RadheyRadhey108

Eff them all!:mad2:

Agreed.

There's a translation by Barbara Stoler-Miller called, "The Love Song of the Dark Lord". You might want to look it up on Amazon.com or Barnes & Noble.

Have you ever heard the story where a young girl was once outside of the Jaganatha temple singing Gita Govinda for Lord Krishna, and when the priests returned to do Aarti for Him, His dhoti was ripped b/c when He'd left the temple to go hear the girl's song it got snagged by something?

I'd like Obama if he weren't pro-abortion.

Now that is not Bija and Jan driving in the car is it? (good old buddies)

Pikachu and the Kangaroo riding around in Hitler's Volkswagon

Buddha himself was a meat eater, his last supper was contaminated pig-meat.

 

Now lets see what a buddhist monk named Ajahn Jagaro has to say about vegetarianism & buddhism :

 

It is not my intention to sit here and tell you what the final word on Buddhism and vegetarianism is. That is neither my intention nor the Buddhist way. My understanding comes from my experience, from my perspective, from my contemplation. You may agree or you may not; it doesn't matter as long as you reflect clearly on the matter and come to your own conclusions. I take a neutral position because I do not feel that this particular topic can be seen simply in terms of black and white. I take the Buddhist position as I understand it.

 

Let's begin with a fundamental question: Is it a prerequisite for a Buddhist to be a vegetarian according to the teachings of the Buddha, as far as we can assess? I would have to say, No, according to the Buddhist scriptures it is not a prerequisite for a person to be a vegetarian in order to be a Buddhist.

 

People say, "Well how do you know what the Buddha taught, anyway?" It's true. I don't know from personal experience; if I was there, I don't remember it. So what do we have to rely on? We have to rely on these scriptures that have been handed down through the centuries. As to whether we can trust these scriptures depends on whether we accept them as accurate recordings of the Buddha's teaching or not. In the Theravada tradition we have what we call the Pali Canon, the Buddhist scriptures. There are many volumes, the Vinaya Pitaka, the discipline for monks and nuns, the Suttanta Pitaka, which contains the discourses or teachings given by the Buddha, and finally the Abhidhamma Pitaka, which is the system of philosophy and psychology developed from the basic texts. Most scholars agree that the Abhidhamma Pitaka, the 'higher teaching', was developed by teachers of later periods from the basic texts of the Suttas as a system of analysis for easier explanation and for use in debate.

 

So there are three collections of scriptures. My research is limited to the Vinaya and the Suttas, the books of discipline and the books of discourses. From my studies I have great confidence that what is presented in these scriptures accurately represents what the Buddha taught. However, I do not claim that every word in these scriptures is exactly the word of the Buddha. There have been some changes, some additions and some alterations through the ages, but the essence is there. In essence the texts are a very true and accurate record of what the Buddha taught.

 

My basis for this reasoning is simply the fact that the people who passed on these teachings and checked them were disciples, monks and nuns who had tremendous respect for the Buddha, just as monks today have, and I don't think that many monks would dare to intentionally change the teachings of the Buddha. Very few monks would be prepared to do that. Any alterations that have taken place were simply an expedient means for making recitation more convenient. There may have been accidental alterations, but I do not think that the texts were corrupted intentionally, certainly not in any serious or major way.

 

This is verified in particular with regard to the Books of Discipline, which deal with the monastic discipline. Through the ages Buddhism slowly spread from the Ganges Valley throughout India, moving south to Sri Lanka, across to Burma and Thailand, then north towards Tibet and eventually China. Over the centuries it began to fragment into various schools. Some of these schools flourished in different parts of India and more distant locations, and so had very little or no contact with each other. When we compare the Books of Discipline, however, there's remarkable similarity between these different schools. They are so similar that they must have originally come from the same source.

 

So there is good reason for confidence in what we call the Pali Canon and to accept that it does represent the teachings of the Buddha. In any case, this is the evidence we have to deal with, because there is no one here who can say, "I heard the Buddha say differently." These scriptures are the most authoritative or the most definitive representation of the Buddha's teachings.

 

If we study these scriptures very carefully we will find that nowhere is there any injunction to either lay people or to monks with regard to vegetarianism. There is not a single mention of it as a Buddhist injunction on either the monks and nuns or lay people. If the Buddha had made vegetarianism a prerequisite it would have to be somewhere in the scriptures. Quite to the contrary, one does find a number of instances where the Buddha speaks about food, especially on the rules pertaining to the monks, indicating that, during the time of the Buddha, the monks did sometimes eat meat.

 

If you'll bear with me I would first like to present to you some of this historical evidence. In these scriptures, particularly in the Books of Discipline, there are many references to what monks are and are not allowed to do. A lot of these rules have to do with food; there are rules about all sorts of things pertaining to food, some of them very unusual. If the monks had to be vegetarian then these rules would seem to be completely useless or irrelevant.

 

For instance there is one rule which forbids monks from eating the meat of certain types of animals, such as horse, elephant, dog, snake, tiger, leopard and bear. There are about a dozen different types of meat specified by the Buddha which are not allowed for monks. That he made a rule that certain types of meat were not to be eaten by monks would indicate that other types of meat were allowable.

 

There is another rule: a monk was ill, and as he was quite sick a devout female disciple asked him if he had ever had this illness before and what did he take to cure it? It was some sort of stomach problem, and he said that he'd had it before and last time he had some meat broth which helped to relieve the symptoms. So this woman went off looking for meat to prepare a meat broth for the sick monk. However it was an uposatha (observance) day, so there was no meat available anywhere. It was a tradition in India not to slaughter animals on such days. Out of great devotion this lady decided that the monk could not be left to suffer, so she cut a piece of her own flesh and made a meat broth. She took it to the monk, offered it to him, and apparently he drank it and recovered. When the Buddha heard about this, he made a rule that monks are not allowed to eat human flesh. Thank goodness for that!

 

So here is another strange rule that would be completely pointless if there had been a stipulation that the monks never eat meat. There are many similar instances both in the Rules of Discipline and in the Discourses. When the Buddha heard a charge that Buddhist monks caused the killing of animals by eating meat, he stated that this was not so. He then declared three conditions under which monks were not to eat meat: if they have seen, heard or they suspect that the animal was killed specifically to feed them, then the monks should refuse to accept that food. At other times, when the monks go on almsround, they are supposed to look into their bowls and accept whatever is given with gratitude, without showing pleasure or displeasure. However, if a monk knows, has heard or suspects that the animal has been killed specifically to feed the monks, he should refuse to receive it.

 

There are many more examples than I have given here, scattered throughout the scriptures, indicating that it was not a requirement that either the monks or the lay people be vegetarian.

 

Furthermore, we can see that throughout the history of Buddhism there has not been one Buddhist country were vegetarianism was the common practice of the Buddhist people. This would indicate that it hasn't been the practice right from the very beginning. Although some Mahayana monks, in particular the Chinese, Vietnamese and some of the Japanese, are vegetarian, the majority of lay people are not. Historically, right up to the present day, Buddhist people in general haven't been strictly vegetarian. This would seem to support the conclusion drawn from an examination of the scriptures, that it has never been a prerequisite for people who want to be Buddhists to be vegetarian.

 

Of course it can be argued, and it often is argued, by vegetarian monks in particular, but also by lay people, that the scriptures were altered. They argue that the Buddha did teach vegetarianism, but those monks who wanted to eat meat went and changed every reference to it in all the texts. They didn't have a computer to just punch in 'reference to meat' and get a whole list. The scriptures were initially handed down by word of mouth and many monks were involved. No one had it on a disk so that it could be changed in half an hour. It would have been very difficult to change as there are many references to it throughout the scriptures. You could change it in one place but then it would be inconsistent with other references. It is highly unlikely that the monks could have achieved consistency in changing so many references throughout the scriptures, so I think the claim of corruption of the scriptures by meat-loving monks is a bit far-fetched. I think the scriptures are accurate. I think that the Buddha did not make it a prerequisite for people, nor do I think that it was laid down as a rule of training for monks.

 

A chicken cries "we have buddha to save us from these savages (hindus), but who would save us from buddha ??????????

Once again, Ajahn Jagaro isn't the Buddha... let's see what the Buddha Himself has to 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 Sutta, Anguttara, 5.177

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

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

--Digha Nikaya 1.18

On the topic of slaughter, the vedic religion of India did sacrifice animals in yajnas as was the practice in most old world religions with the exception of jainism. And of course, the sacrificed animals were always eaten.

 

It was only after Buddhism became popular that the practise of vegetarianism became fashionable and appears to have made its way into some Hindu sects. Live animals were replaced by flour animals for sacrifices.

 

According to Madhva's biography [sumadhva vijaya], animal sacrifice by Brahmanas was still happening during his time - 13th century AD. Soon after he became the head of his Matha, he opposed the concept, stood firm against stiff opposition and replaced live animals with flour animals. He did not say animal sacrifice was not sanctioned in the Veda, his position was it is not required in Kali Yuga.

 

JHa's book [Myth of the Holy Cow] also makes a strong case to show Brahmanas engaged in animal sacrifice and meat eating during the Vedic period - before the Vedic religion evolved into Hinduism.

 

Cheers

Finally, a sane person on Audarya who admits that sacrifices were committed in the name of God in Vedic times.

Rather interesting. Thanks Suchandra Ji.

So buddha himself was preaching tantra ?

The Buddha was preaching warfare in the Buddhist Tantras as much as Lord Shiva was preaching incest, abandoning all worship for worship of the yoni, prostitution, and necrophilia as a means of self-realization in the Hindu Tantras.

Not all but some of the Puranas have been tampered with by missionaries from other faiths (including buddhism) to make their respective founders acceptable to the Hindus & convert them, for instance the British tried to monopolize the publishing of all Sanskrit literature during the British Raj. They bought or confiscated any Sanskrit literature they could locate. And that is why you practically cannot find any Vedic literature that is published before 200 years ago. It is further known that they liked to publish their own translations, as if India could not produce its own Sanskrit scholars to translate the Sanskrit themselves. Plus, they would also try to interpolate various verses here and there to have the reader draw a different conclusion of the personality or traits of the characters described in the texts. Most were quite noble, but by slipping in verses that said certain persons had less than admirable qualities, or that questionable practices were used, it would change the reader’s disposition and attitude toward the Vedic culture, even if they were Indian born followers of it.

Oh, wow. Which Indologist concocted this theory? Or did you just make it up all on your own?

No I'm not familar with him. I will stay out of your feud. Of course it would be good if both of you could keep the feud off Audarya Fellowship and limit it to other foums. Just my two cents.

Yea.

"But... he... he called me names first!" Sounds rather childish, I suppose.

?

 

Where did he say that? This topic is about buddha avatara, isn't it?

Here's the conversation that went on in the 'Isn't Buddhist just a form of Vedanta?' thread:

Indulekha Dasi said (quoting Srila Jayadeva Goswami):

nindasi yajna-vidher ahaha shruti-jatam

sadaya-hrdaya darsita-pasu-ghatam

keshava dhrta-buddha-sarira jaya jagadisa hare

O Keshava! O Lord of the universe! O Lord Hari, who have assumed the form of Buddha! All glories to You! O Buddha of compassionate heart, you decry the slaughtering of poor animals performed according to the rules of Vedic sacrifice.

To which Kingdecember said:

Even if brahmins killed animals it doesn't mean that it is sanctioned in 'Vedas'. If Jayadeva Goswami is of the opinion that animals should be sacrificed as per Vedas, than I think he was not in his senses. I would like to share this article with all those who think that killing of animals is sanctioned in Vedas.

Scriptures Against Killing and Meat-Eating

Hindu scripture speaks clearly and forcefully on nonkilling and vegetarianism. In the ancient Rig Veda, we read: "O vegetable, be succulent, wholesome, strengthening; and thus, body, be fully grown." The Yajur Veda summarily dictates: "Do not injure the beings living on the earth, in the air and in the water." The beautiful Tirukural, a widely-read 2,000-year-old masterpiece of ethics, speaks of conscience: "When a man realizes that meat is the butchered flesh of another creature, he must abstain from eating it." The Manu Samhita advises: "Having well considered the origin of flesh and the cruelty of fettering and slaying of corporeal beings, let one entirely abstain from eating flesh." In the yoga-infused verses of the Tirumantiram, warning is given of how meat-eating holds the mind in gross, adharmic states: "The ignoble ones who eat flesh, death's agents bind them fast and push them quick into the fiery jaws of hell (Naraka, lower consciousness)." The roots of noninjury, nonkilling and nonconsumption of meat are found in the Vedas, agamas, Upanishads, Dharma Shastras, Tirumurai, Yoga Sutras and dozens of other sacred texts of Hinduism. Here is a select collection.

Vedas and agamas, Hinduism's Revealed Scriptures

LET YOUR AIMS BE COMMON, and your hearts be of one accord, and all of you be of one mind, so you may live well together.

Rig Veda Samhita 10.191

Protect both our species, two-legged and four-legged. Both food and water for their needs supply. May they with us increase in stature and strength. Save us from hurt all our days, O Powers!

Rig Veda Samhita 10.37.11. VE, 319

One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or of another animal, and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, O King, if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate to punish such a person.

Rig Veda Samhita, 10.87.16, FS 90

Peaceful be the earth, peaceful the ether, peaceful heaven, peaceful the waters, peaceful the herbs, peaceful the trees. May all Gods bring me peace. May there be peace through these invocations of peace. With these invocations of peace which appease everything, I render peaceful whatever here is terrible, whatever here is cruel, whatever here is sinful. Let it become auspicious, let everything be beneficial to us.

Atharva Veda Samhita 10. 191. 4

Those noble souls who practice meditation and other yogic ways, who are ever careful about all beings, who protect all animals, are the ones who are actually serious about spiritual practices.

Atharva Veda Samhita 19.48.5. FS, 90

If we have injured space, the earth or heaven, or if we have offended mother or father, from that may Agni, fire of the house, absolve us and guide us safely to the world of goodness.

Atharva Veda Samhita 6.120.1. VE, 636

You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever.

Yajur Veda Samhita 12.32. FS, 90

May all beings look at me with a friendly eye. May I do likewise, and may we all look on each other with the eyes of a friend.

Yajur Veda 36.18.

Nonviolence is all the offerings. Renunciation is the priestly honorarium. The final purification is death. Thus all the Divinities are established in this body.

Krishna Yajur Veda, Prana Upanishad 46-8. VE, 413-14

To the heavens be peace, to the sky and the earth; to the waters be peace, to plants and all trees; to the Gods be peace, to Brahman be peace, to all men be peace, again and again-peace also to me! O earthen vessel, strengthen me. May all beings regard me with friendly eyes! May I look upon all creatures with friendly eyes! With a friend's eye may we regard each other!

Shukla Yajur Veda Samhita 36.17-18. VE, 306; 342

No pain should be caused to any created being or thing.

Devikalottara agama, JAV 69-79. RM, 116

To which I said (as a means of showing that sacrifices are, at the very least, alluded to in the Vedas):

"Slight us not Varuna, nor Aryaman, nor Mitra, nor Indra, nor Ayu, nor the Maruts,

When we declare amid the congregation the virtues of the strong Steed, God-descended.

What time they bear before the Courser, covered with trappings and with wealth, the grasped oblation,

The dappled goat goeth straightforward, bleating, to the place dear to Indra and to Pusan.

Dear to all Gods, this goat, the share of Pusan, is first led forward with the vigorous Courser,

While Tvastar sends him forward with the Charger, acceptable for sacrifice, to glory.

When thrice the men lead round the Steed, in order, who goeth to the Gods as meet oblations,

The goat precedeth him, the share of Pusan, and to the Gods the sacrifice announceth.

Invoker, ministering priest, atoner, fire-kindler Soma-presser, sage, reciter,

With this well ordered sacrifice, well finished, do ye fill full the channels of the rivers.

The hewers of the post and those who carry it, and those who carve the knob to deck the Horse's stake;

Those who prepare the cooking-vessels for the Steed,—may the approving help of these promote our work.

Forth, for the regions of the Gods, the Charger with his smooth back is come my prayer attends him.

In him rejoice the singers and the sages. A good friend have we won for the Gods’ banquet.

May the fleet Courser's halter and his heel-ropes, the head-stall and the girths and cords about him.

And the grass put within his mouth to bait him,—among the Gods, too, let all these be with thee.

What part of the Steed's flesh the fly hath eaten, or is left sticking to the post or hatchet,

Or to the slayer's hands and nails adhereth,—among the Gods, too, may all this be with thee.

Food undigested steaming from his belly, and any odour of raw flesh remaining,

This let the immolators set in order and dress the sacrifice with perfect cooking.

What from thy body which with fire is roasted, when thou art set upon the spit, distilleth,

Let not that lie on earth or grass neglected, but to the longing Gods let all be offered.

They who observing that the Horse is ready call out and say, the smell is good; remove it;

And, craving meat, await the distribution,—may their approving help promote labour.

The trial-fork of the flesh-cooking caldron, the vessels out of which the broth is sprinkled,

The warming-pots, the covers of the dishes, hooks, carving-boards,—all these attend the Charger.

The starting-place, his place of rest and rolling, the ropes wherewith the Charger's feet were fastened,

The water that he drank, the food he tasted,—among the Gods, too, may all these attend thee.

Let not the fire, smoke-scented, make thee crackle, nor glowing caldron smell and break to pieces.

Offered, beloved, approved, and consecrated,—such Charger do the Gods accept with favour.

The robe they spread upon the Horse to clothe him, the upper covering and the golden trappings,

The halters which restrain the Steed, the heel-ropes,—all these, as grateful to the Gods, they offer.

If one, when seated, with excessive urging hath with his heel or with his whip distressed thee,

All these thy woes, as with the oblations' ladle at sacrifices, with my prayer I banish.

The four-and-thirty ribs of the. Swift Charger, kin to the Gods, the slayer's hatchet pierces.

Cut ye with skill, so that the parts be flawless, and piece by piece declaring them dissect them.

Of Tvastar's Charger there is one dissector,—this is the custom-two there are who guide him.

Such of his limbs as I divide in order, these, amid the balls, in fire I offer.

Let not thy dear soul burn thee as thou comest, let not the hatchet linger in thy body.

Let not a greedy clumsy immolator, missing the joints, mangle thy limbs unduly.

No, here thou diest not, thou art not injured: by easy paths unto the Gods thou goest.

Both Bays, both spotted mares are now thy fellows, and to the ass's pole is yoked the Charger.

May this Steed bring us all-sustaining riches, wealth in good kine, good horses, manly offspring.

Freedom from sin may Aditi vouchsafe us: the Steed with our oblations gain us lordship!"

--Rig Veda 1.162

"What time, first springing into life, thou neighedst, proceeding from the sea or upper waters,

Limbs of the deer hadst thou, and eagle pinions. O Steed, thy birth is nigh and must be lauded.

This Steed which Yama gave hath Trita harnessed, and him, the first of all, hath Indra mounted.

His bridle the Gandharva grasped. O Vasus, from out the Sun ye fashioned forth the Courser.

Yama art thou, O Horse; thou art Aditya; Trita art thou by secret operation.

Thou art divided thoroughly from Soma. They say thou hast three bonds in heaven

that hold thee.

Three bonds, they say, thou hast in heaven that bind thee, three in the waters,

three within the ocean.

To me thou seemest Varuna, O Courser, there where they say is thy sublimest birth-place.

Here-, Courser, are the places where they groomed thee, here are the traces of thy hoofs as winner.

Here have I seen the auspicious reins that guide thee, which those who guard the holy Law keep safely.

Thyself from far I recognized in spirit,—a Bird that from below flew through the heaven.

I saw thy head still soaring, striving upward by paths unsoiled by dust, pleasant to travel.

Here I beheld thy form, matchless in glory, eager to win thee food at the Cow's station.

Whenever a man brings thee to thine enjoyment, thou swallowest the plants most greedy eater.

After thee, Courser, come the car, the bridegroom, the kine come after, and the charm of maidens.

Full companies have followed for thy friendship: the pattern of thy vigour Gods have copied.

Horns made of gold hath he: his feet are iron: less fleet than he, though swift as thought, is Indra.

The Gods have come that they may taste the sacrifice of him who mounted, first of all, the Courser.

Symmetrical in flank, with rounded haunches, mettled like heroes, the Celestial Coursers

Put forth their strength, like swans in lengthened order, when they, the Steeds, have reached the heavenly causeway.

A body formed for flight hast thou, O Charger; swift as the wind in motion is thy spirit.

Thy horns are spread abroad in all directions: they move with restless beat in wildernesses.

The strong Steed hath come forward to the slaughter, pondering with a mind directed God-ward.

The goat who is his kin is led before him the sages and the singers follow after.

The Steed is come unto the noblest mansion, is come unto his Father and his Mother.

This day shall he approach the Gods, most welcome: then he declares good gifts to him who offers."

--Rig Veda 1.163

I'm not sure if you consider the above verses to be symbolic of something else, but I can assure you that in Lord Buddha's time, most Brahmins took them literally and sacrificed animals. So, no matter what, Srila Jiva Goswami was right in what he said, since the Vedas (at the very least appear) to approve of the sacrifice of animals (in some parts), and people did sacrifice animals according to these Vedic injunctions.

So, I guess what I said was so terrible that I needed to be called an idiot.

And, about Kalighat, here's what happened there:

ARJ (another guy on the 'Buddhism' forum):

1st how did you know [animal sacrifice] did occur

Me:

It still occurs! Some Hindus still sacrifice animals to God b/c they think that He wants it from the Vedas! Do you really think that every historian in the world is wrong about animal sacrifice having been perfomed in ancient India? I mean, it still occurs today. Why wouldn't it have occured at the beginning of the Kali Yuga as well?

ARJ:

Ever heard about the 'Lies of White Men'

Me:

Oh please. Once again, many Hindus still practice animal sacrifice today based on their ideas of Vedic sacrifice... but I suppose the Kalighat Temple is also a lie of the white man... right?<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

Which processed foods have lactic-acid added into them?

Mostly cheeses (since it's used as a preservative)... and KRAFT MACARONI AND CHEESE!!!

I always check the ingredients of everything I buy ... maybe you should too.

If we take the avatar route, then any position other than equating Siddharta <=> Gautama Buddha <=> Vishnu avatar will raise more questions and increase complexity. Simpler to go with the option of one Buddha who was the founder of the religion and also the predicted avatar.

I agree.

It is possible because,

 

1. The followers of Krishna & Rama see them just as they are described in the Puranas. This is not the case with the Buddha as his followers follow a different set of scripture which is very unlike the Puranas.

 

2. Krishna and Rama are not predicted. All the sources describing them are written after their existence on earth. This is different from the case of the Buddha who is a prediction.

 

3. Historically, Ashoka's patronage to Buddhism resulted in major changes in the status of the Brahmana in society. Perhaps for the first time, people from lower varnas were holding more authority than Brahmanas, which was a red flag. It is natural that they would have attempted to check their growth by discrediting the Buddha's teaching as false.

 

4. The Buddha avatar is not found in all avatar lists. There are several instances in the Puranas and even in the Mahabharata where the Buddha avatar is not mentioned. No such problem exists in the case of Krishna and Rama.

 

5. Finally, it is well know that the Mahabharata and all the Puranas have been subject to interpolation from a long time. Hence, it is not necessary to accept them verbatim. The general approach is look for corroboration, preferably in the Vedas and if not, then there is always the possibility of doubt.

 

Cheers

Some good points made. I still think the Buddha Avatar was Gautama (and that there was a Buddha Avatar), but I must say you make your point well.

Namaste Sri RadheyRadhey,

 

Thank you for answering my question. How come I got answers that it is not part of Hinduism? The person I asked was also a Gaudiya.

 

Can one become a Gaudiya Vaishnava if he has no access to other Gaudiya's (such as guru, temple etc.)?

 

I am just a Hindu. I don't ascribe to any specific sect. But I am interested in Gaudiya Vaishnavism.

 

Thanks again,

 

Regards,

 

ganesh_guy

Namaste Sri Ganesh-guy Prabhu

I think he was most likely from ISKCON. Some people in the ISKCON math think that since Krishna is beyond any concepts held by any religion (since He is the only one who truly knows Himself), that His worship is not Hindu as well (or something along those lines... I don't fall under that belief, so I don't really know much about their reasoning).

I, currently, have no way of attending temple or having a guru or even interacting with devotees (as my state has never been graced by such a presence), and I consider myself a Gaudiya Vaishnava, as I believe in Lord Chaitanya's philosphy. I mean, I'm not initiated or anything, but I chant rounds of the Maha Mantra and I read the scriptures, so I don't see how I'm not a Gaudiya Vaishnava. I think the Lord is more concerned with the temple of the heart than whether you are able to practice external worship in the temple. Also, you can turn your home into your own personal temple if you wish (that's what I've tried to do, with deities of Radha-Krishna and Nitai-Gaura). Not that it's bad to attend temple or anything (it's obviously very good), but if you're not able to (as I'm not able to), then I think the Lord is fine with your service at home and in your heart just the same.

Here is a short analysis related to avatarizing the Buddha.

 

Let us assume the Bhagavatam, Vishnu Purana and the Mahabharata are 5000 years old or at least older than the Buddha, i.e., before 2600 years old and the author through magical vision predicted the arrival of a Buddha whose teachings would be atheistic. Now flash forward to the time of Sidharta who has just been enlightened and is gradually getting famous.

 

1. Who is the superbrain who decided this Sidharta was the predicted Buddha? There were a number of famous teachers during that time, most of them preaching atheistic philosophies.

 

2. Or do we assume that somehow (magically) no one in the Buddha camp read the Mahabharata or any of the Puranas; were completely unaware of the prediction and just innocently named him Buddha?

 

3. There were never any predictions. A bunch of unscrupulous Purana editors inserted the story of Buddha being an avatar of Vishnu who intentionally came down to preach false philosphies.

 

#3 is the most logical choice to me. There is extensive Purana research available from Winternitz, Hazra and others to show the Buddha was not avatarized until the 5th century AD. And perhaps the most compelling reason would be that the Buddhists themselves do not see the Buddha as an avatar. Hence, such ideas of a Buddha avatara that originate externally have no value.

 

Simpler to see the Buddha as yet another teacher like Mahavira and others whose teachings became popular due to royal patronage & missionary activities from Ashoka and other kings.

 

Cheers

Why (if we are to assume that Gautama isn't the Buddha Avatara) isn't the Buddha avatara famous? All the other avatars of the Lord are famous and we know Their different Lilas. Why is this one different?

And, if # 3 is the most logical choice, then how can we trust the Puranas on Krishna or Rama or any of the other Avatars?

oh I have another question... ... my religions teacher tried to explain dharma to us, but I'm kind of lost as to what it actually is. I know it roughly means a person's duty, but what is that determined by?

Dharma is very hard to explain. It means many things to many people. Dharma can be a person's duty, but it can also be a teaching. It can be a person's religious duty as well. I suppose wikipedia would be the place to go for different definitions.

I suppose you could use the dictionary definition if nothing else (although I don't really think it grasps the full meaning of Dharma, which includes devotion to God, which is totally out of the bounds of religious or social codes):

1. performing of duties of Hinduism: in Hinduism, a person’s duty to behave according to strict religious and social codes, or the righteousness earned by performing religious and social duties. Also called dhamma

2. eternal truth in Buddhism: in Buddhism, the truth about the way things are, and will always be, in the universe or in nature, especially when contained in scripture

Sorry I couldn't be of more help ... hopefully wikipedia can help on the issue:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dharma

Jaya Radhey...hope they are nice beads:). Here is a cool site a local artisan shared with me that may be of interest http://www.etsy.com/

http://www.etsy.com/search_results.php?search_type=tag_title&search_query=mala

Thx They're absolutely beautiful! I just need to find the 108 names of Tulasi Mataji to thank Her!

I really like the skull mala on there... I'd get it if it weren't made from actual bone (well... if I knew how they got the bone to make it)!

Bija Prabhu, I got my Tulasi japa mala today Thank you so much for leading me to them!

"If you have to ask, you'll never know.":D

But He's far too sweet to remain angry with for even a second!

Oh, that naughty Little YashodaNandana!

Are they Hindu or did they just like the ceremonies and what they represented?

All of the Puranas are not bogus, but some have been definitely tampered with by missionaries & invaders.

 

"Veda na maniya baudha haya ta nastika" - Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami, so now you know who's mleccha here.

Yea... you're still the mleccha, since you still believe that the Puranas have been so defiled that even the Dasha Avatara are now in question.

There is also one more possibility, may be Siddhartha Gautama exploited this prophecy, adopted the name or made closed ones to call him Buddha & purposely chose the place Gaya.

And He also made people call His mother Anjanaa?

But, could you please give me any information on this other Buddha Avatar of the Lord, who's not Gautama? What was His birth name? How long did He live? Where did He live? Why is He not famous in the slightest?

And he's a scholar too!

Your knowledge of sanskrit must be first-rate!

 

He's not only a scholar, he's a divine representative sent to tell us that Krishna Lila as detailed in the Puranas never happened, because all the Puranas are totally worthless and only for idiots! Oh, thank God someone has been sent to take us away from Him!

According to the Kalachakra Tantra, King Suchandra (Tib. Dawa Sangpo) of the Kingdom of Shambhala requested teaching from the Buddha that would allow him to practice the Dharma without renouncing his worldly enjoyments and responsibilities.

 

In response to his request, the Buddha taught the first Kālachakra root tantra in Dhanyakataka (Palden Drepung in Tibetan)(near present day Amaravati), a small town in Andhra Pradesh in southeastern India, supposedly bilocating (appearing in two places at once) at the same time as he was also delivering the Prajnaparamita sutras at Vulture Peak Mountain in Bihar.

 

- Wikipedia

It's a Tantric book. There are Tantras in Hinduism where Lord Shiva says that it's okay to practice necrophilia and incest as long as you're doing it for self-realization. Do you believe that? Well, just as you (I'm hoping) don't believe that, similarly many Buddhists don't believe in the Buddhist Tantras.

According to the Hindu religio-philosophy of Mimamsa (1), a genuine Hindu religious text needs to be compatible with the Srutis (Veda). In other words, the edicts and practices mentioned in it should conform to the Srutis. Srutis, which are also mentioned in the Gita (or the Bhagavad Gita), include the Vedas (Rig, Yajur and Sam) and the Vedantic Upanisads. Note, the Gita is considered an Upanisad (even called as the Gitoapanisad) because the spiritual and philosophical contents of Gita are Upanisidic in nature.

 

There are many literary texts in Hinduism and these are classified as Srutis, Smritis, Puranas (Itihasas) and Epics etc. The Srutis or Vedas (meaning, literally, the acquired or compiled knowledge) belong to the earliest times when information used to be recorded and stored on papyrus and parchment etc. and transmitted from one person to other mainly through oral process (as sruti, by hearing). Since the Vedas, the most ancient Hindu texts, have stood the test of time, they are considered eternal or Sanatana. Needless to say, the most important texts in Hinduism, representing the foundation of Hindu religion and philosophy, belong to the category of Srutis or Vedas. Smritis, Puranas (Itihasas) and Epics, on the other hand (unlike the Sruti or Vedas), belong to the ancillary or secondary category. They sometimes can be used to support the Srutis on various moral issues, social traditions, and historical events etc. but only if they remain realistic and are compatible with the Srutis (1).

 

Although there are many texts that form the Srutis, there is a definite hierarchy or precedence related to their order. Rig Veda stands at the top in significance as a Sruti because it is recognized as the oldest or the most ancient Hindu scripture. Next in the Sruti hierarchy is Yajur Veda, followed by Sam Veda and then the Upanisads. The reason to also include Upanisads in the Srutis is that they are considered as the Vedanta or Vedas’ finale, which indicates that the Upanisads were directly tied to the Vedas. Note that, in some cases, Upanisads even form an integral part of the Vedas, e.g. the Isha Upanisad in the Yajur Veda.

 

The logic for establishing the importance and authenticity of various texts, i.e. assigning a certain hierarchical order to the Srutis and considering the compatibility of a given text (e.g. a smriti) with the Sruti or Vedas, is simple and straightforward. This basically helps in deciding that a genuine scriptural text meets the religio-philosophical requirements of the Srutis without violating their scriptural hierarchy or precedence. It is similar in logic and importance to the lineage principle - father coming before the son, grandfather coming before the father, and so on .

 

Since Rig Veda is the first among Srutis, any other text (another Veda or a smriti), needing a religious acceptance or validation, should be in agreement with the Rig Veda or, at least, it should not be in direct opposition to the essential themes of the Rig Veda. The philosophical rules on enquiry and investigation of a text with respect to the Vedas (especially the Rig Veda) are indicated below.

 

The rules on enquiry according to Purva Mimamsa philosophy or the Mimamsa (1) require that "The smriti and other texts (documents on traditions or customs etc.) are supposed to have corresponding sruti texts (Vedas). If certain smriti is known to have no matching sruti, it indicates that either the corresponding sruti was lost over time or the particular smriti is not authentic. Moreover, if the smritis are in conflict with the sruti, the formers are to be disregarded. When it is found out that the smritis are laid down with a selfish interest, they must be thrown out."

 

Thus, since Yajur Veda and Sam Veda agree quite well with the Rig Veda, they are considered as legitimate Srutis. Similarly, Upanisads also can be shown conforming to Vedic standards and as part of the Shrutis. Note, as indicated earlier, a number of Upanisads (philosophical Vedanta texts) form an integral part of the legitimate Vedas (e.g. Isha Upanisad in the Yajur Veda). Since Yajur Veda is recognized as a legitimate Sruti, because of its compatibility with the Rig Veda, the Isha Upanisad (a part of the Yajur Veda - a Sruti) is also considered belonging to the Srutis and in agreement with the Rig Veda. Needless to say, other Vedantic Upanisads (e.g. Katha, Kena, Prasna, Mundaka, Mandukya, Taittiriya, Aitareya, Chandogya, Brihadaranyaka, Kaivalya, Svetasvatara, and Bhagavad Gita), being religio-philosophically similar to Isha Upanisad (a Sruti), are also considered Srutis and ultimately compatible with the Rig Veda.

 

Note, while there is a scriptural compatibility involving Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sam Veda and Upanisads, same cannot be said of many other texts. For example, in spite of Atharva Veda being called a Veda, it fails to meet the Mimamsa criterion (1) because of its contradiction of Rig Veda on several key issues, such as in its lending a support to magic and sorcery etc. which are strongly condemned in the Rig Veda. Thus the Atharva Veda, due to its violation of Rig Veda, cannot be considered a genuine Veda or Sruti. Note also that even though Atharva Veda is named after the famous ancient Vedic sage Atharvan, it might not be really his creation. Its author most likely, not Atharvan, was someone else, perhaps a lesser known person, who seems to have used the famous name (Atharvan) to make Atharva Veda popular among public. In addition, there are no references to Atharva Veda in the Srutis. For example, even though Gita mentions the names of Rig Veda, Yajur Veda, Sam Veda and the Vedanta (Upanisads), it does not refer to the Atharva Veda anywhere. This indicates that Atharva Veda might not be known to ancient sages, or at least they did not consider it as a genuine Veda or Sruti. Thus it seems that Atharva Veda most likely is a recent compilation by some unknown author and has little scriptural value.

 

The same thing, as in the case of Atharva Veda, applies to the Manusmriti as not being a genuine Hindu text. It also appears to misuse the famous name Manu (ancient sage Manu) by someone else and contradicts Rig Veda on several key issues (2).

 

Regarding the Puranas (including the Itihasas) and Epics, these basically represent the ancillary (secondary) texts and are not considered as part of Vedas (Srutis). They do not adhere strictly to the rules of Mimamsa. Various Puranas generally describe the same story of creation and evolution, while changing emphases on different deities, characters and places from one text (version) to other. The Epics (different versions of Ramayana and Mahabharata) on the other hand narrate stories and folklores on people and places from the past and even provide lessons in morality. In addition, Puranas and Smritis etc. are also used to convey the message of Srutis and philosophies (including the lessons on morality etc.) to people by using easy to understand examples, parables and metaphoric tales. They may even make use of animals and fictional characters for conveying the message. In general, the nature and scriptural quality of Puranas, Smritis and Epics is not at the same level as in the case of Vedas or Srutis (listed in Ref. 3).

 

Sometimes the Puranas and Smritis might also include totally ridiculous explanations and unbelievable tales on deities, worship practices and social customs etc. These types of flawed narrations usually are not found in the Srutis and therefore have little support from the Vedas. Needless to say, such misleading tales and texts (in Puranas etc.) fail to qualify according to Mimamsa (1) in their acceptance as genuine and reliable scriptural sources (Srutis). Moreover, the reason for such flawed information in a Purana could be that it probably was put together rather recently by an individual or individuals who were unable to correctly explain things related to certain natural phenomenon or pre-existing customs and practices. It is thus up to a reader of these texts (Puranas, Smritis and Epics etc.) to use discretion and not believe everything written in them blindly. For example, there is no reason to take things literally if they indicate a lack of common sense and seem unrealistic (fictitious) and ridiculous. They most likely are the result of author’s misunderstanding and misinterpretation etc. and therefore totally unacceptable according to Mimamsa (1).

 

 

<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

So, I take it you don't believe in most of Krishna Lila, since most of it is detailed within Puranas? And, you don't believe in Puranas, so you must not believe in most of the avatars, like Matsya, Kurma, Varaha, Narasimha, Parashuram, (Rama is mentioned in Ramayana and Bhagavata Purana, and as I'm not sure how you feel about Ramayana, I won't mention Him), most of Krishna Lila, or Kalki. Hmmm. Well, after all of that, all I have to say is:

Always nice to have another mleccha at Audarya.

Vaishnavas accept the older one as the avatara.

I think it's up to any Vaishnava to accept either Gautama Buddha as an Avatara, or an older Buddha as an Avatara. There's evidence for both, so I suppose it's up to us. It seems strange to me though that there would be an Avatara of the Lord so un-famous that only a few select Vaishnavas know of Him. And that He would be so similar (same titles, similar missions, large life events happening in the same place, mothers having the same name, etc...) to another, later, and more famous Buddha. Unless He expressed the exact same Lila twice in the same Yuga, I'm not thinking that there are two Buddhas (the incarnation being the far less famous).