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

[Vinayaka]

Real spirituality is experiential.

So absolutely true.
It's not in books! lol The ability to shift paradigms even enough to have any sense of what the other person is like, or feeling, is nigh impossible. I feel it's like a man describing what it's like to have a baby, and with pomposity at that.

Time to get out for me. Time to fold 'em.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

I don't think it's possible either. So incredibly different. The people who do, alter one or both rather drastically. So then it's not a comparison at all, but just fiction.

Let's compare a rock to a giraffe ... but first, in order to make it realistic, let's say the rock is alive, and has a long neck.

Basically. It's a learning experience. I'll understood it when I was working with the Deaf. There is only so much a hearing person can compare but at the end, I'm not Deaf. Religion is harder to accept it though.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Hindus aren't really open to describe anything really beyond the basics.

. Hindus (and Buddhists) are very clear about their various views. Please check with us whenever you want the exact description. 'Maya' is a veil of ignorance between us and the 'reality'. 'Maya' is like vapor covering a mirror. Clear the vapor and you start seeing things better. Do we see the atoms and molecules that make the table? We take what we perceive as 'reality', but is that the actual 'reality'?

Therefore, in 'Advaita' Hinduism, the philosophy I follow, we accept two kinds of realities. One which appears at the first glace as reported by our senses. We term it as 'Pragmatic Reality'. But the reality which comes up after scientific experiments and analysis of our observations, we term that as 'Absolute Reality'. For example, on further research, we find that molecules and atoms are not solid rubber balls but points of energy in a field which spreads in the whole universe. I hope what I have written gives you some idea of how Hindus understand 'Maya'.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

. Hindus (and Buddhists) are very clear about their various views. Please check with us whenever you want the exact description. 'Maya' is a veil of ignorance between us and the 'reality'. 'Maya' is like vapor covering a mirror. Clear the vapor and you start seeing things better. Do we see the atoms and molecules that make the table? We take what we perceive as 'reality', but is that the actual 'reality'?

Therefore, in 'Advaita' Hinduism, the philosophy I follow, we accept two kinds of realities. One which appears at the first glace as reported by our senses. We term it as 'Pragmatic Reality'. But the reality which comes up after scientific experiments and analysis of our observations, we term that as 'Absolute Reality'. For example, on further research, we find that molecules and atoms are not solid rubber balls but points of energy in a field which spreads in the whole universe. I hope what I have written gives you some idea of how Hindus understand 'Maya'.

The personal stuff. Christians will tell you where, when, and how they found the Lord. I never heard that from Buddhist before... well, only from the secular ones. Usually, personal experiences are how one knows about a faith. Online and basics doesn't really help. It also helps to know a lot of the language and definition behind the terms. For example, anyone can define consciousness but if you don't really have experience or have some sort of understanding beyond basics, that's pretty much what it is, intellect.

Usually, mystic religions go beyond intellect; but, then, I could be wrong?

 

[Aupmanyav]

Usually, mystic religions go beyond intellect; but, then, I could be wrong?

If they go beyond intellect, then I would be wary of them. Because they could deceive (since they are beyond intellect). 'Advaita' Hinduism is not that kind of belief.

 

[Mudramoksha]

Not in Buddhism. We do not do deals for favours, it is all our own work.

Sure but the Abrahamic traditions are 'our own work' too but some (more on the fundamentalist side) get lazy instead of practice-based.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

If they go beyond intellect, then I would be wary of them. Because they could deceive (since they are beyond intellect). 'Advaita' Hinduism is not that kind of belief.

It's about the intellect then?

Intellect meaning material knowledge, things you can read in books and draw conclusions from without needing experience to know it. i.e. reading about meditations without needing to experience it.

 

[rocala]

Intellect meaning material knowledge, things you can read in books and draw conclusions from without needing experience to know it. i.e. reading about meditations without needing to experience it.

intellect
/ˈɪntəlɛkt/
noun

1. the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, especially with regard to abstract matters.
   "he was a man of action rather than of intellect"
   synonyms: mind, brain, brains, head, intelligence, reason, understanding, comprehension, thought, brainpower, sense, judgement, wisdom, wits;

 

[Dawnofhope]

Buddha was hardly concerned about Cosmic laws. He said contemplating on them vexes the mind and may cause madness. He also had a different meaning of 're-birth' than there being a soul which goes into another animal body.

In Buddhism dharma means cosmic law and order, but is also applied to the teachings of the Buddha.

Dharma - Wikipedia

It is true that Samsara or rebirth in Buddhism is different than Hinduism, though some schools of Buddhist thought such as Tibetan still believe in reincarnation. Other schools argue this is impossible due to the non- existence of the soul (Atman).

Saṃsāra (Buddhism) - Wikipedia

 

[Tumah]

The Eternal Covenant of God is an enormously important part of the Abrahamic Faiths whether it be Judaism... At its heart is a binding agreement between God and man. God asks man to recognise His Great Spiritual Teachers and follow Their Teachings. In return God promises to protect and care for man and to bless Him. Various Covenants are recorded in the Hebrew Scriptures through Noah, Abraham, Moses and David.

I think you are smudging the details a bit in order to make your narrative appear more uniform.

The covenant with Noah had no requirements on the part of Noah. It was simply G-d promising not to destroy the world again.
The two covenants with Abraham were likewise G-d promising Abraham that he would have many descendants and receive the Land of the 10 nations. The only requirement put on Abraham's shoulders is to keep a sign of that covenant on the bodies of his descendants.
The Mosaic covenant is a list of demands from the nation.
The covenant with David made no requirement of him to recognize any teachers or teachings.

In an article comparing covenants and forms of treaties common at the time, Mendenhall focuses on Hittite suzerainty treaties. These treaties, established between an emperor (suzerain) and inferior king (vassal), were defined by several important elements. The treaties were based on past aid or good fortune that the suzerain had previously delivered unto the vassal and the obligations that the vassal, therefore, had to the suzerain. This foundation for a treaty relationship is similar to the foundation for the Mosaic covenant and the Decalogue, according to Mendenhall. God had delivered the Israelites from Egypt in the Exodus, and they therefore are obligated to follow the commandments in the Decalogue. As the vassal, God has no further obligations towards the Israelites—but it is implied that God will continue to protect them as a result of the covenant.[8]
- Mosaic covenant - Wikipedia

​

 

[Dawnofhope]

I know there is a lot of ways one can compare. For example, people take karma as sin of some sort. Then rebirth as a type of heaven. Maya as a form of satan. Things like that; so, if you compared it like that, yes. They have much in common. You'd have to change the definitions to match secular western [The Age of Reason; The Enlightenment? https://www.history.com/topics/british-history/enlightenment I forgot how to make links] reasoning though. Is this part of your country history?

How do you define freedom from samsara? Some compare it to heaven and others union with god. How do you see it?

It's not an "it" or noun, that's the thing. There's nothing to see. In abrahamic faiths it's always involved with a type of noun: evil, one, heaven, god, so have you. It's a concrete name to define something. "This is X; we experience X" type of thing. I've never experienced practice of Dharma in full but I guess that's a good term for it. Practice. Process. Change. Verb. Karma. For lack of better words.

Maya isn't a "thing". It's not a noun. It's kinda compared to satan, usually. I'm just going by what I know, I'd say going by buddhist cosmology for what I know is maya is not an actual being that, how can I say, influences you like satan. It's an incarnation of a state of being itself, best put. Deceiving? Our current State of Being-our mind-is illusion. Our Mind-our Selves-our deceived; no one is deceiving us. "Maya" as a noun does nothing. Maya is an incarnation/a analogy or whatever term that just means our own minds are stuck in delusions. It means static; not subject to change. You can call it an incarnation of our attachment [analogy of what it is doing to us; an analogy, though]. It represents the delusions/attachment as our state of being [not original sin] or state of mind, I guess. "It" does nothing.

Can I ask, what is "negative" karma?
There is just karma. How is it negative or positive?

-

To tell you honestly, I don't know how to compare abrahamic faiths with eastern ones. One cannot just meditate and "get it." So, I honestly don't know where to start. Hindus aren't really open to describe anything really beyond the basics. So, -our- views are highly limited.

You understand my point about similarities between Buddhism and the Abrahamic Faiths and how comparisons are possible. Whatever our religion or lack thereof, human experience is universal whether we live in India, Japan or the USA. So too are the challenges one faces in life. I’d don’t see we need fundamentally different approaches to successfully Overcome suffering in this life depending on geography. Concepts of samsara, maya and karma are not straightforward any more than Satan, judgment and salvation in an Abrahamic paradigm.

So where to begin? I would begin with what works or doesn’t from a personal experience. That which can be considered fair and reasonable. Traditions that have endured and proved themselves over time.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

intellect
/ˈɪntəlɛkt/
noun

1. the faculty of reasoning and understanding objectively, especially with regard to abstract matters.
   "he was a man of action rather than of intellect"
   synonyms: mind, brain, brains, head, intelligence, reason, understanding, comprehension, thought, brainpower, sense, judgement, wisdom, wits;

Context. English is a highly contextual language. You can't take one line and ignore the point.

Use commentary. Definitions don't help when using English I'm context unless you are talking about concrete things like math.

 

[Unveiled Artist]

You understand my point about similarities between Buddhism and the Abrahamic Faiths and how comparisons are possible. Whatever our religion or lack thereof, human experience is universal whether we live in India, Japan or the USA. So too are the challenges one faces in life. I’d don’t see we need fundamentally different approaches to successfully Overcome suffering in this life depending on geography. Concepts of samsara, maya and karma are not straightforward any more than Satan, judgment and salvation in an Abrahamic paradigm.

So where to begin? I would begin with what works or doesn’t from a personal experience. That which can be considered fair and reasonable. Traditions that have endured and proved themselves over time.

I can see that. I was asking honestly, though. What's your definition of negative and positive karma; and, how you view samsara?

I draw comparisons a lot. Nothing wrong with that. It's the religious part that gets me. But, yeah, you'd have to flucuate the definitions. That, and abrahamics have so many definitions that on either side, it's just. Confusing.

But good convo.

 

[Aupmanyav]

It's about the intellect then? Intellect meaning material knowledge, things you can read in books and draw conclusions from without needing experience to know it. i.e. reading about meditations without needing to experience it.

Experiences are of many kind. Experiences while being awake and aware and experiences while we sleep or our mind is playing tricks with us. Even the acceptance of experience should depend on intellect. After analyzing whether what we experiencing is truth or hallucinations? Many people experience God.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Dharma - Wikipedia
Saṃsāra (Buddhism) - Wikipedia

For Buddha, Dharma is 'three-fold training', Sikkha - Shiksha: higher virtue (adhisīla-sikkhā), higher mind (adhicitta-sikkhā), higher wisdom (adhipaññā-sikkhā)

and the Noble Eight-Fold Path: 1. Right view, 2. Right resolve, 3. Right speech, 4. Right action, 5. Right livelihood, 6. Right effort, 7. Right mindfulness and 8. Right concentration

Samsara is considered impermanent in Buddhism, just like other Indian religions. Karma drives this impermanent Samsara.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I think you are smudging the details a bit in order to make your narrative appear more uniform.

The covenant with Noah had no requirements on the part of Noah. It was simply G-d promising not to destroy the world again.
The two covenants with Abraham were likewise G-d promising Abraham that he would have many descendants and receive the Land of the 10 nations. The only requirement put on Abraham's shoulders is to keep a sign of that covenant on the bodies of his descendants.
The Mosaic covenant is a list of demands from the nation.
The covenant with David made no requirement of him to recognize any teachers or teachings.

In an article comparing covenants and forms of treaties common at the time, Mendenhall focuses on Hittite suzerainty treaties. These treaties, established between an emperor (suzerain) and inferior king (vassal), were defined by several important elements. The treaties were based on past aid or good fortune that the suzerain had previously delivered unto the vassal and the obligations that the vassal, therefore, had to the suzerain. This foundation for a treaty relationship is similar to the foundation for the Mosaic covenant and the Decalogue, according to Mendenhall. God had delivered the Israelites from Egypt in the Exodus, and they therefore are obligated to follow the commandments in the Decalogue. As the vassal, God has no further obligations towards the Israelites—but it is implied that God will continue to protect them as a result of the covenant.[8]
- Mosaic covenant - Wikipedia

​

Arguably the first covenant recorded within the Pentateuch is the covenant between God and Adam (and Eve) where Adam was to tend the garden (Genesis 1:27-28)and refrain from eating from the Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil (Genesis 2:16-27). As long as Adam obeyed the requirements, he would live. If he disobeyed he would die. Humanity is symbolised through Eve and Adam the bearer of God’s Message to humanity.

 

[Dawnofhope]

I can see that. I was asking honestly, though. What's your definition of negative and positive karma; and, how you view samsara?

I draw comparisons a lot. Nothing wrong with that. It's the religious part that gets me. But, yeah, you'd have to flucuate the definitions. That, and abrahamics have so many definitions that on either side, it's just. Confusing.

But good convo.

My understanding of Buddhism like Hinduism is a work in progress.

The concepts of both karma and Samsara have different meanings depending on whether we’re talking Buddhism, Hinduism, Jain or Sikh.

Karma for me is simply the consequences of actions. There are actions that lead to hell (intense suffering) or heaven (inner peace). Samsara is evolving from one state of being to another.

 

[rocala]

Context. English is a highly contextual language. You can't take one line and ignore the point.

Use commentary. Definitions don't help when using English I'm context unless you are talking about concrete things like math.

Are you telling me or the people who write dictionaries?
I was simply giving a definition of 'intellect' in support of your comment,

Usually, mystic religions go beyond intellect; but, then, I could be wrong?

Which I happen to agree with by the way.

 

[SalixIncendium]

Science has no Facts about how creation has come into being, just theories.

Thus the theories I have embraced can be just as valid as fact.

Regards Tony

No. Please learn the definition of a scientific theory.

 

[Vinayaka]

If they go beyond intellect, then I would be wary of them. Because they could deceive (since they are beyond intellect). 'Advaita' Hinduism is not that kind of belief.

I'm beyond intellect all the time, as are my teachers. You're wary of us?