Chapter 16
Chapter 16
Are We Really All Hindus Now?
Barbara B. Pemberton
A recent issue of Newsweek magazine carried an article by Religion Editor Lisa Miller titled "We Are All Hindus Now." Citing statistics from a 2008 survey, she concluded that while 76 percent of Americans claim to be Christian, "conceptually . . . we are slowly becoming more like Hindus and less like traditional Christians in the ways we think about God, ourselves, each other, and eternity."1 Miller reported 65 percent of Americans—and a staggering 37 percent of "white evangelicals" (italics mine)—agree with Hindus that there are many paths to God.2 Another disturbing statistic comes from Boston University Professor of Religion Stephen Prothero, who says 20 percent of evangelicals believe in reincarnation.3
Perhaps we should have seen this coming. I remember when the Beatles first appeared in Indian attire playing what then were considered strange, exotic musical instruments—introducing to the world their newly adopted, self-styled, guru-led spirituality. Of course, the Beatles were not the first Westerners to delve into Indian thought, nor were they the first celebrities to introduce Hindu concepts to the West. Eastern thought had been gaining ground through literature and immigration for years but advanced on a larger scale via news and entertainment media after Indian Swami Vivekananda was welcomed at the first Parliament of the World's Religions in Chicago in 1893. The Swami served as an eloquent messenger of many heretofore foreign concepts including karma and reincarnation. Even Christians have waded unawares into the murky waters of Hinduism and have felt right at home thanks to television shows and movies with sometimes subtle, sometimes more obvious, Hindu themes.4 People browse the current American spiritual buffet, picking and choosing self-oriented concepts and practices they think fit their lifestyles. What they often come out with is a syncretistic concoction with no spiritual nourishment—only artificial ingredients. Such indiscriminant selection leaves many unsuspecting seekers starving—eternally.
From 2005 to 2009 there was even a popular television sit-com (My Name Is Earl) based on what has been called "the most distinctive feature of Hinduism": karma.5 The main character spent each episode trying to undo his own prior bad actions by doing something good for the people he has harmed, hoping his "good deeds" restore his cosmic "karmic" credit rating. Funny stuff—except that there is absolutely nothing funny about karma. In this essay I shall (1) uncover the religious roots of karma, (2) illustrate the complexity of karma theory, including a few of the many problems, and (3) offer reasons why karma is not compatible with a Christian worldview.
Hinduism—Sanatana Dharma
Hinduism, the world's third-largest religious tradition, is actually comprised of several distinct paths or "denominations" so diverse that contemporary scholarship suggests "Hinduism" is a more appropriate term for the entire civilization of India. Although the term "Hindu" was coined from an Arabic word for the people of the Indus Valley, devotees continue to use the term as their own self-designation—particularly with outsiders.6 Adherents traditionally call their faith sanatana dharma—"eternal religion" or "eternal duty." At first glance this dharma (tradition or duty) looks like "polytheism," for devotees gather in temples filled with images—statues and paintings of many different gods. In practice, the worship is most often henotheism, the belief in one deity without denying the existence of others. For while the believers recognize many gods, each person selects one god, one's Ishtadeva (Sanskrit: "chosen god") to serve as the focus of her worship. Some individuals, or entire regions, may focus on Shiva or Vishnu (or his incarnations or avatars—Krishna or Rama), or even the goddess Kali. However, ancient Hindu philosophical texts teach "pantheistic monism":7 everything that we perceive to exist is of one essence and this oneness is "Ultimate Reality," "Universal Consciousness," or Brahman. Yet another strain of the tradition, popular contemporary Hinduism, employs the brand "monotheism," claiming the countless images merely represent the various aspects of the one transcendent Brahman. Other professed Hindu monotheists claim their favorite avatar as the one, ultimate god who, they argue, must be the same god worshipped by other monotheists—Jews, Christians, and Muslims.
Hinduism has no founder, creed, or what Christians would recognize as divine revelation. It is incredibly diverse, though. That said, there are several foundational beliefs all Hindus embrace.8 Concerning existence, if everything is "one" (of the same essence), and everything is part of "ultimate reality," then it follows that we human beings are also part of ultimate reality. Our problem is epistemological—we just don't know we're "divine"! We are caught in the illusion that this world we live in is real and that we are separate egos; but only Brahman is real. We are ignorant of our true nature (atman), which is divine, inseparable from god (Brahman)—or as the Hindu texts, the Upanishads, declare: Atman-Brahman.
Living for ourselves—even clinging to life itself—we commit acts that accrue to our karma that continues to tie us to the cycle of samsara or reincarnation, like "moral debts" carrying over from life to life. According to Hindu traditions, the human problem is in our minds. We need to find a way to understand our true identity and rid our lives of karma, thereby escaping the dreadful cycle of death and rebirth so that we may reach our eternal goal, moksha—being absorbed into the essence of Brahman—like a drop of water into the ocean. The various paths to self-awareness, or enlightenment, account for the numerous strains or denominations within this ancient system.
Karma Theory
What is karma? The earliest Hindu texts, the Vedas, assert an inescapable law of justice—rita (moral law)—that maintains the natural order, including human activity. Classical Hindu scholars determined karma foundational to the operation of this law in the universe, with reincarnation as a necessary derivative. Originally karma was a technical term for efficacious Vedic rituals; the one who accurately performs the ritual reaps the expected result from the gods—absolute "cause and effect." This concept developed to include acts appropriate to each person's social grouping or class.9 Eventually karma came to include all actions and now may be defined as intentional action that affects your future and the attendant consequences, either in this life or later incarnations.10 Ancient texts record detailed consequences: for good actions one may expect to be reborn into a higher class, but "those whose conduct is 'evil-smelling' will enter the womb of a dog, a pig, or, what is quite unclean and vile, an outcaste."11
In relating karma to responsibility, the compiler of the Yoga Sutras, Patanjali (ca. 150 BC) taught that nothing within the universe is inherently good or evil; "good" and "evil" are relative value judgments made by individuals according to their life situations as determined by the law of karma. "Good" (as in doing one's class duty) is whatever takes an individual closer to awareness of the real Self (Atman-Brahman); "evil" is whatever removes the individual from such awareness. Karma acts as a law of automatic justice. The person acts, and then enjoys or suffers the consequences, according to karma—including the possibility of reincarnation in the animal or plant realm.12 According to Patanjali, only humans accrue karma in pursuit of moksha; so birth as a human is a great privilege not to be wasted.
Other early texts, such as the Puranas, also describe this law of cause and effect as impersonal, inescapable, and exacting, with reincarnation needed to provide the time necessary for the moral order to be worked out for each individual. Popular belief has always had a considerably less fatalistic view, hoping to mitigate the dread consequences of wrongdoing by embracing practices such as worship. Several questions come to mind: "If we are the sum of our yesterdays, how can we affect our tomorrows?"13 To what extent are humans free? Do we really get what we deserve?
From at least the beginning of the twentieth century, Indian philosophers have felt compelled to respond to charges of determinism with all the socioeconomic implications inherent in their system. One of the best-known responses came from philosopher and past president of India, Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan (1888–1975). In 1908 the statesman published an influential article titled "Karma and Free Will" in which he offered his now well-used analogy of a game of bridge to explain how karma constructs the circumstances of life without setting limits. He explained that the universe is orderly and predictable as a deck of cards. Humans do not choose their cards but are dealt a "hand of cards" according to past karma. You may make any play you desire—choose any option—within the rules established by the game. People with greater skills will recognize more potential plays and will be able to make the most of the cards available.14
Radhakrishnan also rejected what he saw as a common misconception of karma as merely a fatalistic law of retribution—preferring the more positive term: "continuity." He argued that ties to the past need not eliminate the possibility of freedom, asserting karma as a powerful case for personal responsibility. A subsidiary doctrine, niskama-karma, or "non-attached" living (unselfish action), states that not only may people "undo" their karmic consequences, but they may also work toward spiritual progress.15 Employing this evolutionary perspective, Radhakrishnan taught that reincarnation is educational and progressive—an "evolution of the self." In answer to those who asked how rebirth can be of any pedagogic value if the individual retains no memory of past existences, he countered that it is more significant to focus on what does continue—the "dispositions and tendencies" of the person. He speculated that specific memories from past lives would be a "nuisance" and complicate one's personal life.16
Radhakrishnan also responded to the related charge that the doctrines of karma and rebirth are "life-denying," that the Hindu worldview focuses on escape from a meaningless existence in a realm that is really illusory. He appealed again to the evolutionary view of self-development through which individuals work their way up to the human realm—and beyond—out of their beginnings as lower life-forms. His progressive model of "successive spiritual opportunities" rejects the possibility of human reincarnation into the animal realm, claiming such ideas found in religious texts are merely metaphorical. This means that karma bestows on all individuals an opportunity—a "life context" in which to operate (a hand of cards). Human free will is therefore limited to life within that context, including the limitations of character that he saw as the "condensation" of one's previous lives. Character is shaped in past lives but is continually developed in the current life toward ultimate self-fulfillment. Each life should be seen as progressing to the infinite, with the ultimate goal of leaving the process altogether—moksha.17
Other Hindu thinkers have also tackled the issue of free will, and with it moral responsibility, arguing that although one's life is the product of past thoughts and actions, the concept of karma does not say individuals are solely responsible—leaving room for other factors. Karma may be responsible only for one's basic existence and life-situation, leaving all people the opportunity within their "karmic circumstances" to make changes and improve themselves.18
While scholars wrestle with the concept of karma, religious communities throughout India apply the doctrine of karma in a variety of ways. For example, among the Tamil people of Kalappur, South India, some villagers believe strongly in fate. Traditional understanding describes the god Shiva as creating and molding the personality and nature of each person and also writing on each person's head all the details of that life. These people believe that with each successive life individuals add to their own "headwriting." This deterministic view has led some villagers to pity criminals and discount accomplishments. Other villagers have concluded that while destiny is influenced by karma, an individual may redirect it through personal choices. These villagers say people are responsible for their actions, not karma or "headwriting." Interestingly, researchers found that many of the Tamil people employ what I call "selective determinism"—taking one view or the other according to the circumstances. For example, when disaster strikes, a villager may find determinism more comforting, but the same villager may embrace "free will" when achieving personal success.19
There are numerous complications; for example, is there such a thing as "group karma"? When a whole community is lost in a natural disaster, such as a tsunami, was this each individual's karma? Had the community done something as a group to bring about such a consequence? Gandhi declared the Bihar earthquake "group karma" or group consequences from the mistreatment of the lower classes. Expanding this concept of group karma, Vivekananda espoused "national karma." Does this mean then, since no one lives in a bubble, we all affect other people's karma? Are we our brother's karma-keeper? Not all thinkers agree with the notion of collective karma, arguing one should not suffer the consequences of others' actions.20
Does karma theory support a form of "merit transfer"? Can "good karma" be bought or acquired from someone with a surplus from pilgrimages or worship? For example, if your child is sick, can you obtain "good karma" from a holy man to heal the child, or at least ensure a better rebirth for the child should he die? Classical Hinduism has no concept of passing karma from one person to another; however, popular Hinduism offers just such an opportunity—merit may be transferred but not guilt. Holy men are often approached to transfer their merit ritually to the sick or otherwise needy. Many Hindus believe your surplus of merit or demerit can "pile up" from numerous lives, which means you may be experiencing consequences now from actions several lives ago or you may have good karma to share.
Is there an element of "hope" in this system? One popular religious expression of Hinduism, devotionalism, while not systematic, has certain widely held understandings that are not necessarily in line with the more traditional deterministic philosophical assertions. Karma and rebirth are not considered by most of the devotionalists as an "ultimate metaphysical horror" or an "impersonal, inescapable absolute law of the universe." These devotees reject classic expressions of retribution and focus instead on concepts of "sin" and "grace." Most believe the Ultimate (Brahman) is a "Supreme Person" with whom one may have a personal Lord-servant relationship forever, rather than an impersonal, unknowable force into which one seeks absorption. The beloved Hindu text, the Bhagavad Gita, teaches bhakti (devotion) love is available for all men and women of any social group. In this epic, Lord Krishna (one avatar of the god Vishnu) reveals that he can suspend the rules and reward good and punish evil as he will—making personal faith and practices efficacious for "saving grace."21 However, bhakti devotion to Krishna (or any other Hindu god) does not displace karma as the driving force behind reincarnation. In fact, everyone faces double retribution: "grace" from Krishna may provide a temporary reprieve in some heavenly state (or without it you may suffer in a hellish state), but you will still return time and time again until release—moksha—is achieved.22
Karma Difficulties
Most Hindu thinkers describe karma as "self-determination" as opposed to determination by "external agency" or "luck"—each person causes what she experiences. This stark understanding of a dispassionate, impersonal karma working in each individual life can be used to rationalize a lack of social concern. Taken to the extreme, karma may even lead one to believe it inappropriate to step in and mitigate another person's karmic circumstance; perhaps intervention is hopeless in the face of such a law. This has important sociopolitical ramifications. For example, are the Indian government's various quota systems and efforts toward improvement of living conditions within the country legitimate in light of karma? At least two components of karma contradict notions of modern social justice: (1) ability according to birth, and (2) societal role according to birth. While many Hindus no longer accept these limitations, the doctrines of karma and rebirth seem to have provided little incentive for social reform but rather have historically provided India a profound justification for maintaining the socioeconomic status quo: do your duty—"bloom where you are planted."23
Furthermore, since the human problem is ignorance, your social class situation is an indication of just how ignorant you were in past lives. The very idea that your life situation directly reflects your knowledge and actions in previous lives leads others to see your predicament and leave well enough alone. Bottom line: people are not born equal. Perhaps it's better for suffering communities to work through their situation for better karma next time; the beggar, cripple, and outcaste, according to karma, brought their situation upon themselves. This means the social system supports a deterministic interpretation of the doctrines with all the pain and associated inequities and social stigmas, whether they are verbalized as such or not. Rationalization is found within the doctrine of karma:
The law of evolution called Karma explains the apparent injustice in the world with sublime simplicity. There is a law of cause and effect in the moral world. We are the builders of our own destiny, and the results are not limited to one life, since our Spirit that was never born and will never die must come again and take to itself a body, that the lower self may have the reward of its works. Good shall lead to good, and evil to evil. From good, joy shall come and from evil shall come suffering. And thus the great evolution flows on to perfection.24
But note the contradiction: if each soul (atman) is Brahman (ultimate reality), that is, all humans are divine, then why are the outcastes—people on the lowest rung of society's ladder—treated as they are? Contemporary scholarship stresses the equality and justice found in karma! From the nondualist advaitans clinging to Atman-Brahman, to the dualists arguing individuals are not identical to god but equally dependent on god—in one sense all schools of thought agree: people are treated equally by karma, for it is impersonal and you do get just what you deserve. However, once reincarnated, human beings are not treated equally by society—try as hard as contemporary Indians are doing to make it happen.
Although the ancient Brahminical priesthood, the highest class, considered this system the best hope for social stability, what it really achieved was a stagnant society stripped of ambition, institutionalizing the notion that people are not born equal. And what may be drawn from the "evolutionary" concept of karma? In spite of arguments to the contrary, "karmic amnesia" leaves reincarnation with no pedagogical value. Radhakrishnan maintained human "tendencies" are improving through the process; however, does history bear this out? How can "evolutionary karma theory" be supported in light of the apparent human proclivity toward war and violence? Can humanity ever overcome these karmic tendencies? Perhaps human nature is not divine as Hinduism presupposes.
Social class is not the only institutionalized inequity fostered by karma theory. Gender discrimination, rooted in revered ancient texts, has led to horrors such as female infanticide, and legitimized withholding educational opportunities from girls. The ancient Manu Dharma Shastra (Laws of Manu) describes the three states of obedience for women: first as a daughter; then as a wife; then if widowed, life under the authority of the eldest son. "In the married state the wife is wholly subject to her husband whom she should revere as a god."25 According to the text, to be born female means to be forever under male authorities to prevent the women from causing evil and destruction. Ironically, goddess worship has not appreciably helped the plight of women throughout India, nor has the rise of female political leaders.
"Untouchables" and females are not the only people who suffer in life. Does karma offer an adequate contemporary explanation for innocent suffering—a satisfactory theodicy? Who can tell abused children that according to karma they received just what they deserved, that their situation was prescribed by karma? What do you tell the victims of natural disasters? Does the notion that "the world we perceive and inappropriately cling to as 'reality' is actually illusion" really provide comfort? And should those in abusive relationships be told they deserve their treatment? Are suffering people in the Hindu system left to believe they deserve their plight?
Contemporary guru Yogananda teaches:
Today if anyone behaves badly toward us, it is him we blame for our hurt. That we might in some way have attracted that hurt never enters our minds. If our "luck" turns against us, we blame anything and anyone but ourselves. Yet it is we by the magnetism projected by our own karma, who drew that hurtful behavior, or that "rotten luck," to ourselves.26
Hindus will argue that the Christian God is cruel to allow innocents to suffer. Karma theory asserts no one is innocent: we all must accept responsibility for our lives. We cannot blame others, even parents, for our misfortunes, because a wrongdoer in a previous life will attract wicked parents for this present life. "[T]hose who created poverty, disease, and ignorance through negligence in past lives will meet those conditions from the very beginning of their present lives."27
Karma theory has problems on the societal level in terms of class and gender discrimination and with theodicy in general. On a more personal level, what does karma do for the individual who has "bad karma" (and that would be all of us) other than offer paths to accrue good karma to offset it in another life? Classical Hinduism has no concept of personal sin; instead we do things that have unfortunate consequences—"bad karma." Brahman is beyond good and evil—which means, since we are inseparable from the divine, our "real Selves" are also beyond good and evil (and untouched by karma). We should feel no guilt for what we do if there is no personal god to whom we are accountable. However, at least as far back as the sixth century, Hindu devotionalists have wrestled with "sin" and sought "grace"—revealing people innately know they sin and need forgiveness (not impersonal karma). Some devotionalists seek grace for relief from reincarnation, but many worship in search of an eternal relationship with God. Radhakrishnan taught Hindus the universal judge is within each person.28 How does seeking grace from the divine, which is technically yourself (Atman-Brahman), make sense?
This pantheistic monism of early Hindu texts did not provide a divine being to worship and to whom the people could relate. The concept of a god who encounters humankind came later in the form of avatars: a deity-indwelt image, or more apt for our comparison, the deity revealed in human form. Many devotees came to cling to Krishna, but is he worthy of such trust and devotion? Both Hindu and Christian scholars have compared Krishna and Jesus Christ.29 Many Hindus think of Jesus as an avatar, but the differences are too numerous to include here. Essentially, Krishna does not actually participate in Hinduism's most dreaded plight of humankind—as an incarnation of Vishnu, he did not become a historical human being through the karmic process. In that regard he is not participating in the illusion all life faces. Having four arms, he definitely is unlike humans in appearance.30 But Jesus, eternal God, became perfect man in order to mediate between God and humans (1 Tim 2:4–5). He shared in our humanity in order to represent us (Heb 2:14).
The greatest difference lies in the purpose of their manifestations. Why do Hindus believe Krishna appeared and what did he accomplish? Krishna entered the world to confront evil from both demons and the natural world. Wrongdoers are changed into loving followers after contact with the all-forgiving Krishna.31 Christ also came to confront evil, but
Christ came to save evildoers, via atonement for sin, before the eschatological judgment in a once-for-all establishing of righteousness. Krishna came to destroy them (ensuring rebirth), thus establishing righteousness for a particular age among countless others, not by atonement for sin but by a didactic of various spiritual disciplines, culminating with the discipline of single-minded devotion to Krishna.32
All people sin; no one could ever do enough to mitigate every wrong action of life. Hindus turn to the god offered through their sacred literature—a god who has never actually entered into time and space, a god who provides no definitive revelation. What is claimed concerning the Hindu god has been "intuited" by ancient seers and interpreted through experience by contemporary gurus. Christians have a very different source: God who reveals Himself through word and deed historically and ultimately entering into our world in human form: "God's love was revealed among us in this way: God sent his One and Only Son into the world so that we might live through Him. Love consists in this: not that we loved God, but that He loved us and sent His Son to be the propitiation for our sins" (1 John 4:9–10 HCSB).
Do We Get What We Deserve?
Yes and no. We know there are consequences to our actions in this life, but these are consequences overseen by our holy and just yet personal God who loves us enough to die for us (John 3:16). He can be trusted always to have our best interest in mind—no matter how unpleasant the experience. We may be chastened for our bad deeds—but we are not left on our own to be punished by our deeds. Those who are not in Christ get exactly what we all deserve—eternal separation from God (Col 2:14; 2 Thess 1:7–9).
Many people, even some church members, believe that after death we all face a situation reminiscent of karma—getting just what we deserve. Some folks imagine in the balance their own good deeds versus their bad deeds. I have talked to many dear people who have told me they "hope" they will be in heaven with God one day because they're "pretty good," haven't done anything really bad, and have attended church ever since they were children. Other people think their lives will be compared to other people. I've heard neighbors say, "I'm doing OK. I'm better than most people."
But neither picture is biblical. We will not be compared to other people, nor will our deeds be weighed in the cosmic balance to determine our eternal standing. We will be judged according to God's righteousness—and every one of us falls short (Rom 3:10). The good news is those who have put their faith in Christ do not stand on their own—but in Christ's righteousness (Phil 3:9). The outcome of judgment depends on your relationship to Jesus (John 3:16; 11:25; cf. Rom 8:1). No one earns salvation; it is a gift for which we will be eternally grateful (Eph 2:8–9).
Hinduism is not the only tradition to offer individuals what they deserve. That is all most religions have to offer, either in the form of karma or works to merit some eternal reward. Hindu devotionalists live lives of simple trust in a savior figure who offers what they call "grace." But this is grace without a cost—an empty appeal to follow a powerless imposter. Where is the justice in that? I have always loved the definition of grace I heard as a child: God's Riches at Christ's Expense. Christ paid the ultimate price on the cross to offer us true escape from a reality of sin and sorrow—drawing us to Himself (Mark 10:45; 1 Pet 3:18).
What about reincarnation? Do we get a second chance? In the absence of more definitive justification, it's one huge metaphysical gamble to assume that we have multiple chances to "get it right." Moreover, the Scripture utterly contradicts reincarnation (Heb 9:27). But we are not on our own trying to improve ourselves in order to merit some heavenly abode or state of being. Christians do talk about being "born again," but this means becoming a permanent member of God's family by grace through faith (John 3:7; 1 Pet 1:3–5). The emphasis of the Bible is resurrection, not reincarnation (John 11:25). The historical evidence for Jesus' resurrection is superior to that offered for reincarnation.
Many Hindus believe that eventually all souls, actually divine already, will reach the ultimate goal of moksha—regardless of the religious path they take. This fits in with the evolution argument—and again, I don't believe history indicates any such moral development by humankind. Unlike Buddhists who do not believe in transmigration of the soul, most Hindus trust each individual will in some way enjoy this eternal state of absorption. But note: not all Hindu scholars believe there will be continued self-awareness when merged with the "Ultimate Consciousness"—therefore, no self, no awareness, no joy. By contrast, Christians contend that humans are not divine. We are sinners in need of forgiveness, and with that forgiveness also comes an eternity, not of absorption, but in the presence of a loving God (1 Cor 15:53–54). The Bible is also clear that all paths do not lead to this eternity with God—faith in Christ alone saves (Matt 7:13–14; John 14:6; Acts 4:12).
Hinduism as classically expressed is life-denying—the futile attempt to escape never-ending death. For many adherents, the opportunity eventually to escape rebirth into this world gives relief from the possibility of returning to hopeless lives. While Christians look forward to eternity with Christ, they are not eager to "escape" this world. Followers of Christ seek to serve and enjoy fellowship with God here in the world He created. Life has meaning both now and eternally for the Christian (John 10:10).
Bottom line: karma is incompatible with a Christian worldview which alone offers "a transcendent and personal deity, irrevocable forgiveness of sin, triumph over death, egalitarian spiritual community and the simple joy of accepting our unchangeable status as infinitely valuable but fallen creatures of a living and holy God."33
On the cross Jesus paid our debt in full. There is no karma to face—Christ's work is sufficient. Christians have this message of joy and hope for our Hindu friends, who would agree: there's absolutely nothing funny about karma.
1 Lisa Miller, "We Are All Hindus Now," Newsweek (Aug. 31, 2009), citing "Radical Western Belief Shift," Hinduism Today (Jan.-Mar. 2010), 8; Accessed March 11, 2011, http://www.newsweek.com/2009/08/14/we-are-all-hindus-now.html.
2 Ibid. Hinduism Today expressed delight in finding these statistics in the US media: "Hindus, of course, were gratified to see their philosophy touted at the top of the US mainstream media."
3 Stephen Prothero, Religious Literacy: What Americans Need to Know (Dallas: HarperOne, 2007), 29.
4 There are many reasons for this trend; contributing factors I have noticed include the lack of adequate teaching of Scripture and doctrine in many of our churches and philosophical postmodernism.
5 R. C. Zaehner, Hinduism, 2nd ed. (London: Oxford University Press, 1966), 59.
6 For example, "Hindus" participated in the 2009 Parliament of the World's Religions and read a popular magazine: Hinduism Today.
7 Technically, monism and pantheism are distinct, however. For instance, the Hindu philosopher Shankara (d. 820) was a monist (there is only one undifferentiated reality); he believed that the Ultimate Reality, Brahman, has no differences or qualities (nirguna) and that only Brahman exists; any apparent differentiation is the result of an illusion (maya). Thus, India's many deities are not real but ultimately illusory. By contrast, Ramanuja (d. 1137) was a pantheist ("all is God"). He claimed that differences do exist (saguna), but they are all part of Brahman. Thus, Hindu deities exist in their own right and, therefore, aren't an illusion.
8 Buddhism and Jainism also developed in India and share basic metaphysical presuppositions with Hinduism; however, they differ considerably in the details of these concepts.
9 The traditional Hindu hierarchical social structure consists of four segregated classes or varnas divided according to occupation: Brahmin—priests, teachers, doctors, etc.; Kshatriyas—warriors and leaders; Vaishyas—producers, farmers, traders; and Sudras—laborers. Each of these classes is comprised of many "castes" or jatis.
10 Zaehner, Hinduism, 59–60.
11 Ibid., 59. An "outcaste" is a person whose social standing is below the four recognized occupational classes, therefore relegated to performing duties seen as irrevocably polluting—like cleaning toilets—rendering these people "untouchable."
12 Ever optimistic New Agers teach that humans face reincarnation only as humans—never rebirths down the ladder of existence. Most Hindus believe return as a lower life-form is always a possibility—if deserved.
13 Austin B. Creel, "Contemporary Philosophical Treatments of Karma and Rebirth," in Karma and Rebirth: Post Classical Developments, SUNY Series in Religious Studies, ed. Ronald W. Neufeldt (Albany: State University of New York Press, 1986), 3.
14 Ibid., 3–4.
1515 Ibid., 10. However, Gajanan Wasudeo Kaveeshwar noted that it seems ludicrous to hold someone responsible for "doing his duty" while insisting that he is not to give any thought to the consequences of his actions. Giving no thought to your actions is "unnatural" (The Law of Karma [Poona: University of Poona, 1975], 1).
16 Robert N. Minor, "In Defense of Karma and Rebirth: Evolutionary Karma," in Neufeldt, Karma and Rebirth, 31–32.
17 Ibid., 34–36.
18 Ramakrishna Puliganda, "Karma, Operational Definitions and Freedom," in The Dimensions of Karma, ed. S. S. Rama Rao Pappu (Delhi: Chanakya Publications, 1987), 133–36. The author adds that karma is not "potentially falsifiable" and therefore is unscientific, yet many scientists adhere to it on faith.
19 Sheryl B. Daniel, "The Tool Box Approach of the Tamil to the Issues of Moral Responsibility and Human Destiny," in Karma: An Anthropological Inquiry, ed. Charles F. Keyes and E. Valentine Daniel (Berkeley: University of California Press, 1983), 27–28, 1.
20 Creel, "Contemporary Philosophical Treatments," in Neufeldt, Karma and Rebirth, 5.
21 Klaus K. Klostermaier, "Contemporary Conceptions of Karma and Rebirth Among North Indian Vaisnavas," in Neufeldt, Karma and Rebirth, 84.
22 Many contemporary devotees no longer believe in moksha, believing rather in an eternal heavenly existence. Bhakti devotion to Krishna is the focus of the International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON, popularly known as "Hare Krishnas") founded in 1966. This group teaches that fervent adoration of Krishna saves from future undesirable consequences.
23 Creel, "Contemporary Philosophical Treatments," in Neufeldt, Karma and Rebirth, 5–9. Your caste, immediately evident by your last name, pigeonholes you for life. Caste discrimination is illegal in India, but continues to cause problems, particularly in family life, and the stigma of outcaste status endures. "Radical Western Belief Shift," Hinduism Today, 8.
24 Juan Mascaró, The Upanishads: Translations from the Sanskrit with an Introduction (London: Penguin Books, 1965), 13.
25 Zaehner, Hinduism, 111. Contemporary Hindu scholars wrestle with these ancient texts that contain passages on women. It should be noted: the laws present an idealized view not always followed in practice.
26 Paramhansa Yogananda, Karma & Reincarnation (Nevada City, CA: Crystal Clarity Publishers, 2007), 34–35.
27 Ibid., 100–101. It should be noted that some Hindus see embracing karma as psychologically beneficial: the concept should remove bitterness—you are responsible for your life and, after all, everyone has another chance at life. Karma theory has also been said to eliminate the "stress" of personal ambition.
28 Minor, "In Defense of Karma," in Neufeldt, Karma and Rebirth, 34.
29 For example, Song Divine: Christian Commentaries on the Bhagavad Gītā, ed. Catherine Cornille (Leuven: Peeters, 2006).
30 Steven Tsoukalas, "Krishna and Christ: The Body-Divine Relation in the Human Form," in ibid., 151. While many Hindus believe Krishna came into the world historically, there is little proof. Furthermore, with or without any shred of historical evidence for a Krishna-figure, this makes no material difference in the worship of Krishna. Historicity is ultimately irrelevant.
31 John Renard, Responses to 101 Questions on Hinduism (New York: Paulist Press, 1999), 25–26.
32 Tsoukalas, "Krishna and Christ," in Cornille, Song Divine, 155.
33 James A. Herrick, The Making of the New Spirituality (Downers Grove, IL: InterVarsity Press, 2003), 279–80.