I very much enjoyed reading Stephen Van Eck's "Hare Jesus: Christianity's Hindu Heritage" (TSR, Summer 1994, pp. 8-9). Twenty years ago, I was a member of a fundamentalist Hindu sect, the International Society for Krishna Consciousness, aka the Hare Krishnas. I have continued a critical interest in Hindu literature and philosophy and more recently a similar interest in Christianity. It seems to me that Van Eck makes a good initial case for the incorporation of Hindu ideas into early Christian writings. There are very many doctrinal similarities between Christianity and Hinduism that help substantiate the theory of religious borrowing. A great many of these can be found in Christ and Krishna: The Path of Pure Devotion (Moundsville WV: Palace Publishing, 1987) written by Kirtananda Swami Baktipada (who may still be serving time for racketeering). However, we must remember that deep down, members of these two religions believe that the other religion has got it all wrong!
I do wish Van Eck had better documented the specific verses from the Upanishads that correspond to the biblical verses he cited. Also, some of Van Eck's scriptural comparisons seem to stretch the limits of confirmatory reasoning. For example, he compared the Hindu belief that the soul is smaller than a "mustard seed" to the mustard-seed-of- faith reference in Matthew 17:20, and he compared the notion of man's not living by bread alone but by "every word that proceeds from the mouth of God" (Matt. 4:4) to the Hindu claim that "man does not live by breath alone, but by him in whom is the power of breath."
It should be obvious to those who have knowledge of both religions that the doctrinal and scriptural differences far outweigh the similarities, even if one compares the modern "monotheistic" Vaisnava literature of Krishna with Christianity. Consider other comparisons Van Eck makes. First, he states that Revelation 1:8 ("I am Alpha and Omega, the beginning and the ending, saith the Lord, which is, and which was, and which is to come, the Almighty") is extremely similar to the Bhagavad Gita verse 10:21 ("I am the Self, O Gudakesa, seated in the hearts of all creatures. I am the beginning, the middle, and the end of all beings"). I've cited more of the verses than did Van Eck to show that although there are similarities, there are also some notable differences. A major difference not evident in the verses is the Bible's singular and linear view of time with a definite beginning and end versus the Hindu spiral view of time that involves a recurring creation and destruction.
Second, consider the comparison Van Eck makes between the Biblical assertions that "God is no respecterof persons" (Rom. 2:11) and the Bhagavad Gita verse(9:29) where Krishna states, "I envy no one, nor am I partial to anyone. I am equal to all." Yes, there is a similarity but a crucial difference lies in Krishna's impartiality to "sarvabhutesu," that is "to all living entities," not just humans! Hindus believe that all animals and plants have souls containing the quality but not quantity of God. Certainly, Christianity did not borrow this concept. Finally, consider Van Eck's comparison between 2 Peter 3:8, "But, beloved, be not ignorant of this one thing, that one day is with the Lord as a thousand years, and a thousand years as one day," and the BG 8:17 verse, "By human calculation, a thousand ages ["yuga" or millenniums] taken together is the duration of Brahma's one day. And such also is the duration of his night." The difference is that the BG verse doesn't say 1000 years are one day for God; it says 1000 millenniums are one day!
Nevertheless, it seems reasonable that some transfer of ideas, analogies, and practices occurred between these cultures. It is clear that the Bible is a conglomeration of myths (see Randel Helms' Gospel Fictions, Buffalo, NY: Prometheus, 1989), but the source of these myths is still open to scholarly debate. While it is appealing to attribute Biblical ideas to Hinduism, it becomes circular only if, as Stephen Van Eck's article promotes, we try to confirm that the persons who wrote the Bible borrowed some of their ideas from Hinduism. This possibility deserves further attempts at both confirmation and falsification.
Some functional similarities between Judeo-Christian and Eastern religions exist and may facilitate the involvement of Americans in Eastern religions or "cults." In both traditions, there is a general opposition to drug and alcohol use, except in religiously prescribed rituals. They both promote a general attitude that makes sex a sinful focus. Western religious sects have many similar rituals such as chanting and praying that seem equally effective in turning off the rational mind in order to attain some "higher state of being."
These religions prescribe the separation of oneself psychologically, if not physically, from both the material world and the nonbelievers in it, and they prescribe and proscribe certain thoughts and behaviors.Finally, there are the doctrinal similarities, such as the valid ones mentioned by Van Eck and Baktipada, as well as many stories that offend common sensibility and describe God's violation of natural laws and sane human ethics. Thus, if one believes that some god will solve the problems of the world and that the prevailing religions or philosophies are ineffective, then one may "discover the Truth" from some imported religious cult. The result of such conversions is that one's own problems and the problems of the world are inverted into blessings or magically erased by the unconscious (see Edmund Cohn's The Mind of the Bible- Believer and John Schumaker's Wings of Illusion: The Origin, Nature and Future of Paranormal Beliefs, both published by Prometheus Books, 1988 and 1990). One final note: I'd like to compliment Van Eck on his criticism of the assertions made by some authors about the similarities between Krishna and Jesus. For example, some have said Krishna was "crucified," but the Upanishads say he "disappeared" and is waiting for us in a spiritual abode that appears as boring as heaven. I'd like to add my criticism to those writers who perpetuate the myth that Krishna was born on December 25th. This is not Krishna's birthday according to scripture, nor is it when Hindus celebrate Krishna's "appearance." This is the birthday that Christians stole from the Persian sun god, Mythra, and adopted for Jesus! It seems that some authors, in their attempt to show a common origin for religious myths, tenaciously adopt misinformation to make their case. We must remember to be critical and always check our sources.
(Jim Dew, 138 lakewood Gardens, Madison, WI 53704-4661;
e-mail
jimdew@macc.wisc.edu)
