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

[Unveiled Artist]

One has to very careful here. Word meanings get changed to suit a POV. Dr. Rajiv Malhotra, among others, is very aware of that, and once said he'd publish a book titled 101 untranslatable Sanskrit words.

The paradigms are so far apart that I would agree with him. It's sad, because when translations are done through an opposing lens, so much of the original intent is lost.

Although minor comment, when I practiced ASL in Deaf Culture, I had a good profound understanding of cultural appropriation and different values and languages. No language can be translated one hundred precept without the culture and even more so nave influence of it. I can learn all the signs of the world [and there are many Signed Languages], but because I am not Deaf, I just won't get it.

That comes with a bit of humility, really to admit "I won't get it" and still learn what one wants to learn. A lot of Deaf individuals will spot right away when a hearing person "is faking it." Even people born into Deaf families as children know that barrier.

I'm sure there is a happy middle ground without stepping on each cultural Religion's toes?

 

[Dawnofhope]

You are kidding me?

If God was a real “god”, if God was indeed the same “god” in all 4 Abrahamic faiths that you mentioned, and if his covenants are as binding to him as everyone believe, THEN God wouldn’t be changing his bloody mind every times some new religions popped up.

When Jesus and his disciples came along, they tell them to ignore the old covenant made to Abraham to Moses, and accept the new one.

Muhammad did the same thing with his new religion, telling his followers to ignore the covenants to the ancient Hebrews and to the Christians before him.

And now with the recent Baha’i Faith, the same recycled propaganda don’t look at the old covenants, look at the new one.

Each new religion after Judaism is trying to promote a newer covenant, are nothing more than propaganda.

The original covenant got lost in each new religions to make way for new ones, so that mean the covenant isn’t “eternal”.

You capitalizing eternal with “E” is just more of the same recycled propaganda nonsenses. And it make God being portrayed as a fickle tyrant, who cannot keep his words.

There are just 3 or 4 Abrahamic Faiths that have spanned several millennia. Their books (the Torah, Gospel, Quran and Aqdas) are there open for all to see. Interpret them as you will. According to the scripture themselves They testify to the timeless nature of their truths readily apparent for all who sincerely ask questions of heaven (Matthew 7:7-8). One man’s poison is another’s medicine.

 

[firedragon]

One time Malunkyaputta asks the Buddha about the Eternal nature of the reality. He famously avoids the question completely but answers with the parable of the poisoned arrow:

Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta: The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya

Brother. There is nothing about God in that. This Sutta is nothing about God or a divine being.

The poison arrow parable is not an escape from answering. It is an exact and direct and cruel answer to the question. This is to make him understand the Shoonya. The core concept of Madhyama Prathipatha.

Nothing about God. Maybe somewhere else.

 

[Dawnofhope]

Brother. There is nothing about God in that. This Sutta is nothing about God or a divine being.

The poison arrow parable is not an escape from answering. It is an exact and direct and cruel answer to the question. This is to make him understand the Shoonya. The core concept of Madhyama Prathipatha.

Nothing about God. Maybe somewhere else.

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then, as Ven. Malunkyaputta was alone in seclusion, this train of thought arose in his awareness: "These positions that are undeclared, set aside, discarded by the Blessed One — 'The cosmos is eternal,' 'The cosmos is not eternal,' 'The cosmos is finite,' 'The cosmos is infinite,' 'The soul & the body are the same,' 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' 'After death a Tathagata exists,' 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist' — I don't approve, I don't accept that the Blessed One has not declared them to me. I'll go ask the Blessed One about this matter. If he declares to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,' that 'The cosmos is not eternal,' that 'The cosmos is finite,' that 'The cosmos is infinite,' that 'The soul & the body are the same,' that 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' that 'After death a Tathagata exists,' that 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' that 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' then I will live the holy life under him. If he does not declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' then I will renounce the training and return to the lower life."

Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta: The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya

Like most parables it has multiple meanings. The cosmos being Eternal or not, infinite or not speaks of the nature of ultimate nature of reality. Buddha does not deny the existence of God. OTOH affirmation of the existence of God and the need to worship Him as Muhammad does is hardly a central focus of Buddha’s Teachings.

 

[firedragon]

I have heard that on one occasion the Blessed One was staying near Savatthi at Jeta's Grove, Anathapindika's monastery. Then, as Ven. Malunkyaputta was alone in seclusion, this train of thought arose in his awareness: "These positions that are undeclared, set aside, discarded by the Blessed One — 'The cosmos is eternal,' 'The cosmos is not eternal,' 'The cosmos is finite,' 'The cosmos is infinite,' 'The soul & the body are the same,' 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' 'After death a Tathagata exists,' 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist' — I don't approve, I don't accept that the Blessed One has not declared them to me. I'll go ask the Blessed One about this matter. If he declares to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,' that 'The cosmos is not eternal,' that 'The cosmos is finite,' that 'The cosmos is infinite,' that 'The soul & the body are the same,' that 'The soul is one thing and the body another,' that 'After death a Tathagata exists,' that 'After death a Tathagata does not exist,' that 'After death a Tathagata both exists & does not exist,' or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' then I will live the holy life under him. If he does not declare to me that 'The cosmos is eternal,'... or that 'After death a Tathagata neither exists nor does not exist,' then I will renounce the training and return to the lower life."

Cula-Malunkyovada Sutta: The Shorter Instructions to Malunkya

Like most parables it has multiple meanings. The cosmos being Eternal or not, infinite or not speaks of the nature of ultimate nature of reality. Buddha does not deny the existence of God. OTOH affirmation of the existence of God and the need to worship Him as Muhammad does is hardly a central focus of Buddha’s Teachings.

No brother. You have misunderstood the Suthra. This has nothing to do with God. It has all to do with Mādhyamaka Prathipadha.

You will find the answers to the explanation of Shunya which is the target of Mādhyamaka Prathipadha in all ways in the Abhidhamma Pitaka, e.g. Brahmavagga. You will see that the path is to become a brahmana and its spelled out. That is the answer. In the Suthra you are quoting the Buddha was making him contemplate in the right manner. The Madhyama Prathipatha.

The parable of the poison arrow is to make you understand that you should contemplate not on this or that but the Shoonya. Which is the exact opposite to what Malunkiyaputhra was contemplating on. He was going down the Samayam Azam or Samayam Nasthi path. So he was advised by the vijja sarana sampanno, a quality of the Buddha explained in the Budhuguna.

And I didn't tell you that there is any God in Buddhism. I am asking you where it speaks of God in response to your OP and your comment.

The only argument about God comes from one of the Buddhas characteristics that people picked up for argument. Saththa dheva manusaanan. Where he is above the Dheva or Gods and the Manushya or man. So people argue that this was said because there were gods. But the Budhuguna does not come from the Thripitaka. It is a faith based teaching derived from the books to make it easy for laymen. And it is said sometimes like a mantra when you are in danger. Also, it simply means the Buddha is the teacher and leader of all that is divine and human. That is not affirming Gods.

The God and divine beings concepts come predominantly from the Jathaka. Which are attributed stories about his past life. Also from Nidhana Katha, or the background stories people narrated that are attributed to the teachings like a Vagga. These stories are spurious. This is where Gods come into play.

Not in the sutra you quoted.

Anyway, thanks.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Besides all non-Baha'i, a few Baha'i are also blind?

I have not said all people that have not found the message of Baha'u'llah are blind, it may be many are far better at being at what I try to practice.

A name does not mean you have found all the truth. It takes effort to change and find what is the real good within you, the Name and the Message just starts a chosen journey.

Regards Tony

 

[Dawnofhope]

No brother. You have misunderstood the Suthra. This has nothing to do with God. It has all to do with Mādhyamaka Prathipadha.

I think you have misunderstood my responses. I’m not saying the parable is about God. It is about how Buddha avoids metaphysical speculation (which would include the nature of God).

Of the parable of the poisoned arrow Thích Nhất Hạnh comments on the way the parable illustrates Gautama Buddha's anti-metaphysical views:

The Buddha always told his disciples not to waste their time and energy in metaphysical speculation. Whenever he was asked a metaphysical question, he remained silent. Instead, he directed his disciples toward practical efforts. Questioned one day about the problem of the infinity of the world, the Buddha said, "Whether the world is finite or infinite, limited or unlimited, the problem of your liberation remains the same." Another time he said, "Suppose a man is struck by a poisoned arrow and the doctor wishes to take out the arrow immediately. Suppose the man does not want the arrow removed until he knows who shot it, his age, his parents, and why he shot it. What would happen? If he were to wait until all these questions have been answered, the man might die first." Life is so short. It must not be spent in endless metaphysical speculation that does not bring us any closer to the truth.

Parable of the Poisoned Arrow - Wikipedia

You understand the parable differently and that is fine. All the best.

 

[firedragon]

I think you have misunderstood my responses. I’m not saying the parable is about God. It is about how Buddha avoids metaphysical speculation (which would include the nature of God).

That is the wrong understanding I was speaking about.

Peace.

 

[Vinayaka]

I'm sure there is a happy middle ground without stepping on each cultural Religion's toes?

Humility does that I think ... not speaking authoritatively or with a condescending tone. Lots of tactful ways to do that. The problem with western Sanskritologists is they have huge egos. The context of Sanskrit is Hinduism, and going to temple, of practicing meditation, etc. are exercises in humility. It takes a rare breed to take them on in debate. Malhotra gets avoided because he can easily demonstrate their fallacies, and hence have huge blows to their egos.

But hey, life goes on. Glad it's not my cup of tea.

 

[Vinayaka]

I have not said all people that have not found the message of Baha'u'llah are blind, it may be many are far better at being at what I try to practice.

A name does not mean you have found all the truth. It takes effort to change and find what is the real good within you, the Name and the Message just starts a chosen journey.

Regards Tony

Name? Baha'u'llah?
Message? that of Baha'i?

 

[TransmutingSoul]

Name? Baha'u'llah?
Message? that of Baha'i?

The Truth is its own standard. I see We are called to embrace that standard. Everyone has the choice to find the standard of truth, or not to. All of us, I see are called on to embrace the light that is in all of us, I read and try to follow advice such as this; "To look always at the good and not at the bad. If a man has ten good qualities and one bad one, look at the ten and forget the one. And if a man has ten bad qualities and one good one, to look at the one and forget the ten."

I see that in this day, the source of truth does have a new name, which to me is but pure white light. When I look at that light I see the refracted aspect, which to me is all the Names of God. The name of Baha'u'llah means 'Glory of God', that Glory is also seen in Krishna, Zoroaster...etc. (You were waiting for that).

Truth is its own standard, all the names of God are that standard, they are all refraction of the same light. That the sun has risen in this day and this day is lighted by the name of Baha'u'llah and the Message given, does not mean we cling to the name.

The Truth is the Truth, it is the light that can shine from all of us, it is all the virtues. All what comes from us that is not virtues, is from our own selves. This is why an Atheist can be more Godly than someone who claims a Faith, it is up to us and our heart if we choose virtue over darkness, how we do that is also our choice.

The world needs us to all bring out the virtues, how this will happen?

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

The world needs us to all bring out the virtues, how this will happen?

I have mine. So do most of my friends and acquaintances, and the vast majority of humanity So it's like feeding someone who is already well fed? That makes no sense. Better to feed a hungry man.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I have mine. So do most of my friends and acquaintances, and the vast majority of humanity So it's like feeding someone who is already well fed? That makes no sense. Better to feed a hungry man.

If ones intention is only to feed a hungry man, then why will another try to take that dish and throw it away, because they do not like the meal on the plate? Why would they not just bring their own meal and put it on the table for the hungry to choose.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

If ones intention is only to feed a hungry man, then why will another try to take that dish and throw it away, because they do not like the meal on the plate? Why would they not just bring their own meal and put it on the table for the hungry to choose.

Regards Tony

This makes no sense. Please could you re-read it and write it clearer. The world could use some clarity.

 

[TransmutingSoul]

I have mine. So do most of my friends and acquaintances, and the vast majority of humanity So it's like feeding someone who is already well fed? That makes no sense. Better to feed a hungry man.

If ones intention is only to feed a hungry man, then why will another try to take that dish and throw it away, because they do not like the meal on the plate? Why would they not just bring their own meal and put it on the table for the hungry to choose.

Regards Tony

This makes no sense. Please could you re-read it and write it clearer. The world could use some clarity.

I cannot make it much clearer? You said it is better to feed a hungry man as no one else is wanting to eat, I agree, and it needs to be appropriate food. That is what I see is teaching in the Baha'i Faith, putting dishes of food on the table and letting who is hungry take what they want. Those that are not hungry do not have to partake.

Thus if the intent is to feed a hungry man with the best food possible, then why do others try to take that plate off the table?

All that want to can put a plate on the table and let the hungry choose. They do not have to eat any dish if they are not hungry.

Regards Tony

 

[Vinayaka]

I cannot make it much clearer? You said it is better to feed a hungry man as no one else is wanting to eat, I agree, and it needs to be appropriate food. That is what I see is teaching in the Baha'i Faith, putting dishes of food on the table and letting who is hungry take what they want. Those that are not hungry do not have to partake.

Thus if the intent is to feed a hungry man with the best food possible, then why do others try to take that plate off the table?

All that want to can put a plate on the table and let the hungry choose. They do not have to eat any dish if they are not hungry.

Regards Tony

It was an analogy, Tony. An analogy, but I'll switch to just saying it straight up. You talk about everybody needing virtues (that only the Baha'i faith can provide) using 'we' speaking on behalf of everyone on this planet.

I disagree that people need virtues, and in particular those provided by Abrahamic religions, and Baha'i specifically. In the circle of people I meet and know, we're all honest, we respect the planet, we're good citizens of our country, we believe strongly in freedom of religion, don't poke our noses into other's businesses, and we all have excellent virtues already. Adopting a foreign belief system like Baha'i would be a downward move, not an upward move. So 'food' in my analogy is a new belief system. There is nothing a new belief system could add that would improve on the one I already have. Hence it's pointless to 'try to convert'. Firstly, I'm not hungry, and secondly, your belief system isn't nearly up to the standard of the one I'm in. But I seriously doubt of you believe me, let alone understand that, as your conditioning is just too strong to think outside the Baha'i proselytising box.