ARIYAN Teachings

[Guest guest]

Your article on Ariyan Philosophy is good , but has several flaws.

 

a) The Title should be Buddhist / Jain philosophy. Both the Buddhist and Jain

philosophies are contemporary to each other and both were into Ahimsa and

vegetarianism. How far was this philosophy developed post-Buddha is

conjectural, as he himself suffered from Asadhya roga( incurable disease )

towards the end and is presumed to have died from consumption of a medication

from a "pig" that was infected. Perhaps as a medication, it was allowed to

consume non-veg ( animal) food, in his time.

 

b) I have included the Jains because terms like Arihanta and Samana are Jain in

origin.

 

c) Neither Buddha nor Mahavir were Aryan. Buddha came from area bordering Nepal

and India, while Mahavir came from Bihar. Both belonged to Indo-Chinese mixture

of races.

 

d) The Aryans were followers of Sacrifice and animal sacrifice was predominant.

The sacrificed animal was then consumed. This cannot be an Ariyan ( your

spelling) philosophy. It is Buddhist or Jain in origin.

 

e) It is good to not want to kill that which you are not going to consume

yourself. Any killing involves a "shaapa"--a curse--- from the animal you have

hurt or killed, but may be justified if the killing was "fair"---not by a

semi-automatic gun !!!!, and if the animal has a fair chance of escape and if it

is for personal consumption, when nothing else is available. Dharma allows that

to be consumed that helps you live. Buddhist monks in Tibet eat animal food ,

since very little vegetables grow there.

 

f) This philosophy also presumes that it is OK to cut or kill a vegetable or a

plant ( even for medicinal purpose), and whose shaapa --a curse-- could be

equally bad. Some people consume only fruits that have fallen down from the

tree, and perhaps in front of your own eyes ( not touched by a snake or some

other animal). That is extreme non-violence.

 

If one were a true believer in Buddhist --central or median --pathway, one

should not take any philosophy to its extreme. And live as peacefully with the

world around you as possible, which presumes that the world you live in is not

the same as what some one else lives in.Somebody else's world should be

understood and respected. We cannotimpose our values on the Tibetan, if there is

no vegetable to eat!!!!!

The golden rule--do unto others--is very much Hindu-Buddhist-Jain, as it is

Christian, only if we follow it. Truthfulness ( Satyam), Chastity (

Brahmacharya), non-stealing(asteyam), non-acquisitiveness(aparigraha) are also

prescibed by Hindus. Ahimsa is unique to Jains and Buddhists( Indian , SriLankan

and Chinese variety, not Tibetan, although the Dalai Lama is vegetarian--and he

moved to India to flee from the Chinese persecution) Ahimsa was accepted into

Hinduism after Ashoka ( 263 BC), after he saw the massive killings from his

wars. Until 12th century, Buddhism spread and even Jainism was not spared.There

was no tolerance of any other philosophy. The Jains were relegated to Gujerat

and pockets of Karnataka. After 12th Century, Shankaracharya, having accepted

Ahimsa as part of Hinduism, spread Hinduism again in India, and Buddhism was

seen outside India , at best. This can then be rightly called Shankaracharya's

philosophy and not Aryan ( or Arian, as you call it).Shankara as he

is popularly called, did not elaborate the problems as elaborately as you have

done--they can only be ascribed to Buddhists.

 

Durgesh Mankikar

[Guest guest]

Taking off from where Manikar leaves, can anyone apply

the Ayurvedic devision of foods into Satvic, Rajasvik

and Tamsik? These are distinct personality traits

based on the type of diet one adopts. I should like to

talk about character development as related to diet

and particularly with reference to writers, dramatists

& novelists who have developed characters in their

works based on this Ayurvedic theory.

Sudha Anand.