isn't Buddhism just a form Vedanta ?

[RadheRade1657 0]

 

Yes, as I said before it is Kali yuga and everything is becoming corrupt.

But the religion itself, established by the Supreme Lord cannot be at fault. The fault is that of the people who don't follow His instructions.

Totally agreed. The Lord isn't at fault at all for what pseudo-religious people do while proclaiming Him.

[ARJ 0]

 

I notice you completely ignored the whole Kumari-thing. Whatever...

I don't know if the spirit itself is regarded as having a gender, but they say that Avalokita only incarnates in a male body. The bodhisattva Tara only incarnates in a female body. It's what they think. It's not just a 'male-only' thing.

The Mahayana Buddhists believe in the Atman. Tibetan Buddhism is a sub-group of this school.

 

Dear Mr/Ms RadheRade1657, isn't Dalai Lama the Cheif Executive, I mean does a Bodhisattva Tara holds as much power as a Dalai Lama ?

 

you seem to know a lot about Buddhism, if you could tell me why the Mahayana Buddhists belive in 'Atman' ?

 

'Atman' & Buddhism don't go together, Buddha always taught the 'dumb' Hindus there is no Jeev Atman or a Param Atman, nothing is permanent, so now why these Mahayana Buddhists against the core philosophy of Buddhism ?

 

These Mahayana Buddhists must be makin Buddha to roll over in his samadhi

 

 

Hasn't the same thing been done by Hindu brahmans in India?

 

 

But the religion itself, established by the Supreme Lord cannot be at fault. The fault is that of the people who don't follow His instructions.

 

You people are nothing but ignorant fools and sheeps with herd mentality deeply engrained in you. For your kind information even in Kaliyuga if at all Ahimsa exists any where in this world, it exists in the Brahman & Jain families of India ONLY.

 

As per Buddha there is no such thing as Supreme Lord or Krishna, so why don't you follow His instructions ?

[RadheyRadhey108 1]

 

Dear Mr/Ms RadheRade1657, isn't Dalai Lama the Cheif Executive, I mean does a Bodhisattva Tara holds as much power as a Dalai Lama ?

 

you seem to know a lot about Buddhism, if you could tell me why the Mahayana Buddhists belive in 'Atman' ?

 

'Atman' & Buddhism don't go together, Buddha always taught the 'dumb' Hindus there is no Jeev Atman or a Param Atman, nothing is permanent, so now why these Mahayana Buddhists against the core philosophy of Buddhism ?

 

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.

There was a break in Buddhism around the first century CE. The Mahayana Buddhists believed that when the Buddha said "anatta", He didn't mean that there was no Self whatsoever, but that there was no seperate self ("the wave is nondifferent from the water"). The Mahayana Buddhists have different way of interpreting Lord Buddha's words than the Theraveda Buddhists do. The Theraveda Buddhists think that everything the Buddha said was literal and that there is no reason to interpret what is right in front of you, while the Mahayana Buddhists think that many of His teachings were esoteric and that they need to be understood with the right frame of mind.

 

These Mahayana Buddhists must be makin Buddha to roll over in his samadhi

 

I don't know what Lord Buddha is doing at the moment. The Hotei Buddha is often shown as laughing, though.

[RadheyRadhey108 1]

 

You people are nothing but ignorant fools and sheeps with herd mentality deeply engrained in you. For your kind information even in Kaliyuga if at all Ahimsa exists any where in this world, it exists in the Brahman & Jain families of India ONLY.

 

As per Buddha there is no such thing as Supreme Lord or Krishna, so why don't you follow His instructions ?

What do you mean? Do you think that all Brahmins are faultless? That's a good one.

Buddha was a moral teacher. When people asked Him about God, He tended to remain silent on the matter. So, I can follow the Buddha's teaching and still worship Krishna with no conflict.

[indulekhadasi 0]

Srila Jayadeva Goswami says:

 

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.

 

Yes, I am a fool and a rascal. But Jayadeva Goswami is not. And neither is Radhe Radhe. Think before speaking, please.

[RadheyRadhey108 1]

Oh, thank you so much Indulekha Ji. But I'm far more foolish than you are

[Kingdecember 0]

 

Srila Jayadeva Goswami says:

 

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.

 

Yes, I am a fool and a rascal. But Jayadeva Goswami is not. And neither is Radhe Radhe. Think before speaking, please.

 

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

[RadheyRadhey108 1]

 

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

"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.

[indulekhadasi 0]

Kingdecember

 

Read Jayadeva's words again. He applaudes Lord Buddha for NOT sanctioning killing of animals in sacrifice.

 

Thank you. We seem to be on agreement in this matter.

[bhaktajan 0]

 

. . . 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.

 

1) the Brahmana Class had disappeared after Krishna left the earth--this is why Buddha appeared to stop animal sacrifices. Animal Sacrifices was done in all parts of the mid-east and western countries. Bhumi-devi appealed to stop the sacrificial killings. Thus Buddha advent, etc.

 

2)The Rig Veda translation is bogus, bad english, non-authoritative and without any significance. You should know better than to post third-rate renderings of the Vedas [esp. the long known obscure verses of the Rig-veda].

 

3) Nevertheless, one MUST have an absolute & definitive understanding of the workings of:

A--karma [action/re-action]

B--kala [time]

C--prakriti [physics & meta-physics]

D--jiva [the science of the soul's constitution]

E--Ishvara [God as controller and thus, the Origin of personal traits and the cosmic manifestation]

when one indeed understands these catagorical topics & how these things operate, via the Vedas --by way of a Bonefide representative, --THEN THE IDEA OF MEAT EATING, DEBAUCHERY, ANAL SEX AND SAME SEX MARRAGE is anathama to the advancement and peace of society.

 

MEAT EATING = WAR! [if not now then later for our grandchildren] Of course you know this, Right, RadheyRadhey108 ?????

 

A brahmin is a brahmin is a brahmin by any other word ---except those who do not observe Brahminical Laws!

 

4) The basis of Brahminical Laws is happiness and contentment and societal order--your off-base in your postulations because you are actively beholding to your self-selected Gurus, councilors, mentors and confidants who are gay.

When one sheds tears or whells up with emotion during a moment of private reflection it is a sign of a "past-unresolved-conflict".

 

Read The Vedas, as presented to us fallen dolts such as ourselves, by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami--what more do you want? His renderings of sanskrit is sublime and fabulously erudite. Learn from the masters or learn by the stick.

 

best hopes,

Bhaktajan

 

PS: please recognize that my writings are derived from Sastra as expressed here by my, still limited, intelligence.

[RadheyRadhey108 1]

 

1) the Brahmana Class had disappeared after Krishna left the earth--this is why Buddha appeared to stop animal sacrifices. Animal Sacrifices was done in all parts of the mid-east and western countries. Bhumi-devi appealed to stop the sacrificial killings. Thus Buddha advent, etc.

 

2)The Rig Veda translation is bogus, bad english, non-authoritative and without any significance. You should know better than to post third-rate renderings of the Vedas [esp. the long known obscure verses of the Rig-veda].

 

3) Nevertheless, one MUST have an absolute & definitive understanding of the workings of:

A--karma [action/re-action]

B--kala [time]

C--prakriti [physics & meta-physics]

D--jiva [the science of the soul's constitution]

E--Ishvara [God as controller and thus, the Origin of personal traits and the cosmic manifestation]

when one indeed understands these catagorical topics & how these things operate, via the Vedas --by way of a Bonefide representative, --THEN THE IDEA OF MEAT EATING, DEBAUCHERY, ANAL SEX AND SAME SEX MARRAGE is anathama to the advancement and peace of society.

 

MEAT EATING = WAR! [if not now then later for our grandchildren] Of course you know this, Right, RadheyRadhey108 ?????

 

A brahmin is a brahmin is a brahmin by any other word ---except those who do not observe Brahminical Laws!

 

4) The basis of Brahminical Laws is happiness and contentment and societal order--your off-base in your postulations because you are actively beholding to your self-selected Gurus, councilors, mentors and confidants who are gay.

When one sheds tears or whells up with emotion during a moment of private reflection it is a sign of a "past-unresolved-conflict".

 

Read The Vedas, as presented to us fallen dolts such as ourselves, by A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami--what more do you want? His renderings of sanskrit is sublime and fabulously erudite. Learn from the masters or learn by the stick.

 

best hopes,

Bhaktajan

 

PS: please recognize that my writings are derived from Sastra as expressed here by my, still limited, intelligence.

1) They were still Brahmins by caste, and they still viewed themselves worthy of performing sacrifices.

2) What does your version of the Rig say in hymns 1.162 and 1.163? Is it still talking about a horse sacrifice? If so, then I don't see how this version is off the mark by any means

3) Hmmm... I'd have to say that I think that meat eating is far worse than anal sex or same-sex marriage (I don't see what homosexuality has to do with this thread, but okay... whatever). I'm also not seeing how having a society of desire-filled men and women who aren't allowed to act out their desires is advancing in the peace and advancement of any society (at all).

4) I suppose you want me to apologize for not discriminating against homosexuals. Well... I'm sorry that I'm not a hate-filled bigot who thinks that they shouldn't have the same rights as heterosexuals. I suppose you'd like me far more if I did. ((I'm still really not seeing what me talking about gay-rights on other threads has to do with a thread on Lord Buddha.))

I don't have many gay friends or mentors, and I've never followed a homosexual guru's teachings (that I know of)... I rather like the poetry of Allen Ginsberg, though (who was a friend and disciple of Srila Prabhupada).

When did I well up with tears during a moment of private reflection, might I ask... have you been stalking me or something? HOW DO YOU KNOW WHERE I LIVE AND WHY ARE YOU WATCHING ME WHEN I REFLECT ON THINGS IN MY LIFE?! That's it... I'm calling the police... LOL

Could you please send me Srila Prabhupada's translation of the horse sacrifice?

[bhaktajan 0]

MEAT EATING = WAR! [if not now then later for our grandchildren] Of course you know this, Right, RadheyRadhey108 ?????

 

 

This is about Buddhism, Right?

 

Please don't take what I post personally--I speak academically about this subject.

 

I have stated many things in my above post that MUST be understood for the reasons I stated for the purpose I stated. Are these non-homosexual topics less enticing to the intellect?

 

I will respond to your request asap.

 

Hare Krishna and happy austereties,

Bhaktajan

[RadheyRadhey108 1]

 

MEAT EATING = WAR! [if not now then later for our grandchildren] Of course you know this, Right, RadheyRadhey108 ?????

 

 

This is about Buddhism, Right?

 

Please don't take what I post personally--I speak academically about this subject.

 

I have stated many things in my above post that MUST be understood for the reasons I stated for the purpose I stated. Are these non-homosexual topics less enticing to the intellect?

 

I will respond to your request asap.

 

Hare Krishna and happy austereties,

Bhaktajan

Yes, meat-eating is war. Anything that harms other sentient beings (especially on a grand scale) is war.

What do you mean by "Are these non-homosexual topics less enticing to the intellect"? If we're talking about homosexuality, fine. But, you were responding to a post that had nothing to do with homosexuality whatsoever. It was kind of surprising that you'd jumbled up your arguments so much and completely changed the subject.

Radhey Radhey!

[indulekhadasi 0]

 

Oh, thank you so much Indulekha Ji. But I'm far more foolish than you are

 

Wow, since you are my friend can you give me a drop of your humility???

[RadheyRadhey108 1]

 

Wow, since you are my friend can you give me a drop of your humility???

Oh, Indulekha Ji, I would if I could, but I'm not humble... I'm just truthful I could only wish to be as humble as you! Hopefully I'll be able to reach your platform of devotion some day, by the grace of Srimati Radharani.

[Kingdecember 0]

 

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.

 

I'm not completely ruling out that Brahmins killed animals, but to hold Vedas responsible for it is completely wrong. I still believe if anyone thinks Vedas sanctioned animal killing, be it Jayadeva Goswami or anyone else, than he/she is definitely not in his/her senses or misinterpreted the Vedas. May this article helps, I would request the readers to go through it thoroughly:

 

Vedas contain the seeds of all knowledge. Even the very way of right living is distinctly proved in Vedas. But the core and crust of Veda lurk in each verse. The verses are the face of Veda which deal with the art of life. For them life must be peaceful and the whole world will be delighted. In Yajurveda a pertinent verse declare its outlook `O dispeller of all pangs and ignorance, strengthen me, May all beings regard me with the eye of a friend. May all of us regard each other with the eye of a friend.'

 

Here friendliness is the passion highlighted. So how can any friend kill anybody is the question we have to face when source historians propagate meat eating or killing animals for yajna is being advised in Vedas. Of course, European indologists had a bad intention while interpreting Vedas. They clearly exposed their aim which was and is the propagation of their religion. Many indologists were even ignorant as far as Vedic language and lexicon was concerned. Prof. Max Minter, the so called Vedic scholar was not able to comprehend Sanskrit. He was not able to speak in the language nor could he understand it.

 

Nirad. C. Chowdhari sheds an ample good light on this fact. 1[c says' One day in 1854 Mullarwas sitting in his room at Oxford copying his MSS, when an Indian dressed in a long black coat shown in. lie addressed Mullar in a language which he did not understand a single word. Max Mullar replied in English and asked in what language he was speaking. The visitor was surprised: Do you not understand Sanskrit.' Max Mullar said `No, f have not heard it spoken', but in India Max Mullar is considered as a celebrated Vedic scholar. Even his followers carne to wrong conclusions. R.C. Majumdar is the best example. lie even indesout meat eating in Vedic verses. lie writes `Scarcely less debased than the lean status and the April hymns manufactured artificially for employment in animal sacrifices there is no reason to doubt that these hymns were actually now at the animal sacrifices as tradition maintains".

 

So, the prime question arises whether Veda propagates meat eating'? To know the culture, the life style, perceptiveness, etc. we musthave historical sense. Our research must be scientific, critical and reasonable. First, let us see what Vedas say on meat eating and animal killing.

 

1) May I be dear to all animals (Atharva 16.71.4)

 

2) May you eat rice (Vrihi); may you eat barley (Yava), also black

beans (Mdsa) and Sesamum (Tila). This is the share aloted to both

of you for happy results, 0 you two teeth (dantau), may you not

injure the father and mother. (Atharva - 6-140-2)

 

3) Do not kill any of the Creatures. (Yaju. L 1)

 

4) Do not kill the horse. (Yaju. 13.42)

 

5) Do not kill quadrupeds. (Yak. 13.44)

 

6) Do not kill wool-giving animals. (Yak. 13.47)

 

7) Not kill human beings (Yak. 16.3)

 

8) May you be illumined by the mighty rags of knowledge and may

you not kill the cow, the aditi (Yaju.13.43)

 

9) Do not kill a cow but treat her as Mother. (Yaju.12.32)

 

But, still so called historians say Vedas propagate meat eating & animal killing for Yajna. But Veda's stand is very clear. At this stage, we shall have to handle only two things. Firstly, if Vedas condemn meat eating how slaughter came into being in the Yajnas? Secondly, if any body points out meat eating in Vedic verses what is the real meaning of the mantras.

 

First of all we can analyse how the Yajna turned as an act of slaughter. In the Vedic period, all the Vedic verses were undcrstood so easily. But in the course of time, many of the scholars lost the original values of the Vedic language and grammar. Some priests also out of their selfish motives interpreted Veda in their own ways. This mistake registered into life and style of the future generations. This is very explicitly explained by Caraka in his Samhita. According to him :`At the declining of the Krtayuga, due to over-receiving there arose heaviness in bodies of these wealthy persons; heaviness of the body led to fatigue, lassitude, hoarding, holding and greed in successive order (all this happened) in Krtayuga itself. In Treta, greed gave rise to malice, speaking lie, passion, anger, conceit, dislike, roughness, violence, fear, infliction, greed, anxity, excitement etc, successively.

 

Thus during Treta a charter of righteousness disappeared due to which there was reduction of a charter in the yearly duration of the Yugas (Time cycle) '.

 

4) Yuga is nothing but a particular period. In the first phase of Vedic period, there wasn't any type of malice. But the fall in mind and in study the people to misunderstanding. Once again we have to depend on Caraka. He says, `In ancient days the animals were only touched in the Yajnas and not killed'. 66 Vedic Science July-Sept., 2002, Vol. 4, No. 3

 

5) But in this statement Caraka used two Sanskrit words. Alabhana and Alambhane;. What are the difference and the relevance of these two words? Alabhanam means touching Alamhbanam means killing. Only a slight change in the words made all the atrocities on. Every aspects of this is very clearly explained by Caraka in his Samhita.

 

The synonymous term for Yajna in the Nighantu is 'adhvara' which is explained by Yaskacarya, an ancient Vedic etymologist as : adhvara is the name of Yajna, dhyarati is the act of killing, that is to be prohibited (Nirukta -1.7) The word adhvara exists in all the Vedas hundred and one times clearly Suggesting that there is no sanction to animal sacrifices in the Vedas.

 

To take care of animals is an act for spiritual progress. According to Atharva Veda. `These noble souls who practice meditation and are careful about all beings, who protect all animals; they also care for our spiritual progress. They always take care that our behaviour does not afflict any animal' (Atharva Veda, 19.28.5)

 

To conclude, I shall quote from Manusmrti. Manu strictly says: `He who advises the killing of an animal, he who shops it, he who kills animals, he who sells or buys them for such a purpose, he who cooks the flesh, he who serves it for eating and he who eats flesh are all eight of them butchers and destroyers, or in other words, are all sinners. It is a grievous sin to kill or get an animal killed and eat its flesh in honour of Bhairon etc.'

 

Now it is the responsibility of the readers to decide whether Vedas propagate animal killing or not.

[indulekhadasi 0]

Again, like I said before, Jayadeva Goswami condemned the thought of people killing animals in Vedic sacrifice. He glorifies Lord Buddha for demolishing such ignorant acts of the smarta brahmanas.

[Kingdecember 0]

Here's another article I would like to share.

 

First lets look at the deeper meaning of ashva and then the spiritual, psychological interpretation of the Ashvamedha.

Ashva or Horse: “It is an image of the great dynamic force of Life, of the vital and nervous energy. It is a force -- a figure of Prana, the universal Life-energy. Originally it must have implied strength or speed or both, before it came to be applied to a horse. In the first or root significance, it means, “to exist pervadingly'' and so, “to possess'', “have'', “obtain'' or “energy''. Besides this original sense inherent in the roots of this family, it has its own peculiar significance, existence in force, of strength, solidity, sharpness, speed, in ashma, stone, ashani, a thunderbolt, ashri, a sharp edge or corner and finally ashva, the strong, swift horse.'' As explained by Sri Aurobindo in 'Hymns to the Mystic Fire' & 'The Secret of the Vedas'

The symbolism of the horse is quite evident in the hymns of Dirghatamas to the Horse of the Sacrifice, Rig Veda (1.162) and Rig Veda (1.163), the hymns of the various rishis to the Horse Dadhikravan and opening of the Brihadaraņyaka Upanishad in which usha va ashvasya medhyasya shiraĥ, (“Dawn is the head of the sacrificial horse'') is the first phrase of a very elaborate figure. (Sri Aurobindo)

Ashvamedha: The Horse-sacrifice is the offering of the Life-power with all its impulses, desires, enjoyments to the divine existence. The life-soul (Dwita) (Rig Veda 5.18.2) is itself the giver of the sacrifice. Dwita is the god or ŗşhi of the second plane of human ascent. Trita is the God or ŗşhi of the third plane, full of luminous mental kingdoms unknown to the physical mind.

All the horse-sacrifice mantras in the RV (Rig Veda) are in RV (1.162) (22 mantras) and RV (1.163) (13 mantras)., both RV (1.162) and RV (1.163) are revealed to the ŗşhi Dirghatamas, all of whose sūktas RV (1.140) through RV (1.164) are full of deep symbolism. Also recall the mantras, ‘yajamana is yajna', ‘yajna is Vişhņu' occurring in many mantras in the TS (Taittiriya Samhita of the Krishņa Yajur Veda). We can easily understand the deeper meanings of these mantras by paying careful attention to every word in them and by not being carried away by the meanings assigned by commentators and translators. Ashva the steed is the standard symbol for Life-energy or Life-power Prana both inside the human and in the cosmos, Medha means both ‘offering' and ‘intelligence'. Ashvamedha means offering of the life-power with all its impulses, desires, enjoyments, frustrations and also its material counterpart.

There are naturally three questions: To whom is it offered? Who offers it? What is the goal or purpose in the offering?

We will begin with the third question. The life-power or Pranashakti is continuously varying in us; when we are enthusiastic it is more; when the Pranashakti is low, the immunity to diseases is affected and we get diseases formally ascribed to external agents like bacteria. Bacteria are there all the time, but they can easily enter the body when the immunity is low. In the realm of Haţha Yoga and Praņayama, there are several methods for recharging the Prana. What is given in the Veda is the basic method of rejuvenating the life-force and the associated physical body.

As an answer to the first question, the Life-force in its imperfect condition is offered to the divine existence in general and the Gods Indra, Puşhaņ and Tvaşhţŗ. Puşhaņ is the nourisher who nourishes all the aspects of Prana. Tvaşhţŗ, the divine architect, perfects the forms which have deteriorated. Indra, the lord of Divine Mind, leads the Prana. Indra gives the intelligence for the Prana to prosecute its activities. Using the power of discrimination svadhiti, the different aspects of life-force which need rejuvenation are pointed out. There is no physical cutting of the body, only the recognition of the different aspects needing healing.

Finally we answer the second question ‘who offers'. A key idea in the Veda is that behind the changing life-force there is the fixed and eternal life-soul, the soul of the life energies, Dwita, mentioned in Rig Veda. It presides over the progress of the life-power. The life-soul, also called as aja, the unborn, leads the life-power as mentioned in many mantras.

Once the life-soul offers the life power to the deities, the life-force becomes perfected and it returns to the human being. There is no question of killing or dismemberment.

TS (4.6.8.2) (same as RV (1.162.2)) gives the secret of the Ashvamedha. The actual words in the mantra are in parenthesis.

“The life force with universal form (vishvarupa) and golden lustre (rekņasa) on being purified and completely covered by the physical body is held and lead (nayanti) in front by the unborn life-soul (aja) with easy gait (suprang) and with the appropriate mantra-sound''.

TS (4.6.8.3) (or RV (1.162.3)) (second half): Tvaşhţŗ (the divine architect) accepts the life-force (arvata) with love and makes it full of delight (abhijinvati) and ready for the happy revelations (saushra vasaya).

Both these verses indicate that the physical steed of Ashvamedha symbolises the life-force only. There is no killing of steed.

The description of Ashva-Dadhikravaņ in TS (1.5.11.11,12) (same as RV (4.39.6, 10)) (p. 299, volume 1) is also relevant.

We accept that RV mantras were recited during immolation than the primary question is whether the mantras themselves support unambiguously the ritual killing ?

To answer this question, we have to pay attention to every word of the 35 mantras in the two suktas and their meanings.

The commentator Sayana and translator Arthur Berriedale Keith assign meanings to the words so as to emphasize the idea of ritual killing. We should ascertain the basis for the assigned meanings. I will give here only 4 examples; there are many more.

ikshamaņa RV (1.162.13), TS (4.6.9.2): iksha is connected with ‘Sight’. But Sayana renders it as a wooden rod to check whether the meat has been cooked.

sunah (RV 1.162.13): It occurs in numerous mantras with the meaning of ‘Sons’ or ‘Successors’. Here Sayana translates it as a knife for cutting meat.

aja: Appears in RV (1.162.2), TS (4.6.8.2), RV (1.163.12), TS (4.6.7.12): It has the natural meaning of ‘Unborn' or the ‘Life-soul’ which leads the life-force to the higher worlds. Sayana renders it as the goat which is slaughtered first before the killing of horse. Now does it makes sense to read Sayana stating, “the (dead) goat leads the (slaughtered) horse to heaven''.

shamita: Occurring in (RV 1.162.9) and shamitara in RV (1.162.10) are rendered as ‘slaughter' & ’shamita' in RV (10.110.10) is rendered as God or fire by Sayana. ’shamita' is translated by Sri Aurobindo as the achiever of works. This meaning is used by Sayana in RV (3.4.10) as, ‘one who polishes or improves'. ’shamita' can also mean ‘to calm' or ‘to quicken'; but to translate this word as ‘slaughtering' is really far-fetched.

We reproduce below the translation of the famous Ashvastomiya hymn RV (1.163) which is reproduced completely in TS (4.6.7). The hymn has 13 mantras. Not even one of the mantras seems to refer to the four-legged animal. But all of them refer to the life-energy, the Prana imaged in various ways.

TS (4.6.7): Ashvastomiya mantras

Born with wings of eagle: RV (1.163.1)

(O Horse), when on being born you first arose from the Sun or from the waters;

With the wings of an eagle and limbs of swift gazelle;

O Arvat, your superb birth is worthy of praise.

Yama gave it: RV (1.163.2)

God Yama (he who controls) gave (men) this Horse, and Trita harnessed it, Indra was the first to mount him;

The Gandharvas grasped its reins;

Vasus fashioned the steed from the Sun (or light of the Sun).

You are Yama: RV (1.163.3)

O Arvan, you are Yama, you are Aditya;

You are Trita in the secret law of your action, by only a little are you distinguished from Soma;

They say that three are your connections to the heaven.

Supreme Birth: RV (1.163.4)

Your bonds in the heaven is three;

Three in the Waters, three in the Oceans;

O Steed, Varuņa has told me the place of your Supreme birth.

Bridles of Truth: RV (1.163.5)

O Swift one, these are your haunts for bathing;

Here are the foundation for your conquering hooves;

Here are seen the auspicious bridles of Right action (ŗta);

That protect the rider and the knowledge.

Perceive the soul (the bird): RV (1.163.6)

I perceive with my mind your innermost soul and it protects;

(Your soul) is like a bird from the heaven swooping down;

O bird, I saw your head speeding with wings on dust-free paths, fair and easy to travel, going higher and higher.

Highest form: RV (1.163.7)

Here I see your highest form, move towards the plane of impulsion of Rays;

When a mortal man pleases your taste;

Then most greedily do you consume the growths of earth.

Law of action: RV (1.163.8)

They who follow your law of action become friendly to you;

The Gods have measured their power following you.

Inferior Indra: RV (1.163.9)

With his Golden horns, feet of steel, with the speed of mind, he was an inferior Indra.

For the enjoyment of offerings came the Gods;

Who first did master the steed.

Hamsa (swan): RV (1.163.10)

With their backs full of impulsion and their middle part well-knit;

The heroic and divine gallopers, speed in companies like swans;

And are eager (to reach) the divine goal.

Body & mind: RV (1.163.11)

O Steed, your body swoops downwards, your thought is like the tempestuous wind;

Your horns are placed in many places, move quickly in the woods (amidst foes).

 

Discernment: RV (1.163.12)

The place of discernment has neared and is in your mind;

(You are) meditating with the mind and wishing to the reach the Gods.

Its source is the unborn (the life-soul) which leads in front the life-force;

After whom the seers and those that chant walk.

Highest abode: RV (1.163.13)

To his highest abode has the steed come, to his father and his mother;

To-day do you go to the Gods with Supreme joy;

For the giver, disperse all desirable qualities. propaganda

 

For an excellent overview of the rite, its logic and its relation to the Sun, the King and Kingdom, see the book “Ashvamedha: The Rite and the Logic'' by Subhash Kak

[ARJ 0]

 

The Mahayana Buddhists believed that when the Buddha said "anatta", He didn't mean that there was no Self whatsoever, but that there was no seperate self

 

No wonder Buddhism had to decline or it never got going in India, but still some people think it was the Hindu oppression

 

 

1) They were still Brahmins by caste, and they still viewed themselves worthy of performing sacrifices.

 

Even if a few brahmins killed animals it doesn't mean that it was such a widespread practice that Narayan had to descend as an avatar to stop this & if the Vedas did sanction animal killing than why Ram & Krishna didn't refute the authority of Vedas before Buddha, Vedas of course predate both Ram & Krishna.

 

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.

 

Dear Kingdecember the Vedas, don't require any evidence to prove thier truth & yes Jayadeva Goswami was probably under the influence of 'Som Ras' that day

[RadheyRadhey108 1]

 

No wonder Buddhism had to decline or it never got going in India, but still some people think it was the Hindu oppression

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.

 

Even if a few brahmins killed animals it doesn't mean that it was such a widespread practice that Narayan had to descend as an avatar to stop this & if the Vedas did sanction animal killing than why Ram & Krishna didn't refute the authority of Vedas before Buddha, Vedas of course predate both Ram & Krishna.

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.

 

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.

 

Dear Kingdecember the Vedas, don't require any evidence to prove thier truth & yes Jayadeva Goswami was probably under the influence of 'Som Ras' that day

"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

[bhaktajan 0]

Originally Posted by RadheyRadhey108 " . . . 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. . . . "

 

....................................................................................................................................

 

Now, that is NECTAR!!!

Well, researched! Well responded to-ism!

Most estute-ititiness-ciousness with sugar on top, into the bargan!

Bravo!!!

[RadheyRadhey108 1]

Thanks, LOL

[Kingdecember 0]

I would like to share a rationale presented by a Buddhist Monk named Ajahn Jagaro on Buddhism & Vegetarianism :

 

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 <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Ganges</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Valley</st1:PlaceType> throughout <st1:country-region w:st="on">India</st1:country-region>, moving south to <st1:country-region w:st="on">Sri Lanka</st1:country-region>, across to <st1:country-region w:st="on">Burma</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on">Thailand</st1:country-region>, then north towards <st1:country-region w:st="on">Tibet</st1:country-region> and eventually <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region>. Over the centuries it began to fragment into various schools. Some of these schools flourished in different parts of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region> 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 <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region> 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.

[RadheyRadhey108 1]

Is Ajahn Jagaro the Buddha?

[Kingdecember 0]

 

Is Ajahn Jagaro the Buddha?

 

Ok so what if someone had asked you the same question when you presented your argument ?

 

it seems you haven't read the entire article, If you have than read it again, the following answers your question: (about 2500 years after Buddha) there is no one here who can say, "I heard the Buddha say differently."

 

Hope this helps.