By James M. Rochford

How does Christianity compare with Hinduism? We have prepared this chart to show the differences. Each concept will be examined in closer detail below:

Let’s consider each of these categories in detail here below:

Nature of God: pantheistic, polytheistic, or monotheistic?

Pantheism comes from the roots pan (“everything”) and theos (“God”). Thus the pantheist holds that God is an impersonal being that exists in everything. Likewise, polytheism comes from the roots poly (“many”) and theos (“God”). Therefore, the polytheist believes in many gods.

Since Hinduism is relativistic, it has expressions of both pantheism and polytheism. Carmody and Carmody write, “The Upanishads themselves do not agree on whether the unity behind everything is personal, impersonal, or a mixture of the two.”^[1] Nigosian writes, “Hindus can choose to be monotheists, polytheists, pantheists, atheists, agnostics, dualists, monists, or pluralists… Religious truth, according to Hinduism, is not conceived necessarily in dogmatic terms, because truth transcends all verbal definitions. Consequently, Hinduism represents an astonishingly complex conglomeration of doctrines, cults, rituals, practices, observances, and institutions.”[2] Because of its inclusivism, “for the Hindu, the possible religious views are virtually infinite.”[3] In fact, “the gods [of Hinduism] are many and complex (tradition said there were 330 million).”^[4]

With such an eclectic worldview, Jesus Christ is often lumped in with the many other deities in Hindu thinking. For instance, Ghandi said, “I… do not take as literally true the text that Jesus is the only begotten son of God. God cannot be the exclusive Father and I cannot ascribe exclusive divinity to Jesus. He is as divine as Krishna or Rama or Mohammed or Zoroaster.”^[5]

While Hinduism is multifaceted in its belief-system, Hinduism should be classified as pantheistic, due to its dominant belief in an impersonal deity: Brahman. Carmody and Carmody write, “Brahman, of course, is impersonal, whereas most monotheistic religions conceive their deities on the model of the human personality.”^[6] Nigosian writes, “Brahman is Absolute Reality, which transcends time, space, and causality. Brahman pervades the entire universe and yet remains beyond it. Moreover, Brahman is all that is objective as well as subjective. In other words, Brahman is the whole external world, as well as the whole inner being—the self, or soul—of an individual… That innermost and unseen force, or self, of a human… is called Atman. And Atman is Brahman.”[7]

Thus, while Hinduism has polytheistic expressions, it believes in an impersonal deity that is the foundation of all reality.

Does Hinduism have a Trinity?

It is often heard in popular culture that Hinduism has a Trinity. However, this is not the case. While Hindus believe in three central deities (among the 330 million), this is far from the Christian understanding of the Trinity. Hopfe writes,

Brahman, who is ultimate reality, is at the core of Hindu thought. He is one and undivided. Yet postclassical Hinduism sees him in terms of three forms or functions. These three, called the Trimurti, are creation, preservation, and destruction. Each of these three functions of Brahman is expressed by a god from the classical literature: Brahma, the creator; Vishnu, the preserver; and Shiva, the destroyer. Devotees of any of these three gods tend to see all of the functions of Brahman in their chosen deity.[8]

By contrast, the Bible teaches that there is only one God, who exists in three separate centers of consciousness (see “Defending the Trinity”). Hindu thinking is pantheistic and polytheistic, while Christianity is triune and monotheistic.

Creation: cyclical or ex nihilo?

The Bible teaches creatio ex nihilo or “creation out of nothing.” The Bible teaches a creation out of nothing in the OT (Ps. 33:6, 9; Gen. 1:1) and the NT (Jn. 1:3; Heb. 11:3; Col. 1:15-20). Hugh Ross writes, “No other ‘holy book’ makes such a claim on its own. The concept appears elsewhere only in those books that borrow from the Bible, such as the Koran and the Mormon writings.”^[9]

By contrast, Hindu thinking conceived of creation as cyclical—not linear. Carmody and Carmody write,

At the beginning there was no being and no nonbeing, no air and no sky beyond. It was, in fact, a time before either death or immortal life had begun. Then only the One existed, drawn into being by heat that interacted with the primal waters and the void… Even the gods were born after the world’s beginning, so who can say what happened? Only one who surveys everything from the greatest high heaven knows, if indeed even that being knows.^[10]

Here we see that God (Brahman) came into existence after the beginning of the universe. By contrast, the Bible places God in existence before the beginning of creation (Gen. 1:1; Jn. 1:1). Carmody and Carmody write,

In Hindu cosmology the universe goes its rhythmic way…; it has always existed and always will… The Hindu explanation of creation involves gods molding the world from preexisting stuff.^[11]

Again, Hindu thinking views reality as cyclical. Like reincarnation, the universe dies and is reborn over and over from eternity to eternity. Moreover, it teaches that the gods created from preexisting matter and energy. By contrast, God brought matter and energy into being at creation (Ps. 33:6, 9). For a defense of the origin of the universe, see Evidence Unseen chapter three “The Origin of the Universe.”

Personhood: an illusion or an experience of reality?

Hinduism is monistic. Monism is part and parcel with pantheism, literally meaning “one substance.” Both pantheists and atheists can be classified as monists, because they both believe in one foundational substance to reality. While pantheists believe that everything is divine, and therefore, non-physical, atheists believe that everything is physical, and therefore, not divine. By contrast, those from a Judeo-Christian worldview classify themselves as dualists, because they believe in both physical and spiritual realities.

Thus Hindus believe in a “non-duality of existence.”[12] Hindus refer to the self or soul as Atman, and they refer to God as Brahman. When they say “Atman is Brahman,” they mean that the self is an illusion (or maya). Hopfe writes, “All phenomenal existence is illusion arising from ignorance of the true nature of reality. A person’s individuality apart from the Brahman—the world in which one lives, that which one sees, hears, touches, and feels—is all an illusion, a dream… The plight of human beings is that they are bound up in this world of illusion and ignorance, thinking that it is real, unaware of their true identification with Brahman.”[13] Carmody and Carmody write,

If Brahman is the ultimate reality, then nature, society, and the self are all versions of maya, are all illusion and play.^[14]

Shankara’s core affirmation in his philosophical construction was that reality within is identical with reality without: Atman is Brahman. In other words, when one realizes through revelation, or higher knowledge, that there is no change, no spacetime limitations, no cause-effect qualifications to the real, one then discovers that there is no self. Rather, there is only the Self, the Brahman reality that one directly perceives to be the ground of internal and external being. From the perspective of lower knowledge, there is, of course, a personal, separate, changing self. In absolute terms, though, there is one indivisible reality that is both subjectivity and objectivity, that is atman-Brahman. Since we rarely perceive directly, we often live and move in maya (illusion). The world of maya is not unreal in the sense that there are no elephants in it to break your foot if you get in the way of a circus parade. The elephants in the world of maya are substantial, their dung is mighty, and their step will crush your foot. But this viewpoint has limited validity. From a higher viewpoint, all that goes on in maya has no independent existence. The elephants’ movement is a ‘play’ of the only reality that exists independently—that is uncaused, unconnected, sovereign, and fully real.^[15]

The soul and stuff of the world are but two sides of the same single ‘be-ing’ or ‘is-ness’ that constitutes all existing things.^[16]

The Upanishads give the illustration of placing a piece of salt into water (Chandogya Upanishad 6.13.2). This is the Hindu view of the afterlife: an individual mind-melds with the All (i.e. Brahman), losing personal identity. Salvation occurs in Hindu thinking when we realize that we are not separate from Brahman. Hinduism offers three paths to this enlightenment including (1) karma marga—the way of action and ritual, (2) jnana marga—the way of knowledge and meditation, and (3) bhakti marga—the way of devotion.

Of course, as we have argued elsewhere (see chapters 1 and 2 of Evidence Unseen), we believe that our first person experience of reality shouldn’t be denied without an overwhelming reason to do so. Even if reality is an illusion (i.e. The Matrix), someone (a personal self) would still need to exist in order to be tricked into believing it was an illusion. That is, even if we are a brain in a mad scientist’s laboratory being poked and prodded by electrodes to think that we are seeing a real, external world of physical objects, someone (a personal self) would need to exist to think that they are in a physical world. Thus, those with a Christian worldview disagree with this central tenet of Hinduism.

The Afterlife: karmic law and reincarnation or grace and eternal life?

Hinduism teaches karmic law. Karma literally means ‘action.’ It indicates the consequences of one’s actions from this life to the next life. The mantra “what goes around comes around” would be a popular expression of karmic thinking. Carmody and Carmody write,

Karma is the law that governs advancement or regression in the samsaric life of deaths and rebirths… A person’s present life is shaped by that person’s past lives. The only way to escape the round of rebirths, the pain of samsara, is to advance by meritorious deeds and be saved or freed. (Hinduism chooses to live with the illogic of a law both necessary and capable of being undercut by freedom.)^[17]

In other words, if we do good deeds, then we set ourselves up for a better reincarnation in the next life. Karma relates to the Hindu teaching of samsara: the cycle of reincarnation. Carmody and Carmody write, “Only when one penetrates Brahman, the truly real, can one escape this cycle. Otherwise, one must constantly travel the scale of animal life (up or down, depending on one’s advances or backslidings in wisdom.”^[18] Hopfe writes, “Salvation from this cycle and release from life comes when there is true knowledge of the illusion of life.”[19]

Like the cyclical doctrine of creation, Hinduism sees the afterlife as a repetitious cycle of births and rebirths. Hopfe writes, “Indian philosophy saw time as moving endlessly through various cycles. When one cycle of time is completed the world dissolves and all souls depart into suspended being. After a period of repose the world begins again and the souls take up new bodies.”[20] This cycle of reincarnations ends when Hindus reach enlightenment, seeing that they are actually one with the impersonal Brahman—being snuffed out of existence.

From a Christian perspective, this view of karmic law and samsara has led to an absence of social reform and care for the poor in India. Since current impoverished Hindus are really just suffering the consequences of past lives, it is a moral obligation NOT to help such people in Hindu thinking! That is, if we help a destitute person’s suffering, then we are really just taking away what karma has righteously dealt to them. For this reason, Christian missionaries have done more for social reform in India than anyone else in history. Secular authors Carmody and Carmody write,

Christians opened hundreds of charitable institutions, especially schools, and were responsible for the first leprosaria. They also promoted hospital care for the tuberculosis and the insane. In fact, Christianity’s greatest impact was probably the rousing of the Hindu social conscience. The tradition of dharma as social responsibility had not resulted in the establishment of institutions for the poor and sickly. While Western culture opened India to modern science, technology, and democratic political theory, Western religion drove home the ideal of social concern.^[21]

Likewise, secular author Lewis Hopfe writes,

Like many other missionaries of the nineteenth century [William] Carey was concerned not only with preaching the gospel of his faith but also with raising the living and educational standard of the people he ministered to. He was the first to begin modern printing in India, and he also initiated many new educational programs for the Indian people. Carey, along with other missionaries, was alarmed at several practices—which he felt were inhuman and harmful—within Indian social life. One of these was the suttee, in which an Indian widow was expected to throw herself upon the funeral pyre or into the grave of her dead husband and be destroyed with him. Another practice that was abhorrent to the European missionary was that of child marriages… This meant the betrothal of very young children, and the marriage of nine and ten-year-olds. This was particularly harsh in the case of girls who might have been promised by their parents to men twenty or thirty years their senior… The missionaries put pressure upon the British rulers, and eventually both the practices of child marriages and the suttee were officially outlawed in India.[22]

As Christian apologists have long observed, Hinduism didn’t bring us Mother Theresa into Calcutta, India: Jesus Christ did. For more on this subject, see our earlier article “Reincarnation.”

Human dignity: equality or inequity?

Hand in hand with karmic law is the Hindu caste system. If you are born into a high caste (like the Brahmins), then you are treated charitably, because you were righteous in a previous life. However, if you are born into a low caste (like the Sudras or the untouchables), then you are treated poorly, because you were unrighteous in a previous life. Hopfe writes,

One entered a caste by being born to parents of that caste. One’s caste dictated deity, vocation, place of residence, and choice of mate. Rigid rules forbade much social intercourse between members of differing castes. Most pitiful were those at the lowest end of the social scale. Those possessing no caste were called ‘outcastes,’ and because the higher castes could have nothing to do with them, this group was often called ‘untouchable.’ To them fell the lowest occupations. They were the street sweepers, the latrine cleaners, the handlers of the dead, and the tanners of leather. With these vocations came the lowest wages, the worst living conditions, and little hope of improvement. The religion of Hinduism seemed to justify the status of the outcastes. Since the untouchables were in this situation in life, it must be because their karma from a previous life had dictated it. If the outcastes accepted the dharma of this life and did not rebel against it, they might have hope for a better caste in the next life.[23]

The caste system was officially put down by Ghandi in the 1948 constitution of the Republic of India. However, Hopfe writes, “the long-standing and firmly entrenched rules of caste seem to die slowly in modern India.”[24] Of course, from a Christian perspective, this is morally outrageous. We are not punished for a past life in this life. All human have inherent dignity and worth, because Christ died for all people (Jn. 3:16; Gal. 2:20), and we all are made in the image of God (Gen. 1:27; Jas. 3:9).

Women: equals or inferiors?

As we have already seen, Hinduism lacks a foundation for equality of all human persons. This has never been truer than in the case of women. Carmody and Carmody write,

Between the first Vedas (1500 BCE) and the first codes of law (100 CE), women’s religious role steadily declined. A major reason for this was the lowering of the marriage age from fifteen or sixteen to ten and even five. This both removed the possibility of education (and consequently religious office) and fixed women’s role to being wife and mother. In fact, in later Hinduism being a wife was so important that a widow was prohibited from mentioning any man’s name but that of her deceased husband.^[25]

They [women] were subject, successively, to fathers, husbands, and elder sons. As soon as they approached puberty, their fathers hastened to marry them off, and during their wedded lives they were to honor their husbands without reservation… This held true even if their husbands were deformed, aged, debauched, lived openly with other women, or showed them no affection. To ritualize this attitude of devotion, orthodox Hindu authors counseled wives to adore the big toe of their husband’s right foot, bathing it as they would an idol, and offering incense before it as they would to a great god.^[26]

In Hindu society, women were not eligible for moksha; the best that a woman could hope for was to be reborn as a man.^[27]

The birth of a girl was not an occasion for joy. Hindus attributed it to bad karma in a previous life and frequently announced the event by saying, ‘Nothing was born.’^[28]

Hindu religious texts frequently imagine a woman as a snake, hell’s entrance, death, a prostitute, or an adulteress. In Manu’s code, slaying a woman was one of the minor offenses.^[29]

Nigosian writes,

In no way, then, are women considered to be equal to men or even to be free members of the family or caste… Proper behavior for a woman means an arranged marriage by her father at the proper time, usually soon after puberty (in some localities, child marriage is still a common practice)… The next proper duty of a woman is to respect, obey, and worship her husband, even if he is unfaithful, virtueless, and devoid of good qualities.^[30]

Traditionally, a widow was expected to accompany the corpse of her husband to the funeral pyre and be burned alive by his side (sati) on the assumption that a woman who outlived her husband had caused his death by her evil karma.^[31]

Manu’s Code states,

Him to whom her father may give her, or her brother with the father’s permission, she shall obey as long as she lives. Though destitute of virtue, or seeking pleasure elsewhere, or devoid of good qualities, a husband must be constantly worshiped as a god by a faithful wife. (Manu 5.151-154)

By contrast, Christianity has a high view of women (see “Christianity and Women”).

Animal Life: sacred or stewardship?

Hinduism teaches that we should treat some animals as sacred. In fact, cows are often treated as more valuable than humans in many cases. Nigosian writes,

Another feature of Hinduism is the veneration of cows, which receive the same honor as deities. Garlands are placed around their necks, and water is poured at their feet and oil on their foreheads…. Among most Hindus today, cows are believe to be extremely sacred. The removal of serious types of impurities may involve the use of cow milk, urine, and dung. Such products are considered extremely purifying elements for cleansing a person or a house from pollution or impurity. A common practice found in most villages today is the sprinkling of dried, powdered cow dung in those areas of the house where lower castes have visited or stayed. Cow dung is also used as fuel, disinfectant, and medicine.[32]

Christians should support animal rights, because we are stewards of God’s creation (see comments on Gen. 1:28). However, we disagree with treating animals as sacred, or more inherently valuable than human beings.

Problem of evil: our problem or God’s problem?

The problem of evil is a difficult issue for everyone, including Christians. However, when we compare the Christian answer to the problem of evil and suffering with the Hindu view, we see that Christianity has a much better answer to this problem (see “The Problem of Evil”). By contrast, Hinduism has two major problems in answering evil and suffering:

First, Hinduism blames God for evil—not human beings. Carmody and Carmody write,

Although Hinduism tried out many different responses to the problem of evil, in O’Flaherty’s opinion it favored myths that blamed God for evil (in contrast to the West’s favorite myths, which blamed human beings). This gives Indian mythology a rather tragic tone. When it moves from the drama of creation to the pathos of creation’s defects, the Indian imagination is inclined to picture reality as intrinsically misbuilt. The result is a world view in which evil is an integral factor.^[33]

The Vedas emphasize benevolent gods whom one can invoke as aids in attaining heaven, while the Upanishads emphasize inadequate or even malevolent gods who are a central cause of our human problems… Moksha would then have become an escape from a world in which tragedy was inevitable because evil was as aboriginal as good.^[34]

Second, since reality is ultimately monistic, evil is an illusion on a Hindu worldview. This is one way to answer the problem of evil: deny that evil exists! However, for those of us who have been affected by the touch of evil and suffering, this is unreasonable and anything but comforting.

Conclusion

To summarize perspectives, consider this chart comparing Christianity with Hinduism that we considered above. Not only is Hinduism far different from Christianity, we believe that it has less rational and moral appeal.