Anonymous asked: If we achieve moksha or nirvana based on our karma, what did Christ's sacrifice actually do? I never really understood how the sacrifice allows us into heaven, and the concept of karma added into the mix only complicates the issue in my mind.

It is impossible to attain moksha based on karma. Our actions in this world don’t last forever. They fade away. Our names, our forms, and our deeds are forgotten. What is temporary cannot be rewarded with what is eternal. Thus, when we suffer as a result of karma, it is not an eternal Hell, and when we are blessed as a result of karma, it is not an eternal Heaven (it is paradise). 

Moksha comes only in doing that which transcends karma. This means attaining knowledge, controlling one’s ego self, and perfecting it in realization of the true transcendental Self; karma can no longer bind that which governs it, i.e., God. This path requires jnana yoga (pursuit of divine knowledge) and raja yoga (physical and spiritual self-control)

It also means living in love and devotion without expectation of reward. Love is eternal, as God is love. Thus, to bring God into the world is to bring that which is eternal into the world. It is an eternal deed, rewarded with eternity. This path requires bhakti yoga (loving devotion to God) and/or karma yoga (selfless service, which in itself is bhakti). Karma yoga must accompany bhakti yoga, but bhakti yoga doesn’t necessarily need to accompany karma yoga. 

When Jesus died, his sacrifice became an eternal source of love and grace. From the beginning of time to the end of time, his sacrifice provides love and grace.  It is by love that we love God or others. It is by grace that we attain divine knowledge and eventual Self-realization. As we reach inward, the Self reaches outward - or - as some might understand it, as we reach up, God reaches down. It is only by doing one of these two things that one can attain moksha. 

Karma must be transcended, not sought.

Namaste.

Anonymous asked: I struggle with the concept of the Holy Trinity quite a bit. I'd love to know your views on the subject.

I explain the Trinity in my Religious FAQs. Just scroll down to the question, “Can you explain why Hinduism is compatible with Christianity?” If you have more questions, concerning something I didn’t explain there, or didn’t explain well enough, feel free to ask. 

Namaste. 

In this post, I’ll be answering more questions from an anonymous asker. Once again, my answers will be public so that others may benefit from them as well.

That’s a lot to take in (referring to the previous post, “Comparing Hinduism and Christianity”). I’m not sure if I agree with everything right now. It is difficult to get past those ‘mental barriers’ put in place from years of indoctrination. But I certainly have a lot to think about and consider. I’m just trying to guard myself from false prophets.  

It truly is difficult to break out of that dogmatism. When God first revealed the Dharma to me, I had to challenge so many beliefs I held as fundamental. I didn’t want anything to do with Hinduism. “It was founded by Satan! Krishna was Satan!”, I thought. “Only the Catholic Church is true!”

So, God arranged certain events in my life so that I would begin to find similarities between Christianity and other religions, chiefly Hinduism. I opened my heart just enough, and God came rushing in, filling me with answers and truth. I felt such love and joy, but at the same time, it was hell for my ego because I had attached to so much and he was calling me to let go. 

Slowly, over time, I began to detach from the things I thought I knew. I abandoned everything. I was a die-hard Trinitarian Catholic, though, and the Trinity was one thing I was not giving up. Or so I thought. God put little things in my life to make me question. Eventually, I became a Unitarian, and believed, quite boldly, that the Trinity was a false doctrine. 

The thing about God, however, is that he doesn’t tempt our faith only to abandon us and leave us to walk alone. If we truly surrender, which I was forced to do in abandoning the most dear belief I held, God reassures us. Several months later, as I stayed up into the night reading, I encountered a verse from the Svetasvatara Upanishad 3.8:

“I know that Great and Luminous Purusha, who shines like the sun and is beyond darkness. Only by knowing him does anyone overcome death. There is no other Way to the Supreme Goal.” 

Suddenly, John 14:6 flashed through my mind: “I am the Way, the Truth, and the Life. No one comes to the Father but by me.” “Way”? He was the only Way? “Oh my God, I thought, I have been so wrong. Purusha is the Son of God.” Somewhere, inside me, I felt Christ answering: “Yes, I am.” 

I started sobbing. I went outside to pray. I looked up, in tears, and just cried. I couldn’t speak at first. I apologized. I apologized again. And again. I couldn’t find it in my heart to do anything but repent of my ignorance. But there was no need. He reassured me. I realized that the reason I had been driven to abandon my faith in the Trinity was so that I would have nothing left that I had attached to, no further aspects of my faith built on blind faith in men rather than a true experience of revelation. I emptied myself. I surrendered to complete ignorance of everything, and God repaid me with truth. He gave me back my dearest belief, not because I had clung to it, but because it was true.

It is the hardest struggle of the Dharma, and it can be painful. To let go of what we think we know and let God fill us up with truth. It is an amazing experience, for which there are truly no words that suffice. 

The most false prophet you have to face in this struggle is your own ego-self, which will tell you anything and everything to please you and keep you from walking down the path and finding your Self. Sure, there will be those apparently extraneous to yourself, who will attempt to teach you untruth, founded in ignorance and hatred of God, rather than love and truth which is God. Even then, those teachers can only speak to your ego self, not the true Self. It is your ego that will choose to follow. 

What baffles me about the Bhagavad Gita so far is the “intermingling of castes” condemned in the first chapter. Maybe I am misinterpreting this? Or maybe it’s a cultural thing? Why would God not condemn marriage between people of different social classes in other cultures too, if he was so opposed to it? 

Keep in mind about the Bhagavad Gita that the context surrounds a war between the Pandavas and Kauravas, both of whom are related in descent from King Kuru, from his two sons Pandu and Dhritarashtra. The Pandavas, the younger line of descendants, through King Pandu, represent goodness. The Kauravas, the elder line of descendants, through King Dhritarashtra, represent evil. Though the Mahabharata, the epic in which the Bhagavad Gita is contained, deals with a historical battle at Kurukshetra, the deeper meaning applies to the battle within each of us, between the ego-self and the true Self.

Because of the relationship between the Pandavas, which included Arjuna, and the Kauravas, Arjuna was hesitant to fight. He belonged to the Kshatriya caste, the warrior class, and it was his duty, as such, to fight. However, out of misplaced attachment to those with whom he shared blood, he didn’t want to.

Krishna spends much of the Bhagavad Gita teaching Arjuna about his true Self, his own Godhood, and the inexhaustibility of that Self, so that Arjuna realizes that what is killed in battle is not truly killed, and thus, whoever kills in battle is not truly a killer. If the means of death are unjust, there may be karma attached to that action, but the soul of the deceased carries on into Life. 

In a deeply mystical sense, one can see Krishna as an personification of the Self within Arjuna (indeed, Krishna often speaks to the effect that he is the Self within all beings, being God; Paul likewise spoke of this “inner person of the heart” and the Gnostic Gospel of Mary says, “the Son of Man is within you”), and those factors which oppose Arjuna are manifestations of his ego. In this sense, the entire Bhagavad Gita can be taken as a journey to Self-realization. 

What you can take, then from the condemnation on the intermingling of castes (of which Arjuna, not Krishna, was speaking) is not necessarily inter-marriage, of which neither says anything, but about confusing caste-roles in attachment to ego. Arjuna was confusing his role as a Kshatriya, and in this confusion is ironically reflected in his own fears of intermingling of castes and the destruction of caste-traditions. His fears are made alive by his actions. Krishna’s response doesn’t address the intermingling of castes at all, but tells Arjuna to stand up, be a man, and accept responsibility for his duty. 

Another thing to consider is that the caste system of ancient India was a social construct established to mirror the levels of realization found in the people. There were four castes - Shudra, Vaishya, Kshatriya, and Brahmana (Brahmin). The first, Shudra, included people who acted to assist those of the higher three castes. The higher three castes were called “twice-borns”, out of a social ceremony reflecting a second birth into their social order (this cultural rebirth is a mirror of the spiritual rebirth, or Baptism as it is called in Christianity, of the caste’s equivalent spiritual maturities). 

These four levels of spiritual maturity are explained by Krishna in Bhagavad Gita 2.29: “Some look upon the self as marvelous. Others speak of it as wonderful. Others again hear of it as a wonder. And still others, though hearing, do not understand it at all.”

This means that some behold the Atman or Self and know it as their true Self, others know it intellectually and can speak of it, others still understand it only by hearing, and finally, there are some who neither understand nor know by any means. Those bound in ignorance, unable to know or understand the Self, are represented by the Shudras; those who can hear of the Self and understand are represented by the Vaishyas; those who know intellectually of the Self and can speak of it are represented by the Kshatriyas; and finally, those who have direct experience with the Self and know it as their own, having been given deep knowledge of it as their own Self, are represented by the Brahmanas. Just as with the Shudras, who are not twice-born, not reflective of a spiritual awakening, those bound to ignorance and unable to know the Self have not experienced an awakening either. The second birth of the higher three castes, reflective of awakening, is demonstrated by those who can know and understand the true Self. 

This is the deepest, and truest, meaning of the four castes. That it became so corrupted as it is now, used as a means of discrimination and judgment, is not reflective of Krishna’s intention in speaking in favor of it. The Bhagavad Gita, which does have a useful meaning at face value, carries a much deeper meaning that is no longer represented by the caste system and its corruptions. 

To understand the deeper meaning of the caste system is to realize that to intermingle the castes, in the spiritual sense, is to confuse knowledge, understanding, awakening, and even ignorance of God - and lose sight of the Self, perfectly represented by Arjuna’s own confusion and attachments.

I love the part where he basically talks about how those who worship different Gods are really worships him with a difference face.  

That’s a pretty fundamental aspect of the Gita. Where the Bible displays man’s ignorance in portraying God as jealous and angry, seeking violence on those who worship differently, Krishna speaks truth in saying that, in fact, there is only one God. Some may know him better than others, but anyone worships, they worship him - even if that worship is impure or unloving. 

Also, how does one see God? How is that God showed himself to a man here, but never showed himself to anyone in the Old or New Testament? 

How do you see the Transfiguration of Christ, then? Keep in mind that, as I explained in my last post to you, that Krishna didn’t display himself as Vishnu. He is called that by virtue of being within all things (the very meaning of “Vishnu”). He actually displayed himself as Purusha. Note the similarity between these two verses: 

A thousand heads hath Purusha, a thousand eyes, a thousand feet. On every side pervading earth he fills a space ten fingers wide. (Rig Veda 10.90.1)

Having beheld Thy immeasurable form with many mouths and eyes, O mighty-armed, with many arms, thighs and feet, with many stomachs, and fearful with many teeth, the worlds are terrified and so am I! (Bhagavad Gita 11:23) 

The Svetasvatara Upanishad 3:11 says of Purusha, “All faces are His faces; all heads, His heads; all necks, His necks. He dwells in the hearts of all beings. He is the all—pervading Bhagavan. Therefore He is the omnipresent and benign Lord.”

Once again, the “omnipresent” and “pervading” references here explain why he is called Vishnu. Another explanation is that Arjuna himself may have been a devotee of Vishnu and saw Krishna as Vishnu as a result. But Krishna is not an incarnation of Vishnu alone; both Krishna and Vishnu are equal manifestations of a God beyond them. 

Another thing to keep in mind is that Krishna specifically tells Arjuna, “But thou art not able to behold Me with these, thine own eyes; I give thee the divine eye; behold My lordly Yoga.” (Bhagavad Gita 11:8)

Arjuna did not behold Krishna with his human eyes. He beheld him with his third eye, the spiritual eye. In other words, he saw the Self through the Self.

What is important to note is that in Hinduism, God is called the “thousand-armed” because Purusha has a thousand arms. He is so incomprehensibly endless that all things are contained him - including past, present and future. To demonstrate the fullness of what Krishna was, to Arjuna, meant showing Arjuna what the Hindu scriptures describe.

In contrast, the Jewish scriptures describe God as Light, as a Fire. The Gospel of John, one of the most esoteric books in all of Christendom, mentions Light almost before anything else. Jesus described himself as the “Light of the World.” Thus, it only makes sense that, to demonstrate what Jesus truly was, his transfiguration be described as profound Light. In both cases, humans saw God, and in both cases, the experience was culturally-relevant.

Also, what does it mean when it talks about Yoga? Does it mean worship? I’m not necessarily opposed to Yoga, but if it is so important, why do no other cultures seem to have it? 

In Hinduism, there are four fundamental yogas, each means of walking on the path that is Purusha: Karma Yoga, the Yoga of Selfless Service/Charity; Bhakti Yoga, the Yoga of Loving Worship; Raja Yoga, the Yoga of Self-Control; and Jnana Yoga, the Yoga of Divine Knowledge. To see “Yoga” in this light, you realize that every culture and religion has these four Yogas in some form.

What you’re used to thinking of as “yoga” in the west is merely Hatha Yoga, one body-centered Yoga subset within Raja Yoga. It uses asana (body gestures) and pranayama (breath-control) to discipline and purify the body. The goal of Hatha Yoga is shared by many cultures, though the means vary.

If you’ve got more questions, don’t hesitate to ask!

Namaste. 

(Source: innerchrist)

If you’re sitting there, thinking about what Jesus’ “Second Coming” is going to be like, doing absolutely nothing to develop yourself spiritually, to know your true Self, to realize the natural unity you eternally share with God, you don’t need to be concerned about a Second Coming of Christ. For you, it won’t happen.

The true Second Coming is the coming of the Inner Christ, the emergence of that inexhaustible Light that guides you, that indescribable Consciousness that enlivens you, that unknowable Bliss that gives you hope and peace. It is the rise of true Godliness within you, because it is awakening of your ego self to its true reality of non-existence, to its subordination to the eternal and ineffable Self, to its everlasting existence in the eternal Divine Nature of the One. 

That Self, arising in you, is the Second Coming of Christ, as Christ is that Self. If you do not work to find it, it will remain lost and Christ, for you, will never return.

Namaste.  

(Source: innerchrist)

kenjamink replied to your post: Christian-atheist is a complete oxymoron and wouldn’t technically be correct. A Christian by definition is someone who believes in Jesus’ teachings AND believes he is the Son of God. Atheists believe there is no God. So someone cannot believe Jesus is the Son of God, yet not believe there is a god.

That’s not actually an accurate definition. That may be how you define it, but get out a dictionary and you’ll discover the real definition of the word Christian. It is not mutually exclusive with atheist.

The English word has been complicated by time. The Biblical word is χριστιανούς or Khristianous, which would literally mean nothing more than “belonging to Christ.” It was first used in Antioch to describe disciples, or followers, of Jesus. Thus, the earliest implication of “Christian” was “follower of Christ.” Nothing more. 

Namaste.

I received a question asking about Hinduism and Christianity. The person has asked to remain anonymous, so I will be posting paraphrases of their original post here, with responses. The reason I am doing this publicly rather than privately is that I get questions like this somewhat frequently, so this could possibly help others as well. Be warned, however, this is a very long and in-depth post. 

I found out about ‘Devas’, which are Hindu beings that are similar to angels in Christianity and Judaism. 

“Deva” is usually translated “God”, but literally means “shining one.” Interestingly, this is the name given to the pre-fallen ‘Lucifer’ in Isaiah 14:12; “Helel” is the Hebrew word for “shining one.” In this sense, we can associate them with angels. However, they differ from traditional Christian understandings of angels in that angels are generally thought to be created beings, with free will. Though in myth devas appear to have free will, myths are not literal stories; they carry mystical, esoteric meanings. The good vs. evil paradigm we find in myths the world over are fundamentally symbolic of the battle between the spirit and the material, between the Self and the ego. The triumph of Michael over Satan, of Shiva over Apasmara, or of Durga over Mahishasura represents the final realization, the triumph of the Self over all egoism and Self-ignorance. 

We the most important thing about devas comes from Rig Veda 1.164.46: “They call him Indra, Mitra, Varuna, Agni, and the nobly-winged Garutman. The sages give many names to what is truly One; they call it Agni, Yama, and Matarisvan.”

In this verse, we’re presented with the names of a few devas. Indra is Lord of the Heavens and King of the Gods; Mitra is a God of Order and Sustenance; Varuna is a God of Heaven, of Earth, of Sea, and of the Underworld; Agni is the God of Fire and the Messenger of Heavenly Gifts; Garutman or Garuda is the winged-God frequently seen with Vishnu riding upon him; Yama is the God of Death; and Matarisvan is often taken as another name for Agni. All of these, and seemingly infinite more, are all names of One entity. That entity is the Adipurusha, the First-Born of God. 

Wikipedia said this: “In the Bhagavad Gita Krishna himself states that worshipers of deities other than the Supreme Lord, Vishnu, are incorrect (Gita 9.23) as such worship leads only to temporal benefits, rather than to the Lord Himself (Gita 7.23). Krishna also says: “Whatever deity or form a devotee worships, I make his faith steady. However, their wishes are granted only by Me.” (Gita 7.21-22) Elsewhere in the Gita Lord Krishna states: “O Arjuna, even those devotees who worship other lesser deities (e.g., devas, for example) with faith, they also worship Me, but in an improper way because I am the Supreme Being. I alone am the enjoyer of all sacrificial services (Seva, Yagna) and Lord of the universe.” (Gita 9.23)”

There are a couple things wrong with reading this at face-value. Firstly, this excerpt was written by a Vaisnava, or a devotee of Vishnu who believes Vishnu to be superior to all other forms and names of God. This is an incorrect view, inconsistent with the Vedas and Upanishads (as demonstrated above). The name “Vishnu” means “all-pervading one”, an attribute given frequently to God in Hinduism. In fact, “Vishnu” is one of the 1000 names of Shiva. 

Krishna didn’t identify himself as Vishnu alone. He identified himself as the whole of Purusha, the Self-Sacrificed First-Born Son of God from whom all things were made. The Vishvarupa, the image of his transcendental form, which he shows to Arguna in chapter 11, is nothing more than a representation of Purusha. The things that Krishna taught were not exclusive to Krishna, but were taught by many sages before him. Krishna was an incarnation of God, but he taught nothing new. He summarized the Upanishads for Arjuna.

In talking about “eternal benefits” vs “temporal benefits” in the Gita, with relation to Krishna vs other Gods, what is truly being addressed is the worship of the fullness of God, that is: both nonbeing and being, both female and male, both impersonality and personality, etc., vs. worship of a limited form. To worship God as only a creator is to attain paradise. To worship God in only one name or form is to attain paradise. To worship the fullness of God, however, is to realize one’s Self is God and merge into that Self like a river into an ocean. In this attaining of the Supreme Goal, of Moksha or Liberation, one is never forced into rebirth again. This is what Krishna is teaching. It is fundamentally different from the arrogant overtones of “there is no God beside me” that we find in the Old Testament, though those overtones reflect only on the level of awakening attained by the writers, not on the reality of God himself. 

To me, this sounded a lot like the God of the Old Testament, Yahweh. He said things like “I am a Jealous God” and “You shall have no other Gods before me.” Even the angels told people not to worship them in the Bible. It was all just deja-vu. I realized that maybe these “Gods” are beings of a lesser nature. I am wholly convinced there is more of a spiritual world than God, his angels, and Satan and his demons.

At first, yes, it does sound similar. However, the intent is different from what we are taught in Church. As explained above, the other Gods are faces and names of the one God. “YHVH” is Hebrew for “self-existent”, the primarily quality of the Supreme God. Angels or Devas are extensions of God. The Gnostic concept of aeons is better than the traditional concept of angels. Aeons are imperfect manifestations of Pleroma, or fullness. In Gnosticism, Pleroma = Brahman in Hinduism. Judaism is so strictly monotheistic that one can easily say, for instance, that angels are manifestations of the will of God, existing to serve some function in God’s plan. Only traditional Christianity really has the concept of created beings as frail as we are. 

Now, Hinduism does have other spiritual beings. Rakshas correspond in many ways to “demons” in Judaism. Nagas, or serpents, correspond to the Nachash (meaning ‘serpent’) of the Bible, the being found in the Garden of Eden. There are nature spirits, nymphs, mermaids, and even sphinxes, etc. So yes, there is a much deeper world of spirituality, however, it isn’t so much concerning the devas. 

Further, there is no “Satan” in Hinduism, as in a being created for goodness who chose to rebel and now torments mankind. There is a being described in a similar way, called Kali (not the Goddess, but a male demon). The age we live in currently, the Kali Yuga, is named for him because of the widespread ignorance. Humanity has been in this age, according to most calculations, for 5000 years. Kali is said to be a negative manifestation of God. However, he is far more abstract than Satan is in Christianity. In Hinduism, Kali is nothing. He doesn’t exist. He is nothing more than the collective and cooperative ego of the sentient beings existing in our world. That ego is to be overcome by the Self, which only we can do through sadhana or spiritual practices. 

Likewise, there is no “Satan” in the Bible. The Satan of the Old Testament was an angel, a manifestation of God’s will meant to use suffering, doubt, and ignorance as a means of testing the faith of the righteous. In Judaism, “Satan” is often used as a euphemism for the human nature to do evil (yetzer hara), which is rooted in the flesh and its selfishness, as opposed to our nature to do good (yetzer hatov), which is from God’s Spirit within us. The soul rests between the two, conscious and able to choose. In this sense, the “Satan” of the Old Testament attempted to use the “Satan” within us as a means to tempt us. In the New Testament, in stark contrast, “Satan” is used much as it is by Jews today, to refer to our own sin and nature to sin. The triumph of Jesus over Satan is the triumph of the Self over sin or egoism. The “enemy” of man is man himself, unawakened. 

Finally, the reason why the angels forbade worship of themselves can be one of two reasons: 1) in their limited nature, separate from the Oneness of God, they worship God themselves and thus see themselves as unworthy of worship, or 2) in their limited nature, being only one manifestation of God, they cannot be worshiped directly. In the latter case, it is not that they cannot be worshiped, but that they cannot be worshiped as the limited being they are; instead, they are to be worshiped as the fullness of the One Supreme Being.

Who is Vishnu? He was being called the Supreme Being, not one of these “little gods”. And what about Krishna? Who was he? He lived long before Jesus but his story reads like a carbon copy. It is almost exactly the same, except for the sacrifice (why isn’t that there, I wondered).

Vishnu is the “sustaining” aspect of God. But he is not in any way unique or supreme to other manifestations of God. A thorough study of Vedic literature reveals this. Some verses say Vishnu is Supreme. Others say Indra is Supreme. Others say Rudra/Shiva is Supreme. This seems contradictory until we remember Rig Veda 1.164.46: “The sages give many names to what is truly One.” Vishnu is one of many names, not the highest of many Gods. 

Regarding Krishna, his true name was Vasudeva Krishna, and he lived about 3000 years before Jesus. He was likely an ordinary man who realized his Self, attained his third and final birth, and lived the remainder of his life as an incarnation of God. Not even his closest friend, Arjuna, realized Krishna was God until later in the Bhagavad Gita. He had notions of it, but he wasn’t convicted of it until later. 

However, Krishna’s story is almost nothing like that of Jesus’. It doesn’t need to be. Yes, according to myth, Krishna was conceived of parthenogenesis, or virgin conception, just as Jesus was in Christian myth. However, that’s where the similarities really end. Krishna didn’t get baptized at the age of 30, and he didn’t start a seven year ministry with 12 apostles. When he died, he wasn’t resurrected back into the flesh. He ascended immediately as one who overcame death in his life, whereas Jesus overcame death only through death. His teachings are the same, but his life is not. It doesn’t need to be. Those who claim it was, or that it has to be, have not studied thoroughly. 

Both Jesus and Krishna were incarnations of the same Son of God/Purusha. In Vedic literature, we find a prophesy of Jesus’ sacrifice incorporated into a creation myth. Purusha, the First-Born of God, sacrificed himself for the sake of the world that he would create. Sacrificed by the Gods, he was divided and his many parts became the universe and the worlds within it. Then, having sacrificed himself, he re-entered into his previous state through his own natural power, Prakriti.

In the Bible, we find Jesus, who is called the Son of God just as Purusha is called the First-Born, sacrificing himself for the sake of a world that was created through him. Through this sacrifice, however, we become new creations, as taught by Paul. After his death and resurrection, he ascended into oneness with God. In John 17, he prays, “Glorify me, Father, with your own Self, with the glory I had with you before the world was.” Just like, after his sacrifice, Purusha entered into the state he shared with Parabrahman before the world was, Jesus likewise entered into his previous state as the incorporeal Son of God. 

Krishna didn’t sacrifice himself for the very same reason that the Buddha didn’t sacrifice himself; such a profound act of love, from God himself, becomes an eternal source of divine love and grace in the world. It only needs to happen once. Krishna and the Buddha taught the Dharma. Jesus died to enable those before him, and those after him, to be able to follow it in love and grace.

I wondered: is it possible that Jesus revealed himself to other people in other places before he was born in Israel? I always knew that Yahweh and Allah were the same, but is it possible that Vishnu was too? Why would God, after all, only reveal himself to the Israelites? 

Not Jesus the man, but the Son of God. Jesus, the man, was born of Mary into flesh and blood in or around 4 BC. But the God that empowered him was eternal. It is this same God that incarnated in Krishna, the Buddha, and probably countless others. 

It didn’t stop there though. I soon found that the early Church copied many ideas from Hinduism and Buddhism. It would be ignorant to say it was mere coincidence. 

They didn’t really copy, in the typical sense of the word. I would say it was coincidence if there was such a thing, but all things happen for a reason. I think the early Church tapped into some very transcendent ideas, especifically with regard to worship and Church structure, even choosing the word “assembly” (Sangha in Sanskrit, Ekklesia in Greek) as the name.

What about all the different Gods, though? Doesn’t polytheism go against my Christianity? 

Polytheism also goes against the Rig Veda. All are One. In 2008, in a revolutionary declaration between the Hindu Dharma Acharya Sabha and the Chief Rabbinate of Israel, Judaism affirmed that true Hinduism is neither polytheistic nor idolatrous:

“It is recognized that the One Supreme Being, both in its formless and manifest aspects, has been worshiped by Hindus over the millennia. This does not mean that Hindus worship ‘gods’ and ‘idols’. The Hindu relates only to the One Supreme Being when he/she prays to a particular manifestation.”

It seems almost like the three main Gods of Hinduism - Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva - are three aspects of One God, rather than three different Gods. Does that ring a bell? How many times have I had the Holy Trinity explained to me? 

Brahma, Vishnu, and Shiva aren’t really the main Gods of Hinduism, though. Hinduism doesn’t have any “main” Gods. It has only Purusha. Shaktas worship Shakti as made known through Purusha, Vaishnavas worship Vishnu as made known through Purusha, Shaivas worship Shiva as made known through Purusha, Ganapatyas worship Ganesha as made known through Purusha, and Sauras worship Surya as made known through Purusha. All boils down to Purusha, which ties into the true Hindu trinity - which is exactly the same as the Holy Trinity in Christianity. 

In the Upanishads, we learn of Parabrahman or Nirguna Brahman, the Highest Brahman, the one without qualities - indescribable and unknowable; Parabrahman is the source of all deity, but cannot be described. Not even “nonbeing” accurate describes the fundamentally indescribable. To make himself known, through his own illusive nature or Prakriti-Maya, Parabrahman reflected himself into Purusha or Saguna Brahman, God with qualities.

Purusha is everything that Parabrahman is, only he is manifested through the illusive power of Maya, which as an impersonal force is indistinguishable from Parabrahman. Being made manifest through this power, Purusha made knowable the unknowable, describable the indescribable, and personal the impersonal. Purusha can be called “Shabda Brahman” or “Word-God”, the Sacrifice, the First-Born, etc. It is through Purusha that Brahman creates. 

Finally, the eternal and impersonal power of Parabrahman, that which is his very nature, extends from Parabrahman through Purusha and becomes personal. In this, Prakriti becomes Shakti, and Maya becomes Mayadevi. Though Shakti is fundamentally unisexual, both male and female in descriptors, she is almost universally identified in the feminine. The word “Vak”, meaning “Word”, is applied to Shakti, often in the form of Saraswati, though it can also be applied to Purusha as Purusha is fundamentally without gender.

Likewise, in Christianity, we are presented with the impersonal, ineffable, and unknowable God the Father, who “no one has at any time seen except the Son”, but who is seen by all through the Son. The Son is the Self-extension of the Father, the “exact representation of his substance”. The Holy Spirit extends from the Father, through the Son, and transforms from an impersonal force into a personal hypostasis of the Trinity alongside the Father and Son. 

Further, John 1:1-3 reads, “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God. The same was in the beginning with God. All things were made through him, and without him, not one thing was made that was made.” Now, it is true that the “Word” can identify the Holy Spirit, as it did in few places in the Old Testament and currently does in Jewish tradition; however, it is made known through Christ that he is the Word, the Son of God.

In the Tandya Brahmana of the Sama Veda, it says, “In the beginning was the Lord of Creation alone, and with him was the Word, his second. He contemplated and said, ‘Let me send out this Word to produce and bring into being all the worlds’.” 

We easily recognize that the verses are fundamentally the same. Just as in the Bible, where “Word” can describe the Spirit or the Son, in this Brahmana verse, it can either describe Shakti or Purusha. If it describes Purusha, then Prajapati (the Lord of Creation) is Parabrahman, the Father, made known through Purusha, the Son. If it describes Shakti, then Prajapati describes Purusha and the Word refers to Shakti as the creative energy by which Prajapati created. Either case is compatible with the Trinity, as we see in Genesis that nothing was made until the activity of the Holy Spirit, which hovered over the waters. 

Further, in Hinduism, God is defined almost universally in a three-fold way: Sat-Chit-Ananda or Truth/Eternity-Consciousness-Bliss. These correspond to each member of the Trinity as well. Sat, which refers to both eternity and truth, describes the Highest Truth and that which is self-existing, Parabrahman. Consciousness refers to the Self-consciousness of Parabrahman through Purusha. Bliss describes the love and peace of Shakti. 

Additionally, Krishna identifies a Three-fold designation of God in the Bhagavad Gita: AUM-Tat-Sat. He says that it was by this designation that spiritual wisdom, the scriptures, and self-sacrifice were made. According toKrishna, these represent three things: Austerity, Sacrifice, and Gift. Austerity refers to a sense of sternness, a quality that reflects the impersonal Parabrahman or the Father. Sacrifice is perfected by Purusha or the Son. Gift, a traditional name of the Holy Spirit, describes Shakti. One can also see correlations between Sat, meaning truth, and the Father; between Tat, the conscious Self or “That”, and the Son; and between AUM, the creative vibration, and the Spirit. 

Finally, it is well known and mentioned above that the Son, the Word, is the image of the unseen God; he is the image of the Father, of himself, and of the Spirit, representing the complete Godhead in one, as he reflects the Father from whom all divinity is born. While in Christianity, the “Word” is Logos, in Hinduism, it is “AUM,” the sacred monosyllable. Just as the Trinity is three hypostases or particular beings in one ousia or essence, AUM is a single syllable, composed of three letters. According to the Upanishads, each letter of the AUM partially represents reality, but only the full AUM represents the fullness. Altogether, the Upanishads declare: “AUM is the Beginning, the Middle, and the End of all things”, just as the Son declares in Revelations, “I am the Beginning and the End.”

I can’t deny there are differences between both systems of believe, but the similarities make me question whether there is truth in the Dharma. The idea of reincarnation intrigues me and feels strangely familiar. It doesn’t mean there is no need of salvation. It is something I need to think more about. 

Between Hinduism and traditional Christianity as defined, refined and practiced by men, yes, there are differences and contradictions. Between the fundamental teachings of Christ and of Krishna, there are none. It is true that Krishna taught of more, but he taught of nothing conflicting with the teachings of Jesus.

This is easily shown in a few verses, where Krishna claims to be the Beginning and the End, the Imperishable Seed (a name given to Christ by Peter), etc. When he speaks of Hell, Krishna says, “Three-fold is the gate to a Hell destructive of the self.” This clearly mirrors Jesus’ warning, “Wide is the gate to destruction.” The difference is not in teaching, but in understanding. 

In Jesus’ Hell, as understood by most Christians, souls are tormented eternally. In Krishna’s Hell, in contrast, souls are tormented only insofar as they have done wrong. If a soul continually binds itself to hell, it can be destroyed so completely that it becomes useless for the purpose of Sadhana. Even then, spiritual development and moksha aren’t out of reach. It can reach that because God is love. 

Many Christians try to argue, “Reincarnation conflicts with resurrection.” It doesn’t. It really can’t. Reincarnation is the rebirth of the soul a flesh-and-blood body. Resurrection is the rebirth of the soul into Oneness with God. Even if, however, resurrection was a physical event, it cannot be the same bodies we now have, which are flesh and blood, “for flesh and blood cannot inherit the Kingdom of God.” There can be no contradiction. 

I need time to think about all of this, and I really need to get copies of Hindu and Buddhist scriptures to read. 

As I warn everyone, avoid the Bhagavad Gita As-It-Is by “AC Bhaktivedanta Prabhupada” or any scripture published by the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON). They tend to be very sectarian and restrictive interpretations, rather than accurate translations. 

Try to find scriptures published by Advaita scholars. I recommend Swami Sivananda’s Bhagavad Gita translation, wherein he has commentaries. I haven’t read it, but I heard that Swami Paramhansa Yogananda’s translation is very good as well. If you want an in-depth, word-by-word analysis of the Sanskrit, Adi Shankaracharya’s commentary is the best (but it should be paired with another translation for ease. 

When you’ve read the Bhagavad Gita, move onto the Upanishads. You will find many common themes, but much more depth. The Upanishads teach, fundamentally, that Atman (the Self) and Brahman are One. One phrase that marks the fundamental teaching of the Dharma is “Tat tvam asi,” meaning “That thou art,” or “You are God.” It is not talking about you as you exist in this body, or any other body, or you as you exist in your soul or jivatman, but you as you exist as the Supreme Self or Paramatman, as Purusha. 

As far as Buddhist scriptures, start with the Dhammapada. It covers all of the Buddha’s essential teachings. Translation doesn’t matter so much with Buddhist texts, but I would recommend reading different translations side-by-side as they often provide insight into what is being said. 

Of course, if you have any questions concerning the Dharma, or how anything relating to it concerns Christianity, my ask box is always open. 

Namaste. 

Anonymous asked: Christian-Atheism. Tell me more about it. :)

It isn’t something organized, like religion, that can be explained. Different Christian atheists probably live in different ways. Without any religion or ritual, living in the teachings of Jesus is pretty flexible. 

Namaste.