[Editor’s Note: A.P. auxiliary staff writer Dr. Bryant holds degrees from Lipscomb University (B.A. in History, M.A. in Bible), Reformed Theological Seminary (M.A.), and a Ph.D. in Biblical Studies with an emphasis in Old Testament from Amridge University. He has done additional coursework in Biblical and Near Eastern Archaeology and Languages from Trinity Evangelical Divinity School, and participated in archaeological excavations at Tel El-Borg in Egypt. He holds professional memberships in the American Schools of Oriental Research, the Society of Biblical Literature, the Archaeological Institute of America, and the International Society of Christian Apologetics.]

Charges of plagiarism are quite common among critics of Christianity. Christians may hear claims that their faith rests on a religion entirely borrowed from older faiths and mythologies. Often described as a relative late-comer to the religious scene, Christianity is alleged to have borrowed from a wide array of mythological traditions. Upon closer examination of the facts, claims of this nature are often baseless and sometimes even fraudulent.

One of the so-called “savior gods” of the ancient world is the Hindu deity Krishna. Mythicists (those who believe Jesus is nothing more than a mythical figure like Zeus, Thor, Ba’al, etc.) claim the existence of unmistakable parallels between Krishna and Jesus in the original sources. These parallels are so strong, they argue, that the only rational conclusion is that the Gospel writers recorded a tradition about Jesus that was deeply influenced by, or even plagiarized, Hindu beliefs.¹

Although the description of similarities between the two persons sounds as if some connection exists, problems quickly begin to mount once readers consult the original texts. How well do these alleged parallels stand under closer scrutiny? Very poorly. Let us consider some of the most common claims found in sources from published books and articles to information on the Internet.

• “Christ is a form of the name Krishna.” No etymological connection between “Krishna” and “Christ” actually exists. Christ (christos) is the Greek equivalent of messiah (Hebrew mashiach). Both mean, “anointed one.” Krishna is an unrelated personal name, which derives from a Sanskrit term meaning “black, dark, dark-blue.”²
• “Krishna was born of a virgin.” This is a popular claim, sometimes made by atheists,³ but also by those who profess to be Christian.⁴ Hindu texts make it clear that his mother Devaki had already conceived seven other sons, the first six of whom were executed by the evil prince Kamsa after their births.⁵ Matthew states that the chaste Mary fulfills an ancient prediction of the prophet Isaiah (Matthew 1:23; cf. Isaiah 7:14).
• “Both men were born in a manger.” Contrary to songs sung at Christmastime, Jesus was not born in a manger, but rather was laid there after His birth (Luke 2:7). The Hindu text indicates that Krishna was born in a prison cell where Kamsa had imprisoned his sister Devaki and her husband Vasudeva when he learned that the couple’s eighth child (Krishna) was destined to kill him.⁶
• “Krishna was born on December 25, like Jesus.” Sources differ on the exact day of Krishna’s birth, which is often recognized as having occurred in the month of July. Hindus celebrate the birth of Krishna in the month of Bhadrapada (August/September). The Bible does not give a date for the birth of Jesus, which does not appear to have occurred at any time during the winter. Historian Andrew McGowan points out that the second-century author Clement of Alexandria identified several possible dates for the birth of Christ debated during his day, but December 25 is nowhere among his suggestions.⁷ None of the earliest estimates indicates Christ was born in December.
• “Krishna died at age thirty.” Although Jesus died in his early thirties, Krishna lived a much longer life. Common estimates place Krishna’s age at death somewhere around 100 years. A 2004 article in the Times of India reported Hindu scholars calculated that Krishna died at the age of 125.⁸
• “Krishna died by crucifixion.” Crucifixion appears nowhere in the Hindu texts. Krishna died after a hunter named Jara shot him in the sole of his foot with a poisoned arrow after mistaking him for a deer.⁹ Kersey Graves infamously claimed Krishna was crucified between two thieves, that darkness attended the event, and that he gives up the ghost and descends into hell,¹⁰ details he—or a source he used—invented out of whole cloth.
• “Krishna resurrected after three days.” After his death, Krishna’s spirit appears almost immediately.¹¹ Being liberated from his physical body—or abandoning it—his spirit returns to the realm of the divine. Hindu pilgrims today still visit Dehotsarga (literally, where Krishna “gave up his body”),¹² where they believe Krishna died. Jesus was buried in a newly cut rock tomb and later experienced a bodily resurrection that serves as a prototype for believers (1 Corinthians 15:20, 42-44). The Hindu view of Krishna’s death is much closer to Neo-Platonic philosophy than it is to Christianity.

A popular author who made similar claims to those above is the late Dorothy M. Murdock (also known by her pseudonym “Acharya S”). Her book Suns of God: Krishna, Buddha and Christ Unveiled includes a litany of supposed parallels between Christian and Hindu beliefs. Although her work is hailed by her uncritical supporters and other non-specialists as a work of unparalleled scholarship, scholars dismiss her work as the stuff of crass invention. When asked about the supposed crucifixion of Krishna, Dr. Edwin Bryant, professor of Hinduism at Rutgers University, stated, “That is absolute and complete non-sense. There is absolutely no mention anywhere which alludes to a crucifixion.”¹³ Murdock also claims that a number of other Hindu gods were depicted as crucified. Bryant again responded, “There are absolutely no Indian gods portrayed as crucified…. If someone is going to go on the air and make statements about religious tradition, they should at least read a religion 101 course.”¹⁴

A common problem found in the work of militant critics is the failure to adequately understand the beliefs of the religions they oppose. Critics can be inexcusably careless in their descriptions, making ancient religions appear more similar than they really are. This is often done by describing non-Christian elements of other religions using Christian vocabulary, and then marveling at the similarities between the two. In some cases (especially authors from the 19^th and early 20^th centuries), these parallels were made using vague interpretations, supported by evidence which was poorly understood and likely fabricated.

Despite claims to the contrary, the story of Christ in no way plagiarizes the story of Krishna. To argue otherwise is to twist and distort the teachings of both Christianity and Hinduism.

The post Krishna, Christ, and Parallelomania appeared first on Apologetics Press.

The Founders of the American Republic most certainly shared this greater concern (Miller, 2009). They repeatedly expressed their conviction that the successful establishment of the nation was dependent on the approval of God. They insisted that it was imperative that Americans not be guilty of offending Him or earning His displeasure, lest their entire national enterprise fail. For example, four months before officially declaring independence from Great Britain, the Continental Congress issued a proclamation to the entire country:

In times of impending calamity and distress; when the liberties of America are imminently endangered…, it becomes the indispensable duty of these hitherto free and happy colonies, with true penitence of heart, and the most reverent devotion, publickly [sic] to acknowledge the over ruling providence of God; to confess and deplore our offences against him; and to supplicate his interposition for averting the threatened danger…. Desirous, at the same time, to have people of all ranks and degrees duly impressed with a solemn sense of God’s superintending providence, and of their duty, devoutly to rely, in all their lawful enterprises [sic], on his aid and direction, Do earnestly recommend, that Friday, the Seventeenth day of May next, be observed by the said colonies as a day of humiliation, fasting, and prayer; that we may, with united hearts, confess and bewail our manifold sins and transgressions, and, by a sincere repentance and amendment of life,appease his righteous displeasure, and, through the merits and mediation of Jesus Christ, obtain his pardon and forgiveness; humbly imploring his assistance…. (Journals of…, 4:208-209, emp. added).

Subsequent proclamations contained similar sentiments regarding the wrath of God, including such phrases as: “to acknowledge GOD in all his Ways, and more especially to humble themselves before him when evident tokens of his Displeasure are manifested” (Journals of…, 10:229-230, emp. added); “that so he might turn from his Wrath” (Journals of…, 13:343-344, emp. added); “humbling ourselves before him, and turning from every evil Way to avert his Anger and obtain his Favour” (Journals of…, 16:252-253, emp. added; cf. 19:284-286).

Who, today, believes the perpetuation of a blessed America depends on appeasing God’s righteous displeasure over the sins of Americans? How many Americans are actually and vitally concerned about offending God? Perhaps a key indicator was the number one concern of the vast majority of Americans during the last presidential election—the economy, not morality (“Economy Top Issue…,” 2010)! Since the Bible is proven to be the only book on the planet that conveys the will of God (Butt, 2007), what does it say about offending God? How are Americans offending God today, and consequently endangering the existence of the Republic? The Bible delineates a number of such offenses that merit divine displeasure, but please consider three.

When Harry Reid invited a Hindu priest to open a session of the U.S. Senate with a Hindu prayer, neither he nor a host of others apparently gave the slightest thought to whether such an action was an offense to the God of the Universe. After all, political correctness demands that all religions and ideologies be celebrated and treated as equally authentic. To fail to do so would be “intolerant” and “judgmental”—the only ultimate evil in the minds of many. But to give credence or credibility to pantheistic religion (“God” inside the Earth, sky, etc.; see Miller, 2007b) that advocates belief in thousands of “gods” and that cow-killing is a sin, while rejecting the one true God of the Bible, would be unthinkable in America in 1776. It was equally unthinkable for most Americans until the last 40-50 years. The politically correct climate now enshrouding America literally is suffocating the moral and religious sensibilities of society. The nod to Hinduism follows closely on the heels of the election of a Muslim to the U.S. House of Representatives, as well as the first atheist in Congress (see Miller, 2006; Miller, 2007a).

But wait! The fact is that the God of the Bible exists, He is the only one that exists, and both atheism and polytheism are an affront to His righteous character (cf. Warren and Flew, 1976; Butt and Barker, 2009). Consequently, human behavior that violates His will displeases Him. Rather than being overly concerned with whether our Christian beliefs offend our misguided fellow human beings, we would do well to show greater concern for whether our behavior offends God.

Second, whereas at one time in American culture, the average citizen understood the concept that using God’s name in vain was taboo, now it is common place. Both adults and children regularly use God’s name in a flippant, thoughtless, frivolous way (“Oh, my God!”). Yet, God informed the Israelites that such disrespectful misuse of His name would bring His displeasure: “You shall not take the name of the LORD your God in vain, for the LORD will not hold him guiltless who takes His name in vain” (Deuteronomy 5:11, emp. added). God holds guilty those who misuse His high and holy name.

Third, the gross and flagrant immorality that has blanketed American civilization, becoming commonplace and comfortable to the population, is an offense to the God of Heaven. The very actions that most Americans disdained for most of American history are now widespread, rampant, and defiantly defended or downplayed: stealing, lying, murder, covetousness, adultery, homosexuality, pre-marital and extra-marital sex, rape, gambling, intoxication, the killing of the unborn, and the list goes on and on. The Great Governor of the Universe is offended by such conduct, and historically, He will allow it to progress only so long and so far (e.g., Genesis 6:5-7; 19:24-25; 15:16; Deuteronomy 7:1-4). Legion are the nations that were destroyed for their wickedness, now lying in rubble, ruins, and the dust of antiquity (see Miller, 2005).

Writing from Mount Vernon on June 29, 1788, the Father of our country, George Washington, wrote a letter to Major General Benjamin Lincoln. In that letter, remarks were made to which every American today ought to pay earnest heed:

No one can rejoice more than I do at every step the people of this great Country take to preserve the Union, establish good order and government, and to render the Nation happy at home and respectable abroad. No Country upon Earth ever had it more in its power to attain these blessings than United America. Wondrously strange then, and much to be regretted indeed would it be, were we to neglect the means, and to depart from the road which Providence has pointed us to, so plainly; I cannot believe it will ever come to pass. The great Governor of the Universe has led us too long and too far on the road to happiness and glory, to forsake us in the midst of it. By folly and improper conduct, proceeding from a variety of causes, we may now and then get bewildered; but I hope and trust that there is good sense and virtue enough left to recover the right path before we shall be entirely lost (1788, emp. added).

The only remedy and the only hope for America to perpetuate its national existence is to swallow the antidote prescribed by God Himself:

Now it shall come to pass, if you diligently obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments which I command you today, that the LORD your God will set you high above all nations of the earth. And all these blessings shall come upon you and overtake you, because you obey the voice of the LORD your God… But it shall come to pass, if you do not obey the voice of the LORD your God, to observe carefully all His commandments and His statutes which I command you today, that all these curses will come upon you and overtake you: The LORD will send on you cursing, confusion, and rebuke in all that you set your hand to do, until you are destroyed and until you perish quickly, because of the wickedness of your doings in which you have forsaken Me (Deuteronomy 28:1-2,15,20, emp. added).

REFERENCES

Butt, Kyle (2007), Behold! The Word of God (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Butt, Kyle and Dan Barker (2009), Butt/Barker Debate: Does the God of the Bible Exist? (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

“Economy Top Issue for Voters; Size of Gov’t. May Be More Pivotal” (2010), Gallup, October 26, http://www.gallup.com/poll/144029/Economy-Top-Issue-Voters-Size-Gov-May-Pivotal.aspx.

Journals of the Continental Congress, 1774-1789 (1904-1937), ed. Worthington C. Ford, et al. (Washington, D.C.: Government Printing Office), Library of Congress, http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwjc.html.

Miller, Dave (2005), “Is America’s Iniquity Full?” http://apologeticspress.org/apcontent.aspx?category=7&article=1528.

Miller, Dave (2006), “A Muslim Now in Congress?” http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=1999.

Miller, Dave (2007a), “First Atheist in Congress,” Reason & Revelation, 6[5]:17,20-R, May, http://apologeticspress.org/APContent.aspx?category=7&article=2140.

Miller, Dave (2007b), “Hindu Prayer in Congress,” Reason & Revelation, 27[8]:57-63, August, http://apologeticspress.org/apPubPage.aspx?pub=1&issue=592.

Miller, Dave (2009), Christ & the Continental Congress (Montgomery, AL: Apologetics Press).

Warren, Thomas B. and Antony Flew (1976), The Warren-Flew Debate (Jonesboro, AR: National Christian Press).

Washington, George (1788), “George Washington to Benjamin Lincoln, June 29, 1788,” George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 2 Letterbooks, Letterbook 15, Image 172 of 341, The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/ampage?collId=mgw2&fileName=gwpage015.db&recNum=171.

The post How To Offend God appeared first on Apologetics Press.

When humans embrace pagan superstition, their judgment becomes impaired. The behavior that results from an animistic belief system may seem quaint and harmless—but it can be deadly, both physically and spiritually. Listen to the apostle Paul’s observations on the matter:

[A]lthough they knew God, they did not glorify Him as God, nor were thankful, but became futile in their thoughts, and their foolish hearts were darkened. Professing to be wise, they became fools, and changed the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—and birds and four-footed animals and creeping things. Therefore God also gave them up to uncleanness, in the lusts of their hearts, to dishonor their bodies among themselves, who exchanged the truth of God for the lie, and worshiped and served the creature rather than the Creator, who is blessed forever (Romans 1:21-25, emp. added).

[Y]ou should no longer walk as the rest of the Gentiles walk, in the futility of their mind, having their understanding darkened, being alienated from the life of God, because of the ignorance that is in them, because of the hardening of their heart; who, being past feeling, have given themselves over to lewdness, to work all uncleanness with greediness. But you have not so learned Christ, if indeed you have heard Him and have been taught by Him, as the truth is in Jesus (Ephesians 4:17-21, emp. added).

Sacrificing a couple of goats on an airport runway seems trivial enough. However, it hardly inspires confidence in the capability of airline personnel.

“Airline Sacrifices Goats to Appease Sky God” (2007), Reuters, September 4, [On-line], URL: http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/20070904/od_nm/nepal_airline_odd_dc.

The post How Paganism Affects Reality: Hinduism and Nepal Airlines appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Varanasi, the City of Shiva, one of the holiest cities in India, where Hindu pilgrims come for prayer and worship on the Ganges River

May we meditate on the transcendental glory of the Deity Supreme, who is inside the heart of the Earth, inside the life of the sky and inside the soul of the heaven. May He stimulate and illuminate our minds. Lead us from the unreal to real, from darkness to light, and from death to immortality. May we be protected together. May we be nourished together. May we work together with great vigor. May our study be enlightening. May no obstacle arise between us. May the Senators strive constantly to serve the welfare of the world, performing their duties with the welfare of others always in mind, because by devotion to selfless work one attains the supreme goal of life. May they work carefully and wisely, guided by compassion, and without thought for themselves. United your resolve, united your hearts, may your spirits be at one, that you may long dwell in unity and concord. Peace, peace, peace be unto all (see Brown, 2007).

The architects of American civilization would be aghast. To give credence or credibility to pantheistic religion (“God” inside the Earth, sky, etc.), that advocates belief in thousands of “gods” while rejecting the one true God of the Bible, would be unthinkable in America in 1776. It was equally unthinkable for most Americans until the last 40-50 years. The politically correct climate now enshrouding America literally is suffocating the moral and religious sensibilities of society. The nod to Hinduism follows closely on the heels of the election of a Muslim to the U.S. House of Representatives as well as the first atheist in Congress (see Miller, 2006; Miller, 2007).

It was on June 28, 1787, in the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, that one of the least religious of the Founders, Benjamin Franklin, then in his 80s, rose to his feet and made the proposal that Congress open their sessions with prayer. Yet, on that occasion, the God, the religion, and the sacred Scriptures that Franklin had in mind were certainly not the gods, religion, and scripture of Hinduism. Here was his proposal in his own words [NOTE: Lest the reader miss the fact that Franklin’s speech is thoroughly saturated with allusions to the one true God and the Bible, such references are noted in bold and direct biblical citations are bracketed]:

Krishna, Lord of India, eighth avatar or reincarnation of the god Vishnu, whom legend says may have had 16,000 wives

In this situation of this Assembly, groping as it were in the dark to find political truth, and scarce able to distinguish it when presented to us, how has it happened, Sir, that we have not hitherto once thought of humbly applying to the Father of lights [James 1:17], to illuminate our understanding? In the beginning of the contest with Britain, when we were sensible of danger, we had daily prayer in this room for divine protection. Our prayers, Sir, were heard and they were graciously answered. And have we now forgotten that powerful friend? Or, do we imagine we no longer need his assistance? I have lived, Sir, a long time, and the longer I live, the more convincing proofs [Acts 1:3] I see of this truth—that God governs in the affairs of men [Daniel 4:17]. And if a sparrow cannot fall to the ground without his notice [Matthew 10:29], is it probable that an empire can rise without his aid? We have been assured, Sir, in the Sacred Writings, that “except the Lord build the House, they labor in vain that build it” [Psalm 127:1]. I firmly believe this; and I also believe that without his concurring aid we shall succeed in this political building no better than the Builders of Babel [Genesis 11]: We shall be divided by our partial local interests; our projects will be confounded, and we ourselves shall become a reproach and bye word down to future ages [Psalm 44:13-14; Jeremiah 24:9]. I therefore beg leave to move—that henceforth prayers imploring the assistance of Heaven, and its blessing on our deliberations, be held in this Assembly every morning before we proceed to business, and that one or more of the clergy of this city be requested to officiate in that service (1787, emp. and bracketed material added).

Founders like Franklin would not have dignified pagan religion that constitutes a blatant insult to the God of the Universe—the One Whom they ardently implored to guide and protect them. Neither would they have accepted the idea that “sacred writings” include the Hindu Vedas.

For sure, the Founders of America desired religious freedom. Technically, by “religious freedom” they meant that all Protestant denominations should have the right to pursue their own interpretation of the Bible and to worship the God and Christ of the Bible according to their own consciences without governmental interference. As one of the Fathers of American Jurisprudence, Joseph Story, explained:

The real object of the [first] amendment was, not to countenance, much less to advance Mahometanism, or Judaism, or infidelity, by prostrating Christianity; but to exclude all rivalry among Christian sects, and to prevent any national ecclesiastical establishment, which should give to an hierarchy the exclusive patronage of the national government (1833, Vol. 3, Bk. 3, Ch. 44, Sec. 1871, emp. added). [NOTE: See the wording proposed by the “Father of the Bill of Rights,” George Mason, in Rowland, 1964, pp. 13-15.]

Nevertheless, the Founders were perfectly willing to extend the right of religious freedom to those who did not share the Protestant brand of the Christian religion. They opposed all religious persecution for the simple reason that Christian people love their fellowman and do not mistreat others (Matthew 7:12).

The four-headed Brahma, Hindu god of Creation

But make no mistake: the Founders believed in the God of the Bible, and the vast majority of them believed in the validity of the Christian religion to the exclusion of all other gods and religions (see Miller, 2007). They would not have countenanced giving non-Christian religions any sort of public endorsement or favorable encouragement. This fact is demonstrated easily by their innumerable forthright declarations regarding the essentiality of Christianity as the foundation on which the Republic was founded (see Miller, 2005a; Miller, 2005b). It also is seen in the occasional explicit repudiation of such non-Christian religions as Islam, Buddhism, and Hinduism. Hindus typically were styled “hindoos,” “pagans,” “heathens,” and “idolaters.”

Worshipers praying to Krishna in the Palace of Gold

For example, consider the remarks of John Jay, a brilliant Founder with a long and distinguished career in the formation and shaping of American civilization from the beginning. He not only was a member of the Continental Congress from 1774-1776, serving as its President from 1778-1779, but he also helped to frame the New York State Constitution and then served as the Chief Justice of the New York Supreme Court. He co-authored the Federalist Papers, was appointed as the first Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court by George Washington (1789-1795), served as Governor of New York (1795-1801), and was the vice-president (1816-1821) and then second president (1821-1827) of the American Bible Society. At the annual meeting of the American Bible Society on May 9, 1822, Jay commented on the almost universal view of Americans at the time relative to non-Christian religions:

Although an immense heathen population in India was under the dominion, control, and influence of a Christian nation, yet it was deemed better policy to leave them in blindness than to risk incurring the inconveniences which might result from authorizing or encouraging attempts to relieve them from it. This policy has at length met with the neglect it deserved. The Gospel has been introduced into India, under the auspices of the British government; and various means are co-operating to advance its progress, and hasten the time when the King of saints will emancipate that people from the domination of the prince of darkness (1890, 4:484, emp. added).

Jay obviously viewed the non-Christian religions of India as “heathen” and the work of Satan (“the prince of darkness” being an allusion to the Devil [cf. Luke 22:53; Acts 26:18; 2 Corinthians 11:14; Ephesians 2:2]).

Where did the Founders get their ideas regarding polytheism, paganism, and idolatry? Their assessment of Hinduism was in complete harmony with the Bible’s own declarations:

The many-handed Indian deity—Durga

Those who make an image, all of them are useless, and their precious things shall not profit; they are their own witnesses; they neither see nor know, that they may be ashamed. Who would form a god or mold an image that profits him nothing? Surely all his companions would be ashamed; and the workmen, they are mere men. Let them all be gathered together, let them stand up; yet they shall fear, they shall be ashamed together. The blacksmith with the tongs works one in the coals, fashions it with hammers, and works it with the strength of his arms. Even so, he is hungry, and his strength fails; he drinks no water and is faint. The craftsman stretches out his rule, he marks one out with chalk; he fashions it with a plane, he marks it out with the compass, and makes it like the figure of a man, according to the beauty of a man, that it may remain in the house. He cuts down cedars for himself, and takes the cypress and the oak; he secures it for himself among the trees of the forest. He plants a pine, and the rain nourishes it. Then it shall be for a man to burn, for he will take some of it and warm himself; yes, he kindles it and bakes bread; indeed, he makes a god and worships it; he makes it a carved image, and falls down to it. He burns half of it in the fire; with this half he eats meat; he roasts a roast, and is satisfied. He even warms himself and says, “Ah! I am warm, I have seen the fire.” And the rest of it he makes into a god, his carved image. He falls down before it and worships it, prays to it and says, “Deliver me, for you are my god!” They do not know nor understand…. A deceived heart has turned him aside (Isaiah 44:9-20, emp. added).

What profit is the image, that its maker should carve it, the molded image, a teacher of lies that the maker of its mold should trust in it, to make mute idols? Woe to him who says to wood, “Awake!” To silent stone, “Arise! It shall teach!” Behold, it is overlaid with gold and silver, yet in it there is no breath at all. But the Lord is in His holy temple. Let all the earth keep silence before Him (Habakkuk 2:18-20, emp. added).

A statue of the elephant god Ganesha at an Indian wedding

Their idols are silver and gold, the work of men’s hands. They have mouths, but they do not speak; eyes they have, but they do not see; they have ears, but they do not hear; noses they have, but they do not smell; they have hands, but they do not handle; feet they have, but they do not walk; nor do they mutter through their throat. Those who make them are like them; so is everyone who trusts in them (Psalm 115:4-8, emp. added).

Every metal smith is put to shame by the carved image; for his molded image is falsehood, and there is no breath in them. They are futile, a work of errors; in the time of their punishment they shall perish (Jeremiah 51:17-18).

The attitude of the Founders toward Hindus may be seen in their attitude toward the Native American tribal groups that populated the North American continent at the time. Like Hindus, the Indians believed in many deities. In a letter dated May 2, 1788, addressed to a Moravian preacher named John Ettwein, George Washington applauded the efforts of a Christian organization whose stated mission efforts were for the purpose of “propagating the Gospel among the heathen”:

So far as I am capable of judging, the principles upon which the society is founded and the rules laid down for its government, appear to be well calculated to promote so laudable and arduous an undertaking, and you will permit me to add that if an event so long and so earnestly desired as that of converting the Indians to Christianity and consequently to civilization, can be effected, the Society of Bethlehem bids fair to bear a very considerable part in it (emp. added).

Sri Venkateswara Swami Hindu Temple of Greater Chicago (Aurora, Illinois)

The exclusivity of Christianity also was made clear by General Washington during the Revolutionary War when he delivered a speech to the Delaware Indian Chiefs on May 12, 1779:

You do well to wish to learn our arts and ways of life, and above all, the religion of Jesus Christ. These will make you a greater and happier people than you are. Congress will do every thing they can to assist you in this wise intention; and to tie the knot of friendship and union so fast, that nothing shall ever be able to loose it (15:55, emp. added).

Another example of the Founders’ view of non-Christian religion is the discussion that took place on the floor of the North Carolina State Convention that met to debate ratification of the federal Constitution. On Wednesday, July 30, 1788, Henry Abbot (a minister) articulated serious concerns entertained by some of the delegates. They were unconvinced that the Constitution provided the same guarantees as the state constitution for citizens to practice Christianity according to their own interpretation of the Bible without interference from the federal government. They also were concerned that the absence of fixed religious test oaths might eventually be misconstrued to allow people who embraced false religions or even atheism to make encroachments:

Some are afraid, Mr. Chairman, that, should the Constitution be received, they would be deprived of the privilege of worshipping God according to their consciences, which would be taking from them a benefit they enjoy under the present constitution. They wish to know if their religious and civil liberties be secured under this system, or whether the general government may not make laws infringing their religious liberties…. The exclusion of religious tests is by many thought dangerous and impolitic. They suppose that if there be no religious test required, pagans, deists, and Mahometans might obtain offices among us, and that the senators and representatives might all be pagans…. I would be glad [if] some gentleman would endeavor to obviate these objections, in order to satisfy the religious part of the society (Elliot, 1836, 4:191-192, emp. added).

To their thinking, Hindus were included under the label “pagans.”

A response to Abbot was offered by James Iredell, who, since the Revolution, had served the state of North Carolina both as a judge on the state Superior Court as well as state attorney general, and was soon to be appointed to the U.S. Supreme Court by George Washington: “Mr. Chairman, nothing is more desirable than to remove the scruples of any gentleman on this interesting subject. Those concerning religion are entitled to particular respect” (Elliot, 4:192). He proceeded to explain at length that the establishment of one Christian sect above another always has led to persecution and war—as evidenced in Catholic countries as well as by the Church of England, from which they only recently had extricated themselves. Consequently, the restriction placed on Congress in the federal Constitution would prevent the government from interfering with the free practice of the Christian religion. He then remarked:

The Hindu festival of Thaipusam at the Batu Caves in Kuala Lumpur

But it is objected that the people of America may, perhaps, choose representatives who have no religion at all, and that pagans and Mahometans may be admitted into offices. But how is it possible to exclude any set of men, without taking away that principle of religious freedom which we ourselves so warmly contend for? This is the foundation on which persecution has been raised in every part of the world. The people in power were always right, and every body else wrong. If you admit the least difference, the door to persecution is opened. Nor would it answer the purpose, for the worst part of the excluded sects would comply with the test, and the best men only be kept out of our counsels (Elliot, 4:494, emp. added).

Observe that Iredell conceded that in order for the Constitution to guarantee Christians the right to worship God according to their own conscience, non-Christians inevitably would be permitted the same constitutional protection. Indeed, as previously noted, the Founders never would have countenanced the persecution of atheists or those who espoused non-Christian religion. Are we to assume from this observation, however, that the Founders held non-Christian religions, like Hinduism, in high regard, or that they encouraged non-Christian religions in the public sector, or that they sanctioned all religions as equally authentic and credible? Absolutely not! As Iredell further explained:

But it is never to be supposed that the people of America will trust their dearest rights to persons who have no religion at all, or a religion materially different from their own. It would be happy for mankind if religion was permitted to take its own course, and maintain itself by the excellence of its own doctrines. The divine Author of our religion never wished for its support by worldly authority. Has he not said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it? It made much greater progress for itself, than when supported by the greatest authority upon earth (Elliot, 4:194, emp. added).

12th-century Hindu temples in the temple town of Kumbakonam in the Indian state of Tamil Nadu

Iredell reasoned that leaving the Constitution non-specific with regard to religion would prevent religious persecution. Further, tolerating non-Christian religions would not endanger the Founders’ assumption that Christianity would remain the worldview and moral framework that undergirds the nation. Why? Because he felt confident that Americans never would endanger their dearest rights by voting non-Christians (whether atheists, Muslims, or Hindus) into government. Inviting a Hindu to offer prayer in Congress is a step in that very direction. And did you notice Iredell’s allusion to “the divine Author of our religion”? What Author and what religion do you suppose he intended? He quoted that Author in his very next sentence: “Has he not said that the gates of hell shall not prevail against it?” Those words are the words of Jesus Christ as recorded in Matthew 16:18. The Author to Whom he referred was Christ, and Christ is the author of only one religion: Christianity—not Hinduism.

Iredell next discoursed on the essentiality of an oath to be taken by those who wish to serve in the government. He insisted that this oath should contain two critical components: belief in a Supreme Being and belief in a future state of rewards and punishments. He even cited a legal case in England that occurred some 40 years earlier, pertaining to:

a person who was admitted to take an oath according to the rites of his own country, though he was a heathen. He was an East Indian, who had a great suit in chancery, and his answer upon oath to a bill filed against him was absolutely necessary. Not believing either in the Old or New Testament, he could not be sworn in the accustomed manner, but was sworn according to the form of the Gentoo religion, which he professed, by touching the foot of a priest. It appeared that, according to the tenets of this religion, its members believed in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments. It was accordingly held by the judges, upon great consideration, that the oath ought to be received; they considering that it was probable those of that religion were equally bound in conscience by an oath according to their form of swearing, as they themselves were by one of theirs; and that it would be a reproach to the justice of the country, if a man, merely because he was of a different religion from their own, should be denied redress of an injury he had sustained. Ever since this great case, it has been universally considered that, in administering an oath, it is only necessary to inquire if the person who is to take it, believes in a Supreme Being, and in a future state of rewards and punishments. If he does, the oath is to be administered according to that form which it is supposed will bind his conscience most. It is, however, necessary that such a belief should be entertained, because otherwise there would be nothing to bind his conscience that could be relied on; since there are many cases where the terror of punishment in this world for perjury could not be dreaded (Elliot, 4:197-198, emp. added).

Lord Ganesha, the elephant-headed Hindu god of wisdom, in a temple in the Indian state of Karnataka

“Gentoo,” a corruption of the Portuguese term gentio meaning “heathen” or “gentile,” was coined by Europeans to refer to the idol-worshipping peoples of India, and to distinguish Hindus from Muslims (see Mish, 1986, p. 512; John, n.d.). Observe that Iredell was not advocating the equal acceptance of Hinduism. He simply offered the only means by which an essential, though non-Christian, witness can serve in a court case. Yet even those remarks are couched in the context of the difficulties posed by those who come to America but refuse to embrace the Christian worldview—since our entire justice system depends on a belief in the God of the Bible as well as heaven and hell. [Observe that neither of these two prerequisites to speaking in court was deemed a violation of the freedom of religion clause of the Constitution.]

The next to speak was the Governor of North Carolina—Samuel Johnston. Eight years earlier he had served as a member of the Continental Congress. He, too, was astonished that some were concerned that the Constitution provided insufficient guarantee of the priority and free exercise of Protestant religion to the exclusion of competing religions:

I read the Constitution over and over, but could not see one cause of apprehension or jealousy on this subject. When I heard there were apprehensions that the pope of Rome could be the President of the United States, I was greatly astonished. It might as well be said that the king of England or France, or the Grand Turk [a Muslim—DM], could be chosen to that office. It would have been as good an argument. It appears to me that it would have been dangerous, if Congress could intermeddle with the subject of religion. True religion is derived from a much higher source than human laws. When any attempt is made, by any government, to restrain men’s consciences, no good consequence can possibly follow (Elliot, 4:198, emp. added).

Shiva, Hindu god of destruction, on Mauritius Island in the Indian Ocean

Observe that the governor argued that the odds of a non-Protestant getting into office were so infinitesimal as to merit little concern. Also, being the one true religion and having the backing of God Himself, Christianity can fend for itself without the “restraint” of human government. But then the governor offered a rather chilling prediction:

It is apprehended that Jews, Mahometans, pagans, &c., may be elected to high offices under the government of the United States. Those who are Mahometans, or any others who are not professors of the Christian religion, can never be elected to the office of President, or other high office, but in one of two cases. First, if the people of America lay aside the Christian religion altogether, it may happen. Should this unfortunately take place, the people will choose such men as think as they do themselves. Another case is, if any persons of such descriptions should, notwithstanding their religion, acquire the confidence and esteem of the people of America by their good conduct and practice of virtue, they may be chosen. I leave it to gentlemen’s candor to judge what probability there is of the people’s choosing men of different sentiments from themselves (Elliot, 4:198-199, emp. added).

Does the Constitution allow Americans to elect to political office, or invite to conduct prayer in Congress, people who do not profess the Christian religion? Yes, it does. Would Americans ever actually do that? The Founders’ prediction: very unlikely and highly improbable. But if it ever were to happen—it would be most unfortunate! Indeed, inviting a Hindu to lead Congress in prayer is equally unfortunate.

Hindu deities on the Sri Mariamman Temple in Chinatown, Singapore. The blue-skinned, four-armed Vishnu (center right) has a thousand names that worshippers repeat as acts of devotion.

Governor Johnston then explained that, though each of the 13 states was populated heavily by professors of one or more of the various Protestant denominations, “there is no cause of fear that any one religion shall be exclusively established” (Elliot, 4:199)—further testimony to the fact that the single religion of the United States was almost entirely Christian (in the form of Protestant sects) to the exclusion of atheism and world religions such as Hinduism. But David Caldwell (also a minister) rose and reiterated the lingering concern that danger might arise:

In the first place, he said, there was an invitation for Jews and pagans of every kind to come among us. At some future period, said he, this might endanger the character of the United States. Moreover, even those who do not regard religion, acknowledge that the Christian religion is best calculated, of all religions, to make good members of society, on account of its morality. I think, then, added he, that, in a political view, those gentlemen who formed this Constitution should not have given this invitation to Jews and heathens. All those who have any religion are against the emigration of those people from the eastern hemisphere (Elliot, 4:199, emp. added).

In other words, Jews, pagans, and people from the eastern hemisphere (which certainly includes Hindus) would constitute a threat to the religious and moral foundation on which America was founded. They were right. After all, Hinduism is thoroughgoing pantheism. Orthodox Hindus are adamant that the nurture of cows lies at the core of Hindu dharma (a Sanskrit term that refers to the “right way of living” or the “correct understanding of nature”). The cow is aghanya—that which may not be slaughtered. While not necessarily worshipped as a god, Hindu scriptures, nevertheless, extol the cow as sacred (e.g., Rig veda viii, 102,15-16; vi, 28,1-8). World renowned Hindu Mahatma Gandhi insisted:

The sacred cow of India

Cow protection is the gift of Hinduism to the world…. I would not kill a human being to protect a cow, as I will not kill a cow to save a human life, be it ever so precious. My religion teaches me that I should by personal conduct instill into the minds of those who might hold different views the conviction that cow-killing is a sin and that, therefore, it ought to be abandoned (as quoted in “Sacred Cow…,” 2004, emp. added).

The Founders did not share such outlandish notions. They believed the evidence for the existence of the one true God of the Bible and the truthfulness of the Christian religion was decisive.

Mr. Spencer rose to reaffirm the same two reassurances asserted by Governor Johnston:

It is feared…that persons of bad principles, deists, atheists, &c., may come into this country; and there is nothing to restrain them from being eligible to offices. He asked if it was reasonable to suppose that the people would choose men without regarding their characters…. But in this case, as there is not a religious test required, it leaves religion on the solid foundation of its own inherent validity, without any connection with temporal authority (Elliot, 4:200, emp. added).

Again, the delegates were concerned about the nation remaining firmly Christian in its overall thrust, but they realized they could not force everyone to take a religious oath without creating conflict. Therefore, (1) they relied on the good sense of the American people to refrain from appointing to political office any who do not possess Christian character, and (2) they assumed Christianity could demonstrate its own credibility and superiority without any help from human government.

Governor Johnston brought the discussion to a close with an amicable summary of the mutual sentiments of the delegates, as reported in the following words:

The Bull Temple in Bangalore, the capital of Karnataka in south India, dedicated to Nandi, the celestial bull, the mount of Lord Shiva. Non-Hindus are not allowed in the temple.

He admitted a possibility of Jews, pagans, &c., emigrating to the United States; yet, he said, they could not be in proportion to the emigration of Christians who should come from other countries; that, in all probability, the children even of such people would be Christians; and that this, with the rapid population of the United States, their zeal for religion, and love of liberty, would, he trusted, add to the progress of the Christian religion among us (Elliot, 4:200, emp. added).

The Founders were walking a tightrope. On one hand, they did not want to be coercive in the matter of religion. They did not want to cram Christianity down anyone’s throat. They wanted America free of religious persecution. On the other hand, they understood that the truthfulness and superiority of the Christian religion was the essential platform on which America’s political institutions were poised. So they assuaged their fears by consoling themselves with the thought that the American people would forever have the good sense to retain Christianity as the central religion of the nation, and that they would refrain from inviting into their national councils and halls of government anyone who did not share those religious and moral convictions. These early Americans surely would be incredulous, bewildered, and disgusted if they were here to witness a Hindu on the floor of the U.S. Senate chanting a Hindu prayer to gods “which by nature are no gods,” “the work of men’s hands—wood and stone” (Galatians 4:8; 2 Kings 19:18). “Let all be put to shame who serve carved images, who boast of idols” (Psalm 97:7).

Brown, Jim (2007), “Hindu Shouted Down While Offering Opening Prayer for Senate Session,” One News Now, July 12, [On-line], URL: http://www.onenewsnow.com/2007/07/hindu_shouted_down_while_offer.php.

Burchfiel, Nathan (2007), “Hindu Prayer Will Open Senate Session in July,” CNS News, June 26, [On-line], URL: http://www.cnsnews.com/ViewCulture.asp?Page=/Culture/archive/200706/ CUL20070626a.html.

Elliot, Jonathan, ed. (1836), Debates in the Convention of the State of North Carolina, On the Adoption of the Federal Constitution (Washington, D.C.: Taylor & Maury), second edition, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/ammem/amlaw/lwed.html.

Franklin, Benjamin (1787), “Constitutional Convention Address on Prayer,” [On-line], URL: http://www.americanrhetoric.com/speeches/benfranklin.htm.

Haniffa, Aziz (2007), “U.S. Senate Opens with Hindu Prayer,” Rediff India Abroad, July 12, [On-line], URL: http://www.rediff.com/news/2007/jul/12zed.htm.

Jay, John (1890), The Correspondence and Public Papers of John Jay 1763-1781, ed. Henry Johnston (New York: Burt Franklin).

John, Arul (no date), “Facts about India,” [On-line], URL: http://aruljohn.com/india/.

Miller, Dave (2005a), “The Christianity that Made America Great,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2729.

Miller, Dave (2005b), “Deism, Atheism, and the Founders,” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/650.

Miller, Dave (2006), “A Muslim Now in Congress?” [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3141.

Miller, Dave (2007), “First Atheist in Congress,” Reason & Revelation, 6[5]:17,20-R, May, [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/3329.

Mish, Frederick, ed. (1986), Webster’s Ninth New Collegiate Dictionary (Springfield, MA: Merriam-Webster).

Rowland, Kate Mason (1964), The Life of George Mason 1725-1792 (New York: Russell & Russell).

“Sacred Cow, Divine Mother” (2004), Hinduism Today, April-June, [On-line], URL: http://www.hinduismtoday.com/archives/2004/4-6/16-17_vedas.shtml.

Story, Joseph (1833), Commentaries on the Constitution of the United States (Boston, MA: Hilliard, Gray & Co.), [On-line], URL: http://www.constitution.org/js/js_000.htm.

Washington, George (1788), “Letter to John Ettwein, May 2,” The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources, 1745-1799, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, George Washington Papers at the Library of Congress, 1741-1799: Series 2, [On-line], URL: http://memory.loc.gov/cgi-bin/query/r?ammem/mgw:@field(DOCID+@lit( gw290383)).

Washington, George (1779), “Speech to the Delaware Chiefs,” in The Writings of George Washington from the Original Manuscript Sources 1745-1799, ed. John C. Fitzpatrick, [On-line], URL: http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-new2?id=WasFi15.xml&images =images/odeng&data=/texts/english/modeng/parsed&tag=public& part=40&division=div1.

The post Hindu Prayer in Congress appeared first on Apologetics Press.

For example, take the notion of reincarnation, a belief that permeates Hinduism, Buddhism, and New Age philosophy, and thus characterizes the thinking of upwards of two billion people (for brief discussions of reincarnation, see Valea, 2006; “Recarnation,” 2007). Here is a sinister doctrine that robs those masses of their one and only opportunity to prepare for afterlife. Reincarnation is the idea that at death, all human souls (according to some, animals as well) simply “recycle” into another body on Earth, and that this rebirth process is repeated over and over again until the individual eventually reaches the ultimate spiritual condition—nirvana and enlightenment.

Such a viewpoint inevitably must bring a sense of false comfort to the individual who embraces it. He or she naturally is not overly concerned with moral behavior and life choices. After all, multiple opportunities to live life over again are forthcoming. Herein lays the tragedy. The fact of the matter is that a human being has but “one shot” at life (Miller, 2003). Every person lives but one life on Earth and then must face death and Judgment (Hebrews 9:27). At death, a person’s spirit enters the Hadean realm to await the final Judgment and is unable to return to Earth (read Luke 16:19-31; cf. Miller, 2005). Consequently, it is absolutely imperative for every human being to examine God’s Word (the Bible) to ascertain how life is to be lived in view of eternity (cf. Butt, 2003). Millions of people literally are squandering their one and only opportunity to prepare themselves to secure everlasting happiness, and so will be consigned instead to everlasting torment (Matthew 25:31-46). Any doctrine that softens a person’s will to be conscientious regarding morality and behavior is a sinister doctrine that ought to be exposed and repudiated (Ephesians 5:11; 1 John 4:1).

[NOTE: For an audio sermon on what happens when we die, click here.]

Butt, Kyle (2003), “Reincarnation and the Bible,” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/2298.

Miller, Dave (2003), “One Second After Death,” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/2244.

Miller, Dave (2005), “Afterlife and the Bible,” [On-line], URL: http://apologeticspress.org/articles/2672.

Valea, Ernest (2006), “Reincarnation: Its Meaning and Consequences,” [On-line], URL: http://www.comparativereligion.com/reincarnation.html.

“Reincarnation” (2007), Wikipedia, [On-line], URL: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reincarnation.

The post You Have Only One Shot appeared first on Apologetics Press.

Hindu scripture often is referred to collectively as the Vedas, a Sanskrit word meaning “knowledge” (from the root vid- “to know”; cognate to wit, wisdom). In one sense, Veda refers only to the most ancient writings of the Indo-Aryan community. This includes the four Vedic collections (samhitās): Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda, and the Atharva Veda. The samhitās consist primarily of odes to the gods; most resemble biblical psalms. On the foundation of these four venerable collections rests the remainder of vedic literature. To each samhitā are attached inspired commentaries: the Brāhmanas, Āranyakas, and the Upanishads. Thus, there are four traditions (Rig, Yajur, Sāma, Atharva) and four categories of text (Samhitās, Brāhmanas, Āranyakas, Upanishads) in the Veda proper.

The historical origin of the Vedas is unknown. Internal evidence suggests that they were written by Brahmin priests sometime between 1500 and 1200 B.C., though the ethnic persuasion of those priests and the ideas they recorded remain a mystery. Similarities between rituals and deities in the religion of Vedic Hinduism and that of Persia and ancient Europe have led some scholars to attribute the composition of the Vedas to Aryan migrants from central Asia. Other scholars acknowledge the Aryan influence, but credit indigenous North Indians with the production of the Vedas. Theories abound, and the issue has been politicized and is hotly debated, but insufficient linguistic and archeological evidence prevents satisfactory conclusions at the present.

The hymns themselves hint at their historical source. It seems that many were composed by mercenary poet-priests for wealthy patrons: several Vedic hymns describe transactions between composers and clients. “With wisdom I present these lively praises of Bhavya dweller on the bank of Indus; For he, unconquered King, desiring glory, has furnished me a thousand sacrifices” (Rig Veda 1.126.1). There are also prayers recorded for the well-being of the priests’ source of income: “O Agni, God, preserve our wealthy patrons with your succors” (Rig Veda 1.31.12). These hymns produced for individual patrons were probably then collected and edited by the Brahmin priests for use in the ritual sacrifice (Mitchell, 1897, p. 17). Over time, Vedas were assigned to different Brahminical families for preservation through memorization. The texts were transmitted orally for at least a thousand years before they were written down. Several methods of memorization were used so that the words and sounds would be preserved exactly; rote memorization was supplemented with complex mnemonic devices, such as ghanapātha (“dense text”), in which the order of words is ab, ba, abc, cba, abc, bc, cb, bcd, and so forth (Goodall, 1996, p. x). By this method, Genesis 1:1 would be memorized: in the, the in, in the beginning, beginning in the, in the beginning, the beginning, beginning the, the beginning God.

The Rig Veda is the most authoritative of all Hindu scripture, if not for its content, then for its great antiquity. The Rig Veda (“Veda of Hymns”) is among the world’s oldest literature—some scholars date its composition to 3000 B.C., though most estimate the final recension to have occurred in 1000 B.C. (Basham, et al., 1997, p. 522). Arranged in ten books, or mandalas, the Rig Veda contains 10,028 verses, and is about one and a half times the size of the New Testament. The six oldest mandalas are linked to six priestly families who composed, memorized, and handed down the hymns; books one, and eight through ten, are anthologies of hymns by various independent poet-priests, and were written later.

The Rig Veda resembles a hymnal more than a Bible. If pressed to compare the Rig Veda to Christian scripture, it would most closely parallel the Psalms, though without the historical and moralistic tenor. The Rig Veda assumes a common knowledge on the part of the reader as to the origin of the Universe and the identity of the gods (devas, cognate to divine and devotion), and, like our own church hymnals, contains no introduction or narrative framework to orient the reader. One could not pick up a copy of the Rig Veda and understand modern Hinduism or even the Vedic rituals without significant explanation.

The bulk of the songs in the Rig Veda are addressed to the chief gods Indra, Agni, and Soma as petitions for success in battle, protection, and material prosperity. This hymn addressed to the entire pantheon is typical of a vedic chant:

Not one of you, ye Gods, is small, none of you is a feeble child: all of you, verily, are great. Thus be ye lauded, you destroyers of the foe, you thirty-three Deities, the Gods of man, the Holy Ones. As such defend and succor us, with benedictions speak to us: lead us not from our fathers’ and from Manu’s path into the distance far away. You Deities who stay with us, and all you Gods of all mankind, give us your wide protection, give shelter for cattle and for steed (Rig Veda 8.30).

Though many gods are recognized (according to this passage, there are 33, but the number of names mentioned throughout the Veda exceeds that figure), each one is lauded as if it were the highest god, a phenomenon Max Müller called henotheism, and that some modern scholars call “serial monogamy” (Sarma, 2003b). These superlative descriptions inevitably overlapped, and in later passages the gods are identified with one another or with all. In time, the confusion led to the belief that the many gods and goddess were but manifestations of one indivisible transcendental Ultimate Reality. The pantheism of later texts is foreshadowed in a late Vedic passage: “To what is One, sages give many names—they call it Agni, Yama, Matarisvan” (Rig Veda 1.164.46).

At the heart of the Veda Samhitās lay the ritual sacrifice (yajñā). Like the Rig Veda, the Sāma Veda (“Veda of chants”) and the Yajur Veda (“Veda of sacrificial prayers”) served as liturgical manuals for the sacrifice; each of the three was used by one of the orders of Brahminic priesthood, a sacerdotal system similar in structure to the Mosaic system described in Numbers 4. The primary purpose of the collections of hymns was to “propitiate the gods by praises accompanying the offering of malted butter poured on the fire and of the juice of the Soma plant placed on the sacrificial grass” (Macdonell, 1917). The songs and chants and prayers of the Samhitās were read over the sacrifice as part of the ritual. Incidentally, the sacrifice was not performed for the atonement of sin, as was the Mosaic sacrifice, but to obtain magically the favor of the gods, and ultimately, salvation in heaven (svarga). The fourth Veda, the Atharva Veda (“Veda of the Fire Priests”), differs in content from the other three, and was not used in the sacrifice. Drawing on ancient folk material, the fourth Veda consists of spells against sickness, sorcery, snakebite, and bad dreams, as well as incantations to bring about love, good luck, rain, fertility, and a multitude of other things. It also includes instructions for wedding and funeral rites.

To each of the four Samhitās was appended a body of inspired commentary. The Brāhmanas (“exposition on the meaning of the sacred word”), the first layer of commentary composed about 900 B.C., are prose descriptions and explanations of various sacrificial rites. Named for the Brahmin priests who wrote them, the Brāhmanas wax philosophical—evidence that the priests wanted not only to enact, but to understand, the rituals they performed. Unfortunately, any profundity in the Brāhmanas is undercut by rambling mythology and asinine digressions. In the introduction to his translation of the Brāhmanas, Oxford Sanskritist Max Müller railed:

No one would have supposed that at so early a period, and in so primitive a state of society, there could have risen up a literature which for pedantry and downright absurdity can hardly be matched anywhere…These works deserve to be studied as the physician studies the twaddle of idiots and the raving of madmen. They will disclose to a thoughtful eye the ruins of faded grandeur, the memories of noble aspirations. But let us only try to translate these works into our own language, and we shall feel astonished that human language and human thought should ever have been used for such purposes. (as quoted in Robson, 1905, pp. 23-24)

The Āranyakas (“forest teachings”) followed the Brāhmanas without introducing much new material. Their name derives from the esoteric nature of the texts—the mystic teachings were handed down from teacher to disciple in the seclusion of the forests. The Āranyakas reflect an increasingly abstract conception of the sacrifice—the literal fire of the sacrifice began to be internalized and symbolically represented as the “fire” of digestion and the “fire” of sexual intercourse (for the fully developed doctrine, see Chāndogya Upanishad 5.18.2 and Brhadāranyaka Upanishad 6.2.13). The Āranyakas transition almost seamlessly into the final layer of Vedic commentary, the Upanishads, between 800-600 B.C. These books are seen as the fulfillment of the Vedas, and consequently are known as the Vedānta, the “end of the Vedas.” The Upanishads are the culmination of hundreds of years of reflection, and are much more rationalistic than the Vedas and Brāhmanas. Their influence is felt even to the present.

The Upanishads supply the basis of later Hindu philosophy; they alone of the Vedic corpus are widely known and quoted by most well-educated Hindus, and their central ideas have also become a part of the spiritual arsenal of rank-and-file Hindus, while the earlier Vedic texts remain largely the special reserve stock of priests and scholars (O’Flaherty, 1988, p. 2).

Upanishads (“sitting close to a teacher”) are, like the Āranyakas, secret teachings transmitted from guru to student. Unlike the Sāmhitas (the function of which was essentially restricted to sacrificial rites) and the other two commentaries (which expounded on those rites), the Upanishads expanded speculation to the entire Universe, especially the absolute basis of reality (brahman) and the self or soul (ātman). The most famous teaching of the Upanishads is “that you are” (tat tvam asi), which means that the essence of the self is the absolute. An early Hindu sage illustrated this by pointing to a hive of bees collecting nectar. As nectar is collected from many different plants and reduced by the bees to honey, he explained, so all souls are part of the larger, indivisible essence of being (Chāndogya Upanishad 6.9). The Universe is within the self, and the self is the Universe. Those who know this essential truth possessed great cosmic power. The Upanishadic sages realized that this power of knowledge far excelled the power of the sacrifice: if the soul is identified with the Universe, then whoever controls their own soul controls the cosmos. Sacrifice affected the gods only indirectly, but esoteric knowledge was the key to omnipotence (Edgerton, 1965, p. 29). These books also contain the seeds of the doctrine of transmigration of souls (samsāra), the laws of karma that govern the transmigration process, mental training associated with Yoga, and ascetic renunciation (Olivelle, 1996, p. xxiii).

Together these sixteen branches of literature are known as śruti, meaning “what is heard” (from the root sru-, “to hear”). It was “heard” by inspired sages who received this primary revelation from Brahma, the Supreme Lord. As divine revelation, śruti literature is considered to be “eternal, intrinsically powerful, and supremely authoritative” (Coburn, 1989, p. 119).

Despite the aura of holiness ascribed to the Vedas, the majority of Hindus have little access to these writings; they are massive, technical, and written in an archaic tongue. Much more familiar to the average Hindu are the colloquial smrti writings, a secondary set of scriptures considered to be of human authorship and subordinate to divinely delivered śruti. “While the śruti texts have retained their authority as holy sources for Brahmanic ritual, philosophical speculation, and recitative mantras, the functional scriptures of the masses in India have been other texts, most of which are categorized as smrti rather than śruti” (Graham, 1989, p. 139). Smrti (“what is remembered”) explains and elaborates the śruti, making them more understandable and meaningful to the general population—it is an “easier” form of truth. A mythological story of the origin of the theatrical art describes the role of smrti:

[The gods asked:] “Since it is not proper that the Vedas be heard by those of low birth, you should create a fifth Veda for all classes of people.”

[Brahmā replied:] “I shall compose a fifth Veda, called the Theatrical Art, based on history, which will convey the meaning of all the Scriptures and give an impulse to the arts. It will give good advice and moral lessons, rich in meaning, that lead to good conduct, prosperity, and fame. It will show the line of proper conduct to the future world” (Nātya Śāstra 1.4.13-15).

Smrti texts were intended to simplify the Vedas for the masses, and to elucidate Vedic teachings in a practical way. Smrti was written for the people’s admonition, to illustrate dramatically through the lives of gods, sages, and kings the proper path of good conduct (dharma).

The Samhitās speak of salvation through ritual sacrifice, a ceremony only the wealthiest patrons could afford; the Upanishads refer to salvation through knowledge, an avenue inaccessible to all but the most educated men. Smrti offered scriptures and a means of salvation through devotion (bhakti) to people of all castes and both genders. In this category of scripture, Hinduism attained its most mature stage. Most prominent among the smrti texts are the Purānas, the Epics, the Dharma literature, and the Agamas, as well as other miscellaneous works.

Purānas (“ancient lore”) are narrative works in the itihāsa (“thus verily happened”) tradition, a mythistorical genre describing the creation of the Universe, the origin of evil, and a history of Indian civilization focusing on legendary kings, sages, and gods. Woven into the central narrative are various religious instructions concerning caste laws, customs, ceremonies, pilgrimage, and temple construction. If the Vedic samhitās are like the Psalms, then the Purānas resemble the historical books of Samuel, Kings, and Chronicles. The Bhāgavata-Purāna is one of the most popular of the eighteen principle Purānas, describing in an entertaining and endearing fashion the childhood of Krishna, who would later become one of the most worshiped gods in the pantheon. The mythological stories of young Krishna stir feelings of adoration within the devotee, the pursuit of which can lead to salvation. There also exist eighteen lesser Purānas of basically the same narrative structure, called Upapurānas, and numerous other books called sthāla Purānas, which record legends of particular locations and temples. The eighteen most prominent Purānas alone contain about 375,000 verses—approximately the size of two World Book encyclopedias.

Also part of the itihāsa are the great epic poems, the Rāmāyana and Mahābhārata, written between 400 B.C. and A.D. 200. Together containing about 124,000 verses, the epics comprise some of the longest literary works in human history—five times as long as the Bible. The Rāmāyana tells the story of Rama, a god-king who rescues his kidnapped wife Sita with the help of the monkey king. The Mahābhārata relates a civil war between two groups of cousins that occurred in the mythical age before the present. Characters in both epics exemplify proper conduct for kings, soldiers, and persons wishing to attain rebirth. Many Hindus consider these epics to be the Veda of the masses, the books that “in all of history…have influenced the largest number of people for the longest time” (Krishnamurthy, 1999).

Book six of the Mahābhārata contains the Bhagavad Gītā, the “Song of the Lord.” This short text (about the size of John’s gospel), though technically part of the smrti literature, is popularly considered to be among the holiest revelation (Coburn, 1989, p. 116). Many compare it to the New Testament as the definitive piece of Hindu scripture. Ghandi read it once daily. Written by an unknown sage, the Gītā tells the story of Arjuna, a general in the civil war on the eve of battle, and his chariot driver, Krishna, who is actually an incarnate form of God. Arjuna expresses his reservations about fighting his cousins to Krishna, who encourages him by explaining the principles of dharma and revealing himself as the celestial lord.

About the same period as the sages Vyāsa and Valmiki were composing the Epics to provide concrete examples of the dharmic code of conduct, the more formal dharma shāstras were being assembled. A shāstra is simply a systematic treatise, though dharma is more difficult to translate: the word “subsumes the English concepts of ‘religion’, ‘duty’, ‘law’, ‘right’, ‘justice’, ‘practice’, and ‘principle’ ” (Doniger and Smith, 1991, p. xvii). Dharma shāstras are thus books of law and duty. In this category, the Laws of Manu have been very influential, as have the more concise Laws of Yājñavalkya. The Laws of Manu alone is as long as the four gospel accounts, yet it is just one treatise among about 5,000. In many respects these books resemble the Levitical code, minus the consistency and ethicality. The agamas, also known as the Tantras, are sectarian manuals for the worship of particular gods. They cover the three major traditions—Śaivism, Vaishnavism, and Śaktism—and are usually associated with heterodox rites involving sexual intercourse and the consumption of alcohol and meat.

These are only the most influential parts of the smrti category: there are many more. According to Coburn, “the very concept of smrti is that of an authoritative, but open-ended Word” (1989, p. 120). The size and difficulty of the current body of Hindu scripture is compounded by the fact that authoritative works are added to the canon on a regular basis. “[T]o see Hinduism in proper perspective we must remember that from the time of the Buddha till now, the composition of religious literature in India has been almost uninterrupted and that almost every century has produced works accepted by some sect as infallible scripture” (Eliot, 1968, 1:lxxiv). Surveying this vast, ever-expanding collection of Hindu sacred writings, it is no wonder that Sir William Jones remarked: “Wherever we direct our attention to Hindu literature, the notion of infinity presents itself ” (as quoted in Londhe, 2001).

HINDU CONCEPTION OF THE VEDAS

While recognizing the role that sages have had in the preservation and transmission of the Vedas, Hindus generally reject the notion that the Vedas are the production of human ingenuity. Swami Vivekananda, the man credited with introducing Hinduism to the West, explained the Hindu outlook on revelation to the 1893 World Parliament of Religions:

The Hindus have received their religion through revelation, the Vedas. They hold that the Vedas are without beginning and without end. It may sound ludicrous, that a book can be without beginning or end. But by the Vedas no books are meant. They mean the accumulated treasury of spiritual laws discovered by different persons at different times. Just as the law of gravitation acted before its discovery by humanity, and would continue to act if all humanity forgot it, so is it with the laws that govern the spiritual world. The discoverers of these laws are called Rishis, and we honor them as perfected beings (as quoted in Londhe, 2001).

Vivekananda summarily stated the orthodox Hindu view of scripture: scripture is eternal, it is impersonal, and it is much more than letters written on a page. These qualities apply primarily to śruti scripture, but depending on one’s definition of veda, they may also qualify other scripture.

The Mīmāmsā school, a sect devoted to Vedic exegesis, established these principles over two thousand years ago in the Pūrva Mīmāmsā Sūtras (c. 200 B.C.). There they affirmed the Vedas to be eternal (nitya) and impersonal (apauruseya). To understand these two propositions, insight must be gained into the Hindu conception of Veda. As Vivekananda pointed out, the Vedas are more than a mere book—they are eternal knowledge, without author, beginning, or end. The Pūrva Mīmāmsā Sūtra likewise asserts that “the sacred Sanskrit-language Scripture known as the Veda is not a ‘book’ to be read, nor a source of information about a world exterior to itself ” (Clooney, 1987, p. 660). One 18th-century pundit characterized Veda as “that which pertains to religion; books are not Veda” (Vedam est, quidquid ad religionem pertinet, vedam non sunt libri) [Graham, 1989, p. 139]. These increate truths have occasionally been perceived by humans and recorded in books, but the Vedas are much more than what is written. Vedic knowledge hangs in the atmosphere as a sort of ether exuded by the gods; the truth needs only to be grasped by enlightened disciples whose heightened senses allow them to perceive it. This is why the most sacred Vedas are called śruti—they have been heard by holy men. Hence the description of Vedas as sound vibration in the air:

I [Krishna] personally establish the Vedic sound vibration in the form of omkara within all living entities. It is thus perceived subtly, just like a single strand of fiber on a lotus stalk. Just as a spider brings forth from its heart its web and emits it through its mouth, the Supreme Personality of Godhead manifests Himself as the reverberating primeval vital air, comprising all sacred Vedic meters and full of transcendental pleasure (Bhāgavata-Purāna 11.21.38-39).

Krishna (a primary Hindu god, conceived as a manifestation of Vishnu) declares that the Vedas are within. They are the “reverberating primeval vital air” that must be heard. Many seek the truth in the hope that they might grope for it and find it, though, according to this passage, it is not far from each one of us. Though Christians believe scripture to be the complete, written record of specific truths revealed by God, Hindus consider scripture to be the whole of universal truth that may be discovered. Only fragments of this everlasting knowledge are revealed in the written Vedas (Daniélou, 1991, p. 280).

Vivekananda also stated that the Vedas are eternal, even preexisting the gods. This means something significantly different to a Hindu than it would to a Western Christian with his linear notions of time and space. To the Hindu, time and space exist only in relation to perception; when perception is altered (through religious rites such as meditation) and the Cosmos is seen as it really is, distinctions in time and space melt away into the Absolute. “Absolute time is an ever-present eternity” (Daniélou, p. 15). Thus, the Vedas and the gods both were created, but they both have also always existed. It is not inconsistent in the Hindu mind to hold that the Vedas are uncreated—that they were delivered to brahman at the dawn of creation by the “source of all beings” (Śvetāśvatara Upanishad 6.18)—and to believe that they were created from fire, wind, and Sun by the god Prajāpati (Chāndogya Upanishad 4.17.2). These sophisticated beliefs developed over time, however, and some of the most ancient hymns attribute revelation to the highest god. “The Rig, Sāma, Yajur and Atharva, became manifest from the Lord, along with the Purānas and all the Devas [gods] residing in the heavens” (Atharva Veda 11.7.24). The scripture and the gods sprang from the “Lord,” Brahma, who is the manifestation of the Absolute principle of the Universe. Later passages elaborate this same theme. The influential Bhagavad Gītā grounds all things, including the Vedas, in Brahma: “From food are born (all) creatures; from rain is the production of food; rain is produced by sacrifices; sacrifices are the result of action; know that action has its source in the Vedas; the Vedas come from the Indestructible [the Supreme Being]” (3.15). Likewise, the Brahmānda Purāna depicts a four-headed Brahma emitting the four Vedic books from his four mouths (1.2.8). Ultimately, the Vedas derive from the Absolute Being, the Immense One. This Absolute god-principle did not create the scriptures, but as eternal truth they are part of his essence. They are thought to have co-existed with the Absolute, and pre-existed in the Absolute. He created the gods and manifested the truth of his presence to them; they in turn created the written books of the Veda for the humanity they also made. The eternal Vedas were thus received by the gods, who entrusted them to humans.

According to the Brhadāranyaka Upanishad, the method of transmitting the Vedas from heaven to Earth is similar to the biblical conception described in 2 Timothy 3:16, wherein Scripture is described as being “god-breathed.”

As clouds of smoke billow from a fire lit with damp fuel, so indeed this Immense Being has exhaled all this: Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sāma Veda, the Atharva-Āngirasa, histories, ancient tales, sciences, hidden teachings (Upanishads), verses, aphorisms, explanations, and glosses – it is that Immense Being who has exhaled all this (2.4.10).

God, known here as the Immense Being, breathed out the Vedas, not into specific men, but into the Universe. There the scripture remains, as smoke lingering from an extinguished fire, waiting to be perceived by humans. Seven men served as interlocutors between the Supreme and humanity—men of extraordinary perspicacity who distinguished themselves by their asceticism and acts of renunciation (see Mitchiner, 2000). These men were not chosen to be inspired; they were gifted sages with keen insight into spiritual matters. Their sensitivity allowed them to perceive those eternal truths that permeate the fabric of space and time. The revelation they perceived was not confined to a particular time or place, and if it were to be forgotten, other sages would comprehend those truths again. The seven, called rsis, or “seers,” perceived the śruti vibrating in the Universe and recorded what they heard/saw. Coburn notes that the use of two metaphors—hearing and seeing—is intentional; it represents an attempt to “convey the holistic and supremely compelling nature of that experience” (1989, p. 109). According to Hindu tradition, the rsis recorded their experience because of the coming Age of Kali, a dispensation when men would be hardened against spiritual matters. The seven rsis, along with Vyasa, the compiler of the scripture, are generally considered to be perfected beings, greater than humans but less than divine.

The eternal Vedas came from the impersonal Absolute. They were not personally delivered from God to man, but impersonally manifested. The Veda was not received by humans, as was the Bible, but perceived by sages. Though impersonal, the Hindu philosophy of the word is not unlike that of the Bible. One of the Brahmanas states: “[In the beginning] was the only Lord of the Universe. His Word was with him. This Word was his second. He contemplated. He said, ‘I will deliver this Word so that she will produce and bring into being all this world’ ” (Tandya Maha Brahmana 20.14.2). Though written centuries before, this passage sounds remarkably like John 1:1: “In the beginning was the Word, and the Word was with God, and the Word was God.” Just as Christ, the Word, is the ground of all that exists, so Hindus believe that the impersonal Veda is the source of the Universe. The Atharva Veda reads: “From the bosom of the sacred Word he brought forth the world” (4.1.3). A paraphrase of a modern Hindu prayer states: “Those who are versed in the Vedas know that the universe is the transformation of speech. It was out of the Vedas that this universe was first evolved” (Eickler, p. 24). Maharishi Mahesh Yogi (of transcendental mediation and Beatles fame) explained this process in more detail:

Ātmā, the Self, is the ground from where the steps of evolution begin. The first step is Śruti, the speech value of expression, Veda. The second step of evolution is from the speech level to the material level where the frequencies of sound, frequencies of speech in the Language of Natural Law, evolve into frequencies of matter which construct the whole physiology of the ever-evolving material universe, Viśva (Eichler, p.1).

The material Universe did not come into being by omnipotent fiat, or the intentional will of a purposeful Deity, but by spontaneous evolution from the eternal Veda. The sounds of the Veda (the Veda is sound) became the fabric of the Cosmos. This view is not foreign to Christianity; by the Word, “all things were created that are in heaven and that are on earth, visible and invisible” (Colossians 1.16). Yet in contrast to the impersonal Hindu word, the Christian Word is a living and personal Being, Who willed the Universe into existence for His own purposes, Who delivered a temporal revelation to humanity for the express purpose of imparting saving knowledge, and Who revealed Himself to man as the ultimate divine knowledge.

It is important to remember that the majority of India’s population has been illiterate for the greater part of its history (as has been most of the world). As a result, Hindus typically have relied on the spoken word to a greater degree than any written text. “The Veda was not primarily a written text, but the powerful speech that came forth from the mouths of Brahmans” (Carpenter, p. 63). Words and sounds were very important in the Vedic tradition, and even in the earliest Vedas the smallest syllables and intonations were thought to be of divine origin. “In the actual sounded syllables of the Veda lie the points of contact with transcendent reality” (Graham, p. 138). Vāc is the female personification of speech, and might be compared to the personification of Wisdom in Proverbs 4 (also perceived as feminine). The relationship between Vāc and Dame Wisdom is interesting, though perhaps a more accurate comparison from the Hindu perspective is the Word of John 1:1. Just as that passage equates the Word with God, several vedic passages divinize the Veda in the form of Vāc. Depicting Vāc as both a personification of the Vedas and as their progenitor, the Aitareya Āranyaka states: “She ‘enters into the seers.’ She gives power and intelligence to those she loves. She is the ‘mother of the Vedas,’ the consort of the lord-of-heaven (Indra), containing all the worlds within herself. ‘Hence Vāc is everything’ ” (3.1.6). Alain Daniélou defined speech (Vāc) as the ground and being of the Universe:

Speech has the power to evoke images and ideas. The process through which a thought, at first indistinct, gradually becomes definite and exteriorizes itself is similar to the process through which the divine thought becomes the universe. The difference is only one of degree. If our power of thought, our power of expression, was greater, things we speak of would actually appear. With our limited powers only their image is evoked. Speech can therefore be represented as the origin of all things. The cosmos is but the expression of an idea, a manifested utterance. Supreme Divinity can be represented as the causal word (sabda-brahman) [1991, p. 38].

The words of the Veda are intrinsically powerful. Every syllable is sacred, and the repetition of the scripture is auspicious in and of itself. Eliot notes that it “is sacred sound not a sacred book which is venerated” (1968, 1:lxxi). The books of the Veda are cherished not for their great wisdom or moral instruction, but for the holy sounds contained within. Understanding the text is unnecessary; scriptures’ value lies in its oral repetition. The Veda’s “sanctity often appears to be inversely related to comprehensibility” (Coburn, p. 112). Peculiarly, it is not the message of the Vedas that transcends time, but the words themselves, even “the particular sounds and their precise verbal order in the corpus (including the variants)” (Lipner, 1994, p. 46).

Christians may be skeptical of this oral approach to scripture, but they would do well to remember the supremacy of the spoken word in their own religion. The spoken word indicates presence, while the written word implies absence. Christ, as the Word, was present among us, and he represents the highest form of revelation. His ascension to the right hand of the Father necessitated the written words of the New Testament so that the disciples might be “guided into all truth” (John 16:13). Those written words are “living and powerful” (Hebrews 4:12), and reflect the continuing presence of God in the person of the Holy Spirit. It is not the immediacy of the Word that sets Christianity apart from Hindu scripture, however, nor the respect for the spoken word, but the content.

The Bible contains clear statements that must be affirmed prerequisite to salvation. Some are of a historical nature, such as “Jesus was born of a virgin in Bethlehem.” Others are ethical: “Love your neighbor as yourself.” There are also what might be characterized as theological or doctrinal truths, which include “Jesus is Lord” and “There will be a day of judgment.” The power of these statements of scripture derives from a comprehension of, and conformation to, those truths—not from their repetition. For instance, Jesus gave the model prayer (Matthew 6:9-13) to His disciples as an example of prayer that was pleasing to God. To repeatedly recite the exact words of that prayer today would be of little use because the effectiveness of the prayer is linked to a comprehension of the words uttered as well as compliance with certain moral requisites (such as forgiving others their trespasses, Matthew 6:14-15).

Though the Hindu scriptures are immensely significant to the tradition, they exert surprisingly little influence in the religious life of the average Hindu devotee. Deepak Sarma stated in an introductory lecture on Hinduism that “all Hindus orient themselves in relation to the Vedas” (2003). This is not to say that all Hindus accept the scriptures. It might accurately be said that atheists orient themselves in relation to the Bible, yet their position is opposite that of a Christian. Similarly, Hindus are defined by the degree to which they accept or reject the Vedic scriptures. Some renounce the holy books on principle: most notable among these is Gautama Buddha, an Indian prince who abandoned the Vedas because they reinforced the caste system. Many reject them for more pragmatic reasons; Lipner observed that “in practice most Hindus have had no direct access to the Vedas, either in written form or aurally” (p. 26). The mammoth size and obsolete script of traditional Sanskrit scriptures renders them inaccessible to the majority, and even vernacular translations are unintelligible to a predominately illiterate population. This is true among the clergy as much as the laity—some of the greatest Hindu practioners of the past centuries, such as Sri Rāmakrishna, spoke not a word of Sanskrit. “Even in the most orthodox domains, reverence to the Vedas has come to be a simple ‘tip of the hat’ made in passing to an idol with which one intends no longer to be encumbered” (Renou, as quoted in Carpenter, 1992, p. 57). Gupta lamented: “In the present age we take pride in the mere mention of the Vedas without caring to know about their contents” (1979).

Nonetheless, the majority’s abandonment of the Vedic scriptures does not diminish the significance of the Vedas to the religion. In the Laws of Manu, the Veda is held in highest regard:

The root of religion is the entire Veda, and (then) the tradition and customs of those who know (the Veda), and the conduct of virtuous people, and what is satisfactory to oneself. Whatever duty Manu proclaimed for whatever person, all of that was declared in the Veda, for it contains all knowledge. So when a learned man has looked thoroughly at all of this with the eye of knowledge, he should devote himself to his own duty in accordance with the authority of the revealed canon. For the human being who fulfils the duty declared in the revealed canon and in tradition wins renown here on earth and unsurpassable happiness after death. The Veda should be known as the revealed canon and the teachings of religion as the tradition. These two are indisputable matters, for religion arose out of the two of them. Any twice-born man who disregards these two roots (of religion) because he relies on the teachings of logic should be excommunicated by virtuous people as an atheist and a reviler of the Veda (Manusmrti 2.6-11, emp. added).

The sage Manu elaborates the hierarchy of authority in this passage: Vedas or śruti literature, secondary or smrti literature, and one’s own preferences. The Vedas are the most authoritative texts, and ought to be called the “revealed canon.”

Contemporary Western and Indian scholars also acknowledge the centrality of the Vedas to Hindu religion. Brian Smith emphasized the role of scripture when he defined Hinduism as “the religion of those humans who create, perpetuate, and transform traditions with legitimizing reference to the authority of the Veda” (as quoted in Flood, 1996, p. 226, n. 26). Lipner points out that “in theory at least, the Vedas are the source of saving knowledge” (1994, p. 26, italics in orig.). Sarvepalli Radhakrishnan, Hindu philosopher and first president of India, identified the Vedas as “the standard of thought and feeling for Indians” (as quoted in Sawhney, 1999). One might expect something as important as the “source of saving knowledge,” the “standard of thought and feeling,” and the “legitimizing reference” of a world religion to be well defined, yet, in the words of Wendy O’Flaherty, a revealed canon as mentioned in the Laws of Manu “is a concept with little meaning for a religion as pluralistic as Hinduism” (1988, p. xi). Lipner added that “the boundaries of the Vedic scriptures as they have come down to us are not particularly neat” (1994, p. 42). Jayaram, a Hindu scholar, admitted that Hinduism “does not rely exclusively upon any particular source” (2000), and Princeton professor Donald Lopez noted that it has “no single text that can serve as a doctrinal point of reference” (1995, p. 5).

As noted above, Hindus do not unanimously accept any single text, or group of texts, as the authoritative body of eternal truth. Judaism, Christianity, and Islam each cherish a holy book containing everything that pertains to life and godliness, but Hindus have no analogous monolithic text. According to Mahatma Gandhi, “Hinduism does not rest on the authority of one book or one prophet, nor does it possess a common creed” (1991, p. 120). As frustrating as this may be from a comparative religions standpoint, the lack of a definitive text is a source of pride for many Hindus who feel that tolerance and pluralism are the primary themes of the twenty-first century incarnation of the religion. Absolute scriptures lead to dogmatic beliefs, they reason, and dogmatic beliefs lead to strife and violence.

Nonetheless, it already has been shown that most Hindus have a high regard of the śruti texts, most broadly referred to as the Vedas. If any canonical scripture exists, it is the Vedas, which have been considered a gauge of orthodoxy (see Manusmrti 2.6-11, quoted above). During the Indian renaissance of the 19th century, various reform movements such as the Brāhmo Samāj and the Ārya Samāj sought to return to the Vedas as the ground of Hindu spirituality. Nolini Gupta, a Hindu scholar, summed up the view of one such school of Hinduism: “He who defies Veda is an atheist, a non-Hindu, an untouchable and a non-Aryan. All the various religious systems and scriptures of the Hindus look upon the Veda as the sole authority. What is inconsistent with the Veda is false and unacceptable” (1979). Veda here is used in the sense of a canon, yet that canon is left undefined.

Traditionally, the Vedas includes either the four Samhitās or all sixteen branches of texts (Sarma, 2003a). The texts themselves, however, list only the Rig Veda, Sāma Veda, and the Yajur Veda as canonical; originally, the priests rejected the Atharva Veda from the trayi vidya, or “triple veda” (Bhagavad Gītā 9.20; Manusmrti 1.23; 4.125). Limiting scripture to a few books tends to be the exception, not the rule; books are more often added to the Veda and deemed sacred. In the Chāndogya Upanishad (a text within the śruti collection), the Purānas and Itihāsa are described as the “fifth veda” (7.1.2). Vallabha, a 15^th-century theologian, proposed a fourfold canon embodying Veda, Brahma Sūtra, Bhagavad Gītā, and Bhāgavata Purāna (Lipner p. 60). The Law Book of Yājñavalkya established the Vedas, the Pūranas, the philosophical system called Nyāya, the exegetical school of Mīmāmsā, treatises on moral duty (dharmaśāstras), and the six classes of work that are auxiliaries to the Veda (pronunciation, prosody, grammar, word-derivation, astronomy, and ritual) as “the fourteen bases of knowledge and moral duty” (1.3). A more contemporary interpretation of Veda comes from the International Gita Society, which considers not only Hindu texts, but also the Bible and the Qur’an as scriptures from the Supreme Being. Coburn points out that “śruti must be seen as ongoing and experientially based feature of the Hindu religious tradition” (1989, p. 112). Many other passages could be noted, each having a different opinion on what texts are sacred and should thus be listed under the name “Veda.” How does the average Hindu view this dilemma? “The average man – even the average priest—regards all these as sacred works without troubling himself with distinctions as to śruti and smriti, and the Vedas and Upanishads are hardly within his horizon” (Eliot, 1968, 1:lxxv).

Coburn, in his essay “ ‘Scripture’ in India,” expands further on the Hindu conception of scripture. He argues that Indian scripture exceeds written texts—the written word is only one revelatory medium. “[T]he holy words that are śruti must be seen alongside other transforming, sacramental activities, such as philosophical argumentation, the worship of the divine image form, and the highly nuanced moods (bhavas) of Krishna devotees” (p. 112). He also cites Diana Eck’s book, Darśan, in which she elaborates the thesis that Hindu images (which some would refer to as idols) are actually “visual scriptures” (1998). David Carpenter suggests further that the conduct and judgment of those Brahmin priests who have memorized the Vedas is considered Vedic, “even when they went beyond the known Vedic teachings” (1992, p. 62).

WHY THE BIBLE IS SUPERIOR TO HINDU SCRIPTURE

The corpus of Hindu scripture is enormous. A person could spend a lifetime sorting through the millions of pages of sacred and semi-sacred texts. Even the most orthodox sections of scripture are many times larger than the Bible. Clarke, in an essay on Hindu scripture, defended his limited treatment of the Vedas with this description of his subject: “How large, how difficult to understand! So vast, so complicated, so full of contradictions, so various and changeable, that its very immensity is our refuge!” (1875, p. 81). Recall that the four Veda Samhitās are about the size of the Old Testament, and the Upanishads number over 100. Among the smrti literature, the Epics are five times the length of the entire Bible, each of the 18 principle Puranās is about the size of the Old Testament, and over 5,000 texts of varying length belong to the dharmaśāstra tradition. The Bible seems concise in comparison, containing only 23,314 verses in the Old Testament and 7,959 verses in the New. An average Western library or bookstore stocks some abridged compilation of the Vedic Samhitās, the 13 principle Upanishads, and the Bhagavad Gītā, but only the most specialized libraries carry full versions of even the major scriptures. A Hindu equivalent of the Gideon missionary society would have to donate an entire library of books to hotels rather than a single volume to each room. Of course, Hindus have little interest in proselytizing, so it is not really a problem.

If the size were insufficient to deter an honest seeker of truth, the incomprehensibility of the scripture certainly would. The Bible was written originally in Hebrew, Aramaic, and Greek. Though Bible students rarely master the original languages, sufficient lexical aids exists so that the original meaning can be understood with relatively little difficulty. Hindu students are not so fortunate. Since the Vedas were delivered from an impersonal source (the “Absolute”) there can be no original meaning. “[T]he Veda has no author, no meaning beyond the words and the sacrificial actions themselves; one cannot appeal to a pre-verbal intention to get beyond the words” (Clooney, 1987, p. 660). Incidentally, as Clooney points out in his essay, postmodernists find this approach to understanding texts refreshingly in line with their own views.

English translations are available for the primary scriptures, yet even the most careful translations are difficult to understand. Most English translations of the Bible are on the reading level of a 6-12th grader, yet the same cannot be said of the Vedas. “Many [of the Vedas] are written in a style which even educated men find very difficult to understand; and, if they have to be studied in the original, only a very small part of them can possibly be mastered by one man” (Mitchell, 1897, p. 247). Archaic Sanskrit (also called Vedic), the language of the Rig Veda, is a dead language, and inaccessible to most Hindus. Other scriptures are written in classical Sanskrit, Prakrit, Tamil, and other regional dialects. The possibility of interpretation is further hampered by the belief that the Vedas consist of sacred sound, not written text.

Were the language difficulties to be sorted out, the problem of incomprehensibility would remain. Hindu scripture contradicts itself time and time again. One might expect works separated by thousands of years to disagree (and they do), but these contradictions are found even within individual texts. There are logical contradictions, conceptual contradictions, and even factual contradictions. This may be explained partially by the Hindu conception of scripture, as explained by Eliot: “The Hindu approaches his sacred literature somewhat in the spirit in which we approach Milton and Dante. The beauty and value of such poems is clear. The question of whether they are accurate reports of facts seems irrelevant” (1968, 1:lxxi). Apparently, contradiction is not regarded as evidence against the Vedas’ divine origin. Hindu scripture confirms this suspicion, and actually embraces the contradictions. The Laws of Manu recommends that both sides of a contradiction in the Veda be accepted as authoritative: “But where the revealed canon is divided, both (views) are traditionally regarded as law; for wise men say that both of them are valid laws” (Manusmrti 2.14). Regarding the contradictions inherent in the Upanishads, the collection of texts considered by Olivelle to be the “vedic scripture par excellence of Hinduism” (1996, p. xxiii), Robson remarked: “It is hard to say what philosophical opinion might not be supported from the Upanishads, for the most contradictory statements find a place in them” (1905, p. 28). Likewise the Puranās, so holy as to be called “the fifth veda” (Chandogya Upanishad 7.1.4), are “for the most part intensely sectarian; one denounces beliefs and rites which another enjoins” (Mitchell, p. 260). Coburn stated that, when it comes to Hindu scripture, “sanctity often appears to be inversely related to comprehensibility” (p. 112).

Hindu scripture is for all practical purposes useless to the average Hindu for these and other reasons. This, of course, assumes that all Hindus have access to the scripture. Traditionally, Hindu society is divided into four castes, the Brahmin (priestly class), Kshatriya (ruling class), Vaiśya (merchant class), and Śūdra (outcastes). The first three classes are known as the twice-born, and only the males of those classes are allowed to read the Vedas. All women and males of the Śūdra class are excluded because of their “impurity” (Manusmrti 2.164-172). These restricted groups do have access to the smrti writings and devotional literature, but the most sacred śruti texts are forbidden. The religion itself restricts to a select few the scripture that purportedly contains saving knowledge.

There is much morally reprehensible material within the Vedic literature. One 19th-century writer, speaking specifically of the Puranās, underlined the true nature of the Hindu scripture: “The instructions which it professes to give are useless, where they are not scandalous and criminal. The only things clearly to be understood, are the profane songs, the obscene ceremonies, and the other indecencies connected with the prescribed festivals” (as quoted by Goodall, 1996, p. xxxviii). The immoralities endorsed by Hindu scripture range from racial prejudices and rigid social hierarchies to rape and murder.

For instance, the earliest Vedic texts, which are traced back to the Aryan invasion of the Indian subcontinent, reflect the racial biases of the invaders. It seems that the Aryans were a fairer-skinned people of Persian descent, whereas the indigenous peoples (Dāsas) whom they subjugated were of a darker skin color and Negro-Australoid features. One prayer directed to the warrior god Indra petitioned him to “give protection to the Aryan color” (Rig Veda 3.34.9). Another passage lauds Indra’s victory over the dark-skinned natives: “He, much invoked, has slain Dāsas and Simūs [dark-skinned natives], according to his will, and laid them low with arrows. The mighty Thunderer [Indra] with his fair-complexioned friends won the land, the sunlight, and the waters” (Rig Veda 1.100.18). According to Mitchell, the “language in which the Vedic poets speak of these enemies is uniformly that of unmingled, vehement hatred” (1897, p. 19). Critics might observe that the Old Testament is also guilty of ethnic cleansing; however, the Israelite battles were drawn over moral lines, not ethnic or racial (see Bass, 2003). Though the historical picture is unclear, it seems that the Dāsas were incorporated into the Aryan social hierarchy as the lowest class (Rig Veda 10.90.12). Evidence for this comes from the Sanskrit word for class, varna, which means “color” (cognate to the English varnish).

More disturbing than the Vedic treatment of race are the pervasive references to sex, and the its role in the religious ritual. The Kāma Sūtra of Vatsāyayana is one of the most infamous Hindu texts. Known as the “Aphorisms on Love,” or more popularly as the “Sex Manual,” the Kāma Sūtra celebrates sexual love (Kāma is the god of love, in many ways similar to Cupid). In addition to explicit information for use between husbands and wives, there are also sections entitled “Concerning the Wives of Other People” and “Concerning Prostitutes,” both providing advice on how to procure such forbidden fruit. The Kāma Sūtra is but one text among many. One entire category of smrti literature known as Tantras is dedicated to the worship of the goddess principle, Śakti. The esoteric teachings within that body of texts describe various sexual rites that represent the spiritual union of the worshipper’s soul with the goddess. Violence and sexual perversion penetrates even the most orthodox scripture. The Brhadārankyaka Upanishad, for instance, condones rape:

Surely, a woman who has changed her clothes at the end of her menstrual period is the most auspicious of women. When she has changed her clothes at the end of her menstrual period, therefore, one should approach that splendid woman and invite her to have sex. Should she refuse to consent, he should bribe her. If she still refuses, he should beat her with a stick or with his fists and overpower her, saying: “I take away the splendor from you with my virility and splendor” (6.4.9,21).

Bestiality is likewise advocated. A particularly solemn rite for the early Vedic religion was the horse sacrifice. Though it probably was performed rarely, it is mentioned frequently in the Vedic commentaries. Note one section from the Śatapatha Brāhmana: “Then they draw out the penis of the horse and place it in the vagina of the chief queen, while she says, ‘May the vigorous virile male, the layer of seed, lay the seed’; this she says for sexual intercourse…” (13.5.2.1-10). Examples such as this could be multiplied. To the list of atrocities in the Vedic scripture may be added human sacrifice (Aitaraya Brahmana 7.13-18), as if pornography, bestiality, rape, racism, inequalities were not enough.

The Bible is the authentic, authoritative, and final revelation of the true God. Though written over a period of 1,400 years by forty very diverse men on two continents, The Book is completely unified and free from error. A single theme is expanded upon throughout—the redemption of man through the Messiah. The Bible was confirmed by predictive prophecies and the miracles of the inspired men who wrote it. The moral laws contained within are more reasonable and consistent than that of any other religious or naturalistic system. By contrast, the Hindu scriptures have no final, objective authority; according to one Hindu, “all scriptural knowledge is lower knowledge” (Jayrama, 2000). Subjective religious experiences are generally preferable to written texts. Hindu scripture contains little that is noble, just, pure, lovely, virtuous, or praiseworthy. Allegedly a progressive revelation, Hindu scripture contradicts itself both within particular texts and as a body of literature. The Bible, also a progressive revelation, never corrects itself, but only compliments and fulfils that which has been written. Different Hindu scriptures present completely different paths to salvation (liberation)—karma-yoga (the path of action), jāña-yoga (path of knowledge), and bhakti-yoga (path of devotion). The Vedas contain no predictive prophecy and offer no miracles to confirm the revelation supposedly sent from God. Thus the Hindus have no accessible ground of truth, no normative written word, and no objective moral or religious instruction.

REFERENCES

Basham, Arthur, J.A.B van Buitenen, and Wendy Doniger (1997), “Hinduism,” The New Encyclopaedia Britannica (Chicago, IL: Encyclopædia Britannica), 15th edition.

Bass, Alden (2003), “The Warring Destruction of the Canaanite People,” Apologetics Press [On-line], URL: http://www.apologeticspress.org/articles/2277.

Bishku, Tridandi and Swami Bhakti Vijnana Giri (no date), “The Supremacy of Srimad Bhagavatam over the Vedas,” Sri Narasingha Chaitanya Matha [On-line], URL: http://www.gosai.com/dvaita/madhvacarya/srimad-bhagavatam.html.

Carpenter, David (1992), “Language, Ritual and Society: Reflections on the Authority of the Veda in India,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 60[1]:57-77.

Clarke, James Freeman (1875), Ten Great Religions: an Essay in Comparative Theology (Boston, MA: James Osgood and Company).

Clooney, Francis X. (1987), “Why the Veda has No Author: Language as Ritual in Early Mīmāmsā and Post-Modern Theology,” Journal of the American Academy of Religion, 55[4]:659-684, Winter.

Coburn, Thomas (1989), “ ‘Scripture’ in India,” Rethinking Scripture: Essays from a Comparative Perspective, ed. Miriam Levering (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press).

Daniélou, Alain (1991) The Myths and Gods of India (Rochester, VT: Inner Traditions).

Doniger, Wendy and Brian Smith (1991), The Laws of Manu (London: Penguin).

Eck, Diana (1998), Darśan: Seeing the Divine Image in India (New York: Columbia University Press).

Edgerton, Franklin (1965), The Beginnings of Indian Philosophy (Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press).

Eichler, Detlef (no date) “The Churning of Vedic Knowledge,” [On-line], URL: http://sanskrit.safire.com/Knowledge.html.

Eliot, Charles (1968 reprint), Hinduism and Buddhism: An Historical Sketch (New York: Barnes & Noble).

Flood, Gavin (1996), An Introduction to Hinduism (Cambridge: Cambridge University Press).

Gandhi, M.K. (1991), Hindu Dharma (New Delhi: South Asia Books).

Goodall, Dominic (1996), “Introduction,” Hindu Scriptures (Berkeley, CA: University of California Press).

Graham, William (1989), “Scripture as Spoken Word,” Rethinking Scripture: Essays from a Comparative Perspective, ed. Miriam Levering (Albany, NY: State University of New York Press).

Hopkins, Thomas (1971), The Hindu Religious Tradition (Encino, CA: Dickenson).

Jayaram, V. (2000), “Hinduism in the Context of Texts,” Hinduwebsite [On-line], URL: http://www.hinduwebsite.com/hinduintrod3.htm.

Krishnamurthy, V. (1999), “Ancient Scriptures of Hinduism,” Gems from the Ocean of Hindu Thought, Vision, and Practice (Mumbai, India: Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan), [On-line], URL: http://www.geocities.com/profvk/itihasa.html.

Lipner, Julius (1994), Hindus: Their Religious Beliefs and Practices (London: Routledge).

Londhe, Sushama (2001), “Hindu Scripture,” A Tribute to Hinduism, [On-line], URL: http://www.atributetohinduism.com/Hindu_Scriptures.htm.

Lopez, Donald, ed. (1995), Religions of India in Practice (Princeton, NJ: Princeton University Press).

Macdonell, Arthur (1917), “Excerpts from A Vedic Reader for Students,” Hinduwebsite, [On-line], URL: http://www.hinduwebsite.com/sacredscripts/vedicreader.htm.

Mitchell, J. Murray (1897) Hinduism Past and Present (Oxford: The Religious Tract Society).

Mitchiner, John (2000) Traditions of the Seven Rsis (New Delhi: New Delhi).

O’Flaherty, Wendy Doniger (1988), Textual Sources for the Study of Hinduism (Totowa, NJ: Barnes and Noble).

Olivelle, Patrick (1996), “Introduction,” Upanisads (Oxford: Oxford University Press).

Robson, John (1905) Hinduism and Christianity (Edinburgh and London: Oliphant, Anderson, and Ferrier), 3rd edition.

Sarma, Deepak (2003a), “Hinduism(s) and the Vedic Foundation,” Yale University, September 9.

Sarma, Deepak (2003b), “The Upanisads,” Yale University, September 16.

Sawhney, Simona (1999), “Remembering the Veda: Accumulations of Interest,” The Literature and Culture of the Indian Subcontinent in the Post-Colonial Web, [On-line], URL: http://www.postcolonialweb.org/india/religion/hindu/sawhney1b.html.

Viswanathan, Ed (1999) “All Details about Hindu Culture,” Indolink Forum, [On-line], URL: http://www.indolink.com/Forum/Parents/messages/623.html.

The post An Investigation of Hindu Scripture appeared first on Apologetics Press.

As the history of its name demonstrates, unity in Indian religion has been superimposed by outsiders, first by the Muslims, then the Christians, and much later by the British colonialists who through their censuses unintentionally reified the South Asian peoples under that banner. It has only been in the last couple of centuries that the Indian people have embraced the name Hindu as their own, though two Indians rarely use the word with the same meaning. Some scholars suggest that it is more appropriate to speak of “Hinduisms” than to risk giving off a false sense of unity.

The genesis of Hinduism is nearly as elusive as its contemporary definition. Unlike Islam, which began with Mohammed, or Judaism, which began with Moses, Hinduism has no founder, nor any traditional time or place of origin; it emerges from the jungle as a continually evolving religious system. Scholars debate the primary source of what would become the Hindu religion, though all agree that several cultures had an influence. Basham, Buitenen, and Doniger suggest that ancient Hinduism evolved from at least three antecedents: “an early element common to most of the Indo-European tribes; a later element held in common with the early Iranians; and an element acquired in the Indian subcontinent itself ” (Basham, et al., 1997). The oldest of these influences are the symbols and deities indigenous to the Indus valley, part of the ancient and abstruse Dravidian culture. Archaeologists date this magnificent society to the third millennium B.C., making it one of the oldest known civilizations. This early date also places the religion of the Indus over a thousand years before the writing of the Old Testament, in the time of the Patriarchal Age. If the archaeologists’ dating is correct, the Indus civilization was established soon after the Tower of Babel incident. The archaeological sites along the Indus have revealed many terra-cotta figures resembling gods and goddesses in the Vedic literature, some of which are still worshipped. Though religious figurines abound, temples inexplicably are absent from the Indus cities. Because the Indus valley script has yet to be deciphered, much of the Dravidian culture and religion remains a mystery.

The Christian must ask how the Hindu religion fits into the biblical narrative. Islam grew out of Judaism and Christianity, and Buddhism derived from Hinduism; Hinduism is the only major religion lacking an adequate explanation as to its origin. No substantial texts exist beyond 1000 B.C., and the texts after 1000 do not contain narrative. The earliest of these is the Rig Veda, which is nothing but a collection of praise hymns to the gods rather than the record of a people as in the Bible. Unlike western cultures, which tend to view time as a linear progression, the eastern religions generally reckon time to be cyclical. As a result, they emphasize the eternal over the transient and historical. Scholars are able to piece together the earliest Indian religion only through archaeology, clues in the later texts, and by extrapolating from existing traditions. Using these same resources, Christian scholars can reinterpret the available data so that the Hindu religion fits into a biblical scheme of world history. Reconstructing the ancient history of any civilization is tentative, however, and all such projects are educated speculations at best.

Bible believers would expect all civilizations to post-date the universal Flood, which destroyed every human save the family of Noah (Genesis 7). The peoples that sprang from Noah’s sons then spread over the Earth, though the Bible is silent as to when and how. Though it is possible that some colonies were established, the text indicates that most of the people stayed together in the land of Shinar (Genesis 11:2), where they began construction on that fateful tower. The hubris of Noah’s descendents kindled the wrath of God, Who, after He had confused their languages, “He scattered them abroad over the face of all the Earth” (Genesis 11:9). Josephus wrote that “each colony took possession of that land which they lighted upon and unto which God led them; so that the whole continent was filled with them, both the inland and maritime countries” (Antiquities I.v.1). From this point the Old Testament records the history of the children of Abraham; the events of the rest of the world can be known only through secular history. We must try to trace the origin of Hinduism back to an original belief in the true God—a belief passed down from the progeny of Noah. In a passage particularly descriptive of the Indian religion, Paul argues that the ancient Gentiles knew God, but they did not “retain their knowledge of God,” instead changing “the glory of the incorruptible God into an image made like corruptible man—birds and four-footed animals and creeping things” (Romans 1:28,23).

Evidence for the historical digression from the worship of Jehovah God to the worship of nature and nature-gods is found in the ancient texts and myths of South Asia. The earliest Hindu literature, the Rig Veda, speaks often of “the Creator,” of “the One,” a Great God over all the other gods. He is called Varuna, and is closely related to the Zoroastrian god Ahura Mazdā (“Wise Lord”) and the Greek god Uranus (Ourania). Though an insignificant sea god in the current pantheon, Varuna was a prominent god in the ancient system, and the subject of many hymns in the Rig Veda. Zwemer writes that Varuna is “the most impressive of the Vedic gods. He is the prehistoric Sky-god whose nature and attributes point to a very early monotheistic conception” (1945, p. 86). This god is an ethical god, capable of great wrath or merciful forgiveness of sins. Note this passage from the Vedas:

I do not wish, King Varuna,
To go down to the home of clay,
Be gracious, mighty lord, and spare.
Whatever wrong we men commit against the race
Of heavenly ones, O Varuna, whatever law
Of thine we here have broken through thoughtlessness,
For that transgression do not punish us, O god (Rig Veda VII.lxxxix.1-3).

Varuna is already on the decline by the time the Vedas were committed to writing; Indra, a warrior god, takes prominence in the later Vedic period. Yet even then, Varuna is qualitatively different from Indra and all the other gods that follow him in the Vedic literature; he is less anthropomorphic and more majestic (cf. Zwemer, p. 88). Other Hindu deities act like humans in the same way as the Greek gods, yet Varuna is above that. It would seem that this god embodies many of the qualities of Jehovah, albeit diluted and removed by many hundreds of miles and years.

The myths of ancient Hinduism likewise contain echoes of the distant past similar of Genesis. There are several different, though not exclusive, creation myths in the Vedas (and even more in later literature), but in one of the earliest writings, Indra is the maker of all. “Who made firm the shaking earth, who brought to rest the mountains when they were disturbed, who measured out the wide atmosphere, who fixed the heaven, he, O folk, is Indra” (Rig Veda II.xii.2). This version of creation by a personal god is more similar to the Old Testament account than to later Hindu formulations. Hammer remarks, “In the early creation myth Indra was seen as the personal agent in creation, bringing existence out of non-existence. In later speculation the ‘One God’, described in personal terms, gives way to ‘That One’—the impersonal force of creation” (1982, p. 175). As time passed and the true God was forgotten, the creation myths became more fantastic, involving giant snakes and four-mouthed gods growing out of lotus flowers (Basham, et al., 1997).

In addition to the creation myths, a story persists in the epic tradition (written between 300 B.C.-A.D. 300) of a great flood. It was so great that “there was water everywhere and the waters covered the heaven and the firmament also” (Mahabharata III.clxxxvi). The hero of the story is Manu, who is analogous to Noah in the Hebrew story. One day a fish approached Manu and asked him for protection in exchange for a blessing (later tradition identifies the fish as the god Vishnu). Manu helped the fish, who gives him this warning:

The time for the purging of this world is now ripe. Therefore do I now explain what is good for thee! The mobile and immobile divisions of the creation, those that have the power of locomotion, and those that have it not, of all these the terrible doom hath now approached. Thou shall build a strong massive ark and have it furnished with a long rope. On that must thou ascend, O great Muni, with the seven Rishis and take with thee all the different seeds which were enumerated by regenerate Brahmanas in days of yore, and separately and carefully must thou preserve them therein (Mahabharata III.clxxxvi).

Manu alone survived the great flood, and from him the world was repopulated. The connection between the Hindu story and the Genesis account is strengthened by etymological ties between the name “Noah” and “Manu” (Sage, 2004).

The evidence from India’s earliest literary traditions reveals that Hinduism is a corruption of true religion. Though for most of its existence Hinduism has been an extremely pluralistic religion—being influenced by several cultures originally, and later by surrounding religions (Islam, Buddhism, and Christianity)—it appears to have grown out of monotheism. The renowned Sanskritist of Oxford, Max Müller, wrote: “There is a monotheism that precedes the polytheism of the Veda; and even in the invocations of the innumerable gods the remembrance of a God, one and infinite, breaks through the mist of idolatrous phraseology like the blue sky that is hidden by passing clouds” (as quoted in Zwemer, p. 87).

REFERENCES

Basham, Arthur, J.A.B van Buitenen, and Wendy Doniger (1997), “Hinduism,” Encyclopaedia Britannica, 20:519-558.

Hammer, Raymond (1982), “Roots: The Development of Hindu Religion,” Eerdmans’ Handbook to the World’s Religions (Grand Rapids, MI: Eerdmans).

Sage, Bengt (2004), “Noah and Human Etymology,” [On-line], URL: http://www.icr.org/pubs/imp/imp-083.htm.

Schoeps, Hans-Jachim (1966), The Religions of Mankind (Garden City, NY: Doubleday).

Zwemer, Samuel (1945), The Origin of Religion (New York: Loizeaux Brothers).

The post The Ancient Origins of Hinduism appeared first on Apologetics Press.