ARJ

August 18, 2008

Krsna in Jainism is prominent but the correct understanding on service to Krsna has been diluted over time of thousanda of years due to deviations

The most exalted figures in Jainism are the twenty-four Tirthankaras. Krishna, when he was incorporated into the Jain list of heroic figures presented a problem with his activities which are not pacifist or non-violent. The concept of Baladeva, Vasudeva and Prati-Vasedeva was used to solve it.

The Jain list of sixty-three Shalakapurshas or notable figures includes amongst others, the twenty-four Tirthankaras and nine sets of this triad. One of these triads is Krishna as the Vasudeva, Balarama as the Baladeva and Jarasandha as the Prati-Vasudeva. He was a cousin of the twenty-second Tirthankara, Neminatha.

The stories of these triads can be found in the Harivamsha of Jinasena (not be confused with its namesake, the addendum to Mahabharata) and the Trishashti-shalakapurusha-charita of Hemachandra.

In each age of the Jain cyclic time is born a Vasudeva with an elder brother termed the Baladeva. The villain is the Prati-vasudeva. Baladeva is the upholder of the Jain principle of non-violence.

However, Vasudeva has to forsake this principle to kill the Prati-Vasudeva and save the world. The Vasudeva then has to descend to hell as punishment for this violent act. Having undergone the punishment, he is then reborn as a Tirthankara.

Yes your are correct, the jains know Krishna as Rishabha, as a matter of fact the following verses from Srimad Bhagavatam proves that Rishabha was the eighth Avatara :

ashtame merudevyam tu

nabher jata urukramah

darsayan vartma dhiranam

sarvasrama-namaskritam

So it shouldn't make any difference if it's Krishna or Rishabha, let's accept Rishabha(with his teachings) as the eighth avatara.

Or is it there's no Krishna at all ?

August 16, 2008

<center>
The Authorised understanding of Lord Buddha

Lord Buddha As mentioned in the Srimad Bhagavatam

</center>

tataù kalau sampravåtte

sammohäya sura-dviñäm

buddho nämnäïjana-sutaù

kékaöeñu bhaviñyati

SYNONYMS

tataù—thereafter; kalau—the age of Kali; sampravåtte—having ensued; sammohäya—for the purpose of deluding; sura—the theists; dviñäm—those who are envious; buddhaù—Lord Buddha; nämnä—of the name; aïjana-sutaù—whose mother was Aïjanä; kékaöeñu—in the province of Gayä (Bihar); bhaviñyati—will take place.

TRANSLATION

Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Aïjanä, in the province of Gayä, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.

PURPORT by HDG Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada -

Lord Buddha, a powerful incarnation of the Personality of Godhead, appeared in the province of Gayä (Bihar) as the son of Aïjanä, and he preached his own conception of nonviolence and deprecated even the animal sacrifices sanctioned in the Vedas.

At the time when Lord Buddha appeared, the people in general were atheistic and preferred animal flesh to anything else. On the plea of Vedic sacrifice, every place was practically turned into a slaughterhouse, and animal-killing was indulged in unrestrictedly.

Lord Buddha preached nonviolence, taking pity on the poor animals. He preached that he did not believe in the tenets of the Vedas and stressed the adverse psychological effects incurred by animal-killing.

Less intelligent men of the age of Kali, who had no faith in God, followed his principle, and for the time being they were trained in moral discipline and nonviolence, the preliminary steps for proceeding further on the path of God realization.

He deluded the atheists because such atheists who followed his principles did not believe in God, but they kept their absolute faith in Lord Buddha, who himself was the incarnation of God.

Thus the faithless people were made to believe in God in the form of Lord Buddha. That was the mercy of Lord Buddha: he made the faithless faithful to him.

Killing of animals before the advent of Lord Buddha was the most prominent feature of the society. People claimed that these were Vedic sacrifices.

When the Vedas are not accepted through the authoritative disciplic succession, the casual readers of the Vedas are misled by the flowery language of that system of knowledge.

In the Bhagavad-Gita a comment has been made on such foolish scholars (avipaçcitaù). The foolish scholars of Vedic literature who do not care to receive the transcendental message through the transcendental realized sources of disciplic succession are sure to be bewildered.

To them, the ritualistic ceremonies are considered to be all in all. They have no depth of knowledge. According to the Bhagavad-Gita (15.15), vedaiç ca sarvair aham eva vedyaù: the whole system of the Vedas is to lead one gradually to the path of the Supreme Lord.

The whole theme of Vedic literature is to know the Supreme Lord, the individual soul, the cosmic situation and the relation between all these items. When the relation is known, the relative function begins, and as a result of such a function the ultimate goal of life or going back to Godhead takes place in the easiest manner.

Unfortunately, unauthorized scholars of the Vedas become captivated by the purificatory ceremonies only, and natural progress is thereby checked.

To such bewildered persons of atheistic propensity, Lord Buddha is the emblem of theism.

He therefore first of all wanted to check the habit of animal-killing. The animal-killers are dangerous elements on the path going back to Godhead. There are two types of animal-killers. The soul is also sometimes called the “animal” or the living being.

Therefore, both the slaughterer of animals and those who have lost their identity of soul are animal-killers.

Maharaja Parikshit said that only the animal-killer cannot relish the transcendental message of the Supreme Lord.

Therefore if people are to be educated to the path of Godhead, they must be taught first and foremost to stop the process of animal-killing as above mentioned.

It is nonsensical to say that animal-killing has nothing to do with spiritual realization. By this dangerous theory many so-called sannyasis have sprung up by the grace of Kali-yuga who preach animal-killing under the garb of the Vedas.

The subject matter has already been discussed in the conversation between Lord Caitanya and Maulana Chand Kazi Shaheb.

The animal sacrifice as stated in the Vedas is different from the unrestricted animal-killing in the slaughterhouse.

Because the asuras or the so-called scholars of Vedic literatures put forward the evidence of animal-killing in the Vedas, Lord Buddha superficially denied the authority of the Vedas.

This rejection of the Vedas by Lord Buddha was adopted in order to save people from the vice of animal-killing as well as to save the poor animals from the slaughtering process of their big brothers who clamor for universal brotherhood, peace, justice and equity.

There is no justice when there is animal-killing. Lord Buddha wanted to stop it completely, and therefore his cult of ahiàsä was propagated not only in India but also outside the country.

Technically Lord Buddha’s philosophy is called atheistic because there is no acceptance of the Supreme Lord and because that system of philosophy denied the authority of the Vedas. But that is an act of camouflage by the Lord.

Lord Buddha is the incarnation of Godhead. As such, he is the original propounder of Vedic knowledge. He therefore cannot reject Vedic philosophy.

But he rejected it outwardly because the sura-dviña, or the demons who are always envious of the devotees of Godhead, try to support cow-killing or animal-killing from the pages of the Vedas, and this is now being done by the modernized sannyäsés.

Lord Buddha had to reject the authority of the Vedas altogether. This is simply technical, and had it not been so he would not have been so accepted as the incarnation of Godhead.

Nor would he have been worshiped in the transcendental songs of the poet Jayadeva, who is a Vaishnava acarya.

Lord Buddha preached the preliminary principles of the Vedas in a manner suitable for the time being (and so also did Çaìkaräcärya) to establish the authority of the Vedas.

Therefore both Lord Buddha and Acarya Çaìkara paved the path of theism, and Vaishnava Acaryas, specifically Lord Sri Caitanya Mahäprabhu, led the people on the path towards a realization of going back to Godhead.

We are glad that people are taking interest in the nonviolent movement of Lord Buddha. But will they take the matter very seriously and close the animal slaughterhouses altogether?

If not, there is no meaning to the ahiàsä cult.

Çrémad-Bhägavatam was composed just prior to the beginning of the age of Kali (about five thousand years ago), and Lord Buddha appeared about twenty-six hundred years ago.

Therefore in the Srimad-Bhagavatam Lord Buddha is foretold. Such is the authority of this clear scripture. There are many such prophecies, and they are being fulfilled one after another.

They will indicate the positive standing of Srimad-Bhagavatam, which is without trace of mistake, illusion, cheating and imperfection, which are the four flaws of all conditioned souls.

The liberated souls are above these flaws; therefore they can see and foretell things which are to take place on distant future dates. (Srila A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada. Srimad Bhagavatam 1:3:24. text and purport.)
http://www.vedabase.com/

What's wrong with Jainism ?

August 16, 2008

Thing is that Buddhism is preaching far better than anybody else. Prabhupada once said if Lord Caitanya wouldnt have defeated the Buddhists in India we would have in India the same like in China, Japan, Malasia etc - Buddhist supremacy, since Hindus are the worst preachers.

"Wisdom lies in never forgetting the Self, the Supreme Absolute as the ever present source of both the experiencer and the experiences" this is what kicked Buddha out, but yes Hindus are worst preachers.

August 16, 2008

Since the final goal of Buddhism is to realize that there is nothing, zero, there cannot be any aim for "binding together in relationship".

From ZERO to number ONE hero

Shankara rocks :P

August 9, 2008

For such a person, any punishment or ‘haany’ would seem to originate from nowhere

Beautiful.

LORD RAM is SARVOTAMA, whereas LORD HANUMAN is JEEVOTAMA

Lord Ram and Lord Hanuman are one & the same.

August 7, 2008

Lord is to be understood, not believed
The lord is not a matter for belief. He is a matter for understanding. This world is not a matter for belief because you perceive it. Therefore Lord is also not something to be believed, it is a challenge to understand him. If the Lord is in heaven, not within the range of your perception or inference, then He becomes a matter of belief. In that case you simply accept what you are told without asking questions. But the Lord of the Hindus is not a matter for belief. Hindus do not simply believe in God, they understand God. That is the reason why Hindus even worship space. There are temples in India that worship the five elements. You don’t require a particular altar to invoke the Lord. You can invoke Him anywhere because what is it that is not the Lord? The whole Order is the Lord, all the laws are the Lord.

We are objective when we are alive to the reality. We are talking about what is and so there is no question of belief. We can see that gold is different from copper and that is different from lead because each metal has its own atomic weight, its own physical and other properties. But a physicist knows that all of them are nothing but energy, quanta of energy. That is not a belief. If someone says, ‘I don’t see that’, then that person may have to believe, but that is not a belief that one has to live with and die with. What we have here is belief pending discovery. There is something to be understood. We understand the difference and at the same time, understand the non-difference, something more than meets the eye. That is the vision of the Veda that this whole universe is non-separate from the Lord because He is the efficient cause as well as the material cause.

Since the Lord is everything, he is all the names, all the forms and therefore we can invoke Him in any name, any form. This is the mature way of looking at the worship of God. We can pray to Him in any language because He is Omniscient and therefore should know all languages. In fact He should respond even before we call Him. This is not tolerance or anything, this is only understanding. They say that Hindus are tolerant of various forms of worship. We are tolerant no doubt, but in this particular case, we are not just tolerant. We have total acceptance as far as worship is concerned, prayer is concerned. That is why very often we find many devatas, deities in a typical room of worship. Every aspect of the Lord is represented there. We look upon the Sun as God, so we have Surya devataa. We look upon air as God, so we have Vayudevataa; we look upon earth as God: so we have Prthividevataa and so on. We worship the efficient cause, the intelligent cause and the material becomes the symbol for that. We worship the omniscient, omnipotent Lord through the symbol of the material. The sun, the moon, air etc become the symbol through which we worship the Lord. We have a variety of devatas (deities) through which we worship one God.

The Only God

We don’t even say, ‘one God’. We say ‘only God’. When you say there is one God, that means you are different from Him and He is situated somewhere else. If God is different from you, He does not include you, which means His power does not include your power. If He is different from you, then He is different from me and different from all the living beings. That means God’s power does not include the power that you have, I have, that other gods and demi-gods have, that the mosquitoes and the bugs have. Then He can only be mighty but not Almighty. He is like my uncle who is also a very powerful man. But even a mighty person is subject to limitations. Even the president of the U.S.A, a mighty person, is subject to mosquito bites and attacks from viruses! Similarly, the mighty God will also be subject to such limitations.

So, understand, it is not that there is one God. There is only God and so if someone invokes Him as Allah, that is fine; if someone invokes Him as Jesus, that is also fine. We have no problem at all. If someone cannot accept the fact of people invoking God in different names and forms, it is his/her problem. We have no problem because we do not have many gods, we do not even have one God, we have only God.

Om Tat Sat

Thanks barney, for explaining the TRUTH so beautifully.

August 5, 2008

Peace 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: X. 191. 4

Let us have concord with our own people, and concord with people who are strangers to us; Asvins, create between us and the strangers a unity of hearts. May we unite in our midst, unite in our purposes, and not fight against the divine spirit within us. Let not the battle-cry rise amidst many slain, nor the arrows of the War-God fall with the break of day.--Atharva Veda

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 X . 191

One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one's own self. This, in brief, is the rule of dharma. Yielding to desire and acting differently, one becomes guilty of adharma. --Mahabharata XVIII:113.8.

Those high-souled persons who desire beauty, faultlessness of limbs, long life, understanding, mental and physical strength and memory should abstain from acts of injury.--Mahabharata XVIII:115.8.

Ahimsa is the highest dharma. Ahimsa is the best tapas. Ahimsa is the greatest gift. Ahimsa is the highest self-control. Ahimsa is the highest sacrifice. Ahimsa is the highest power. Ahimsa is the highest friend. Ahimsa is the highest truth. Ahimsa is the highest teaching.--Mahabharata XVIII:116.37-41.

Everyone should make offerings to all creatures; thereby one achieves the propitiation of all creatures. Every day one should make gifts, even if it be only with a cup of water: thus one achieves the propitiation of human beings.--Yajur Veda

Brahmins misinterpreted Vedas

August 1, 2008

Few more reasons why there wasn't any need for a 'Buddha Avatara' or in other words Buddha probably wasn't an Avatara,

Some Vedic Verses:

1.Let not wicked impulses destroy your character - Rig. 1.38.6

2.Do not retaliate against any man even if he harms you - Rig.1.141.8

3.Process of self-realization automatically destroys evil desires - Rig. 2.30.5

4.Will power can conquer passionate urges of sense organs - Rig. 5.31.3

5.Be humble and not boastful; Avoid egoism - Rig 6.52.1

6.Idle mind is an easy pray to evil thoughts - Rig. 10.22.8

7.Do not think or act maliciously but tread on righteous path - Rig. 10.57.1

8.Dispel ignorance through patience and perseverance (Sadana) - Yajur. 3.61

9.Do not forget earthly duties while in spiritual moods - Yajur 5.43

10.Rise high and maintain your magnanimity - Yajur. 13.1

11.With virtue and vitality establish yourself on the earth (Yoga) - Yajur. 17.72

12.Behave with others as you would with yourself - Yajur. 40.6

13.Forgiveness, Compassion and Service are qualities that make you lovable by all - Yajur.40.6

14.Be always brave. The brave are invincible - Atharva.20.47.3

15.Be non-violent and persistent to get rid of all evil and evil impulses - Sama. 308

:pray: :pray:..........

July 28, 2008

Become a Adi Shankara to speak about Buddha. Become a Buddha first to know what he meant. Both are Great. Buddha spoke about the Shunyavaada and everything ends in nothingness and everything evolves from nothingness. But Shankaras philosophy was to just question who is the experiencer? So there should be one and not Shunya. Shunya cannot experience but that ONE can. Hence the Not Two(A-dvaita) came to existance which again was reorganised by the later Acharyas according to their perception of truth. Ultimately everything leads to the Truth.

Only if Buddha had someone like Vashishta or Sandipani to guide him, he would've never made this blunder, it was his ego that never allowed him to ask someone who's more realised than him for directions.

On the other hand I don't think Shri Krishna ever had the need for a guru, but it was His humility & modesty that He went to someone for education.

June 7, 2008

Shambhala is not buddhist and it is not a lethel marshal art. if you are refering to the Warriors of Shambhala it is a metaphor for the internal struggle to over come the three poisons. it was developed by Chogyam Trungpa as a means of teachings spiritual values without including religion. it includes, hatha yoga, flower arranging, calligraphy, and breath meditation (not too lethal)

The martial arts we are talkin about are the ones that are perfected & practised by "Ahimsak" Buddhists like Shaolin Kung-Fu, Thai Kick boxing, the Samurai, the tibetan martial arts & various other forms that developed in other buddhist nations.

Historians claim that the origins of all forms of eastern martial arts can be traced back to a form of martial art practised in southern india by buddhist monks

what is the need for such lethal martial arts if you believe in ahimsa ?

June 5, 2008

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?

You fool, I meant in Kali Yuga anyone could be a scoundrel, I didn't say everyone who's born in Kali Yuga is a scoundrel.

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.

You are the kali-yuga scoundrel if you consider Lord Buddha a scoundrel.

what should I do ? bark back at you ?

June 4, 2008

I can't accerpt that. I am not a Buddhist but I can't accept Lord Buddha as being such a scoundrel.

Kali Yuga is meant for scoundrels.

June 2, 2008

Too much digression here...

Yes

To answer the original question, though, we can consider (advaita) vedanta to be a form of Buddhism. That would be more appropriate.

The concepts of anatman, Shunyata, Vegetarianism, Ahimsa all can be traced back to Vedas

June 2, 2008

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.

On the other hand there are so many verses in Vedas against animal killing & meat eating. The oldest scripture mentioning 'Ahimsa' is the Taittiriya Samhita of the Yajurveda (TS 5.2.8.7) & yet some idiots think that vegetarianism & Ahimsa was a buddhist influence on hinduism

The results speak for themselves, can a meat eating buddhist like Dalai Lama be compared with Swami Ramdev ?

June 2, 2008

Once again, Ajahn Jagaro isn't the Buddha... let's see what the Buddha Himself has to say:

You mean buddha whispered this into your ears ? :rolleyes:

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

June 2, 2008

Lord Buddha is clearly an avatar of Bhagavan, as is detailed in shastra, so why are there any Hindus (especially Vaishnavas) who refuse to recognize Him as such when He is clearly called an Avatar of Bhagavan in the Srimad Bhagavata Purana?

Sanskrit:

tatah kalau sampravrtte

sammohaya sura-dvisam

buddha namnanjana-sutah

kikatesu bhavisyati

English:

Then, in the beginning of Kali Yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.

--Srimad Bhagavata Purana 1.3.24

Are we now allowed to pick and choose which avatars are real avatars based on our personal preference?!

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 :eek4:

May 28, 2008

Well, the difference is that the names 'Jesus' or 'Muhammad' aren't specifically mentioned in shastra. The city of Nazareth or the country of Saudi Arabia aren't mentioned in shastra. The missions of Jesus and Muhammad aren't mentioned in shastra. On the other hand, the name of the Buddha is, His mission is described, and it is stated when and where He would be born... all in shastra. You're really thick, you know that?

lol....than you haven't heard about guys like Zakir Naik & Dr.Vedavyas (not Maharishi Vyas muni). These guys have claimed that not only Virgin Mary or the mission of Jesus Christ has been predicted but also Prophet Muhammed's parents names (leave alone his own name) have been mentioned (in Sanskrit) in Puranas. You should do some more research on this.

You are not any different from these guys & lots of others who keep claiming that how their 'Gurus' have been predicted in this & that Puranas. There's no dearth of fools like you. If we believe in each one of you than there would be 'Shata Avatars' & not just 'Dasha Avatars'

And in many western countries Hindus eat meat every day of their lives... even cow meat.

You are forgetting that Hindus were under the influence of meat eating Muslims & Christians since past 1000 years & were forcefully made to eat meat & beef in order to convert them, on top of that there were people like Buddha who preached that anything that is offered as Bhiksha (including meat) should be accepted without hesitation & the Pali canon scriptures, well lets not even talk about them

Today there are hardly any Hindus who live by the Vedas or know whats written in Vedas regarding Ahimsa & animal Killing & moreover the way the Mcdonalds & KfC's entice people, through advertisements, to eat meat, what else can you expect ?

Many Hindus believe that Lord Rama wasn't a vegetarian w/o basis. Does that mean that Lord Rama isn't an avatar either? And that we should hold it against Him when His 'followers' say, "Lord Rama wasn't a vegetarian so it's okay to eat meat."?.

Well the purpose of Ram Avatar was not to keep the savages & voracious meat eating Hindus (as the elite historians have portrayed Hindus) from killing animals so a discussion on His diet is immaterial

The contention is that how could someone who preached Ahimsa & Vegetarianism (the purpose cited for this Avatar) himself never practised them. :rolleyes:

Now please answer this question why does the Kalachakra-Tantra which supposedly is a “ritual for world peace” prophesy and glorify a holy war (Shambhala war) by Buddhists against non-Buddhists ?

That was some info on Kalighat, muchas gracias by the way do you think this 'Shambhala War' is the hidden link between Buddhism & Martial Arts ?

May 24, 2008

Do you really think that every historian in the world is wrong about animal sacrifice having been perfomed in ancient India?

Ever heard about the 'Lies of White Men'

He incarnated as the Buddha to stress the point even more (since people couldn't take a hint)

Tibet, China , Japan, the West, every where nonvegetarian Buddhists out numbers their vegetarian counterparts, if Buddha really stressed the point even more, the ratios would have been different today.

He is specifically mentioned as an incarnation of Krishna in the Bhagavata Purana...

So what ? people have been claiming that Jesus Christ & Prophet Mohammed have been predicted in Puranas, should I start believing in them ?

Tsk, tsk, ARJ. Once again, your display of blind ignorance is amusing.

Many Buddhists believe that Buddha wasn't a vegetarian & they have reasons to believe that. So don't blame me if I have doubts if Buddha practised Ahimsa.

If I talk about Vedas, then it is Vedanta

Exactly, whatever associated with Buddhism can be traced back to Vedas. Atleast I've shown some respect to Buddhism & called it a form of Vedanta.

The original teachings of Buddha had nothing to do with martial arts. Martial arts came into existance in various parts of the world due to political and cultural influences. Buddhism may have complimented these martial arts as they require a level of mental discipline and Buddhism is able to offer that.

My contention was why something like martial arts never interferred with their (Buddhists) beliefs :confused:

I still don't believe there's any need to perfect the art of killing anyone with a single blow if you believe in Ahimsa. :smash:

May 17, 2008

Maybe the Vedas hadn't been misused during His time like they were in the time of the Buddha.

If you could please explain how Vedas were 'misused'. I mean if you follow anything thats written in a book tis not a 'misuse' of that book.

Well, there certainly are passages that at the very least suggest animal sacrifice in the Vedas, and it did occur

1st how did you know it did occur :confused:

so how do you know Lord Krishna wasn't either warning the people of the future to interpret it in a symbolic light or was talking to the priests of His own time?

Has anyone, other than yourself, for instance Prabhupada, ever claimed (like the way it is said about Buddha avatar) that one of the purpose of Krishna avatar was to stop the widespread practise of killing animals for yajna & thus "Patram Pushpam Phalam Toyam...

I still believe Krishna wouldn't have made allusions but would rather order people to follow Vedas but better skip Rig Veda hymns 1.162 and 1.163. :rolleyes:

The Dalai Lama is not the Buddha. He doesn't have direct contact with the Buddha. And, no one knows if everything he does is what the Buddha would want.

it seems that some sense is prevailing.

since the Buddha rarely, if ever, mentioned a concept of God

yes, coz Buddha didn't believed in the concept of God, but why do you believe in Krishna :confused:

Yooz guys think your scholars?

donno about the rest, but I think I am

see ya guys later :sleep:

May 13, 2008

Dear Suchandra, I think there's someone who probably knows more about Tibet's troubled internal situation than that Bhattacharya chick or anyone in here & that someone is none other than the 'Female Buddha' :eek2:

Tibet's only female living Buddha, who is also a top regional official, said she was upset and angered by riots in Lhasa last month, and accused the Dalai Lama of violating Buddhist teachings, state media reported.

The twelfth Samding Dorje Phagmo said that since Tibet's incorporation into Communist China it had been transformed from the backwards feudal society of largely illiterate serfs with little medical care that she knew as a child.

"Old Tibet was dark and cruel, the serfs lived worse than horses and cattle," she told the official Xinhua agency in an interview published today.

Born in 1942, she was chosen as the incarnation of the deity Vajravarahi aged five. Now head of the Samding monastery, she is also vice-chairwoman of the standing committee of the Tibetan Autonomous Regional People's Congress, or regional parliament.

She was in Beijing for a meeting of a national consultative body to Parliament when rioting broke out in Lhasa on March 14, after days of monk-led protests.

"Watching on television a tiny number of unscrupulous people burning and smashing shops, schools and public property, brandishing knives and sticks to attack unfortunate passers-by I felt boundless surprise, deep heartache and indignant resentment," she said in the interview in Lhasa.

China has accused the Dalai Lama, Tibet's exiled spiritual leader, of plotting the riots and unrest that spread across many ethnic Tibetan parts of the country, in a bid to overshadow the Olympic Games and push for independence.

"The sins of the Dalai Lama and his followers seriously violate the basic teachings and precepts of Buddhism and seriously damage traditional Tibetan Buddhism's normal order and good reputation," the Samding Dorje Phagmo was quoted as saying - though she did not detail what his transgressions were.

The Dalai Lama rejects China's claims, saying he supports the Olympic Games and seeks only greater autonomy for Tibet.

Beijing last week offered talks with his aides, after an international chorus urging dialogue. But state media continue to unleash a barrage of criticism of the Dalai Lama or the Tibet he ruled before the arrival of Communist troops in 1950.

http://www.livenews.com.au/Articles/2008/04/30/Female_Buddha_condemns_Dalai_Lama

I think he means that he doesn't understand why we're talking about a Buddhist religious figure on a Hindu religious forum.

Well, don't you consider Buddha as Krishna's avatar :rolleyes:

as for the 'Spritual Discussions' forum don't you know how the advertising agencies choose the right slots ? I've applied the same principle.

May 13, 2008

Well, Buddhism only has two major schools... Hinduism has hundreds of Sampradayas branching off of four major schools (Vaishnava, Shakta, Shaiva, and Advaita)... so I really don't think it's our right to judge it.

you completely missed the point as expected.

Lord Rama didn't refute the scriptures, but Lord Krishna did specify that He only wanted a leaf, fruit, a flower, or water offered to Him. So, I'd say that He was indirectly refuting passages which seem to (at the very least) suggest animal sacrifice by not mentioning them in the things that He wanted offered to Him. When people didn't listen, He incarnated as Lord Buddha... that's what I think anyway. You have the right to your own opinion, of course.

That's defamation at it's worst, however I would still love to know why Narayan as Ram didn't refute Vedas ?

As for Krishna, chapter 16 of Bhagvad Gita known as 'Daivasarasaupadwibhagayog', clearly states it is our duty to study the Vedic scriptures. Now when Krishna said "Patram Pushpam Phalam Toyam Yo Me Bhaktya Prayacchati; Tadaham Bhaktyupahritamasanami Prayatatmanah" it means it is not necessary that one should offer gold, silver or costly clothes, but the Lord will accept even a leaf, a flower or a fruit if offered with devotion. Now if at all animal killing was mentioned in the Vedas, there was no need for Krishna to make allusions, but he would've outrightly rejected such practices. If it (animal killing) is mentioned in the Vedas people would practice it no matter what, Krishna wasn't a fool, He would've definitely rejected the Vedas before anyone else.

Don't try to mislead anyone.

I'm sure they would consider Tara as having much more power than the Dalai Lama, since they think she can help them in sticky situations b/c she's not bound by a body at the moment. Tara is basically the female Buddha in Tibetan Buddhism. They love her very much..

Well I don't think so, let's see what a 'Female Buddha' has to say about P.P.H.H.Dalai Lama :deal: