Christianity and Hinduism

[Vouthon]

Following on from the thread comparing Christianity with Buddhism (which I'm still participating in and enjoying), I thought it would be a worthwhile endeavour to engage in a comparative discussion regarding Christianity and another Dharmic religion: Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma.

Please contribute by noting any affinities or differences that you can think of between these two faiths.

To start us off, I'm going to quote from a fourth century Christian text of the patristic period - probably about A.D. 350 - called the Recognitions, which had acceptance and circulation in the West. This document, thought to have been written by an orthodox catholic (New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, p. 485), refers to Indian priests (Brahmins) in a positive light:

CHURCH FATHERS: Recognitions, Book IX (Clement of Rome)

Chapter 20. Brahmans.

There are likewise among the Bactrians, in the Indian countries, immense multitudes of Brahmans, who also themselves, from the tradition of their ancestors, and peaceful customs and laws, neither commit murder nor adultery, nor worship idols, nor have the practice of eating animal food, are never drunk, never do anything maliciously, but always fear God. And these things indeed they do...nor have malign stars compelled the Brahmans to do any evil.
​

As you can see, the author praises the Brahmins and the "tradition of their ancestors" for its pacifism, high moral standards, vegetarianism and reverence for the divine. I don't know if he relied upon a written source from the Roman world for this knowledge, word-of-mouth information or personal experience, but whatever it was clearly gave him great respect for this Indian caste.

I think that's not a bad footing to start off on

 

[Epic Beard Man]

Both have polytheistic properties but believe there is only one ultimate reality....

 

[Vouthon]

Both have polytheistic properties but believe there is only one ultimate reality....

Thanks Epic!

Both religions are distinct from the singular monotheisms (i.e. Islam, Judaism - perhaps even fellow Dharmic Faith Sikhism) in that they admit of numerical plurality - albeit to different degrees - within the one Godhead or supreme reality, as you say.

 

[sayak83]

Following on from the thread comparing Christianity with Buddhism (which I'm still participating in and enjoying), I thought it would be a worthwhile endeavour to engage in a comparative discussion regarding Christianity and another Dharmic religion: Hinduism or Sanatana Dharma.

Please contribute by noting any affinities or differences that you can think of between these two faiths.

To start us off, I'm going to quote from a fourth century Christian text of the patristic period - probably about A.D. 350 - called the Recognitions, which had acceptance and circulation in the West. This document, thought to have been written by an orthodox catholic (New Testament Apocrypha, vol. 2, p. 485), refers to Indian priests (Brahmins) in a positive light:

CHURCH FATHERS: Recognitions, Book IX (Clement of Rome)

Chapter 20. Brahmans.

There are likewise among the Bactrians, in the Indian countries, immense multitudes of Brahmans, who also themselves, from the tradition of their ancestors, and peaceful customs and laws, neither commit murder nor adultery, nor worship idols, nor have the practice of eating animal food, are never drunk, never do anything maliciously, but always fear God. And these things indeed they do...nor have malign stars compelled the Brahmans to do any evil.
​

As you can see, the author praises the Brahmins and the "tradition of their ancestors" for its pacifism, high moral standards, vegetarianism and reverence for the divine. I don't know if he relied upon a written source from the Roman world for this knowledge, word-of-mouth information or personal experience, but whatever it was clearly gave him great respect for this Indian caste.

I think that's not a bad footing to start off on

Theologically, I think one of the main things that distinguish the two is the concept of immanence. In Hinduism (with exceptions of course) God is also immanent in the world, and the world shares the same substance/essence with God (Brahman).This idea is not that prevalent in Christianity.

As the Gita says (Chapter VII)

Earth, water, fire, air,
Ether, mind, intellect
And egoism this,
My material nature, is divided into
eight parts.
Such is My inferior nature,
But know it as different from
My highest nature, the Self, 0 Arjuna,
By which this universe is sustained.
All creatures have their birth in this,
My highest nature.
Understand this!
I am the origin and also the
dissolution
Of the entire universe.
Nothing higher than Me exists,
o Arjuna.
On Me all this universe is strung
Like pearls on a thread.


I am the liquidity in the waters,
Arjuna,
I am the radiance in the moon and
sun,
The sacred syllable (Om) in all the
Vedas,
The sound in the air, and the manhood
in men.
I am the pure fragrance in the earth,
And the brilliance in the fire,
The life in all beings,
And the austerity in ascetics.
Know Me to be the primeval seed
Of all creatures, Arjuna;
I am the intelligence of the intelligent;
The splendor of the splendid, am I.
‘And know that states of being which
are pure or passionate or dark, proceed from me—
Not, but I, in them - and they in Me!

 

[Sunstone]

It seems to me that both Christianity and Hinduism propose that humans are in need of something more in life than "bread alone" (as an obscure Christian sage once put it), and that this "something more" is of greater worth and value than all else in life. For Christians, I understand this something more to be "salvation". For Hindus, I understand it to be "moksha".

It seems a curious fact to me that core Christian teachings, even if true, are not such that someone would necessarily arrive at their truths in the absence of divine revelation. For instance, no study of nature (including human nature), no matter how rigorous or insightful, would necessarily lead one to the conclusion that God sacrificed his only son so that whoever had faith in Him should attain salvation. On the other hand, it seems to me that moksha, if real, could be attained even by folks who had no knowledge of or contact with Hindu teachings -- albeit the teachings might greatly facilitate their attaining it. As it says in the Bhagavad Gita:

As unnecessary as a well is
To a village on the banks of a river,
So unnecessary are all scriptures
To one who has attained the Truth. (2.46)

A similarity between Christianity and Hinduism, as I see it, is that neither religion allows for a genuine sense of tragedy. That is, their worldviews are inimical to the tragic worldview. By "tragedy" I mean the notion that humans have some sort of inevitable flaw in our very nature such that we are prone to destroying ourselves (and possibly nearly everything else) and -- most crucially -- that we are in no way or manner to be blamed for this flaw: It simply is what it is, through no fault of ours. Christianity rules out a genuine sense of tragedy because eternal salvation is an option, which makes tragedy irrelevant, and Hinduism rules out a genuine sense of tragedy because moksha is an option, which again makes tragedy irrelevant. In those respects, both religions are what I might term "fundamentally optimistic", as opposed to fundamentally tragic.

 

[ajay0]

As unnecessary as a well is
To a village on the banks of a river,
So unnecessary are all scriptures
To one who has attained the Truth. (2.46)

And ye shall know the truth, and the truth shall make you free. ( of all boring scriptural studies and endless contemplation, I presume).

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Some interpretations of Hinduism are nihilistic, specifically the non-dualism schools. One Shakta saying goes something like "I bow to Her who tears apart all dualities" (I've had it as my sig before). The same point is made in a scripture that has Devi saying in part, "... I am the outcaste as well, and the thief. I am the low person of dreadful deeds, and the great person of excellent deeds". So there goes good and evil and even existence itself. It can be rather maddening to ponder. There's nothing akin to that in Christianity and that would probably be a minority view in the umbrella category called "Hinduism", as well.

Christianity is also dependant on prophets and books. Hinduism is not.

 

[ajay0]

Some interpretations of Hinduism are nihilistic, specifically the non-dualism schools.

Nondualism is not nihilistic, in that it negates virtues and values completely.

Good qualities and virtues are considered superior to bad qualities and vices. Bad qualities or vices correspond to tamas while good qualities or virtues correspond to the gunas rajas and sattva especially. Of the gunas, sattva is closest to the Atman or Brahman.

The sattvic find it easier to realize Atman-Brahman or enlightenment than the rajasic or especially the tamasic.

Evil is seeing relative good and evil, and good is going beyond both. - Krishna ( Uddhava Gita)

One thus realizes that good qualities are also a sort of bondage just like vicious qualities, and transcends them. But it is the one who is established in a good character who can transcend the bondage of habitual tendencies, not one with a negative character.

 

[Valjean]

The Abrahamic religions and Hinduism couldn't be more different. Their whole world-views, goals and metaphysics are totally different. A jellyfish and an air conditioner have more in common.

 

[Vinayaka]

The Abrahamic religions and Hinduism couldn't be more different. Their whole world-views, goals and metaphysics are totally different. A jellyfish and an air conditioner have more in common.

I totally concur. The way that similarities are found is either by distorting one or the other, or to select rare obscure passages that seem to agree. Both are so vast that that can be done, but it most surely doesn't represent either whole.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Nondualism is not nihilistic, in that it negates virtues and values completely.

Good qualities and virtues are considered superior to bad qualities and vices. Bad qualities or vices correspond to tamas while good qualities or virtues correspond to the gunas rajas and sattva especially. Of the gunas, sattva is closest to the Atman or Brahman.

The sattvic find it easier to realize Atman-Brahman or enlightenment than the rajasic or especially the tamasic.

Evil is seeing relative good and evil, and good is going beyond both. - Krishna ( Uddhava Gita)

One thus realizes that good qualities are also a sort of bondage just like vicious qualities, and transcends them. But it is the one who is established in a good character who can transcend the bondage of habitual tendencies, not one with a negative character.

If there are ultimately no distinctions, how can you ultimately say that something is anything? Of course I'm speaking on terms of the spiritual. In our day to day lives, of course we perceive distinction and we need that in order to have any sort of order. But at the highest level of reality, It's really all the same. That is my interpretation, anyway.

 

[sayak83]

I totally concur. The way that similarities are found is either by distorting one or the other, or to select rare obscure passages that seem to agree. Both are so vast that that can be done, but it most surely doesn't represent either whole.

The ascetic mystical traditions present in Catholic and Orthodox traditions do have some similarities. That much I will grant.

 

[Vinayaka]

The ascetic mystical traditions present in Catholic and Orthodox traditions do have some similarities. That much I will grant.

Outwardly, for sure. Monasteries of all faiths have several outward things in common, but as to style of meditation, what they're striving for, who knows? The pope, after all, has spoken out against meditation. I certainly notice a posture difference. Hindu ascetics have straight backs, enabling kundalini.

 

[sayak83]

If there are ultimately no distinctions, how can you ultimately say that something is anything? Of course I'm speaking on terms of the spiritual. In our day to day lives, of course we perceive distinction and we need that in order to have any sort of order. But at the highest level of reality, It's really all the same. That is my interpretation, anyway.

The essence of all things is one and the same, and that essence is maximally imbued with foundational beingness, meaningfulness and inherent self-awareness. Thus it is far away from nihilism.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

The essence of all things is one and the same, and that essence is maximally imbued with foundational beingness, meaningfulness and inherent self-awareness. Thus it is far away from nihilism.

It's also imbued with the opposite. I am a nihilist, by the way. Most people aren't.

 

[sayak83]

Outwardly, for sure. Monasteries of all faiths have several outward things in common, but as to style of meditation, what they're striving for, who knows? The pope, after all, has spoken out against meditation. I certainly notice a posture difference. Hindu ascetics have straight backs, enabling kundalini.

A back posture has nothing to do with it. There are many ways to do it.

There have been hundreds of popes with many different views. The ascetic Christian mystical traditions seek to directly experience God through their practice, and at least some of their descriptions based on their practice does have similarity. So I am open to the possibility of those practices being convergent with ours.

 

[sayak83]

It's also imbued with the opposite. I am a nihilist, by the way. Most people aren't.

Hindus aren't.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Hindus aren't.

You mean you aren't. Don't try to speak for everyone. Hell, I'm only speaking for myself so you could grant me the kindness of doing the same.

 

[sayak83]

You mean you aren't. Don't try to speak for everyone. Hell, I'm only speaking for myself so you could grant me the kindness of doing the same.

In this, I can speak for all Hindus. The one thing that assuredly makes one a non-Hindu is not atheism, but nihilism.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

In this, I can speak for all Hindus. The one thing that assuredly makes one a non-Hindu is not atheism, but nihilism.

Okay, Pope and Inquistitor of Hinduism. Thankfully I don't value your opinion on the matter. What arrogance. You are not my teacher here. Kali is.