Can you mingle Hinduism with Christianity?

[Saint Frankenstein]

Please do not strawman. I can't attack Paul because I didn't know him personally. I can only say that his teachings were not in line with what Jesus said. I do not say Jesus didn't exist, I say a case can't be made for his existence one way or another, nor does it matter. If anyone is unbiased it is me. Remember, I am the one who tries to clarify Jesus's teachings and who defends him.

Yes, you are biased. You obviously don't like Christianity as a religion and have a bias against what Christianity, and so what Paul, teaches. What Paul taught was instructions to the faithful and stuff about church organization. It wasn't taking away from what Jesus taught.

What Christianity The Organization teaches about Jesus. When did Jesus teach about confession? When did he teach that to miss Mass on a Holy Day of Obligation is a mortal sin? That's Christianity that Jesus did not teach. That's man-made Christianity.

That's not what I was talking about. The Gospels say that Christ is Lord, God, Messiah and Savior. It sounds like you just like Jesus' social teachings and dump the rest.

Hinduism does not believe the soul is impermanent. The self is impermanent, but the Self is permanent. In fact, that the soul is the only thing that's permanent is one of the foundations of Hinduism. Dvaitins don't believe there will be a merger with God, nor do some Vaishnavas. In reality, Buddhism doesn't teach 'merger' when one attains nirvana; nor does Taoism. Those are as eastern as you can get.

What about Heaven and hell, or the Second Coming? Or the Eucharist? Those things were taught by Christ.

 

[Jainarayan]

Why? Is it not true that the Atman is a basic tenet of Hinduism? What else is permanent?

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

These are going is river headed west too. Maybe our ashes can meet up.

... After which, both of ya'll should follow a current that can lead you to the Western coast of India. Then, we can go to the Andamans and chill near a reef or something.

Sweet! See you guys then! I guess we'll really become one then, eh?

 

[Jainarayan]

Yes, you are biased. You obviously don't like Christianity as a religion and have a bias against what Christianity, and so what Paul, teaches. What Paul taught was instructions to the faithful. It wasn't taking away from what Jesus taught.

I don't like what Christianity has become, and no I don't like it as a religion. That's why I left it.

That's not what I was talking about. The Gospels say that Christ is Lord, God, Messiah and Savior. It sounds like you just like Jesus' social teachings and dump the rest.

Jesus never said he was God. And while he did say that the only way to the Father was through him, yes that was true. True for the people he was teaching. They had no other way to know God, or they forgot the way.

What about Heaven and hell, or the Second Coming? Or the Eucharist? Those things were taught by Christ.

Well, what about Heaven and Hell? Most theistic religions believe in something like that. Judaism does not have a Hell, so why would Jesus, a first century Jew who was trying to comfort an oppressed people, invent a place of further torment? The Eucharist... he said (variously translated) "when you do this, remember me" or "do this in remembrance of me". Nothing about punishment for not doing it.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

I don't like what Christianity has become, and no I don't like it as a religion. That's why I left it.

Obviously.

Jesus never said he was God.

He didn't flat out state it but He said it in other ways ("before Abraham was, I AM" and then the Jews tried to stone Him for being blasphemous in their eyes). Also, others during His life recognized Him as God, such as Thomas ("my Lord and my God!").

And while he did say that the only way to the Father was through him, yes that was true. True for the people he was teaching. They had no other way to know God, or they forgot the way.

And how is that exclusivity compatible with Dharmic religions?

Well, what about Heaven and Hell? Most theistic religions believe in something like that. Judaism does not have a Hell, so why would Jesus, a first century Jew who was trying to comfort an oppressed people, invent a place of further torment? The Eucharist... he said (variously translated) "when you do this, remember me" or "do this in remembrance of me". Nothing about punishment for not doing it.

I was asking how those teachings are compatible with Dharmic religions.

 

[Andal]

Actually that's not true. Buddhism believes in a mind-stream. Something that has to survive physical death to be re-born, and then to attain nirvana. Buddhism does not deny the existence of such an entity. Anatta is grossly misunderstood, even by some Buddhists. It means there is no independent permanent existence, but there is existence.

The Buddhist view of mind stream is very different from that of a permenant soul or self. Both anatta and anicca- the marks of not self and impermenance make this fairly clear as do the 12 links of causation and the teachings of sunyata. Mind stream is likened to one candle lighting the next or an ice cube melting into the next. Some in the Theravada view go as far as to say that it is only the karma that lives on. If one were to take the Madhyamakka view as beautifully expressed in the Prajnaparamittahrdayasuttra there is ultimately no self only void. Mind stream is only a function of samsara.

The closest Buddhism comes to permanent soul is found in the tathagatagarbha doctrine and the alayavijnana teachings found in the yogachara philosophy of Mahayana which is a relatively young teaching.

 

[Vinayaka]

Why? Is it not true that the Atman is a basic tenet of Hinduism? What else is permanent?

Depends on the school, and definitions, etc. In my school, the individual soul is not permanent at all, but merges into oblivion with God, as water into water.

Other schools differ.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Depends on the school, and definitions, etc. In my school, the individual soul i snot permanent at all, but merges into oblivion with God, as water into water.

Other schools differ.

That's the view of the soul and God I always think of when it comes to Hinduism. It seems to be the most widespread belief on that subject in Hinduism, but I could be wrong.

 

[Vinayaka]

That's the view of the soul and God I always think of when it comes to Hinduism. It seems to be the most widespread belief on that subject in Hinduism, but I could be wrong.

I actually don't think it is, as Vaishnavism (which is generally more dual) is practiced by more people than anyone. Course i could be wrong. in fact it's quite likely.

 

[Andal]

That's the view of the soul and God I always think of when it comes to Hinduism. It seems to be the most widespread belief on that subject in Hinduism, but I could be wrong.

Advaita view is the most wide spread in the west but isn't necessarially the most popular. Statistically vaishnavas are the majority of Hindus (although fair enough stats aren't always accurate). Vaishnavas do not tend to hold the advaita view.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Thanks for the info, guys.

 

[Jainarayan]

...
And how is that exclusivity compatible with Dharmic religions?

I was asking how those teachings are compatible with Dharmic religions.

You have to go back and really read what I've written... I never said there was a 1:1 correspondence, rather, there is a great overlap. Of course some details will be different. How many different and incompatible beliefs are there just within Christianity? I can think of a biggie... the filioque. Now that's a humdinger that has kept the two largest branches of Christianity separated for 960 years.

 

[Jainarayan]

The Buddhist view of mind stream is very different from that of a permenant soul or self. Both anatta and anicca- the marks of not self and impermenance make this fairly clear as do the 12 links of causation and the teachings of sunyata. Mind stream is likened to one candle lighting the next or an ice cube melting into the next. Some in the Theravada view go as far as to say that it is only the karma that lives on. If one were to take the Madhyamakka view as beautifully expressed in the Prajnaparamittahrdayasuttra there is ultimately no self only void. Mind stream is only a function of samsara.

But something exists, that's the point.

The closest Buddhism comes to permanent soul is found in the tathagatagarbha doctrine and the alayavijnana teachings found in the yogachara philosophy of Mahayana which is a relatively young teaching.

But it's there, and it's accepted.

Edit: I just want to add at this point that the conversation is digressing into Buddhism, which is not on topic, and is probably my fault: I used what thought was a brief example for comparison. For my part henceforth, I'll stay on the original topic.

 

[John Martin]

Hinduism does not believe the soul is impermanent. The self is impermanent, but the Self is permanent. In fact, that the soul is the only thing that's permanent is one of the foundations of Hinduism. Dvaitins don't believe there will be a merger with God, nor do some Vaishnavas. In reality, Buddhism doesn't teach 'merger' when one attains nirvana; nor does Taoism. Those are as eastern as you can get.

Dear Sir,
Your use three words: self, Self and soul.
You say :Self is permanent.
self is impermanent
soul is permanent
Is soul is identical with Self?Brahman and Atman?
Do you mean Self when you say soul?
or are they two different?
If so, are you proposing two permanent entities: Self and Soul?
Vedas affirm one permanent reality: ekam sat vipra bahuthi vadanti, eternal reality( self sustaining reality is one but sages call it by many names.

Self and Reincarnation

Self is eternal. It is substantial and permanent. What is eternal is pure and fullness(purnam). It is the nature of eternity to manifest, to radiate or incarnate( manifesting eternity in the present). It is like the Sun that radiates its fullness. Purnamadah purnamidam, that is fullness,this is also fullness. What is pure and fullness or eternal cannot reincarnate.
It is only something that is incomplete or fragmentary which needs to reincarnate.
Hindus(at least some) believe that Self or eternal Atman reincarnates?
Is it not contradiction? How can eternal Self or Atman reincarnate?
Buddha said that the soul or self (not Self) is aicca,not permanent and anatta (not substantial). Why? because it is the product of ignorance and desire. It is like bubble that appears on the water.Desire is born of ignorance. When ignorance is removed,desire is removed. When there is no desire, there is no self.The bubble disappears. In this sense Buddha said that self is anicca and anatta. ( I am not sure if he denied Self). It is this desire which is born of ignorance that reincarnates until the wisdom is dawn and ignorance disappears. This makes sense. But Hindus say that the eternal Self or Atman reincarnates?
How can what is eternal reincarnate? It can only incarnate. Any comments will be appreciated.

 

[George-ananda]

Depends on the school, and definitions, etc. In my school, the individual soul is not permanent at all, but merges into oblivion with God, as water into water.

Other schools differ.

Yes, some people seem to think that the concept of 'anatta', no permanent soul, precludes the existence of an impermanent soul that exists for many lifetimes. I disagree with that. As an Advaita I believe in anatta and an impermanent soul. Yes, there are different schools of thought.

 

[Jainarayan]

Your propose three entites: self, Self and soul.
You say :Self is permanent.
self is imperanant
soul is permanent
Is soul is identical with Self?Brahman and Atman?
Do you mean Self when you say soul?
or are they two different?
If so are you proposing two permanent entities: Self and Soul?

No, there are only two. If you are familiar with jiva and atman, how they are related to each other and to Brahman, you'll know what I'm talking about. 'Soul' is actually a poor word for the concept, and really shouldn't be used; it's convenient but inaccurate. You seem to have a good grasp of these concepts, so I'm sure you understand my point.

 

[John Martin]

No, there are only two. If you are familiar with jiva and atman, how they are related to each other and to Brahman, you'll know what I'm talking about. 'Soul' is actually a poor word for the concept, and really shouldn't be used; it's convenient but inaccurate. You seem to have a good grasp of these concepts, so I'm sure you understand my point.

Thank you sir. It is so kind of you. Yes, I am familiar with the words jiva and atman. Many times I find confused because people use different world,life Soul,Self or Spirit etc. to Atman and Brahman). I find it useful to say: Paramatman to Self, Atman or Brahman
and Jivatman to soul.
Paramatman is eternal and jivatman is human soul, impermanent?

Thanks again

 

[Triumphant_Loser]

Yes, you are biased. You obviously don't like Christianity as a religion and have a bias against what Christianity, and so what Paul, teaches. What Paul taught was instructions to the faithful and stuff about church organization. It wasn't taking away from what Jesus taught.

Bias against Paul does not necessarily mean bias against Jesus. Many of Paul's teachings do not reflect the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, i.e. the homophobia, sexism, etc.

 

[Saint Frankenstein]

Bias against Paul does not necessarily mean bias against Jesus. Many of Paul's teachings do not reflect the teachings of Jesus of Nazareth, i.e. the homophobia, sexism, etc.

It's debatable whether Paul was talking about homosexuals as we would understand them. The sexism was his own, yes, but those letters were written to churches. Who knows what was going in that particular church that Paul was writing to.

Food for thought: Saint Paul Thanks the Women

 

[ratikala]

This is exactly right. Christianity is not Christianity, it is Paulism. It ceased being Christianity when Paul inserted himself into it and used it as a platform for his thoughts.

Again, this is exactly right. The Gospels are only the tip of the iceberg with regard to his teachings and life, who he was and what he tried to do.

thank you this confirms my fears , from what I understand of Jesus his teachings alone are reminicent of the pure goodness found in Sanatana Dharma and in Buddhism , but that like Hinduism Christianity has been diverted in different directions by the later thought of different teachers and acharyas , it is these diversions into 'isms' that make Christianity and Hinduism incompatable .

While Jesus didn't speak on reincarnation or vegetarianism (which isn't even a requirement in Hinduism, rather, it's an ideal to strive for), at their heart, his teachings are an extension, or rewording of part of what Krishna and the Buddha taught. Jesus taught just enough for the people of his time and place. There is a lot that would be familiar to a Hindu or Buddhist.

this is exactly how I find it , I can read the teachings of Jesus and see the same eternal wisdom , but my fear of the differences come from meeting with the exacting tonge and wagging finger of many Christians , however I must say I do not find the same rgidity in Christian mystics .

Now, does a Hindu or Buddhist need to include Jesus's teachings in their own beliefs? No not really, because as I said, his teachings are a re-iteration of part of the Buddha's and Krishna's teachings.

my feelings entirely , it is right for us to respect the wisdom within his teachings , but there is little need for us to embrace modern day Christianity as it has taken on a form particular to the needs of a diferent section of society , and has taken on Ideals also particular to that society , ...it is this taking on of Ideals that I find incompatable with Hinduism .

this is where I find that it is only the rare few who reach a higher level of understanding who see the comonality between the teachings of Jesus , Buddha and those contained within numerous Hindu traditions , foolishly these people have been daubed Syncratic , however this is far from the case as it is not the adoption of a little of this and a little of that , but it is the realisation of the truth within all .
but here I refer to the truth within the teachings not the 'isms' that have grown up around them .