RadheyRadhey108

Once again, why should our SECULAR government be allowed to ban marriage between any two adults who are willing to be married? I would really like an answer. Does anyone have a reason other than, "Well, my guru interpreted this vague scripture verse as...", or "I think that God made it this way b/c..."?

and it was very well pointed out by ARJ in the other thread, why do someone who belives in Ahimsa need lethal forms of martial art ? is it for 'Shambala War' ? it is true that all forms of eastern martial arts were perfected by buddhist schools.

Hey, brainless, this thread is about the Buddha Himself, not what some people have done while claiming to be Buddhist. We all know that there are many Hindus who don't do what Lord Krishna would want, and, similarly, there are many Buddhists who don't do what Lord Buddha would want. We can't judge someone based only on what we presume (since you've cited no evidence whatsoever for your sweeping generalizations of all Buddhists) their 'followers' to do. We know that the Buddha was a proponent of Ahimsa (no matter what His 'followers' do). Every scripture that we have shows Him as encouraging nonviolence. Until you can find a non-Tantric scripture showing Him as encouraging war, don't talk about the Buddha not following Ahimsa. All scriptures point toward a nonviolent Gautama Buddha:

"Abandoning the taking of life, the ascetic Gautama dwells refraining from taking life, without stick or sword."

--Digha Nikaya 1.18

"Hatreds do not ever cease in this world by hating, but by love. This is an eternal truth... Overcome anger by love, overcome evil by good. Overcome the miser by giving. Overcome the liar by truth."

--Dhammapada 1.5, 17.3

"If one should give you a blow with his hand, with a stick, or with a dagger, you should abandon all desires and utter nothing evil."

--Majjhima Nikaya 21.6

Now, do you have a non-Tantric source to refute these (all you've indirectly cited is a Tantric source)? I ask for a non-Tantric source, b/c if you wish to claim the Tantras to be historically accurate, then you must also believe that Lord Shiva encourages promiscuity, necrophilia, prostitution, the abandonment of all forms of worship for Yoni Puja, and meat-eating as long as it's done as a form of self-realization. But, I'm guessing you don't want to go down that road.

This thread needs some reconciliation.

Jai Hari-Hara!

I can ascertain that a couple of Mahatmas born in Kali Yuga are definitely not scoundrels. One of them is the Ninth Avatara Adi Shankara & the other is Swami Ramdev.

 

Honestly, you are such an idiot. Adi Shankaracharya is NOT the ninth avatara. He is an incarnation of Lord Shiva, not one of the Mahavatars of Lord Vishnu. And, even if you meant as an Avatar of Lord Shiva, He's not the ninth. Hanuman is named as Lord Shiva's eleventh avatar, so how could Adi Shankara be the ninth Shiva-avatar if He came after Lord Hanuman?

And, I can't even believe that you aimed that little cartoon at me, since it's been accepted for centuries that there is a Buddha-Avatar of the Lord, and you're the one changing your view based on current, popular opinion. You don't read or follow shastra for the same reason.

Kali Yuga is meant for scoundrels.

So what? Do you think that everyone born in the Kali Yuga is now a scoundrel? So I guess that Lord Chaitanya is now a scoundrel? And Sri Ramanujacharya, Mira Bai, Aandaal, and all the other great saints and avatars of the Sanatan Dharma sent into this world as a beacon of light?

Aren't we being a little dense?

 

This is not about slaughtering animals for food. It is about *sacrificing* animals following prescribed rites. You may like it or leave it, but this was the belief and was practised for thousands of years until it ceased to be fashionable.

 

Just in case you are thinking I endorse the practise and am sacrificing animals in my backyard, I am not.

 

If you want to know more, read "Myth of the holy cow".

 

Cheers

I'm sorry. I thought you were supporting animal slaughter. Many apologies. I know you don't sacrifice animals, but I just thought you were supporting the slaughter of animals for food by using Vedic sacrifice as a justification. Once again, my deepest apologies for my grevious misunderstanding.

Now you may counter that to deny gays the same deal if they kept it private is not consistant with what I say here, but first you have to produce a gay couple who refuse to explain their sexual proclivities, thus sexually harassing me, a third party. Because you cannot produce such a couple, then your argument is moot.

There are many homosexual couples who aren't 'out and open' about anything they do in their bedrooms. I'm friends with one couple who are in a lesbian relationship and who have never told me anything whatsoever of anything that they do romantically/sexually in their relationship. So, no, it's not moot. The lesbian couple I just mentioned aren't 'sexually harassing' you by being in a mutual and loving relationship with each other. So, to me, your argument is moot. In fact, I've never actually met a homosexual couple or a homosexual who tells me about anything they do of a sexual nature. However, I have met many heterosexual couples who can't keep their hands off of each other in front of me and who are constantly saying disgusting things in front of me. So, I suppose that since I've had a bad experience with a few heterosexual couples that I should openly protest the marriage of a man to a woman b/c I've been 'sexually harassed' by a few couples (besides that, someone telling me about their sexual experiences isn't sexual harassment... if they asked me to have sex with them, touched me inappropriately, or made sexual comments about me, that'd be sexual harassment).

And, besides that, you have no other argument except for your prejudice (which is exactly what that is, since it's not true about every homosexual) as to why a secular government, as we have in the United States, should prevent marriage to homosexuals just b/c some religious people get 'weirded out', or b/c heterosexuals think what they do is 'icky'.

My spiritual master has made it quite clear that the issue is not gay or straight, it is the issue of unrestricted sense gratification., Such activity destroys cleanliness, a pillar of spiritual life. One cannot allow the mind to act like a billygoat and be accepted as a human being. Human means control of senses, not unrestricted activity of rats, dogs, pigeons, and goats. Without sense control, there is no spiritual progress, just as elephants do not clean themselves in the water if they roll in the dirt afterwards.

 

Therefore, shastra affirms the allowed sex life. In fact, such life is said to be Krsna Himself, that sex life done per spiritual code. Procreation, and sanctity of marriage is there in shastra, and there are issues that the gay movement has actually given a devotee some room to think. As mentioned, Im not hompophobic, I support their right to equal protection under the law. They should be able to unite under secular law, secular contract. I even support the marriage to the extent that straight folks fully compliant to scriptural injunction and performing actual devotional service by procreating Krsna consciousw offspring are often denied rights they should have, such as in the case where devotees accept each other yet are not recognized by priests, judges or licensing officials.

Once again, religious arguments that our government doesn't have to pay any attention to, because they're only the arguments of one specific religious ideology. It's not like every religious person in the world thinks that way or has your same guru.

Finally the Buddhists are understanding their responsibility to introduce vegetarianism

There have been many Buddhist vegetarians over the years. I don't see how this is new.

By your own logic, No. Humans are capable of advancing spiritually which animals are not. Hence, the differentiation as this is the only shortcut available to animals.

 

Cheers

So, it's more merciful to slit an animal's throat, eat it's flesh, and let it go on it's way to it's next life (which, we don't even know what the animal will be reincarnated as) than to let it live out it's own life, learn what it needed to learn from that life in the first place, and then die naturally?

Why is it any of our business who people marry? Can anyone answer that? We have a secular government. It is absolutely none of our business what people do in consensual sex. So, how is it our right, in the slightest, to prevent homosexuals from marrying?

Sacrifices in Yajnas were for animals...not humans.

 

Cheers

What's the difference? Intelligence? Does that mean that it's okay to sacrifice babies as well?

Glad to have helped, raemanzu

Is it possible that the same source talks about ahimsa and also about animal sacrifice? Why not? The claim is the animal is slaughtered to not know any pain and will ascend to higher realms, something that is not available to other animals. It is considered a privilege and is beneficial to the animal. And what do you do with the meat? Waste it or eat it? Yajnavalkya, et al., made it abundantly clear that they ate and enjoyed the tender meat of these calves that ascended heaven.

So then it'd be okay to kill a sadhu or a sannyasi (b/c you know that they're in Maha Samadhi and you'll just be sending them to God) and then eat their flesh as well?

I also have mentioned this many times. There is even an incident in the Bhagavatam of sacricing a "man/animal". Even in Vrndavan we read this. Krishna and His cowherd friends were playing in the forest.They became hungry and sought foodstuff from the house of brahmanas. The brahmanas were busy doing animal sacrifice but their wives were attracted to Krishna and fed Him and His friends.

 

Very instructive as to what real sacrifice entails.

Exactly. I mean, it's pretty obvious that animal sacrifice has been around for a very long time, even in glorious, infallible, absolutely perfect India, which has perfectly infallible citizens who could NEVER mininterpret a Vedic verse that is clearly talking about a (possibly symbolic?) sacrifice... especially when it would suit their own needs. Hence the reason that Lord Krishna specified the things He wanted offered to Him (of course, puja has been around for a long time as well, and He wouldn't have specified exactly what He wanted offered to Him if people were already offering what He wanted without any extra (e.g.-animal flesh, which is, strangely enough, the only food item He doesn't mention)).

You mean buddha whispered this into your ears ?

You are so thick, it's utterly ridiculous. I quoted the Buddha's words from scripture which refute Ajahn Jagaro's position.

By the way in Pali Canon, Vinaya Pitaka, Chapter on Devadata (Buddha’s first cousin) the Buddha is reported to have said:

 

"I have allowed fish and meat that is pure in the three aspects; when it is not seen or heard or suspected to have been killed for one personally."

 

The above may be found in "The Life of the Buddha" by Bhikkhu Nanamoli pg. 267.

 

Pali Canon, Majjhima Nikaya, Javaka Sutta, verse 5

 

"Jivaka, I say that there are three instances in which meat should not be eaten: when it is seen, heard, or suspected (that the living being has been slaughtered for the bhikkhu).

 

I say that meat should not be eaten in these three instances. I say that there are three instances in which meat may be eaten: when it is not seen, not heard, and not suspected (that the living being has been slaughtered for the bhikkhu). I say that meat may be eaten in these three instances.

 

The above may be found in "The Middle Length Discourses of the Buddha" by Bhikkhu Nanamoli and Bhikkhu Bodhi pg. 474

Since I guess you can only read some Buddhist scriptures at certain times, I'll give you the basic jist of the Maha Parinirvana Sutra that I've posted about eighty times on here.

In the Maha Parinirvana Sutra, the Buddha says that the reason why he sanctioned meat eating in only some circumstances was to limit his disciples' eating of meat, so that he could slowly wean them off of meat in order to make them vegetarians.

--------

Then Maha-Kasyapaika-gotra asked, “If it is very important to uphold the impropriety of meat-eating, would it not then be wrong to give meat to those who do not want meat?”

[The Buddha replied:] “Excellent, noble son, excellent! You have understood my intention. One who protects the authentic Dharma should not do that. Noble son, henceforth I do not permit my disciples to eat meat. If I have said that [one should view] the country’s alms-food as the flesh of one’s son, how could I permit the eating of meat? I teach that the eating of meat cuts off Great Loving-kindness.”

“Blessed One, why did you permit the eating of meat that was blameless in

three respects?”

“Because I stipulated these three types of blameless as a provisional basis of training; I now discard them.”

“Blessed One, what was your intention in talking of the ninefold great benefit and the abandoning of the ten types of meat?”

“Because those pronouncements were stipulated to restrict the eating of meat; they are also withdrawn.”

“Blessed One, what was your intention in stating that meat and fish are wholesome foodstuffs?”

“I did not say that meat and fish are wholesome foodstuffs, but I have said that sugar-cane, winter-rice, ordinary rice, wheat, barley, green lentils, black lentils, molasses, sugar, honey, ghee, milk and sesame oil are wholesome foodstuffs. If I have taught that even the various garments for covering the body should be dyed an unattractive colour, then how much more so [i.e. undesirable] attachment to the taste of meat foods!”

“In that case, does it not follow that the five milk products, sesame, sesame oil, sugar-cane sap, conch-shell, silk and so forth also violate the precepts?”

“Don’t cleave to the views of the Nirgranthas! I have imposed the bases of training upon you with a different intention: I stipulate that you should not even eat meat blameless in the three respects. Even those meats other than the ten [previously forbidden] kinds should be abandoned. The meat of corpses should also be abandoned. All creatures sense the odor and are frightened by meat-eaters, no matter if they are moving around or resting. If a person eats asafetida or garlic, everybody else feels uncomfortable and alienated – whether in a crowd of many people or in the midst of many creatures, they all know that that person has eaten them. Similarly, all creatures can recognize a person who eats meat and, when they catch the odor, they are frightened by the terror of death. Wherever that person roams, the beings in the waters, on dry land or in the sky are frightened. Thinking that they will be killed by that person, they even swoon or die. For these reasons, Bodhisattva-mahasattvas do not eat meat. Even though they may appear to eat meat on account of those to be converted, since they do not actually eat ordinary food, then how much less so meat! Noble son, when many hundreds of years have elapsed after I have gone, there will be no stream-enterers, once-returners, non-returners or arhats. In the age of the Dharma’s decline, there will be monks who preserve the vinaya and abhidharma and who have a multitude of rituals, but who also look after their physical well-being, who highly esteem various kinds of meat, whose humours are disturbed, who are troubled by hunger and thirst, whose clothing looks a fright, who have robes with splashes of colour like a cowherd or a fowler, who behave like cats, who assert that they are arhats, who are pained by many hurts, whose bodies will be soiled with their own feces and urine, who dress themselves well as though they were munis, who dress themselves as sramanas [ascetic wanderers], though they are not, and who hold spurious writings to be the authentic Dharma. These people destroy what I have devised – the vinaya, rites, comportment and the authentic utterances that free and liberate one from attachment to what is improper, selecting and reciting passages from each of the sutras according to their inclinations. Thus there will appear [bogus] sramanas, sons of Shakyamuni [the Buddha], who will claim that, ‘According to our vinaya, the Blessed One has said that alms of meat-stuffs are acceptable’ and who will concoct their own [scriptures] and contradict each other. “Moreover, noble son, there will also be those who accept raw cereals, meat and fish, do their own cooking and [stock-pile] pots of sesame oil; who frequent leather-makers, parasol-makers and royalty … The person I call a monk is one who abandons those things.”

“Blessed One, what should be done by monks, nuns, male lay followers of Buddhism and female lay followers of Buddhism, who depend upon what is offered to them, to purify alms-food that contains meat in such places where the food has not been verified?”

“Noble son, I have taught that it does not contradict the vinaya in any way if they wash it [i.e. the non-meat food] with water and then eat it. If it appears that the food in such places contains a lot of prepared meat, it should be rejected. There is no fault if one vessel touches another but the food is not actually mixed together. I say that even meat, fish, game, dried hooves and scraps of meat left over by others constitute an infraction. Previously, I taught this in cases arising from the needs of the situation. Now, on this occasion, I teach the harm arising from meat-eating. Being the time when I shall pass into Parinirvana, this is a comprehensive declaration.”

-Maha Parinirvana Sutra

--------------------------------

Also, in the Pali Canon, the Buddha says that a disciple shouldn't practice business in meat! Stating that it's equal to business in poison and slavery! Yea... that sure sounds like something a viscious animal torturer would say.

------------------------------

Monks, a lay follower should not engage in five types of business. Which five? Business in weapons, business in human beings, business in meat, business in intoxicants, and business in poison. These are the five types of business that a lay follower should not engage in.

--Pali Canon, Vanijja Sutra, Anguttara, 5.177

can you explain this:

 

Srimad Bhagavata Purana canto 1, chapter 3, verse 13:

 

ashtame merudevyam tu

nabher jata urukramah

darsayan vartma dhiranam

sarvasrama-namaskritam

 

The Chaturyuga Khanda Dvitiyadhyayah, Bhavishya Purana, chapter 19, verse 30:

 

isha muurtirt-dradi praptaa

nityashuddha sivamkari

ishamasihah iti ca

mama nama pratishthitam

 

don't see any difference between you & a guy named zakir naik

The eighth incarnation was King Rsabha, son of King Nabhi and his wife Merudevi. In this incarnation the Lord showed the path of perfection, which is followed by those who have fully controlled their senses and who are honored by all orders of life.

-Bhagavata Purana, 1.3.13

--------

What does this have to do with this conversation? We were talking specifically about the Lord's incarnation as Buddha, and not about His incarnation as King Rsabha. Could you please explain your train of thought?

Translation for the second verse please? Is it something about Jesus or Mohammad, which you often claim are in the Bhavishya Purana? But, once again, if the verse does have to do with 'Jesus' or 'Mohammad', their parents aren't called by name, the place they appeared (or made their appearance known) isn't mentioned, the time in which they were born isn't described, and their missions aren't described. Oh, and let's not forget that they aren't considered as members of the MAHA DASHA AVATARA (Ten Great Incarnations of the Lord) by any Vaishnava, since you'd have to get rid of one or two (like... oh, say... Lord Buddha?) to make room for them.

Sorry Radhey for the delay!

They're beautiful! Are They solid gold?!

No picking a teacher as the teacher must offer the knowledg equal to all mankind.

 

The last buddha is the same as the antichrist as it is when the last conveys what is true that no religions will be the key to understanding ever again.

 

The choice was a selfless choice to learn over the course of life for the purpose of tomorrow. Just as all the others had done as in evolution, knowledge has also evolved but the difference is now we have the internet and knowledge from the globe can be touched by a simple choice.

 

The birth is of the 'west'. In a month/year of 6/66 June of 1966. With only one ear deformed (statues all show both ears) and brings the knowledge of light grounding all the religions, sciences and philosophies in one change to comprehending energy itself.

 

ie.... the trinity of existence is 'all mass, all energy (light) and all time and the math is thought to be the 'name of god'.......... the total; ONE!

 

when you bump into the compassionate giver of truth, please share to the world as only by choice can one pursue what is true.

Hey, I'm 'pro-choice' (figuratively speaking) for most things. But, I don't think that Vaishnavas need to start choosing which Avatars in the Maha Dasha Avataram they want to throw out based on their own personal whimsy. The Lord's incarnations aren't just some game of 'eeney meeney miney moe, catch a tiger by the toe, if he hollers let him go, eeney meeney miney moe', where we can just pick and choose which Avatars to throw out and which Avatars to keep. They are who They are, and it's not our decision to pick and choose. That's like saying, "Well... I really didn't like Teddy Roosevelt too much, so he's not a president of the U.S. to me... but I really like Abraham Lincoln, so he can stay as a president of the United States. I'm going to re-write the history books and say that Teddy Roosevelt was never a president!" That's not how it works. We can't change history and we can't change the Lord's Avatars. It's not something we have a say in. It's not an election or a popularity contest. If you don't want to believe in one of the Lord's avatars, then don't believe in any of them, because that might as well be what someone is saying when they start picking and choosing avatars to throw out of the Maha Dasha Avataram. If you leave out one Avatar (especially when there's shastric evidence to the contrary) then you're calling into question the existence of all of Them and might as well stop believing in any of Them.

Jai Sriman Narasimha Deva! Jai Sri Prahlada Maharaj!

If you don't want to do it, don't. I, myself, have no major qualms concerning alcohol, but... for example... I'd never offer someone a steak if that was the custom in my country, because it would violate my values and principles. I'm sure that if you explain to them why, they won't have a problem.

... or... you could always take the easy way out -> "Eh... I'm in alcoholics anonymous, and they recommend I not be around alcohol... heh-heh."

Yeah...last year I thought the same thing and wondered if the shipment went missing:).

Hahaha It's happened to me before!

I ordered mine last year Radhey. It took some time to come.

Oh, okay. I guess they're just slow then.

Eight names of Tulasi Devi:

Jai Sri Vrindavani! Jai Sri Vrinda! Jai Sri Vishvapujita! Jai Sri Pushpasara! Jai Sri Nandini! Jai Sri Krishna Jivani! Jai Sri Vishva Pavani! Jai Sri Tulasi!

Why can't his friends and family just perform their own cremation ceremony after his death? Is that illegal?

Barbara Stoller-Miller's translation is very scholarly and academic.

Yea, her translations are often rather dry (no offense to her)... they're often the best I can get though at the local bookstores (which have pathetically small sections on Hinduism, since there's not too much interest in Eastern spirituality here in Indiana).

BTW, have you gotten your copy of Srimad Brahma Samhita yet? B/c mine still hasn't arrived.