Fwd: Message not approved: Ahimsa - meat eating and Animal sacrifices

[Guest guest]

Namaste:

 

I want to share this email correspondence with the list since it

is addressed to the list moderator and it is my responsibility

to inform the list members regarding my response to Sri Yogendra

Bhikku.

 

============================

Namaste Sri Yogendra Bhikku:

 

In my email to you, I have never said that your email is

offensive and consequently you don't need to apologize to the

list or to me.

 

Please read the list policies carefully and you will be able to

recognize the reasons for the rejection of several of your long

emails. In those lengthy emails, instead of discussing the

merits or demerits of Advaita philosophy you were engaged in

explaining your own perceptions of Sankara's contentions on

Vedic Rituals and several issues away from philosophy. Your

emails were also mostly based on your own presumptions on Hindu

religion in general. In your first introductory email to the

list, you have rightly stated that you are not well versed with

the Vedantic Philosophy as theorized by Sankara.

 

First, I want to assure you that the list and millions of Hindu

followers consider Gautama Buddha as a great realized sage of

the highest order. At the same time, Vedantic scholars do have

strong disagreements on the philosophical side and they have

been well documented in the literature. In spite of those

disagreements those who believe in Buddha's philosophy of life

and Sankara's philosophy of life can peacefully coexist with

harmony. All that we need is to respect each other and focus our

attention mostly on where we agree so that we can mutually

enhance our life.

 

As I have stated in my earlier reply, if you want to conduct an

"objective discussion comparing the two philosophies" you do

have the responsibility to read the previous discussions that

took place in this list.

 

If you go over the questions that you have raised in your

emails once more, you will be able to recognize the importance

of rephrasing your questions more thoughtfully. Your emails

strongly indicate that you can positively contribute to the list

with insightful posting with insightful observations. Any

question or email that any of us bring to the list should have

the sole purpose to enhance our 'knowledge' and understanding.

The purpose of this list is to enhance ‘knowledge’ and remove

‘ignorance,’ and consequently members and moderators should

exercise their role very carefully.

 

Thanks again for your interest and we look forward to your

active participation with THOUGHTFUL and INSIGHTFUL enquiries on

matters of interest and importance which can bring peace and

happiness.

 

Warmest regards,

 

Ram Chandran

 

 

--- Yogendra Bhikku <bhikkuyogi:

Re: Message not approved: Ahimsa - meat eating and Animal

sacrifices

 

 

Dear Moderator,

 

It is but surprising that you must find the write-up

offensive. I have not tried to preach anything here.

Just to clarify the position of the Buddha, regarding

meat-eating which people were discussing in response

to my question on animal sacrifice.

 

Let me clarify my complete article for your

understanding:

 

First, the historic Buddha did not disallow

meat-eating. This is acknowledging the messages

#27483, #27475. I have not opposed these messages nor

have I found them offensive. They however donot

respond to the question asked correctly. Clearly in

message #27475, the author has responded to the query

with a contention, although he claims not to raise a

topic of debate. The debate does not matter, but the

point needs understanding. Hence I tried to clarify as

to why he did not disallow meat-eating.

 

It is a firm feeling that we Buddhists have that the

Dhamma should be clarified whenever misread or

misunderstood. It is just the same spirit with which

you wish to correct my 'incorrect understanding of

Sankara's philosophy. '

 

Then the author of message #27475 talks of tantra. It

was but necessary for me to discuss the position of

Buddhists around the globe and present it in an

unbiased manner, acknowledging the facts, but not

commiting to say if they are right or wrong. The

reader can make the choice.

 

Again message #27514 correctly points out how it is

against ahimsa to eat animals in restaurants. This is

perfectly correct, and it is pointed out that the

Dhamma Vinaya for the present day accomodates this new

development and forbids meat-eating in restaurants

although people continue to do it.

 

However the matter is lesser of what people do, which

is governed by their circumstances, and more with what

is considered ethical. A spiritual leader like Sankara

had pointed out many ethical problems with India like

human sacrifice, but about animal sacrifice he remains

silent. This only surprises us and I have just

restated my initial question by asking why he did not

forbid them.

 

I understand that a simple Hindu reader will find it

difficult to grasp why we find animal sacrifices as

wrong in spite of the fact that they are enjoined in

the Veda. This is because he is so used to beleiving

the Veda that he fails to understand that there can be

people who do not beleive in it. Or those who question

it. On what basis do they question it and what is

their cultural background that forces them to do so?

This is what I explain next in the article.

 

Finally while I point out that we Buddhists donot find

the animal sacrifices as good, we also donot reject

all of the Veda as wrong. We think it reasonable to

accept the virtues and reject the ill of the Veda. The

same applies to the teachings of the Buddha.

 

I have not tried to impose any teachings of the Buddha

on anyone. However since you find my message not

worthy of publishing, you may very well reject it. I

will however not repost this message since it appears

that the message may not be well received. I donot

wish to cause any harm to anyone or hurt anyone's

emotional attachments to their scriptures and hence

shall not discuss the matter further.

 

Finally I wish to point out that while it is easy to

say that one should "try to grasp the essence of

Sankara's teachings", one should also make the same

efforts to understand the Buddha's Dhamma Vinaya

before rejecting it, as has been done in the

commentaries to the Vedanta Sutras.

 

While we recognize the Advaita Vedanta is

metaphysically not very different from the Arya

Dhamma, we also do realize that there are a few

differences. We make an attempt to understand Advaita

Vedanta, and we think it is best done by questioning

it and examining it. However since it is not of your

taste, I shall not indulge in such a thing that would

hurt you.

 

My apologies to you if I hurt your feelings.

 

Sincerely

 

Bhikku Yogi

[Guest guest]

Sri Bhikku Yogi wrote:

> I understand that a simple Hindu reader will find it

> difficult to grasp why we find animal sacrifices as

> wrong in spite of the fact that they are enjoined in

> the Veda. This is because he is so used to beleiving

> the Veda that he fails to understand that there can be

> people who do not beleive in it.

 

Namaste Bhikku-ji. Ordinary Hindus are not as dumb as you may like to

believe. Why would anyone with reasonable intellect will find it

difficult to grasp that his beliefs might not be shared by others?

 

Vedic scholars have not overlooked the fact that animal sacrifices may

not suit the sensibilities of many people. Shankara might not have

spoken about animal sacrifices but others have. Even before buddha,

vedic scholars have debated this issue and they have taken both the

sides--for and against *actual* animal sacrifices. Some of them infact

advocated animals made of rice etc. in place of *actual* animals while

others did not. And before you cited it as inconsistency of vedic

exegesis in the realm of dharma, let me point out that both the

interpretations have been subjected to the rigors of the same mImAmsa

and found to be consistent on all the six standards of determining the

tAtparya of a vedic injunction. Since both the tAtparyas are found

consistent with the vedic injunction, both are considered perfectly

dhArmik.

 

The reason for basing the essence of ethics on something higher than

"reason" should not be lost. Reason is a double-edged sword that can

be used both ways and is esp. unreliable when ones own conduct is in

question. Does anyone find difficulty in coming up with self serving

arguments when one's own actions are questioned? Every single

proposition of ethical conduct that is based on "reason" alone, can

always be challenged by a more clever argument. That doesn't provide a

very solid foundation for a dharma that aims to be sanAtana, does it?

 

praNAm