too well the story of the Catholic priest in Sri Lanka regarding the young Hindus in his Catholic school who was quoted "They may never become Catholic, but they'll never be good Hindus." To summarise, my personal beliefs on all this come from my own observations, not from comparative religious study. Your ideas as well must come from your own experiences, and obviously, they are quite different from mine, which is fine by me. To each his own. Aum Namasivaya

[Kaos]

Technically and strictly speaking, one cannot be a Christian and a Hindu or even a Buddhist at the same time.

Christianity is strictly a monotheistic religion. The Christian First Commandment states "I am the lord thy God, tho shat not have any other gods before me."

This does not apply to Hinduism, where one can be polytheistic.


Christians believe in a Creator God and the existence of a soul.
Buddhists do not accept a creator god and deny the existence of a soul.

[SHIVAJI]

The problem isn't that simple as it seems to be to some.

Not all Hindus necessarily accept idea of reincarnation (which is BTW absent in Vedas) and not all christians reject it.


The teaching of reincarnation is present in the Upanishads and Bhagavad Gita.
Swami Dayananda Saraswati ,who created the Arya Samaj,devoted to the spread of Vedic teachings to everyone believed in and taught reincarnation as well.

Bhagavan Buddha , Mahavira and Guru Nanak of the other dharmic religions Buddhism, Jainism and Sikhism also taught reincarnation. ( Buddha taught that it is the character that reincarnates and not the soul ).

[SHIVAJI]

What do U mean by "West"? In Greek philosophy, Judaism and Sufism there are theories of emanation of the world from God which are similar to Hindu views.
And are U sure that ALL Hindus believe is "endless cycles"? I am not quite sure this doctrine existed in Vedic times and is reflected in Vedic texts...
.

But is there the concept of nirvana or moksha or enlightenment.

Hinduism does teach about endless cycles.

Both Judaism and Islam admit that all other monotheistic religions are true and can lead to God (though of course they are seen as inferior). This is similar to Hindu views. Most if not all Hindu traditions see themselves as superior to all other traditions, Hindu or not.
.

Hinduism teaches that all paths lead to the divine.

Study Ramakrishna , Yogananda, Shirdi Sai BAba if you have any doubts in this.

In Judaism and Islam satan is not an opposing "anti-God" figure, but servant of God who has his specific job to do. Christian view of satan was influenced by Zoroastrism, which was an early derivation of Vedic religion.
.

Satan , "servant of God " !!!!!!!

Can one be Pashupata-shaiva and Shri-vaishnava at the same time? Can one be Vedantic sannyasin and an adept of Kaula-marga?

.

Yes , and even more if needed.

I am a Vaishnava, a shaivite, a Shakta , a vedantist , and a tantrik.

What i want to say, there is hardly any one thing called "Hinduism". There are numerous traditions under one brand (invented by muslims), which can hold very different views and adhere to different methods.
.

Hinduism is nothing but sanatana dharma, and all the different branches of the sanatana dharma is devoted to help one to evolve in righteousness and sattva and attain enlightenment or nirvana or moksha in the end .

You still have a lot to learn.

Many Hindus (including brahmanas) eat meat as well, though they have similar prescription of non-killing. In Vedic cult animal sacrifices were an essential part, same is true (though not to a same degree) in regard of Agamic traditions. Brihadaranyaka-upanishad at one place suggests eating calf-meat.
At the same time some Jewish and Christian sects were vegetarian.

Vegetarianism is stressed in hinduism as well .

And for being sattvic and spiritual , vegetarianism is essential.

Meat eating helps one to be rajasic ,which increases the charecterestics of action, restlessness , desire .

Please understand the goals of Hinduism or the sanatana dharma before commenting on what is hinduism.

[Arjuna]

Technically and strictly speaking, one cannot be a Christian and a Hindu or even a Buddhist at the same time.

I still await hearing a clear definition of "Hinduism". For the matter of fact this word is not originally "Hindu" but was invented by Muslims.
It would be interesting to know if before Islamic invasion there existed any kind of grouping brand name of this kind. For example Puranas (Kurma- and some other) when criticizing "heretics" group Buddhists and Jainas together with Kapalikas, Pancharatrins and adherents of other sects as veda-bAhya. At the same time Buddhism and Jainism are normally regarded to be separate religions. The reason seem to be obviously social and has little or nothing to do with doctrines and practices.
It is useless to talk abt "being Christian and Hindu" unless we define both. I see no problem with defining who is Christian – and all "adhikAra" for this can be easily suited into pattern of "Hinduism" as we practically see it. But what is "Hindutva"?
There is quite old term "Sanatana-dharma" (mentioned in Gita i believe) which is commonly identified with "Hinduism". But what is the ground of such identification? And why we should assign all modern "Hindu" sects to Sanatana-dharma in its initial sense, whatever it may be?

(Actually, I am much interested to listen to Sarabhanga's view on this point.)

Christianity is strictly a monotheistic religion. The Christian First Commandment states "I am the lord thy God, tho shat not have any other gods before me."
This does not apply to Hinduism, where one can be polytheistic.

There are strictly monotheistic Hindu schools, and their monotheism doesn't prevent them from being considered "Hindu".

[Kaos]

There are strictly monotheistic Hindu schools, and their monotheism doesn't prevent them from being considered "Hindu".

Exactly, Hinduism has a more relaxed and broader worldview as compared to Christianity. A Hindu can be a monotheist or polytheist.

[Arjuna]

But is there the concept of nirvana or moksha or enlightenment.

Yes of course
Is it necessary to explain to U the fact that "nirvana" or "moksha" is understood differently in various "Hindu" traditions? For a Vaishnava the aim may be to go to Vaikuntha (similar to abrahamic idea of paradise), while for Kashmiri Shaiva it is non-dual realisation of God-nature (similar to ideas of Sufi mysticism and some medieval Christian mystics).

Hinduism teaches that all paths lead to the divine.
Study Ramakrishna , Yogananda, Shirdi Sai BAba if you have any doubts in this.

Wow, really? I know that many Hindu texts say that adherents of certain Hindu (!) traditions go to hell. And what U mean by divine? Vedanta doesn't teach that one reaches Moksha by ritual practice of Purva-mimansa or by Hari-sankirtana. And monistic Shaivism clearly rejects any possibility of dualistic systems to lead to the highest realisation of Shivatva. Need any more examples?
It would be better if U take pain to read Hindu scriptures before speaking about Hinduism – and not only recent popular gurus.

By the way, there is a story of Ramakrishna being Christian and Muslim for short periods. Did he stop being Hindu that time?

Satan , "servant of God " !!!!!!!
This is the most idiotic thing I have ever read over here.

Thank U
Eventhough, there is such a view. And it is quite well based upon Tanach and Kur'an respectively. I have no desire of posting textual references to Bible etc. here; if anyone wishes to check, it isn't hard to find these.

I am a Vaishnava, a shaivite, a Shakta , a vedantist , and a tantrik.

Astonishing
Could U please say what U mean by these?

What i actually meant to say (and what U obviously missed) is that there are Hindu traditions which are incompatible by doctrines or/and practices. One cannot practice mahAvrata of Kapalikas and continue to be follower of Shri-vaishnavism, just for example. One cannot take dualistic Sankhya doctrine as true and at the same time doctrine of Tantric Advaita. Etc.

You still have a lot to learn.

No doubt. But does Ur statement imply U are sarvajna?

Vegetarianism is stressed in hinduism as well .
And for being sattvic and spiritual , vegetarianism is essential.

Really? But Vedas and Brahmanas have animal sacrifices which include meat consumption. Early Upanishads do not teach vegetarianism but mention eating meat. Several Agamic traditions have ritual usage of meat as part of sadhana. And some schools say there is no difference if one is vegetarian or not.