Philosophical Convergence (pt 1)

This is taken word for word from my response to a discussion in my philosophy course - just some Q&A on my perspective as a rational Christian approaching Hinduism.

1. There is great tolerance in Hinduism. Two phrases that are associated with Hinduism are: "Any road to the summit of the mountain is a good road", and "The truth is one, but the wise speak of it in many ways". The belief is that if something is truly important, there must be more than one of them.

In this particular case, I find myself wholly agreeing. By definition, "Truth" with a capital T, so to speak, must be whole, unalterable, and immune to interpretation. It must be all that it is and unrecognizable as anything else.

With this in mind, however, it must still be capable of being recognized by all, should they wish to take the time and thought to do so. Truth is outside of petty human struggles or hierarchies - a universal constant, whether viewed through a dualistic or monistic lens. Even the great skeptics admitted that Truth, at some point, must exist.

The problem, in this case, is finding it.

Here, I find the two quotes mentioned to be wholly accurate - if truth is, indeed, truth, it is not to be a narrow thing, for not all living beings are identical, nor will all living beings be capable of the same thought processes. They must, however, all be capable of at some point recognizing truth for what it is, should they wish to do so. With this in mind, I must conclude that in a sense, truth is simply too big to find upon a narrow road.

From an admittedly unusual Christian point of view, this simply re-affirms and broadens the definition of God - omnipotent, omniscient, omnipresent (to this day I don't why we don't simply call God Omni - it'd make far more sense).
If this Christian definition of God is true, then God is beyond any and all human comprehension, for God cannot be held within any number of human minds, for they are human.
With this in mind, no human, nor any number of humans, can ever fully understand God. Indeed, under Christianity, claiming to do so would be perilously close to the sin that Jesus himself was accused of - claiming Godhood. For by the Christian definition, to understand God, one must be God.
Understanding this, the Christian must admit that their road to God cannot, by their definition, be the only one.

Yet there is a problem here - this is a conclusion arrived at by reason. According to the Bible, there is only one way to God, and that is through Jesus Christ. But if a Christian believes in what the Bible implies about God - namely, the infinite nature beyond any mortal comprehension - they must admit the conclusion I've arrived at above as well.

I suppose in this case I am more Hindu than Christian, for I certainly fall far more comfortably within the confines of the former than the latter...but then, I hold to a definition of God implied by reason as well as the Bible, and would thus have to admit that this Hindu belief would fit quite comfortably with what Christianity has to say about God, and that perhaps with this in mind, God Itself is far more comfortable with being worshiped by all at the end of whatever road they find It on than being pinned to a single highway by a circle of televangelists' limos.

Poses some questions, doesn't it?

2. The goal of the religions is to achieve Moksha which is spiritual liberation. It is achieved by becoming one with Brahman which is the base of all things and being itself, or unconditional reality.

I see very little wrong with this, either. Although I must admit that it does appeal to my monistic tendencies, God being much like the advanced technology of Clarke's Third Law in that it/s/he (pardon for the confusing order, but putting the last first here, in addition to satisfying my contrary tendencies, avoids an unintentional bit of near-profanity) is not separate from our existence, but rather permeating it and not yet within the scope of our current understanding.

I can, indeed, understand the desire to understand that which is real beyond any doubt, that which is the very foundation of reality, which gives it structure, is its very essence.
I can also see that the transcendence to that point where the ultimate basis of reality is understood is also that point at which the mortal being becomes one with whatever label one wishes to give that basis in order to give it form during the course of their mortal (or limited) life.

I must confess that I would agree to this as well - perhaps not in those exact terms, but the underlying concept resonates, to me, of truth.

3. We need to be liberated from Samsara which is the worldly cycles of birth and rebirth. This is a world of ignorance, suffering, and bondage to matter which we need to transcend.

Here, perhaps, I differ. I tend to be a monistic rather than a dualistic sort of fellow, and thus to see any separation of God from earth as vaguely suspicious.

In my mind, if God truly is God as we've suspected that it is, then there is no way that our world and God can be anything but inseparable - for God, in God's infinite nature, could not help but to contain/surround/permeate the very fabric of reality, the earth included.

I do agree, however, that the fabric of reality is not dissimilar to an exceptional piece of art, possessing infinite depths of beauty and complexity. The deeper you look - or go - the more you find. And when you truly understand the fabric of the fabric - the space, the molecules, all the infinitely complex structures of which the art is made - at that point, you have achieved an understanding of the art so intimate and so deep as to be indistinguishable and inseparable from that which you have studied.

With this said, I would agree that the earth as we understand it is a place of ignorance, suffering, and bondage to matter. I would even agree with a concept including cycles of death and rebirth, for isn't it a relatively recently discovered truth that matter and energy are never destroyed or created, but merely change form?

I would also agree that when one comes to that point where understanding of the underlying fabric is complete, one would become one with - or indistinguishable and inseparable from - the fabric being understood. In short, to understand the fabric of reality, one must be the fabric of reality.

This actually, I believe, relates to Christianity rather well. Is not transcendence to Heaven or a fall to Hell a sort of rebirth? And does not the eventual prophesied return and opening of heaven's doors to all lost souls make a sort of mass rebirth or transcendence? And isn't going to Heaven or "being (one) with God" more or less equivalent to transcending the mortal plane, or liberating oneself from Samsara?
I may be marking myself as a black sheep indeed among the Christian faith, but it doesn't seem to me that there are any incompatible concepts here.

4. The key moments of possible release are our deaths. However, we generally reincarnate or transmigrate based on our Karma. We can move closer or farther away from Moksha with each rebirth.

Makes sense to me. We reap what we sow, the longer we live, the more we learn, and nobody ever said the road to God was an easy or a short one.
This seems to me to simply be a way of stating that what goes around comes around in a very final sort of way - not entirely unlike the Christian Heaven or Hell, except much more open-ended.
Do good, good will come to you. Do bad, bad will come to you. View something as good, it will be good. View something as bad, it will be bad.
Perception defines much, and there are consequences to every action. While I wouldn't agree that living beings reincarnate as other beings, retaining usable knowledge (even on the unconscious level) from lives as other beings, as stated above, matter and energy are never created or destroyed - merely changed. With this in mind, it's not inconceivable that the matter which is a human being here and now will be a cockroach, a tree, and/or a dolphin at some point in the future. It's also not inconceivable that the person's behavior, beliefs, or other unmeasurable facets may well affect the matter and energy they're composed of in as of yet unobservable, and therefore unmeasurable ways.

As far as the Christian effect on these ponderings? More or less discarded with the idea that we Christians have got Heaven and Hell already. Taking into account the idea I've already stated that there's no possible way by our own definition of God that we've got a monopoly on the truth, I really don't see how it's all that more or less likely to be one than it is to be the other. Maybe it's even that the two viewpoints are just different perspectives of the same thing. Might be, might not be...either way, I don't know yet and likely won't until I get there.

5. Karma is the universal law of cause and effect - as ye sow, so shall ye reap. It rules all of life, like gravity, including the lives of the gods and the demons. It dictates our rebirth.

See above. At this point, I honestly don't see any way this can be ruled out as a viable possibility. Whatever it is in the end, I do believe in Karma, Natural Consequences, or whatever you want to call it - what goes around, comes around.
As explained above, given that we're acknowledging some sort of unmeasurable and unobservable force (in that there are consequences to our actions, they do happen, and we don't yet have a universal reason as to why or how), it's not inconceivable - some might even say it's likely - that it has an unobservable, unmeasurable effect on the matter and energy we're composed of.

As far as Christianity goes, I think this is my major point of difference and always has been. I disagree with the concept of a narrowly defined set of 'sins' based on things which were relevant to survival of humanity as a species two thousands years ago, but are relevant no longer. On the other hand, I think that the concept of inevitable consequences for our thoughts and actions, whether good, bad, or indifferent, is not only wholly reasonable, but timeless and eternally relevant as well.

6. Our Karma is created by how well we follow our dharma. Dharma is our sacred duty or moral order or proper action. It depends on our caste, our gender, our age, and many other factors.

Karma being created by the degree of fulfillment of 'sacred duty' or 'moral order' I can agree with. These things being dictated by our caste, gender, age, etc - namely, things we have no power over even if we wanted to - I don't agree with.

I think that the concept of Karma being created by Dharma is a very sensible one indeed. I think that the idea of Dharma being governed by anything other than the choices one makes and the results of those choices, ad infinitum, is really a slightly silly one, being based more or less upon the concept that some humans beings possess a degree of natural superiority (or difference in the challenges they are called to face) based upon things that were determined before they were even capable of conscious thought. I, personally, don't believe they do. People are people are people, and although they are not born equal, they ought to be given the chance to fulfill what potential they have, regardless of such fixed and unchangeable factors as gender or accident of birth.

In this case, I think I tend to lean more towards typical Christian thinking than Hindu, in that 'all are equal in the eyes of the lord'. Namely, no one human ought to assume false pride over any other. Some are stronger than others, some are more intelligent than others, some have different colored or different proportioned bits and pieces of anatomy than others. These do not necessarily translate to superiority or inferiority in a spiritual sense - merely to difference in a physical one that may or may not have physical consequences.
All in all, though, I must admit this is a doctrine absorbed more from the works of Ayn Rand, Frank Herbert, and Robert Heinlein than scholars of centuries gone by.

Not quite Christian or Hindu - something else entirely, rather, springing from a view of humanity not based in a need for domination over others, but a desire for a mutually advantageous coexistence with those others, instead.

Hindus do not have a problem with western thinking; they just think it has a critical weakness. That weakness is that it mistakes part of the truth for the entire truth.

This, now - this I can stand fully in agreement with regardless of religious or philosophical leanings. No matter the individual religious or philosophical opinions, mistaking part of the truth for the whole truth can, in my humble opinion, be said without exception to be a flaw, and quite an impressive one at that.
From a Christian perspective, claiming to know the Truth with a capital T is claiming to be on equal ground with God, and coming out of left field from my philosophically skeptical leanings, claiming to know the absolute Truth is claiming to know something that, by its very nature, cannot be known absolutely.

I must, I admit, view anyone who claims to know the absolute truth with a great deal of sudden and intense doubt - for Truth, as stated above, must be absolute. Truth must be recognizable to all. Truth must be so true that it is not capable of being doubted...and so far, there is nothing I have learned that fulfills that last requirement. Given, this is not to say I will never learn something that does, but it has not happened yet, and so far as I can tell, not to anyone else throughout the course of recorded history.

Part of the truth, indeed, is a far cry from truth in its whole and unblemished entirety, and it would be a shame indeed to deny the entire sky for a single star.