Can you mingle Hinduism with Christianity?

[Andal]

As others have said, I believe too they should be kept separate. Both are unique spiritual paths with their own dharma. Why mix them? The mixing of the two means the loss of spiritual authority in each tradition. It can also create great confusion. I do think a Hindu can respect Jesus and a Christian may get something from the Geeta but to mix both is not such a great idea.

We can see this happening in the West where Hinduism has been commodified through the selling of Yoga, Kundalini, and mantras. Westerns enter into these things without a deep understanding of the inherent meaning. I know someone personally who has gone through kundalini training and meditates daily but lacks any understanding of the Vedic tradition from which he takes things. For him the gods and rituals are things "those people" (traditional Hindus) do.

On the flip side in India we see missionaries trying desperately to gain converts by manipulating Hindu sentiments.

or this...
Sages of the New Covenant - Isha Upanishad - Commentary? by Swami Sthevanatha?

Keep the traditions independent of one and other.

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[Desert Snake]

As others have said, I believe too they should be kept separate. Both are unique spiritual paths with their own dharma. Why mix them? The mixing of the two means the loss of spiritual authority in each tradition. It can also create great confusion. I do think a Hindu can respect Jesus and a Christian may get something from the Geeta but to mix both is not such a great idea.

We can see this happening in the West where Hinduism has been commodified through the selling of Yoga, Kundalini, and mantras. Westerns enter into these things without a deep understanding of the inherent meaning. I know someone personally who has gone through kundalini training and meditates daily but lacks any understanding of the Vedic tradition from which he takes things. For him the gods and rituals are things "those people" (traditional Hindus) do.

On the flip side in India we see missionaries trying desperately to gain converts by manipulating Hindu sentiments.

or this...
Sages of the New Covenant - Isha Upanishad - Commentary? by Swami Sthevanatha?

Keep the traditions independent of one and other.

Aum Hari Aum!

Interesting..

 

[LuisDantas]

That is an interesting speculation to engage in. What does it mean that so many people want to create such hybrid beliefs?

One factor, I think, are simple considerations of accessibility. To transmit a teaching it is necessary to have or build a common language, and for Westerns that means (or at least meant in the past) having to deal with native expectations of religious concepts at some point, even if only to explain the differences later.

Then there is the challenge of dealing with diversity of belief. It is not altogether rare or unusual for people to be genuinely troubled by the perceived implications of religious diversity. The simple fact is that many never learn better, out of fear, lack of opportunity, or even too much exposure to not fully skilled, honest or true presentations of what "foreign" religions are supposed to be like.

We can't rule out that sometimes unskilled presentation of their own "native" beliefs may make them refratary to learning and accepting about other faiths, either. We are all humans, and those things do happen to humans. Such fears may make "hybrids" appealling, to keep peace in the family among other reasons.

A well guided enough adherent of either faith will eventually realize that there is no good reason for such fears and plenty of good reasons for keeping open, honest dialogue among the various beliefs without attempting to subsum any with any other.

Alas, there is never a shortage of adherents that are not very well guided.

The bottom line is that many people feel a need to convince themselves of similarities or common sources for the peace of their minds. That is not at all a new situation. It has been particularly serious in the late 19th Century, IMO.

 

[Jainarayan]

We're explorers as a species. We're exposed to so many more cultures, customs and beliefs like never before. It's like a buffet. I want some of this, some of that. Ala carte worshiping. Years ago we were born, lived and died with our families' beliefs and customs. With the advent of the internet and so many more books published, it's easy to get caught up in that buffet mentality. On top of that, with so many different ideas, some people begin to question what they were raised with.

 

[atanu]

My opinion only:

As per understanding of most Panentheists, there is 'One without a second' above dharma, and there is dharma permeated by That (Purushottama in Gita's language).

Shri Krishna teaches "Renunciate all kinds of dharma-s and surrender unto me". Similarly many teachers say that once a person is convinced that there is no worthy goal other than That, all scriptures and all dharma become useless.

I think for such immersed, the outer dharma matters not. After all, for a true Hindu, it is Ishwara alone who graces all. So, at the core all paths have to lead to one Ishwara alone. Else, we implicitly give strength to a mis conception that Brahman\Ishwara\Purushottama is not one without second.

But I am convinced that such a person, being fully immersed, will not need any debate on this issue. Differences are in the perception of dharma. A fully surrendered/immersed seeker will not be ruled by the perceptions.

My quarter rupee worth of thought.

 

[Brickjectivity]

I don't think Theosophy represents a simple combination of Christianity and Hinduism. The original combination of Christianity and Hinduism in Theosophy was I think an attempt to destroy Christianity or to change it, not strictly to combine the powers of both faiths. Looking back at things on the internet about H. Blavatsky, her organization and her work leads me to think this is the case. If you were to genuinely combine the two it would be something very different and a very passive movement, not something nearly so activist. Ok, so I'm not very knowledgeable about Brahman, but I think I understand it well enough to say that. If you were to purely combine the two, however, the result would probably be so passive as to go unnoticed.

 

[ShivaFan]

I am only speaking from personal observation that mixing Hindu with Christian has not be successful in general, with generally the Christian who involves themself with this almost always became a Hindu, and a Hindu who involves with this almost always remained a Hindu.

I am not talking about one converting the other, I am talking about the "Magic Christian" and/or "Christian Hindu" movements of the 1960s and 70s, meaning mixing the two.

Typically these would be the hippie type initally "Jesus Freaks" but then reading books such as the "Aquarian Gospel of Jesus Christ" and such about Jesus in India or direct disciples in India, Jesus or disciple mixing with Siddhis or yogis, and such, they move from "Jesus Freak" to "Magic Christian" mode then mix Hindu with Christian.

In the end, everyone of these pretty much then later focused on just Hindu, not a Christian Hindu mix, but some later became involved in things such as TM.

There were also some Hindus who got involved in similar "Jesus in India" literature, and were so-called "Christian Hindus" with Jesus as a great yogi. This spread even into some rare examples in ISKCON where some started wearing Christian like monk robes. Basically they were thrown out of ISKCON as odd balls if you will, this included Indian born Hindus and I haven't seen anything like this in Hindu sects since. Those who went into "Christian Hindu" sentiment, this seemed to be a short-lived phase.

I have never known a Saiva mix religion in such manner.

I have seen some Shaktas who speak of Mary as Goddess-like, or a Mary in some Gypsy linked sects seen as actually Hindu Goddess from India by some. This is rare.

Om Namah Sivaya

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is an interesting speculation to engage in. What does it mean that so many people want to create such hybrid beliefs?

No, they do not want to create any hybrid beliefs. They are missionaries. Their aim is to get converts to Christianity.

 

[LuisDantas]

They are hybrids, even if only at the most superficial level, though.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Those who went into "Christian Hindu" sentiment, this seemed to be a short-lived phase.

Short-lived and unpopular, ended up in Christianity in Bengal (Brahmo Samaj and Keshub Chunder Sen):

"In 1866 Sen delivered an address on 'Jesus Christ, Europe and Asia', in which he proclaimed that "India would be for Christ alone who already stalks the land" and which fostered the impression that he was about to embrace Christianity." - Sapristi.

 

[seeking4truth]

Krishna?? Christ??

 

[Desert Snake]

Krishna?? Christ??

Yeah, pretty similar. I believe some members here have information on that.

 

[Poeticus]

Yeah, pretty similar. I believe some members here have information on that.

Many Vaishnavas will quickly exclaim
that the two in question are not pretty
similar. For example, Gaudiya-s view
Krishna as Swayam Bhagavan, aka:
"Almighty God Himself", so to speak. It
would be beneficial to acknowledge
the variations of how Krishna is held
in various Hindu sects & denominations.​

 

[Desert Snake]

Many Vaishnavas will quickly exclaim
that the two in question are not pretty
similar. For example, Gaudiya-s view
Krishna as Swayam Bhagavan, aka:
"Almighty God Himself", so to speak. It
would be beneficial to acknowledge
the variations of how Krishna is held
in various Hindu sects & denominations.
​

Xians, many, view Jesus as God as well.

 

[Poeticus]

Xians, may, view Jesus as God as well.

And that's most certainly true. However,
one should take into account that there
are different paradigms. The similarities of
Krishna and Christ are superficially forced,
at best. If you don't mind me asking, how
do you see them as being similar?​

 

[Desert Snake]

And that's most certainly true. However,
one should take into account that there
are different paradigms. The similarities of
Krishna and Christ are superficially forced,
at best. If you don't mind me asking, how
do you see them as being similar?
​

I don't personally see them as being very similar, but, I think I could make a case if I had to. Xians are different in belief, similar to how hindus also differ, the difference is that the major Xian churches hold very similar views traditionally.
The 'similarities' I've read were interesting, but that isn't theology to me, just reading a bit..

 

[Jainarayan]

Krishna?? Christ??

Yeah, pretty similar. I believe some members here have information on that.

No etymological connection between Krishna and Christ whatsoever. It's another case of pareidolia (e.g. seeing Jesus's face on a grilled cheese sandwich or the face on Mars). Krishna means dark; it also means attractive. Christ is from Greek Χριστός, Christos, meaning 'anointed' referring to the Messiah.

The phonemes (sound units) in the names Krishna and Christ are not even the same. The 'k' of Krishna is pronounced like the English 'k'. The 'ch' of Christ is pronounced like a rough 'h', like in German Bach. The 'i' in Krishna is part of the ṛ, (which is more like a clipped 'ruh' like in 'hoof'). The 'i' in Christ is like 'ee'. Not a matter of approximating sounds either. Sanskrit has no 'x like Greek's. Sanskrit has a 'k', so does Greek; Sanskrit and Greek both have 'ee'; so there is no deed to approximate or substitute phonemes.

In summary... not even close.

 

[ChristineES]

I don't think they are totally incompatible, but they are totally different religions with two different God concepts (from what I can tell, but you can correct me if I am wrong). I am not going to say that one is right and the other wrong as I don't feel qualified to make such a judgment. I, too, believe that the two should not be combined. But that doesn't mean you can't read the texts of the one you don't follow because we can always learn something new.

 

[Desert Snake]

I don't think they are totally incompatible, but they are totally different religions with two different God concepts (from what I can tell, but you can correct me if I am wrong). I am not going to say that one is right and the other wrong as I don't feel qualified to make such a judgment. I, too, believe that the two should not be combined. But that doesn't mean you can't read the texts of the one you don't follow because we can always learn something new.

Why do you and others feel they shouldn't be combined? Would I personally combinr them? No, but some might want to. There are different Hindic paths, some are probably more caompatible to it.

 

[Vinayaka]

Why do you and others feel they shouldn't be combined? Would I personally combinr them? No, but some might want to. There are different Hindic paths, some are probably more caompatible to it.

Obviously some people feel it works for them. There are lots of groups that function in that mix. Most people here are describing their personal experience of how it doen't work for them, and then give all kinds of reasoons why they feel that way.

I hope the OP has read enough to make a wise decision, as really, that's what the thread was, no?