The Eternal Covenant of God: Does it exist within Hinduism and Buddhism?

[FooYang]

Not sure what how quotes from the Gleanings of Baha'u'llah are relevant to a thread exclusively discussing the covenants within God in Hinduism and Buddhism.

Are we injecting Baha'i faith into Hinduism and Buddhism again, Tony? If so...

The only thing about this is that Dharmic people and Atheists interject their own views onto the Abrahamic religions all the time.

But aside from this, the thread OP is perfectly valid. It's Hindus that don't respect themselves.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's just a reply comment. It's not that serious to make an issue. As long as the one I refered knows the context, that's fine with me. Nothing special and worth loosing my fingers over.

I just wanted to make my position clear. Spiritually inclined does not necessarily make me a mystic. I get my spirituality from materialism, from science.
From how the 'virtual particles' arise or dissipate.

The only thing about this is that Dharmic people and Atheists interject their own views onto the Abrahamic religions all the time. But aside from this, the thread OP is perfectly valid. It's Hindus that don't respect themselves.

Do they? I will be loath to discuss an Abrahamic thought unless it is forced upon me. Like in this very topic "The Eternal Covenant of God: Does it exist within Hinduism and Buddhism?". It is an Abrahamic who started this topic. How does it concern them if Hinduism or Buddhism have a covenant or not?

 

[FooYang]

I get my spirituality from materialism

The irony of calling yourself an Advaitist

 

[FooYang]

Let me write your creed for you:

"There is no Atman,
There is no Brahman,
There is no Samsara,
There is no Moksha,
There is only Maya,
Maya is One,
I am That."

 

[Aupmanyav]

The irony of calling yourself an Advaitist

In what way?

Let me write your creed for you:
"There is no Atman, There is no Brahman, There is no Samsara, There is no Moksha, There is only Maya, Maya is One, I am That."

Your statement requires some corrections. Let me reformat it:
"There is no soul, only Brahman exists, there is no samsara, there is no 'moksha' other than understanding of Brahman, the observed is 'maya', I am Brahman."

Scriptural support: 'Eko Sad, Dwiteeyo Nasti', 'Brahma Satyam, Jagan-Mithya', 'Brahma veda Brahmaiva bhavati', 'Aham Brahmasmi'.
Trans: What exists is one, there is no second; Brahman is truth, the observed is false; One who understands Brahman becomes Brahman; I am Brahman.
("Maya is one" is not a part of it. Where did you get it from?)

Hinduism gives us freedom to explore and form our own views. I am not bound by any scripture (Mandukya Upanishad, for example).

 

[FooYang]

In what way? Your statement requires some corrections. Let me reformat it:
"There is no soul, only Brahman exists, there is no samsara, there is no 'moksha' other than understanding of Brahman, the observed is 'maya', I am Brahman."

No clearly Brahman doesn't exist if your a materialist. If you're a materialist then you believe that only Maya exists. You're gonna have to do some mental gymnastics to get out of this.

Without Atman, Samsara and Moksha, all you're left with is Maya. Therefore you do not believe in Brahman, nor are you a Nondualist at all

Ah, the amusingness of some people

 

[Dawnofhope]

Religions should be works in progress, otherwise they are fossils of an earlier age, unsuitable for the new age, denying the progress of science, and clinging to their old ideas of God, soul, revelation, salvation, prophets (sons, messengers, manifestations, mahdis) etc.

I agree religion should be progressive and what is suited for one age will be entirely unsuited to another. Science needs to be fully aware embraced and if science irrefutably proves that which in contrary to religion, we accept the conclusions of science. How we view God is no exception to how religion must progress.

Samsara has the same meaning in Hinduism and Sikhism but is slightly different in Buddhism and Jainism. Samsara is the observed world which keeps moving/changing, that is the root of the word.
"Saṃsāra is rooted in the term Saṃsṛ (संसृ), which means to go round, revolve, pass through a succession of states, to go towards or obtain, moving in a circuit." Saṃsāra - Wikipedia
Karma is surely 'action', but the result of action/karma is known as 'karma-phala' (fruit/result of action). So, kindly correct your usage. Karma is not the consequence of action, but the action itself

Karma is viewed differently between Hinduism and Buddhism because of the greater emphasis on literal reincarnation in Hinduism. So karma can relate to past lives.

Karma in some schools is intricately related to causality. Karma is complex and has varied meanings:

Difficulty in arriving at a definition of karma arises because of the diversity of views among the schools of Hinduism; some, for example, consider karma and rebirth linked and simultaneously essential, some consider karma but not rebirth essential, and a few discuss and conclude karma and rebirth to be flawed fiction. Buddhism and Jainism have their own karma precepts. Thus karma has not one, but multiple definitions and different meanings. It is a concept whose meaning, importance and scope varies between Hinduism, Buddhism, Jainism and other traditions that originated in India, and various schools in each of these traditions. O'Flahertyclaims that, furthermore, there is an ongoing debate regarding whether karma is a theory, a model, a paradigm, a metaphor, or a metaphysical stance.

Karma theory as a concept, across different Indian religious traditions, shares certain common themes: causality, ethicization and rebirth.

Karma - Wikipedia

 

[Aupmanyav]

No clearly Brahman doesn't exist if your a materialist.

What do you consider Brahman to be? Surely, something exists upon which 'maya' builds its castle. Brahman is the substrate of the universe. Brahman, talking in modern science language, is the energy with which we started at the time of Big Bang. The atoms and molecules, and whatever we observe in the universe, animate or inanimate, is that. Atoms and molecules are only a form of that energy that arose at the time of Baryogenesis and Nucleosysnthesis.

When the Hindu scriptures talk of Brahman, 'it' or 'that', that cannot always be translated as God (That is the mistake in the Mandukya Upanishad quote that you use in your signature. Mandukya is quite atheistic, it never mentions words that we generally use for God, Deva or Ishwara). For me, Brahman is not God, though many Hindus take it in that sense. It depends on the belief of the person. Brahman is not supposed to have created anything, Brahman is not supposed to be involved in any way in the worldly affairs. Brahman has no message for the world. Good, bad, the pious or the sinners do not exist for Brahman, because Brahman itself is all. That is why it cannot be taken as God.

I am a materialist but I accept the existence of 'virtual particles' which appear and disappear randomly and at their own will. So, do not think that a materialist needs something to exist at all times. Existence and non-existence may just be phases of physical energy. And that was mentioned more than 3,000 years ago in RigVeda:

Sato bandhumasati niravindan hridi prtishyakavayo manisha ll
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

So, your acquaintance with the philosophies of Hinduism is superficial. With that it will be impossible to defeat a Hindu in any religious debate.

 

[FooYang]

What do you consider Brahman to be? Surely, something exists upon which 'maya' builds its castle.

Ok, so you admit that Maya can't exist on it's own? no?

Brahman is the substrate of the universe.

Then clearly you cannot stay a materialist if you believe that.

Brahman, talking in modern science language, is the energy with which we started at the time of Big Bang. The atoms and molecules, and whatever we observe in the universe, animate or inanimate, is that. Atoms and molecules are only a form of that energy that arose at the time of Baryogenesis and Nucleosysnthesis.

I hope you're just joking around because you're describing Maya here, not Brahman. Straight away, you've shot down any hopes at Nonduality.

When the Hindu scriptures talk of Brahman, 'it' or 'that', that cannot always be translated as God (That is the mistake in the Mandukya Upanishad quote that you use in your signature. Mandukya is quite atheistic, it never mentions words that we generally use for God, Deva or Ishwara).

Nope, I changed the various terms in the quotes in my signature on purpose (such as the Dawkins one), that one was very deliberate. I swear you're making coffee jokes here, Mandukya atheistic?

I am a materialist but I accept the existence of 'virtual particles' which appear and disappear randomly and at their own will. So, do not think that a materialist needs something to exist at all times. Existence and non-existence may just be phases of physical energy. And that was mentioned more than 3,000 years ago in RigVeda:

Sato bandhumasati niravindan hridi prtishyakavayo manisha ll
Sages who searched with their heart's thought discovered the existent's kinship in the non-existent.
Rig Veda: Rig-Veda, Book 10: HYMN CXXIX. Creation.

You are an atheist that believes in Maya, not an 'advaitist hindu'. Your interpretation of the Rigveda hymn gives it away too.

So, your acquaintance with the philosophies of Hinduism is superficial.

But it's not, that's the thing. You presume yourself to be knowledgeable yet you can't demonstrate it, instead you have a very anti-Vedantic belief system that is quite frankly an insult to the Hindu tradition. Should I be surprised? no, not really. I highly doubt you've ever been a yoga practitioner for any considerable period of time, or at all.
Basically you are very much a Western Atheist who just likes superficial aspects of Indian culture and doesn't want to feel out but is much more in bed with Christopher Hitchens than a learned man from the vast transcendent tradition of Adi Shankara.

With that it will be impossible to defeat a Hindu in any religious debate.

Now this, you know is just plain laughable. You clearly define concepts within your alleged tradition to everything BUT what it has always been interpreted to be. You're only an Advaitist in name and you are in fact, as demonstrated by your own posts here, a Dualist.
As previously said, you believe: There is only Maya, I Am That.

My characterization is too accurate for you, which is why you are so uncomfortable by it.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Karma in some schools is intricately related to causality. Karma is complex and has varied meanings.

Difficulty in arriving at a definition of karma arises because of the diversity of views among the schools of Hinduism; some, for example, consider karma and rebirth linked and simultaneously essential, some consider karma but not rebirth essential, and a few discuss and conclude karma and rebirth to be flawed fiction.
Karma - Wikipedia

Yeah, sure, Karma is generally taken to be related to casuality. I have not gone deeply into it because have my own views about our actions, Karma. I accept it in the current life as a social responsibility, our actions should be such that they help and not harm the society. I do not believe in rebirth/reincarnation. Having different views about anything is nothing strange in Hinduism, that is the norm. I was Brahman, I am Brahman and when this form (Aupmanyav) is no more in this make-believe world, I will still be Brahman. I am the eternal, the unchangeable, Brahman. However, the word 'Karma' has only one meaning: Our actions, deeds.

 

[Dawnofhope]

This has been a particularly interesting thread for me. Thank you to all who have participated.

I started with a question I was uncertain about. Responses from adherents of diverse faiths such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, paganism, atheism and Baha’i have all added to the rich tapestry of thought on this profoundly important question.

Central to the complex Abrahamic concept of the Covenant are other equally complex Eastern concepts of Dharma and Karma. The way the universe is structured including it laws and inherent order will determine action and causation. We could describe these phenomena in purely mechanistic terms that reflect a Newtonian view of the world that runs like clockwork. However anyone who has truly lived appreciates the world doesn’t work like that especially in regards human relationships and associated enterprises. So karma (action and reaction) are viewed as consequences of our deeds with an emphasis on the moral dimension. So reaction to action (or inaction) can be also be as punishment and reward. The narrative is there in any genuine faith and addresses such critical issues as progress in both this world and the world to come. We may progress towards heaven or hell dependant on both faith and good deeds. Our understanding and commitment to this process determines to what extent we are protected or left vulnerable to unseen forces. A special word for this in Abrahamic Faiths is called the Covenant.

 

[Aupmanyav]

- Ok, so you admit that Maya can't exist on it's own? no?
- Then clearly you cannot stay a materialist if you believe that.

- I hope you're just joking around because you're describing Maya here, not Brahman. Straight away, you've shot down any hopes at Nonduality.
- Nope, I changed the various terms in the quotes in my signature on purpose (such as the Dawkins one), that one was very deliberate. I swear you're making coffee jokes here, Mandukya atheistic?
- You are an atheist that believes in Maya, not an 'advaitist hindu'. Your interpretation of the Rigveda hymn gives it away too.
- But it's not, that's the thing. You presume yourself to be knowledgeable yet you can't demonstrate it, instead you have a very anti-Vedantic belief system that is quite frankly an insult to the Hindu tradition. Should I be surprised? no, not really. I highly doubt you've ever been a yoga practitioner for any considerable period of time, or at all.
- Basically you are very much a Western Atheist who just likes superficial aspects of Indian culture and doesn't want to feel out but is much more in bed with Christopher Hitchens than a learned man from the vast transcendent tradition of Adi Shankara.
- You're only an Advaitist in name and you are in fact, as demonstrated by your own posts here, a Dualist.
- As previously said, you believe: There is only Maya, I Am That.
- My characterization is too accurate for you, which is why you are so uncomfortable by it.

- Sure, if there were no Brahman, then there would not have been any Maya; but Brahman is always there, it is eternal, unchangeable, and uninvolved.
- How come. If I accept the existence of something, then I am a materialist.
- Why? Maya is not name of any girl. It is what we observe in the universe, the input that we get from our senses of perception. How does that make me a dualist?
- I do not mind small changes. It is lunch time here, so not a time for making coffee. My wife would be cross at such a request and promptly order me out of the kitchen.
- That is the correct description of an advaitist, who should not believe in any second entity like God, but will accept 'maya' to account for the variety that we observe in the universe.
- Kindly mention what have I not been able to explain fully. What should I demonstrate? Why are yoga contortions necessary for understanding philosophies of Hinduism? That does require mental yoga and deep contemplation (Manan, Sadhana, Dhyana). I am a staunch and orthodox Hindu. That is why you find what I say so different from the commercial variety of Vedanta (primarily aimed at US and European audience).
- I have never read Hitchens or Dawkins or their like. Though I accept that I have read some of Bertrand Russell. Otherwise all that I say is from Hindu scriptures and Buddha.
- I do not think any of my posts will ever be able to brand me as a dualist. I am nearing 20,000 in Religious Forums.
- Yes, talking of what we observe is 'maya' only till the person understands what is behind 'maya'. And Yes, 'all things here are Brahman' (Sarvam Khalvidam Brahma - Chhandogya Upanishad).
- There is nothing in the world that perturbs me.

 

[FooYang]

1. Sure, if there were no Brahman, then there would not have been any Maya; but Brahman is always there, it is eternal, unchangeable, and uninvolved.
2. How come. If I accept the existence of something, then I am a materialist.

You're not very good at understanding this at even the most basic level. You're becoming a snooze.

1 negates 2.
2 megates 1.
Nuff said.

- That is the correct description of an advaitist, who should not believe in Brahman, but will accept 'maya' to account for the variety that we observe in the universe.

I modified this particular quote to show you what you're missing.

I'm about done with you, there is very low credibility I feel in you already, there is no way you've read the Upanishads in your life. You can claim otherwise but it won't convince me.

Study some Hindu philosophy for once and then get back to me?

 

[SalixIncendium]

The only thing about this is that Dharmic people and Atheists interject their own views onto the Abrahamic religions all the time.

In my experience, Dharmics tend to keep the themselves about their views unless asked about them or unless being told what to believe.

Help me to understand how you feel atheists are at all relevant to the discussion or anything I said in this thread.

But aside from this, the thread OP is perfectly valid.

I never stated or implied otherwise.

It's Hindus that don't respect themselves.

You're making a generalization about all Hindus. Please elaborate on how Hindus don't respect themselves.

 

[Aupmanyav]

You can claim otherwise but it won't convince me. Study some Hindu philosophy for once and then get back to me?

Why should I be interested in convincing you of anything? This is a discussion in a forum. You asked something, I replied. That is the end of it. For what reason I would need to come back to you?

 

[Vinayaka]

If you wish to take it that way, that is your choice.

I personally see all Covenants, support all faiths, and none can be seperated. They one and all make us find our true and better selves.

If that view is not complementry with elevated eastern discussion, then what is the purpose?

Regards Tony

This has been a particularly interesting thread for me. Thank you to all who have participated.

I started with a question I was uncertain about. Responses from adherents of diverse faiths such as Hinduism, Buddhism, Judaism, Christianity, paganism, atheism and Baha’i have all added to the rich tapestry of thought on this profoundly important question.

Central to the complex Abrahamic concept of the Covenant are other equally complex Eastern concepts of Dharma and Karma. The way the universe is structured including it laws and inherent order will determine action and causation. We could describe these phenomena in purely mechanistic terms that reflect a Newtonian view of the world that runs like clockwork. However anyone who has truly lived appreciates the world doesn’t work like that especially in regards human relationships and associated enterprises. So karma (action and reaction) are viewed as consequences of our deeds with an emphasis on the moral dimension. So reaction to action (or inaction) can be also be as punishment and reward. The narrative is there in any genuine faith and addresses such critical issues as progress in both this world and the world to come. We may progress towards heaven or hell dependant on both faith and good deeds. Our understanding and commitment to this process determines to what extent we are protected or left vulnerable to unseen forces. A special word for this in Abrahamic Faiths is called the Covenant.

The vote was 12 against, 5 for. Through this discussion, did you learn anything, or did your original position move at all?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Positions are never changed. Neither for Adrian, nor for you or for me.

 

[Vinayaka]

Positions are never changed. Neither for Adrian, nor for you or for me.

That's quite the projection. A false one at that. Absolutely my position shifts on stuff that I learn about here. I learned to tolerate your radical view rather that argue it. My view of the Baha'i faith got worse than when I first heard about it here.

But yes, I've also observed that some folk's position hasn't changed at all. But just because it doesn't change for you doesn't mean it doesn't for others. Not always easy to tell though. Sometimes it's just the discussion tactics that change, not the POV.

 

[Dawnofhope]

The vote was 12 against, 5 for. Through this discussion, did you learn anything, or did your original position move at all?

The poll isn’t surprising given the Covenant is such a strongly developed theme in Abrahamic Faiths and there is no word that’s an equivalent within Hinduism or Buddhism.

Interesting when I conducted a poll about the universality of karma 11 thought it was either universal or partly universal and just 3 only Dharmic. So Language is really important. Karma, many of us across the spectrum of religious belief can identify. The Covenant is definitely much harder to see beyond the Abrahamics.

Karma - Is it a Universal or Dharmic principle?

I feel much more at home with both Hinduism and Buddhism and the diversity of beliefs within these two great religions. I’m always learning as I know so little. It’s been excellent so many have responded to this thread with such insightful contributions.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Positions are never changed. Neither for Adrian, nor for you or for me.

I certainly have a better appreciation of your views compared to when we started talking nearly two years ago. The conversations have become much more civil too.