Can you mingle Hinduism with Christianity?

[Vinayaka]

From what I understand, Hinduism is very flexible with gods and has incorporated deities from other cultures into the Hindu worldview and most of the time are accepted as forms of a particular deity.

I believe there may be a few 'modernists' who have done this within what they may label a Hindu context, but it certainly isn't orthodox or traditional. The historical Hindu Gods provide us with plenty enough God stuff already. There is simply no need to add more. Most of us are confused enough already with the multitude of Gods we have, and taking on the beliefs sects or sampradays within Hinduism actually decreases the number of Gods to deal with, not increases it.

Once it goes beyond the ancient gods, it can hardly be called Hinduism any more.

 

[zenzero]

Friend Bunny,

OP, maybe you could research Gnosticism if you're interested? The philosophies of Gnosticism and Hinduism seem to harmonize pretty well, at least for me.

Personal understanding is that Hinduism is not a particular 'religion' as such; it was the followers of other religions that made Hinduism look like another religion.
In fact even the Supreme Court of India has given its verdict on the issue and states the following:

the word "Hinduism" or "Hindutva" indicates the culture of the people of India as a whole, irrespective of whether they are Hindus, Muslims, Christians, Jews etc

quoted from: Supreme court judgment: a blow to secular democracy.

Hinduism is a 'Way of Life', meaning every human has a way of life and any way of life comes under Hinduism and so not only Christianity but followers of any religion falls under the Supreme Courts definition of Hinduism.

It is unfortunate that many in and out of India still hold on to the idea that Hinduism is just another religions with dos and don't in behaviour which is against the very spirit of Hinduism which is what spirituality IS.
Personally would define Hinduism to be of 'spirituality' which various religions follow.

Love & rgds

 

[John Martin]

I have been a student of Inter-religious dialogue, particularly, Hindu Christian dialogue. I discover that there are important similarities between the Vedic vision and the vision of Christ.
I call Vedic Vision,not Hinduism,,because Hinduism is not one religion but congregation of many religions or belief systems,even though all call themselves Hindus and all believe in the same scriptures( Vedas and the Bhagavat Gita).

I call the Vision of Christ,not Christianity, because Christianity is not one religion but a congregation of many religions, even though all call themselves Christians and all believe in the same scriptures( Old Testament and the New Testament.)
1. Both are Monotheisms
a. Ekam sat vipra bhahuthi vadanthi: God is one sages call it by many names
b. Ekam eva advitiyam: I, alone, am. There is no second.

a. The Biblical tradition affirms the One God
b. I am Yawweh,there is no other God beside me

2. Universal presence of God.
a. Isa Upanishad says that the whole of the universe is permeated God,renouncing ignorance a person may discover this truth and live a life of joy.

a. Judaism affirmed the universal presence of God. Jesus also said: the kingdom of God is at hand,repent. God is everywhere and everything and everyone is in God. Repentance is a process through which we discover this truth.

3. Creation is the Manifestation of God.
a. the Upanishads declare that sarvam eithad Brahma, sarvam kalvidam Brahma,
all this is indeed the manifestation of Brahman, all this is the manifestation of Brahman

a. For Jesus Christ creation is not a creature of God but a manifestation of God.This is one of the differences between Judaism and the teaching of Christ.

4. God is Non-dual consciousness.
a. Prgnanam brahma: Brahman is unity- non-dual all embracing consciousness

a. In Christianity its equivalent is : God is Love: Love is unitary consciousness. It is all embracing consciousness.

5. Aham Brahma asmi: I am Brahman, my true self is God; I am the truth, the life and the way.
Jesus said I am the light of the world; my true self is the light of the world. I am the way, the truth and the life.( my true self is the way,the truth and the life).

6. Tat vam asi: you are that Brahman, you are Brahman or your true self is God or Brahman.
Jesus said, you are the light of the world. Your true self or real self is the light of the world.

7. Ayam atma Brahma: this atman is Brahman. Atman, the ground of the human consciousness is one with the Brahman,the ground of the universe.

Jesus Christ said, the Father and I are one. The Father is Brahman, the ground of the universe. The 'I' of Jesus is Atman,the ground of his human consciousness. The Atman is Brahman

8. God is Pursusothama: the Upanishads present God as impersonal. The Bhagavat Gita adds the element of personality to God. God is supreme person, God is love.

For Jesus Christ also God is a supreme person,purusothama. This personality of God transcends all human categories. God is unconditional love. God's love is like the Sun which gives light to all unconditionally.

9. Love is wisdom manifesting in action. The Upanishads emphasize on the path of wisdom. The Bhagavat Gita integrates many spiritual paths,particularly Jnana, Bhakti and Action. In the Bhagavat Gita Love is wisdom manifesting in action. it is the marriage of wisdom and action in Love. Wisdom is the experience of oneness with God. Krishna represents wisdom. Arjuna represents action. They are in the same chariot. Krishna loves Arjuna and Arjuna loves Krishna. Krishna acts in and through Arjuna. Arjuna acts according to Krishna,wisdom. Arjuna says to Krishna' thy will be done'.

For Jesus Christ Love is wisdom manifesting in action. Wisdom is his oneness with God. All his actions come from that wisdom. Hence Love is wisdom manifesting in action. It is the union of the love of God and love of neighbour. Jesus Christ said,the works which I do are not my own but the Father who dwells in me does his works.
Jesus Christ is both God and human: at one level he is one with God, the Father and I are one. He is Krishna. In another level he is a human being,he is Arjuna. He says 'thy will be done'. He is fully human and fully divine.

The main difference between these two visions is the theme of reincarnation. Jesus Christ would not have denied the possibility of reincarnation but his approach was different. I feel not to go into it now.

You see there are powerful similarities between the Vedic Vision and the Vision of Christ.

 

[Aupmanyav]

That is a mis-representation of Hinduism and needs to be addressed.

1. Hinduism is not monotheism. The majority is polytheist.
a. When they said 'Ekam sat, vipra bahudha vadanti', they meant Indian religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism) which share our world view and certainly did not mean Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which say 'I am your Lord, the God, and you must not worship any else'.
b. 'Ekam eva advitiyam' That is NOT 'I, alone, am' (find me the word which means 'I'). That is "(There is) only one, no second". And what is that? It includes everything in the universe, all people, animals, vegetation, water, air, rocks, to exclude anything is blasphemy.

2. Not everybody accepts existence of God/Gods. I am an atheist. What some sections of Hindus accept is universal presence of some entity, it may be a impersonal God or it may not be. Write the full name - Isavasya Upanishad is one of the many, it is not Hinduism's Bible or Qur'an.
a. "Repentance is a process through which we discover this truth.": No, truth is discovered by study and research. How would repentance give any idea about Higg's Boson. Repentance is only for the guilty. Is that because Adam ate an apple given by Eve?

3. I do not believe in creation. The view I follow is that the perceived in not the truth, it is only a mental construct. There is no creation.
Kindly explain what should I understand by manifestation?
'Sarvam eitad Brahma, sarvam kalvidam Brahma' means all things here are constituted of Brahman (and Brahman not necessarily being a God but just the substrate, like a chair as well as a table may be made of wood). Do Christianity or Islam accept that or even something close to it?

4. 'Prajnanam Brahma'. It is from one of the oldest Upanishads when people knew little, and is, IMHO, not correct. Consciousness is a temporary thing, a state of mind, which comes and goes with the body. What proves that the universe is constituted by it? What proves that there is a universal consciousness?

5. 'Aham Brahma asmi': I am Brahman, my true self is God; (Now do not make Brahman into a God, some people do not take it in that sense. And even if they take Brahman as the God, it is impersonal, uninvolved.)
Jesus said I am the light of the world; my true self is the light of the world. I am the way, the truth and the life.
Fine, if Jesus said that he is the light of the world; going by the Hindu belief, all people are the light of the world, the way, the truth and the life. Then, us too, are the way, the truth and the life. What is, then, so special about Jesus?

6. 'Tat tvam asi': you are that brahman, you are Brahman or your true self is God or Brahman. (Now do not make Brahman .. it is impersonal, uninvolved.)
Jesus said, you are the light of the world. Your true self or real self is the light of the world.
Did he say that? Where? Kindly give reference. Only the light of the world, and not the way, the truth and the life (see #5).

7. 'Ayam atma Brahma': This 'self' (atman) is Brahman. Atman, the ground of the human consciousness is one with the Brahman, the ground of the universe.
The ground of human consciousness is the brain. Like everything else, brain also is constituted of Brahman (whatever it may be).

8. 'God is Pursusothama: the Upanishads present God as impersonal. The Bhagavat Gita adds the element of personality to God. God is supreme person, God is love.'
The first question is whether there is any God? Brahman remains undefined, the only thing we can say about it according to Hinduism is that it is 'Neti, neti' (Not this, not that). Upanishads do present an impersonal entity but never beyond that. There are many ways to understand Bhagavat Geeta. If Krishna is Brahman, then he cannot be termed as a person, that will be a severe limitation and wrong. God, at least, Brahman, can neither be love nor hate, since it is impersonal.

'For Jesus Christ also God is a supreme person, purusothama. This personality of God transcends all human categories. God is unconditional love. God's love is like the Sun which gives light to all unconditinally.'
Brahman is not a person, therefore, it cannot be termed as 'purushottama'. Many Hindus do not believe in Christian kind of God. It God transcemd all human categories, then it is futile to terms it as loving or hating, because these are human emotions. If God is love, then why is there evil in the world? Why is there a hell and that too eternal? Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Why did God ask Moses to kill everyone engaged in idolatry? And why did Jesus curse the cities? That means that even if there is a God, there cannot be 'unconditional love'.

9. 'Love is wisdom manifesting in love. The Upanishads emphasize on the path of wisdom. The Bhagavat Gita integrates many spiritual paths, particularly Jnana, Bhakti and Action. In the Bhagavat Gita Love is wisdom manifesting in action. it is the marriage of wisdom and action in Love. Wisdom is the experience of oneness with God. Krishna represents wisdom. Arjuna represents action.

For Jesus Christ Love is wisdom manifesting in action. Wisdom is his oneness with God. All his actions come from that wisdom. Hence Love is wisdom manifesting in action. It is the union of the love of God and love of neighbour.

Jesus Christ both God and human: at one level he is one with God. He is Krishna. In another level he is a human being, he is Arjuna. He says 'thy will be done'. he is fully human and fully divine.'
Love is wisdom, but only up to a limit. There cannot be 'unconditional love'. When one is faced with 'adharma', one has to take appropriate action. That is what Krishna advised Arjuna, that he should not hesitate to get into a war if 'dharma' demands it even if those opposing him were his own relations. This is true for Jesus also, one can say 'love when it is convenient'. I agree with oneness with Brahman, differences being illusions. One can love a neighbor if the neighbor is worth it. Can love al-Quaeda killers be loved? Not just Jesus, I too, am Brahman as well as Human. You too are that and so is the dog in the street. That is what is oneness with Brahman. Brahman does not have a will, because Brahman does not have any desires, not even to be worshiped, one thing that the Abrahamic God is after. Arjuna was asked to fulfill his dharma and not the will of a God.

This view of Hinduism is not that of a Hindu. Talk about Christianity. Why talk about something without understanding it very well. As you do not feel to go into the question of reincarnation now, I will leave it at that. Whenever ready to discuss it, we can meet again. Best regards,

 

[Vinayaka]

The main difference between these two visions is the theme of reincarnation.

I disagree. The main difference is the idea of Christ. But yes reincarnation is another difference. So is heaven/hell, good/bad thinking, duality, vegetarianism, and many more core ideas.

Of course anyone can believe whatever they choose to.

 

[Vouthon]

I think about the only thing you can merge into Hinduism from Christianity is the Sermon on the Mount, and other of Jesus's teachings about compassion

But you've forgotten about the mysticism as well, in Orthodoxy and Catholicism. I would say that is where it most resembles Vedanta.

However, I do not believe you can take Hindu concepts and merge them into Christianity without great difficulty. I sort of did it when I was Christian. I always believed in the Hindu deities and that they were manifestations of God. That is a decidedly Hindu concept not found in Christianity. At the time Jesus was my 'ishta-devata', if you will. Of course I was an unorthodox Orthodox Christian. I no longer believe he is/was God.

Personally I am not a fan of "mingling" religions, since I think it undermines the rich diversity of traditions. For example there are areas where religions simply do not agree and I think we should appreciate those areas of difference. That is one if the few things I dislike about the Baha'i Faith, that such differences are "overcome" rather than accepted. Tolerance is about acceptance of difference. The idea that deep down we really all believe the same things is not true, with the exception perhaps on how to lead a moral life (the norms of which are pretty universal).

However I am not averse to someone learning from another religion and making uses of its insights by converting it into a different religious context, where there truly is compatibility. Mysticism and philosophy are two key areas in this respect.

For example, the Catholic Church did this with Platonism and Aristotelianism (ie St. Thomas Aquinas). Pope St. John Paul II encouraged it with Indian philosophies as well:

"...Christianity first encountered Greek philosophy; but this does not mean at all that other approaches are precluded...My thoughts turn immediately to the lands of the East, so rich in religious and philosophical traditions of great antiquity. Among these lands, India has a special place. A great spiritual impulse leads Indian thought to seek an experience which would liberate the spirit from the shackles of time and space and would therefore acquire absolute value. The dynamic of this quest for liberation provides the context for great metaphysical systems. In India particularly, it is the duty of Christians now to draw from this rich heritage the elements compatible with their faith, in order to enrich Christian thought..."

- Pope Saint John Paul II, FIDES ET RATIO, 1998

Note the "elements compatible" not mere mixing of ideas into some confusing soup :yes:

That might sound pedantic but to me the two are quite different, that is syncretism and 'learning' from or adapting insights.

 

[Vinayaka]

Personally I am not a fan of "mingling" religions, since I think it undermines the rich diversity of traditions. For example there are areas where religions simply do not agree and I think we should appreciate those areas of difference. That is one if the few things I dislike about the Baha'i Faith, that such differences are "overcome" rather than accepted. Tolerance is about acceptance of difference. The idea that deep down we really all believe the same things is not true, with the exception perhaps on how to lead a moral life (the norms of which are pretty universal).

Absolutely. One of the problems I (we?) often encounter when I go against mixing is the accusation that therefore I hate all sides but my own. This of course is untrue. Still, coming from a paradigm where 'hate' is part of it, it's understandable. To quote a wise man: "Tolerance is about acceptance of difference."

 

[John Martin]

I disagree. The main difference is the idea of Christ. But yes reincarnation is another difference. So is heaven/hell, good/bad thinking, duality, vegetarianism, and many more core ideas.

Of course anyone can believe whatever they choose to.

What you say refers to Christianity. What Christians think of Christ.
My position is that Christ is not identical with Christianity just as the Upanishad sages cannot be labelled as Hindus. Christ and the Sages were beyond all labels.They were free and universal spirits. Christian Churches are different interpretations of the message of Jesus Church. It is similar to the different interpretations given by the Hindu sages like Sankara, Ramanuja, Madva,Nimbarka,Vallaba,Caitanya,Ramakrishna, Vivekananda and Aurobindo, Sri Ramana Maharsi to the teachings of the Vedas, Upanishads and the Bhagavat Gita. The Upanishads and the Bhagavat Gita have given the possibility to different systems of Hinduism just as the Old Testament and New Testament have given the possibility to different Christian Churches.
There are dualistic systems in Hinduism. There are concepts of permanent Hell and Heaven in Hinduism also. For example Madhavacarya proposed dualistic system called Dvaita and he also proposed that there are some souls which are predestined for Hell without salvation.
Christ did not teach Hell and Heaven. He taught the kingdom of God that goes beyond Hell and Heaven. Christianity brought in the concept of Hell and Heaven.
Christ did not teach dualism but non-dualism to everyone but Christianity limited non-dualism to Christ and dualism to Christians. I do not consider vegetarianism is a big issue because not all Hindus are vegetarians, in the same not all Christians are non-vegetarians.
If we have an open mind and open heart then we discover that the similarities between the Vedic Vision and the Vision of Christ more than the differences. An openhearted dialogue can bring these visions together. If that happens then more than half of the world would be united. What an exciting thing to hope for?

 

[Vinayaka]

What an exciting thing to hope for?

Not really. As others have said, it would be a dilution of both great faiths. Let Catholics be good Catholics, Hindus be good Hindus, and each have respect for humanity. I see that as a great thing to hope for.

Here's a link... http://books.google.ca/books?id=gTq54hMraYsC&pg=PA195&lpg=PA195&dq=Papal+criticism+of+Shantivanam&source=bl&ots=70vrkM79DG&sig=QFz5Hqkyw7GYN5fGfZMN8vkLp_4&hl=en&sa=X&ei=9R2fU9fiLoKcyASVroGgBA&ved=0CDYQ6AEwAw#v=onepage&q=Papal%20criticism%20of%20Shantivanam&f=false

 

[John Martin]

That is a mis-representation of Hinduism and needs to be addressed.

1. Hinduism is not monotheism. The majority is polytheist.
a. When they said 'Ekam sat, vipra bahudha vadanti', they meant Indian religions (Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism, and Sikhism) which share our world view and certainly did not mean Judaism, Christianity, and Islam, which say 'I am your Lord, the God, and you must not worship any else'.
b. 'Ekam eva advitiyam' That is NOT 'I, alone, am' (find me the word which means 'I'). That is "(There is) only one, no second". And what is that? It includes everything in the universe, all people, animals, vegetation, water, air, rocks, to exclude anything is blasphemy.

2. Not everybody accepts existence of God/Gods. I am an atheist. What some sections of Hindus accept is universal presence of some entity, it may be a impersonal God or it may not be. Write the full name - Isavasya Upanishad is one of the many, it is not Hinduism's Bible or Qur'an.
a. "Repentance is a process through which we discover this truth.": No, truth is discovered by study and research. How would repentance give any idea about Higg's Boson. Repentance is only for the guilty. Is that because Adam ate an apple given by Eve?

3. I do not believe in creation. The view I follow is that the perceived in not the truth, it is only a mental construct. There is no creation.
Kindly explain what should I understand by manifestation?
'Sarvam eitad Brahma, sarvam kalvidam Brahma' means all things here are constituted of Brahman (and Brahman not necessarily being a God but just the substrate, like a chair as well as a table may be made of wood). Do Christianity or Islam accept that or even something close to it?

4. 'Prajnanam Brahma'. It is from one of the oldest Upanishads when people knew little, and is, IMHO, not correct. Consciousness is a temporary thing, a state of mind, which comes and goes with the body. What proves that the universe is constituted by it? What proves that there is a universal consciousness?

5. 'Aham Brahma asmi': I am Brahman, my true self is God; (Now do not make Brahman into a God, some people do not take it in that sense. And even if they take Brahman as the God, it is impersonal, uninvolved.)
Jesus said I am the light of the world; my true self is the light of the world. I am the way, the truth and the life.
Fine, if Jesus said that he is the light of the world; going by the Hindu belief, all people are the light of the world, the way, the truth and the life. Then, us too, are the way, the truth and the life. What is, then, so special about Jesus?

6. 'Tat tvam asi': you are that brahman, you are Brahman or your true self is God or Brahman. (Now do not make Brahman .. it is impersonal, uninvolved.)
Jesus said, you are the light of the world. Your true self or real self is the light of the world.
Did he say that? Where? Kindly give reference. Only the light of the world, and not the way, the truth and the life (see #5).

7. 'Ayam atma Brahma': This 'self' (atman) is Brahman. Atman, the ground of the human consciousness is one with the Brahman, the ground of the universe.
The ground of human consciousness is the brain. Like everything else, brain also is constituted of Brahman (whatever it may be).

8. 'God is Pursusothama: the Upanishads present God as impersonal. The Bhagavat Gita adds the element of personality to God. God is supreme person, God is love.'
The first question is whether there is any God? Brahman remains undefined, the only thing we can say about it according to Hinduism is that it is 'Neti, neti' (Not this, not that). Upanishads do present an impersonal entity but never beyond that. There are many ways to understand Bhagavat Geeta. If Krishna is Brahman, then he cannot be termed as a person, that will be a severe limitation and wrong. God, at least, Brahman, can neither be love nor hate, since it is impersonal.

'For Jesus Christ also God is a supreme person, purusothama. This personality of God transcends all human categories. God is unconditional love. God's love is like the Sun which gives light to all unconditinally.'
Brahman is not a person, therefore, it cannot be termed as 'purushottama'. Many Hindus do not believe in Christian kind of God. It God transcemd all human categories, then it is futile to terms it as loving or hating, because these are human emotions. If God is love, then why is there evil in the world? Why is there a hell and that too eternal? Why did God destroy Sodom and Gomorrah? Why did God ask Moses to kill everyone engaged in idolatry? And why did Jesus curse the cities? That means that even if there is a God, there cannot be 'unconditional love'.

9. 'Love is wisdom manifesting in love. The Upanishads emphasize on the path of wisdom. The Bhagavat Gita integrates many spiritual paths, particularly Jnana, Bhakti and Action. In the Bhagavat Gita Love is wisdom manifesting in action. it is the marriage of wisdom and action in Love. Wisdom is the experience of oneness with God. Krishna represents wisdom. Arjuna represents action.

For Jesus Christ Love is wisdom manifesting in action. Wisdom is his oneness with God. All his actions come from that wisdom. Hence Love is wisdom manifesting in action. It is the union of the love of God and love of neighbour.

Jesus Christ both God and human: at one level he is one with God. He is Krishna. In another level he is a human being, he is Arjuna. He says 'thy will be done'. he is fully human and fully divine.'
Love is wisdom, but only up to a limit. There cannot be 'unconditional love'. When one is faced with 'adharma', one has to take appropriate action. That is what Krishna advised Arjuna, that he should not hesitate to get into a war if 'dharma' demands it even if those opposing him were his own relations. This is true for Jesus also, one can say 'love when it is convenient'. I agree with oneness with Brahman, differences being illusions. One can love a neighbor if the neighbor is worth it. Can love al-Quaeda killers be loved? Not just Jesus, I too, am Brahman as well as Human. You too are that and so is the dog in the street. That is what is oneness with Brahman. Brahman does not have a will, because Brahman does not have any desires, not even to be worshiped, one thing that the Abrahamic God is after. Arjuna was asked to fulfill his dharma and not the will of a God.

This view of Hinduism is not that of a Hindu. Talk about Christianity. Why talk about something without understanding it very well. As you do not feel to go into the question of reincarnation now, I will leave it at that. Whenever ready to discuss it, we can meet again. Best regards,

I am really astonished. I would like to read again and again and try to understand your vision. Only few things: you identify as an atheist, Advaita Hindu.Very strange combination. The core of Hinduism is Monotheism. The climax of Hinduism is the discovery of the identity of human consciousness with the divine consciousness, Atman is Brahman. Hindu polytheism is only apparent not real. it is functional and not essential. I will be happy to discuss the theme of reincarnation later.Thank you for your comments.

 

[Vinayaka]

Here is another link, for those wishing to take a deeper look at this so called 'theology' .

Library : The Swami From Oxford - Catholic Culture

 

[John Martin]

Not really. As others have said, it would be a dilution of both great faiths. Let Catholics be good Catholics, Hindus be good Hindus, and each have respect for humanity. I see that as a great thing to hope for.

Here's a link... Bede Griffiths: A Life in Dialogue - Judson B. Trapnell - Google Books

There are two types of one Truth: unconditioned and conditioned. Unconditioned truth is like the infinite space. Conditioned truth is like the space within four walls. The Truth of the Vedic seers and Jesus Christ is the unconditioned truth. The truth of belief systems(religions) is conditioned truth.
The earth is one but the divisions in the name of nationalities are artificial and man-made. Hinduism calls them Maya. A person who takes the rocket and goes above sees only one earth.
Shanti( peace) is the often repeated word in the Vedic prayers. Christ said, blessed are the peace-makers for they shall be called children of God. St.Paul said, Christ came to proclaim peace and he himself is peace. How did he do that? By breaking down the dividing walls and creating one humanity out of two( the Jews and the Gentiles at that time). In this way he brought peace.( Letter to the Ephesians) The truth of Christ broke down the walls and inaugurated one God, one creation and one humanity. So did the Vedic sages before him. Divisions are man-made and possibly human-need. It is unfortunate that Christians have built more walls than any other religions, all in the name of Christ.
Absolutizing our artificial boundaries and trying to defend them is a continuous source of violence and conflict. It is a waste of precious energy given of God. With this attitude we can never become instruments of peace.
Your reaction is amazing: I send a dove into the space and you fire with several missiles. It is not necessary and wrong diagnosis and prognosis. This dove does not carry any armaments and any ulterior motives.
Unconditioned Truth is independent of all religious labels. Only Truth can make us free and only truth can give us peace. Ekam sat vipra bhahuthi vadanti, declared the great sages: Truth or God is one but sages call it by many names. Names condition the unconditioned truth. They are harmless as long we know that they are only labels.
But if someone would like to make the labels into iron walls and remain within the iron walls of conditioned truth and place missiles all along to defend it and live in constant suspicion, alertness and fear, it is their choice.
But I am sure that the unconditioned truth is more powerful than the conditioned truths and these iron walls will collapse one day,as happened to the Berlin Wall.

 

[Vinayaka]

If anyone wants to mingle and mix, that is up to them. If someone wants to stick with Hinduism in it's pure form, that's up to them. If someone wants to practice Catholicism, that's up to them. Individuals have freedom of choice. Our duty is to educate people on just what this choice might mean.

 

[John Martin]

If we want peace we must sow the seeds of peace. All children are God's children. Physical parents and religions are like foster parents to God's children. Physical parents and religions appropriate God's children as their children. If children are brought up according to one's tradition or religion then the seeds of disunity, of conflict and of violence are sown in their tender minds from the beginning and people create a world of conflict and violence. We cannot reap the fruits of peace and unity when we sow the seeds of division and violence.
If all the children are brought up as the children of God, not as the children of a religion, then we show the seeds of peace and unity: We need to teach that there is only one God, one creation and one humanity. We are all brothers sisters called to live in love and sharing our resources.

 

[Ben Dhyan]

^ True John...actually the original meaning of the word 'religion' was to tie or connect again...from the root 'ligio' to tie and prefix 're' again. This is the same meaning as 'yoga' union....religion like yoga is a path for aspirants to realize their true nature of being indivisible with God/Brahman. However it has come to mean a 'sect' meaning a subdivision...the opposite of that original intended.

In any event, it doesn't matter....the wheels of karma turn immutably and teach the prerequisite lessons for each to learn the unconditional truth. Souls are not at the same level and many at this time are still captured by the maya of sectarian beliefs...the consequent suffering and frustration as a result of failed expectations is essential to learn and correct the errors of their present understanding.

 

[John Martin]

^ True John...actually the original meaning of the word 'religion' was to tie or connect again...from the root 'ligio' to tie and prefix 're' again. This is the same meaning as 'yoga' union....religion like yoga is a path for aspirants to realize their true nature of being indivisible with God/Brahman. However it has come to mean a 'sect' meaning a subdivision...the opposite of that original intended.

In any event, it doesn't matter....the wheels of karma turn immutably and teach the prerequisite lessons for each to learn the unconditional truth. Souls are not at the same level and many at this time are still captured by the maya of sectarian beliefs...the consequent suffering and frustration as a result of failed expectations is essential to learn and correct the errors of their present understanding.

Thank you Ben, wise words.

 

[Vinayaka]

If children are brought up according to one's tradition or religion then the seeds of disunity, of conflict and of violence are sown in their tender minds from the beginning

Definitely not if said religion teaches to respect all mankind, and all valid paths. Again, there is no need to mix and match as long as the faiths tolerate the differences.

Many religions flourished without each other before trading routes changed all that.

 

[Andal]

I am really astonished. I would like to read again and again and try to understand your vision. Only few things: you identify as an atheist, Advaita Hindu.Very strange combination.

This isn't that strange. If you look at the 6 darshanas- not just vedanta, there is plenty of room for atheism in Samkhya, Vaisheshika, and Nyaya. Also in Vedanta, there is nothing in Advaita philosophy that states a need to believe in a God or the gods. One could you Brahman not as being connected with God but being the unity of consciousness. Although I'm not sure of Aupmanyav's views.

The core of Hinduism is Monotheism.

It only is if you ask Vaishnavas and even then many of us take more of a henotheistic view.

The climax of Hinduism is the discovery of the identity of human consciousness with the divine consciousness, Atman is Brahman

.

This is not correct if you take the view of Dvaita Vedanta (arguably the most monotheistic of the sampradayas)

Hindu polytheism is only apparent not real. it is functional and not essential.

No belief regarding the gods or god is essential in Hinduism. As for polytheism being apparent and not real, spend time attending temples, yagyas, and going to India. Polytheism, Henotheism, Pantheism, Monism, and even Atheism make sense in these Hindu contexts, the Judeo/Christian view of monotheism does not work here.

Aum Hari Aum!

 

[Asha]

Namaste

Can you mingle Hinduism with Christianity ?

No, but you can live together in harmony with respect for each others traditions and beleifs.

Greetings, I think as well, no problem merging religions if the practicioner can do it.
as others have mentioned, may be a bit advanced.

cheers

Sorry to come in late in the conversation, But forgive me for saying this you canot merge two diverse religions without loosing some of the vital elements that form the backbone of each.

What one can do is realise the truths that each hold in common and build bridges and form mutual respects.

 

[atanu]

The question for me really isn't "Can you?" - because of course you can. Who's going to stop you? For me the more interesting question is, why would you want to?

If you are attracted to aspects of both, but neither is sufficient by themselves to stand alone, then maybe neither is the answer. I think the desire to merge both is an attempt to avoid dealing with the aspects of each religion an individual feels uncomfortable with. Why not face those issues, read about them, sort them out and really take a stand on how you feel about them?

For example, I personally find the misconception of "Only Indians can be Hindu/ Only those born Hindu can be Hindu" to be an outdated and uncomfortable concept within some parts of Hinduism. However, I have done my best to understand the reasons behind it's inception, and it's evolution and I now know how to discuss this issue with Hindus and non-Hindus alike without feeling like I'm being a hypocrite.

I also think Westerners have a hard time with the cultural spects of Hinduism unless they are white-washed of their religious meaning. This is part of why I don't like doing Yoga a lot of the time - because the classes are robbed of their spiritual core. But at the same time, you see things like "Christian Yoga" in order to make Christians feel more comfortable. It's another example of taking out the pieces you like and avoiding acknowledging the things you don't understand or can't relate to (Ye olde, forcing a square peg into a round hole). It just doesn't jive for me. Why not celebrate what makes each faith unique and meaningful to the practitioners? Why rob either of the "good stuff" in order to avoid learning from the "yucky bits"? I think we do both faiths a disservice by trying to merge them. Then the question becomes - what parts go and what parts stay? Look at the number of sects within either faith - they are almost countless and everyone has a different take. What version of "Hinduism" and what version of Christianity are we merging?

Like others have said, each religion can gain insight from the other, but for me synchronizing them feels forced and unnecessary.

:camp:

You have brought out some real points that I believe can support the argument to either side.