Lauren Simerlink Honors Reading Conference Professor A.

Pryor 17 October 2013

Theories of Human Nature: Hinduism vs. Christianity Are people spiritually strong enough to work himself into Heaven? Or are they too weak to do so? Questions like these are what divide Hindus and Christians on their views of human nature. Their perspectives differ on whether humans are, from birth, primarily good or evil and whether humans are more or less valuable than animals. Despite both religions differing views, they do however, concur on other subjects such as humanitys orientation as communal beings, and whether people are spurred principally by emotions, logic, or a combination of both. These diverse perspectives must all be carefully considered because when synthesized, they can be instrumental in understanding universal human nature. Whether these two religions agree or disagree on these subjects is largely determined by which denomination they are a part of. There are many different denominations of Hinduism and Christianity, each of which has different beliefs. For this reason, the outlooks proposed, while they are agreed upon by most of these sects, may not be representative of all views.

Notwithstanding the diversity each religion has within itself, Hindus and Christians share various concording views, some of which pertain to beliefs that are central to these two religions. One such view concerns whether humans are innately good or evil. Hindus are of the belief that that individual human character is based entirely on a persons actions. This view is buttressed by the sage Yajnavalkya who asserts that what a man turns out to be depends on how he acts and conducts himself (Stevenson 43) meaning that people are neither good nor evil when they are first born. Everyone remains neutral in terms of nature until they act, only then are their thoughts and actions manifested. Also, because an individual is defined by the sum of his or her actions, people are able to alter themselves by changing what they do. This Hindu concept is not at par with the Christian approach, which teaches that humans have a dual nature of good and evil within themselves. When humans were first created, they were perfect because they were created by a flawless, holy God. However, when Adam and Eve disobeyed God by eating the fruit they were forbidden to eat, they lost this state of innocence, thus ushering sin into the world. Sin, which is the act of disobeying Gods will, now taints the nature of all human beings ("Christian). As a result of this, Gods image and inborn pureness remain, but are now in contention with sin. According to Christian views, humankind is stricken with a dual nature that juxtaposes good and evil within peoples souls. This does not mean that the good and evil cancel each other out, but rather that

they are combined so that all people have the potential to choose which nature they want to follow. From these two models, one can see that the primary differences between the Christian and Hindu views on the good or evil nature in humans is that the former believes that a dualistic nature manifests itself through a persons actions, while the latter suggests that a person has no nature until his or her actions express it. To further expatiate, Christians hold that good and bad coexist within a person, but he or she has the option to choose which he or she acts on. Hindus, on the other hand, claim that there is no good or evil in a person unless it has first been manifested through his or her actions. Despite their differences, both theories offer great insight into the complex issue of whether people are defined by their actions or if their actions define them. Another major concept of human nature that Hindus and Christians disagree on is whether human nature is God- instilled and resistant to change or a pliable product of the environment. This is the age-old argument of nature vs. nurture. Generally, religions believe that the nature part of a persons personality does not come merely from genetics, but is also God-endowed. However, many adherents of these same religions confess that certain life events and the general process of maturing can modify personality. Hindus believe that people are born with characteristics according to their castes, the socio- economic groups Indian people are born into and generally

remain in. This indicates that human nature is pre-destined. In the Bhagavad Gita, one of the holy texts of Hinduism, it says there is no being on earth or among the gods in heaven free from the triad of qualities that are born of nature. The actions of priests, warriors, commoners and servants are apportioned by qualities born of their intrinsic being (Bhagavad Gita 18.40) (Bussanich).Also according to the Bhagavad Gita, since people are born with all the qualities they will ever have, they cannot expect to be able to change their lives. Each person is born with traits according to his or her caste. Individual nature depends fully on which caste a person is born into. A peasant will have qualities fitting for a peasant and a king will have the traits of a king. Essentially, this theory holds that no one has control over what kind of personality he or she has because he or she is born with it. While there is room for some personal growth, self- improvement is contained within these nature- created boundaries. Thus, thought patterns, behaviors, and emotions are apportioned to each person and remains the core of his or her personality until he or she dies. Contrary to the Hindu argument that personalities are pre-determined, Christianity endorses a blend of nature and nurture (Napier). In fact, scripture commands new converts to put off your old self, which belongs to your former manner of life and is corrupt through deceitful desires, and to be renewed in the spirit of your minds, and to put on the new self (Ephesians 4:22-24). According to

Christian teachings, when people decide of their own own volition to follow the Christian doctrine the outlook they were born with must be replaced that with one that is more compatible with Christian values. A noticeable change in personality ensues as a result of conversion (Napier) so that any convert is a new creation. The old has gone and the new has come (2 Corinthians 5:17). The fact that this change is heavily emphasized throughout the New Testament demonstrates how firmly Christians adhere to the idea that while people are born with some traits, they are capable of revising who they are when they so desire. The concept of human potential for change underscores how Christians and Hindus differ in their views on human nature. Hindus consider personality to be pre-determined according to ones caste, while Christian teachings allude to the view that all people, regardless of the traits they are born with, can change their personalities and form new natures and identities for themselves. Although Christianity and Hinduism diverge on viewpoints pertaining to the nature of personality, they both agree that disposition affects the way people make decisions. However, even though they both agree that temperament plays a role in the decision- making process, they disagree about whether people are ruled primarily by emotions or logic. The Hindu canon teaches that people are essentially ruled by their inborn desires. As the great Hindu sage Yajnavalkya once said, a man resolves in accordance with his desire, acts in accordance with his resolves, and

turns out to be in accordance with his action (Stevenson 43). Hindus are convinced that before people are born, they are endowed with unique personalities and the innate desires which accompany it. From the time they are born until the day they die, they try to fulfill those desires. The manners in which people attempt to satisfy these yearnings reveal their characters. However, they are not entirely carnal and impulse- driven beings. Before humans are born, they are also given dharma, the inborn moral code people live by. Dharma, like the Western concept of the conscience, works in conjunction with emotions to regulate behavior (Brahmeshananda). The interactions between raw emotion and dharma lead Hindus to believe that human actions are controlled by a mixture of compulsion and judgment. Similar to the Hindu perspective, Christians are certain that mankind is controlled by the interaction between reason and emotions. Theologians have classified the levels of emotions in their relation to reason. The first category is known as motus primo primi, which consist of strong emotions that rise unbidden as a result of an unforeseen event. Next are the motus secundo primi. These are feelings that people can regulate if they so choose (New Catholic Encyclopedia 194). Lastly, there are motus secondi, which are described as disordered emotions that are deliberately willed (New Catholic Encyclopedia 194). Motus primo primi emotions may temporarily override logic, which has lead Christians to the

conclusion that people are, in part, ruled by feelings because there are certain cases where an event may trigger such a rise of feelings that logic alone cannot control. Consequently, at these times people will tend to act according to their moods whether these actions seem logical or not. Although reason and emotion may not always go hand in hand, they heavily impact each other in the behavior of humans. These emotions and the human ability to control emotions are often said to be what separates people from animals, who, instead of regulating their emotions, are controlled by them. The fact that animals do not have as much control over what they do, as well as their lack of the ability to objectively reason, has led to differing views concerning whether or not animals are as important as humans. This difference is shown very strongly in Christian and Hindu teachings. Hindus endorse the idea that atman fills all creatures in equal measure and so all forms of life are equally valuable. Atman is often defined by the Hindus as pure consciousness, but could be better explained as the God within all living things. Hindus believe that God, known as Brahman in their culture, actively inhabits all forms of life in the form of atman. Atman, being the inner God, is the core of existence (Stevenson 40). All living creatures, from ants to kings, are connected through it. On the most basic level, all creatures are one because they are all filled with the same soul, which is

why Hindus hold animals lives as equally valuable regardless of their size, usefulness, or cleanliness. The Christian view values life in all forms but places greater importance on human life as a result of the special significance humans have in the story of creation. In the Bible God says, Let usput him [humans] in command of all the fishes in the sea, and all that flies through the air, and the cattle, and the whole earth, and all the creeping things that move on earth (Genesis 1:26). The special privilege of having dominion over all creatures marks how adamantly Christians believe that humans are superior to animals. The value Christians believe humans have over animals is again emphasized in the phrase God created man in his image (Genesis 1:27). This unique state of being molded after God is evidently reserved for humankind, as nowhere in the Bible does it say that animals were made in Gods image. Therefore, humans created with characteristics that set them apart from all other living creatures and make them more valuable because they are closer to God (Le Troquer). Even though both religions value animals to a degree, their opinions about animals importance are very different as Hindus believe that animal life is just as precious as human life, whereas Christians consider humans to be more important than animals. Another discourse between these religions is the discussion of whether humans are community- oriented or solitary beings. Hindus adhere to the idea that

all living creatures are connected through atman. Since atman is shared by all forms of life, humans are naturally relational creatures. People were created as part of a whole that encompasses every living thing in the world; therefore they cannot help but crave fellowship. Unfortunately, out of ignorance, humankind tends to think that all are separate beings so that while really we are kin to the immense universe, we spend our lives overwhelmed and blinded by the limited projects of our own ego (Stevenson 43). In reality, they connected to all other beings through atman and so suffer feelings of isolation and disquiet when they do not acknowledge this. Individuals are not meant to be merely connected to others, but must also acknowledge the connection. Otherwise they will not understand what they are; souls in communion with the whole universe. As such, people cannot be at peace unless they understand that at the utmost core of being, there is no individuality because all life is infused with Brahmans spirit. The idea of human connectivity is also present in Christianity. The Christian religion takes the stand that above all there is communion Participation in society is necessary for being fully human (Bowen 127). Christians believe that humans are meant to be in communion with each other because at the beginning of time, God made Adam and saw that he needed a companion for his joy to be complete and gave him Eve (Genesis 2:18) so that both could enjoy companionship like they were meant to. God put the need for intimacy in the

blueprint of human psyche, which heavily affects their views of community and fellowship not only within a church, but in general life. Christians, like the Hindus, surmise that humans function best in sodality with others. Even so, one must keep in mind the two fundamental differences of these religions beliefs regarding humankinds need for amity. Hindus believe that humans are relational because they all share atman, while Christians on the other hand believe humans are social because quite simply, God made people to be relational (Le Troquer). Although Hindu and Christian views dissent on the reasons for craving intimacy, the practical application of their beliefs are the same as in the end, they both point to the idea that people need each other. As important as previous discussions may have been, what is perhaps one of the most important religious debates of all time revolves around if people can enter Heaven simply through doing good works, or if they need divine intervention in the form of faith to assist them. Hindus base their entire religion on the premise that if one works hard enough and achieves a certain level of enlightenment, at that persons death his or her soul will ascend into the sun and be united with Brahman. This reunion is known as moksha. It is the purest state of freedom (Stevenson). To achieve this, one must renounce all human desires by striving for the virtues of celibacy, nonviolence, poverty, truthfulness, and nonstealing as means towards the ultimate end (Bussanich). This ultimate end is comparable to the

Christian concept of Heaven and can only be reached through incredibly hard work. It is rare for someone to be capable of working hard enough to deserve liberation from the otherwise endless cycle of reincarnation. While Hindus believe in moksha, Christianity emphasizes release from this world in the form of Heaven. Although Christians do not believe in reincarnation on this earth, much of their doctrine is based on the two form of Afterlife: Heaven and Hell. These are spiritual realms are polar opposites. Heaven is unfathomably perfect and joyous while Hell is filled with torment and eternal anguish. A basic trend of Christian thought is that while Heaven is all peoples true home, no one is strong enough to work his or her way into Heaven. Christians view humanity as weak, fallible, flawed, and defective to the point of being unable to enter Heaven by works alone (Ephesians 2: 8-9). This is where the concept of Grace comes in. Christians believe that no person is capable of reaching Heaven unless he first believes that Jesus, the Son of God, died on the cross as a final sacrifice to cleanse humans of their sin in Gods sight. Such a concept is entirely contrary to the Hindu opinion because Hindus say that humans can be spiritually strong enough to save themselves, while Christians believe that people are too weak to do so without grace from God. Even though Christians and Hindus have many different beliefs, they do agree on some points. If two religions that were founded in totally unrelated

sources can find common ground on human nature, than it may be assumed that human nature is universal. Therefore, instead of focusing on differences as bad things, it may be advisable for mankind to rejoice in its diversities and commonalties as opportunities to learn about and explore humanness in ways that would not be possible without such a broad scope of views.

Bibliography Bowen, John. Encyclopedia of Christianity. Oxford, 2005. Page 127. Print.

Brahmeshananda, Swami, Sri Ramakrishna Mission, and Belur Math. "Nature of Man."Nature of Man. N.p., n.d. Web. 20 Sept. 2013.

Bussanich, John. "Join Academia.edu & Share Your Research with the World." Diss. N.d. Ethics in Ancient India. Web. 18 Sept. 2013.

"Christian Beliefs about Human Nature." Christian Beliefs: Human Nature. Religion Facts, n.d. Web. 16 Sept. 2013.

Le Troquer, Ren . What is Man? New York: Hawthorn Books, 1961.

Napier, K.B. "Christian Doctrine from Bible Theology Ministries Article 00019Introduction to Christian Personality." Christian Doctrine from Bible Theology Ministries Article 00019Introduction to Christian Personality. B I B L E T H E O L O G Y M I N I S T R I E S A R T I C L E S, n.d. Web. 15 Sept. 2013.

New Catholic Encyclopedia. Detroit: The Gale Group, Inc., 2003. Print

The Holy Bible.