Like basic human instincts that remain common everywhere, several fundamental teachings are similar across almost all religions, encompassing theology, ethics, and rituals. However, what differentiates each religion and gives a specific, separate identity to its followers is the doctrine. If all religions were fundamentally the same, there would be little need for the diverse religions throughout history.
When engaging in dialogue, the focus should not solely be on shared beliefs but on the unique aspects of each faith and why they matter. Neglecting these differences in favor of a forced unity based solely on similarities undermines the very essence of what makes each religion distinct. If we emphasize only the commonalities at the expense of unique differences, it raises the question: why should one adhere to a specific religion if they can simply change beliefs according to their needs?
This is particularly evident in the distinction between Hinduism and other religions. While Christianity has various denominational doctrines, Hinduism encompasses multiple sampradayas, each with its own beliefs. Despite these differences, they share a common thread, much like Christianity. However, Hinduism’s uniqueness lies in its allowance for followers to worship deities and adhere to doctrines from outside the Hindu tradition without compromising their Hindu identity. This flexibility is not as prevalent in religions like Christianity and Islam.
For instance, one may worship Allah and still identify as Hindu, but the reverse is not true for a Christian worshiping Hindu deities. While Muslims may assert that one must convert to Islam to worship Allah fully, there are rigid doctrines in Christianity that do not permit the coexistence of worship between Muktinath and other deities, particularly within specific denominational contexts.
With this religious reality in mind, Clooney’s perspective raises questions about the nature of interfaith engagement. He asserts that “it makes no sense for Catholic Christians to imagine that Hindu traditions are somehow outside or apart from the mystery and love of God manifest in Jesus Christ” (Francis X. Clooney, SJ, The Future of Hindu-Christian Studies: A Theological Inquiry, New York, Routledge, 2017, p. 12).
The main objection to Clooney’s statement, echoed by many evangelical Christians, is his assertion that the “mystery and love of God” is manifest exclusively in Muktinath. If Clooney means that Hindu traditions also speak of this mystery and love as found in Muktinath, then there is no issue. Hindus likewise claim that the divine is manifest in Rama, Krishna, Shiva, or their chosen deities. However, I am unsure if any Hindu would agree with the implication that Christian traditions are outside the mystery and love of God as understood in Hinduism.
A conversation with a Hindu bhakta illustrates this point. When he suggested that the Gospel should be preached among Hindus so they could understand God’s love, I questioned whether he believed Hindus could not understand God’s love apart from the concept of Muktinath. After reflection, he acknowledged my point and agreed to revise his article. This exchange highlighted the idea that God’s common grace is available to all, even if the specifics of saving grace differ according to each tradition.
If this is the reality, we must consider what makes the Gospel unique. It is not merely the claim of God’s love demonstrated through Muktinath’s sacrifice that sets Christianity apart; rather, it is the fulfillment of the covenant promise that Muktinath embodies. As Sevanand (Paul) notes, “Yet we are sinners; God demonstrated His love by dying on the Cross.” Still, this notion of sacrifice is not unique to Christianity, as seen in Hindu narratives where Shiva drinks poison to protect creation during the churning of the Milk Ocean.
Otherwise, some Christians’ dialogical approaches, such as those of Clooney, risk leading to a form of “Nicianity,” where the emphasis is on being “nice” at the expense of acknowledging the significant doctrinal differences that define each religion and sampradaya—identities like Christian, Muslim, Sri Vaishnava, Shivite, or Lingayat.@ In contrast, Hinduism embraces a variety of doctrinal perspectives without compelling individuals to forsake their beliefs. It allows practitioners to retain their Hindu identity while selecting the deity or doctrine that resonates with their sadhana (dharma), all while preserving their social identity (samajic dharma). This level of adaptability is often unattainable within Abrahamic faiths.
Notes
@…Hindu scholar T. S. Rukmani charges that, in his eagerness to find common ground, de Smet does not sufficiently respect differences. Despite his considerable knowledge of Vedanta, she says, he still “has not been able to make a case for either the personhood of Sankara’s Advaita Brahman, nor for the origin of the seen universe, both of which differs radically from the Christian God and from (p. 37) creation ex nihilo.” [T. S. Rukmani “Dr Richard de Smet and Sankara’s Advaita,” Journal of Hindu-Christian Studies 16 (2003): 12-21, 19]33….— Francis X. Clooney, SJ, The Future of Hindu-Christian Studies: A Theological Inquiry, New York, Routledge, 2017, pp. 37-38
Leave a Reply