Kingdecember

do you have any Vedic pramana for this ?

Who is a Vaishnav? a misguided soul

A new Advaita forum has been opened exclusively to discuss Advaita Vedanta in terms of questions and answers. The purpose of the discussion is to arrive at clear understanding of Adviata using scriptures as pramaaNa or means of knowledge. From time to time questions will be raised and answered to stimulate the discussion. In addition, some on going talks will be posted for listening and for contemplation. Please join. Thanks. http://forum.advaitaforum.com/

Take a look at this video: http://in.youtube.com/watch?v=fI1624SwYnI

The game had its origin in India and was called Moksha Patam or Parama Padam or Mokshapat. It was used to teach Hinduism and Hindu values to children. The British renamed it as Snake and Ladders. Now, when and who created this game? Most people believe it was created by the 13th century poet saint Gyandev. There are certain references which take the game back to 2nd century BC. The ladders represented virtues and snakes vices. In the original game square 12 was faith, 51 was Reliability, 57 was Generosity, 76 was Knowledge, and 78 was Asceticism. These were the squares were the ladder was found. Square 41 was for Disobedience, 44 for Arrogance, 49 for Vulgarity, 52 for Theft, 58 for Lying, 62 for Drunkenness, 69 for Debt, 84 for Anger, 92 for Greed, 95 for Pride, 73 for Murder and 99 for Lust. These were the squares were the snake was found. The Square 100 represented Moksha. The British took the game to England in 1892 and named it Snake and Ladders and changed it according to Victorian values.

One other question that has puzzled the theologians for millenniums is: whether God is He, or She, or it? Hindu scriptures say that He is all. He is He as well as She, and Both forms She and He are absolutely one and synonymous. That’s how, being absolutely one, They always remain in two forms, She and He. What about ‘it’? How does ‘He’ become ‘it’? The answer is, that He doesn’t become ‘it.’ ‘It,’ in fact, is an aspect of the personal form of God. ‘It’ is such an aspect where all of His powers and attributes are absolutely dormant. It’s like a person who is deeply sleeping in a dreamless state where all the dignity of his being, including his personal identity, is fully submerged into his totally inactive state. This aspect of God is called nirgun nirakar, which means virtueless and formless God; the other one is called sagun sakar (or sakar), which means the all-virtuous personified form of God. Thus, sakar is the main form of God, and, with His sakar form, He/She is omnipresent with all of the virtues: Graciousness, kindness, all-Blissfulness, all-lovingness and many more. These Divine situations and existences are the Divine miracles that are beyond the material logic because they are beyond the realm of ‘time’ and ‘space’ factors. Now we know that unless the above mentioned attributes and virtues along with the prominence of the personal form of God are included in the general meaning of the word ‘God,’ it would not represent the true Gracious God, it would only represent the absolute metaphysical energy of the cosmos (and up till now these facts have not yet been incorporated into any of the English dictionaries).

Depends on who you ask or what is the source of your information. The tenth book of the Rig-Veda regards the highest conception of God both as the Impersonal and the Personal: The Nasadiya Sukta states that the Supreme Being is both the Unmanifest and the Manifest, Existence as well as Non-existence, the Supreme Indeterminable. The Purusha-Sukta proclaims that all this Universe is God as the Supreme Person - the Purusha with thousands of heads, thousands of eyes, thousands of limbs in His Cosmic Body. He envelops the whole cosmos and transcends it to infinity. The Narayana-Sukta exclaims that whatever is anywhere, visible or invisible, all this is pervaded by Narayana within and without. The Hiranyagarbha-Sukta of the Rig-Veda declares that God manifested Himself in the beginning as the Creator of the Universe, encompassing all things, including everything within Himself, the collective totality, as it were, of the whole of creation, animating it as the Supreme Intelligence. The Satarudriya or Rudra-Adhyaya of the Yajur-Veda identifies all things, the high and the low, the moving and the unmoving, the good and the bad, the beautiful and the ugly, nay, every conceivable thing, with the all-pervading Siva or Rudra as the Supreme God. The Isavasya Upanishad says that the whole Universe is pervaded by Isvara or God, who is both within and without it. He is the moving and the unmoving, He is far and near, He is within all these and without all these. The Kena Upanishad says that the Supreme Reality is beyond the perception of the senses and the mind because the senses and the mind can visualise and conceive only the objects, while Reality is the Supreme Subject, the very precondition of all sensation, thinking, understanding, etc. No one can behold God because He is the beholder of all things. The Kathopanishad has it that God is the Root of this Tree of world existence. The realisation of God is regarded as the Supreme blessedness or Shreyas, as apart from Preyas or temporal experience of satisfaction. The Prasna Upanishad says that God is the Supreme Prajapati or Creator, in whom are blended both the matter and energy of the Universe. God is symbolised in Pranava, or Omkara. The Mundaka Upanishad gives the image of the Supreme Being as the One Ocean into which all the rivers of individual existence enter and with which they become one, as their final goal. The Mandukya Upanishad regards the Supreme Being as the Turiya, or the Transcendent Consciousness, beyond the stales of waking, dreaming and deep sleep. The Taittiriya Upanishad regards the Reality as the Atman, or the Self, beyond the physical, vital, mental, intellectual and causal aspects (sheaths) of the personality. It also identifies this Atman with the Supreme Absolute, or Brahman. The Aitareya Upanishad states that the Supreme Atman has manifested itself as the objective Universe from the one side and the subjective individuals on the other side, in which process, factors which are effects of God's creation become causes of individual's perception, by a reversal of the process. The Chhandogya Upanishad says that all this Universe is Brahman Manifest in all its states of manifestation. It regards objects as really aspects of the one Subject known as the Vaishvanara-Atman. It also holds that the Supreme Being is the Infinite, or Bhuma, in which one sees nothing else, hears nothing else, and understands nothing else except the Self as the only, existence. In the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad we are told that the Supreme Being is Pure Consciousness, in which subjects and objects merge together in a state of Universality. The Supreme Being knew only Itself as 'I-Am', inclusive of everything. As He is the Knower of all things, no one can know Him, except as 'He Is'. The Svetasvatara Upanishad says, 'Thou art the Woman', 'Thou art the Man', 'Thou art Girl', 'Thou art Boy', 'Thou deceivest us as the old man tottering with the stick', 'Thou movest everywhere, in the form of everything, in all directions', 'Thou art the dark-blue Butterfly, and the Green Parrot with red eyes', 'Thou art the thunder cloud, the Seasons and the Oceans', 'Thou art without beginning and beyond all time and space', 'Thou art That from which all the Universes are born'. 'That alone is Fire. That is the Sun. That is Air, That is the Moon, That is also the starry firmament, That is the waters, That is Prajapati, That is Brahman.' That Divine Being, who, though Himself formless, gives rise to various forms in different ways with the help of His Supreme Power for His own inscrutable purpose, and Who dissolves the whole Universe in Himself in the end - may He endow us with pure understanding. He is the Great Being who shines effulgent like the Sun, beyond all darkness. Knowing Him alone one crosses beyond death. There is no other way of going over there. The One God, Creator of the heaven and earth, is possessed of all eyes, all faces, all hands, and all feet in this Universe. It is He who inspires all to do their respective functions, as if fanning their fire into flames of movement. Manu says in his Smriti: In the beginning, all this existence was one Undifferentiated Mass of Unmanifestedness, unknown, indefinable, unarguable and unknown in every way. From this Supreme Condition arose the Universe of name and form, through the medium of the Self-existent Creator, Swayambhu. The Mahabharata says that Narayana alone was in the beginning, who was the prius of the creative, preservative, and destructive principles, the Trinity known as Brahma, Vishnu and Siva - the Supreme Hari, multi-headed, multi-eyed, multi-footed, multi-armed, multi-limbed. This was the Supreme Seed of all creation, subtler than the subtlest, greater than the greatest, larger than the largest, and more magnificent than even the best of all things, more powerful, than even the wind and all the gods, more resplendent than the Sun and the Moon, and more internal than even the mind and the intellect. He is the Creator, the Father Supreme. The Bhagavadgita in the Mahabharata, says: The Supreme Brahman is beyond existence and non-existence. It has hands and feet everywhere, heads, mouths, eyes everywhere, ears everywhere, and it exists enveloping everything. Undivided, it appears as divided among beings; attributeless, it appears to have attributes in association with things. It is the Light of all lights, beyond all darkness, and is situated in the hearts of all beings. He is the sacrifice, He is the oblation, He is the performer thereof, He is the recitation or the chant, He is the sacred fire, He is what is offered into it. He is the father, the mother, the grandfather, the support, the One knowable Thing, He is the three Vedas, the Goal of all beings, the Protector, the Reality, the Witness, the Repository, the Refuge, the Friend, the beginning, the middle and the end of all things. He is immortality and death, existence as well as non-existence. He is the Visvarupa, the Cosmic Form, blazing like fire and consuming all things. According to the Bhagavata and the Mahabharata, God especially manifested Himself as Bhagavan Sri Krishna, who is regarded as the foremost of the divine Incarnations, in whose personality the Supreme Being is fully focussed and manifest. Srimad Bhagavata says: He is Brahman (the Absolute), Paramatman (God), Bhagavan (the Incarnation). According to the Pancharatra Agama and the Vaishnava theology, God has five forms: the <st1:place w:st="on">Para</st1:place> or the Transcendent, Antaryamin or the Immanent, Vyuha or the Collective (known as Vasudeva, Sankarshana, Pradyumna and Aniruddha), Vibhava or the Incarnation, and Archa or the symbolic form of daily worship. According to Saiva tradition, God is Pati, the Lord who controls the individuals known as Pasu, with His Power known as Pasa. According to the Sakta tradition, God is the Divine Universal Mother of all things, Adi-sakti, or the original Creative Power, manifesting Herself as Kriya-Sakti or Durga, Ichha-Sakti or Lakshmi, and Jnana-Sakti or Sarasvati. But the Supreme Mother is beyond all these forms. She is One, alone, without a second. According to the Bhakti tradition, God is the Supreme Object of Love, in respect of Whom love is evinced as in respect of one's father, mother, friend, son, master, or one's own beloved, in the five forms of affection, known as Shanta, Sakhya, Vatsalya, Dasya and Madhurya. To the Vaishnavas, God is in Vaikuntha as Vishnu. To the Saivas, God is in Kailasa as Siva, or Rudra. To the Saktas, God is in Manidvipa, as the Supreme Sakti or the Divine Mother. To the Ganapatyas, God is Ganesa, or Ganapati. To the Sauras, God is Surya, the Sun. To the Kaumaras, God is Kumara, or Skanda. To the saints like Tulasidas, God is Rama; to those like Surdas, He is <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place>. To those like Kabirdas, He is the Impersonal, Attributeless One, known by various names for purposes of worship and meditation. All the Vaishnava saints worship Him as either Rama or <st1:place w:st="on">Krishna</st1:place>, Narayana or Vishnu. The Saiva saints worship Him as Paramasiva. The Saktas worship Him as Adi-sakti. The philosopher-saints worship Him as Brahman, the Absolute, as Isvara, Hiranyagarbha, and Virat or the Cosmic Being. The Veera Saivas worship God as Siva, especially manifest as the Linga (symbolised in the rounded sacred stone which they wear round their necks). The symbol of Vishnu is the Saligrama, the symbol of Siva is the Linga, and the symbol of Devi is the Yantra (sometimes, a Mantra). According to the Nyaya and Vaiseshika schools, God is the instrumental cause of creation, like a potter fashioning a pot of clay, but not the material cause of creation. The Samkhya school holds that there are only two Primary Principles, Purusha and Prakriti, and creation is only a manifestation or evolution of the constituents of Prakriti due to the action of Purusha's consciousness. There is no other God than these two Principles. The Yoga school of Patanjali accepts God's existence as a Special Purusha free from all afflictions, Karma the effects of Karmas and impressions or potencies of a binding nature. But this Purusha, known as Isvara, according to Patanjali's Yoga System, is not the creator of the world, but a Witness thereof. Nor is He the goal of the aspirations of the Jivas or individuals. The Yogavasishtha defines Reality as the Consciousness which is between and transcends the subjective and objective aspects in perception and cognition, etc. Consciousness is the Absolute, Brahman, the only existence, of which the world is only an appearance. The Brahmasutra states that God is That from Whom this Universe proceeds, in Whom it subsists, and to Whom, in the end, it returns. Kalidasa, in his Raghuvamsa and Kumarasambhava, points out that God is the Supreme Being, is prior to the forms of Brahma, Vishnu and Siva, who are three aspects or phases of God, and that Brahma, Vishnu and Siva, being three forms of one and the same Reality, are equal to one another in every respect, without inferiority or superiority among them. Bhartrihari prays to that Infinite Consciousness, which is Peaceful Effulgence, which is undifferentiated by the interference of space, time and causal relation, etc., and whose essence is Self-Experience alone. Madhusudana Sarasvati blends Advaita Vedanta and Bhakti-Rasa, and he is the author of the most polemical and authoritative Advaita text, known as the 'Advaitasiddhi', and of an unparalleled compendium of the various processes and stages of devotion to God, known as 'Bhaktirasayana'. His commentary on the Bhagavadgita is a monument of a fusion of knowledge of the Impersonal Absolute with devotion to the Personal God. Religions are founded on a metaphysical rock-bottom. There is a philosophical import behind every ethical canon. Generally, the tradition of worship of Deities in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region> is according to a sort of protocol which the devotees associate with the importance of the Deities. For instance, worshippers of a particular Deity, such as Ganesa, Siva, Vishnu, Surya or Skanda, will place their own Deity as the first in importance and every other Deity as secondary. There is another tradition according to which the order of worship places Ganesa as the first, to be worshipped on any occasion, and then Devi, Siva, Vishnu, Surya and Skanda. This order may get slightly changed in different circles of religious belief. But always remember the earliest statement of the Nature of Reality that occurs in the first book of the Rig-Veda is "Ekam Sat-Viprah Bahudha Vadanti", there is only one truth, the wise describe it in different ways.

Welcome to Audarya 'Nothing' is 'known'. Everything is known by the knower. What happened to the dinner you ate yesterday ? or all of the groceries that you have been buying ? Take a closer look, what is your hand composed of ? What runs as blood in your veins ? What makes the nails or the hair grow ? Or you have been doing some serious weight training and increasing your intake of protein. What happened to the vegetables that you ate ? Spend a moment reflecting and you'd realize that what used to be vegetables is now distributed in your body, as muscles or as blood cells. Or even as the layer of fat around your belly. Same with all the potatoes or whatever else you have been eating. Before the slice of bread enters your mouth, you'd vehemently deny it was you, you clearly see the separation. Once eaten, doesn't the bread become a part of your body ? The body, that you are so attached to, and take it to be you ? Look differently at people eating in the restaurant the next time, and you'll realize that all that is happening is transformation. Bread, rice, butter, vegetables, they are all transforming into human bodies. This transformation goes on endlessly in nature. This transformation happens to your body as well. Look at your body again, it is the sum total of all the groceries that you have been buying each month, whether you are a vegetarian or non, it doesn't matter, it is just transformation of one form into another. Who witnesses the transformation ? Get rid of the sense of doership. It is hard for most of us to accept that all happens as it must. A thought, a desire appears, action follows. Ultimately everything returns to a state of harmony. At best, all that needs to be done is to adopt a witness, an observer attitude. Most of us probably haven't met someone we call enlightened, but if we did, he would simply tell us to wake up, to know that we are not individuals. Then, how could one go about doing something as an individual ? Losing individuality would necessitate losing the sense of doership. To sit in meditation, to recite prayers, is to continue as an individual. To follow such practices and then look for signs of progress is to further the notion of the individual. Silence, discrimination of what you are not and constant remembrance of 'I am' is necessary in the beginning. All that appears to you is not you. All that you can observe is not you. Constantly paying attention to this will intuitively lead you to the conclusion that you do not have to do anything, but 'just be'. Sooner or later, the seeker is sure to come across this statement and he is bound to get confused. How do I 'just be' ? Do I sit in a corner doing nothing ? Do I eat ? Do I breathe ? These questions are certain to arise and a correct understanding of this statement is necessary. If approached with the attitude, 'I am the body', this statement will certainly sound ridiculous and impossible. Even if one were to sit in a corner, doing nothing, the heart would continue to beat, cell division in the body will go on and blood would flow through the veins. This obviously can not be the meaning of 'Do nothing'. Understand, that this statement is not meant for who we think we are, i.e. a body, a name etc. Before a Guru would have made this statement, he'd also have stressed 'You are not what you think you are. You are not the body, nor the mind'. It is clear that sitting in a particular posture or fasting is not the intent of this statement. To understand what I am, I must know what I am not. What the mind has been led to believe all along, must be undone. I have to believe, understand that I'm not the body, nor the mind. I'm not a sensory perception, therefore I can not be the body or anything physical. I'm not a thought, therefore I can never think or imagine what I am. I can not be perceived since the perceived can not be the perceiver. I can not be known, since the known can not be knower. I must be changeless since all change is witnessed by me. Knowing this, believing this, what then is left to do ? All that appears, appears to me. All that appears, appears because I am there to appear to. Sensations, desires and thoughts arise, they are known to me, but I'm not the known, but the knower of all there is.

BANGALORE: It’s a weird comparison in many ways. But has Bill Gates followed—maybe unknowingly—the Vedic prescription of renunciation, as was the order that supposedly governed society then? To walk away from what you have been doing all your adult life at 52, when the going is still good with exciting challenges on the horizon, is a tall order. It takes an inner conviction that is hard to explain. Perhaps Mr Gates will strike a chord with CEOs and corporate founders across the world on issues like succession, retirement and second innings. There will be lessons to draw from the icon, who has chosen to step down while still at his peak. But then, he has always been a man who knew what he wanted. That was apparent right from the time he decided to drop out of college in the early ’70s. Just as he saw how computing could transform the world, he is perhaps equally clear-eyed about his pet passions: technology and philanthropy. By the time you read this, he would have stepped out of his familiar moorings of 30-odd years, more or less for good. As non-executive chairman of Microsoft, he may still visit the campus at Redmond near Seattle in Washington state once a week or so and certainly preside over and guide the company’s board. While he will still take part in special technology projects at Microsoft, his opening the doors to a philanthropic journey will undoubtedly touch billions of lives just as Windows did. It is not as if he is leaving his creation, Microsoft, untended. Even though the IT landscape will miss the icon, businesses learn to grow on auto-pilot . And, who knows it better than Mr Gates, who bravely gave up the role of CEO years ago to indulge in what he loved: software. After all, many geniuses, who produced wonderful stuff, have moved on and the sector continues to grow at a scorching pace. Even Microsoft had got used to less and less of Mr Gates and more of CEO Steve Ballmer over the past few years. http://economictimes.indiatimes.com/Infotech/Software/Geek_god_Gates_follows_Vedic_wisdom/articleshow/3175391.cms

wonderfully sung by Anuradha Paudwal <param name="movie" value=" "></param><embed src=" " type="application/x-shockwave-flash" width="425" height="344"></embed></object>

They feel that even Krishna & Vishnu are not the same leave alone shiva, they feel Krishna is superior & hence Vishnu is Krishna avatara.

So why would he invite someone like Buddha & his followers & offer them pig's food ? weren't there any better things to serve him ? majority of buddhists in the world do not belong to theravada tradition but majority of buddhists do eat meat, so it indicates that meat eating is not just a theravada practise. FYI theravada is the oldest surviving buddhist school so meat eating in buddhism would also be as old. and it was very well pointed out by ARJ in the other thread, why do someone who belives in Ahimsa need lethal forms of martial art ? is it for 'Shambala War' ? it is true that all forms of eastern martial arts were perfected by buddhist schools.

So where does someone who rejected the authority of Vedas fit here ? Read the 'Prastana Traya' bhashya of Adi Shanakara, all your doubts would be cleared.

Vegetarianism is not a prerequisite for a buddhist. 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 ffice:smarttags" /><ST1:PlaceName w:st="on">Ganges</ST1:PlaceName> <ST1:PlaceType w:st="on">Valley</ST1:PlaceType> throughout Sri Lanka, across to <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-comIndia</st1:country-region>, moving south to <st1:country-region w:st=" /><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.

Than your ignorant of either Advaita or Buddhism. So where is Buddha mentioned in Vedas ? Vyasdeva wanted people to reject Vedas since he was aware of the fact that, that's what buddha avatara would be preaching, than why would he even bother to divide the Shruti into 3 Vedas and take the trouble of making them more accessible for the commoners ?