Buddha Avatara

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

Vaishnavas accept the older one as the avatara.

I think it's up to any Vaishnava to accept either Gautama Buddha as an Avatara, or an older Buddha as an Avatara. There's evidence for both, so I suppose it's up to us. It seems strange to me though that there would be an Avatara of the Lord so un-famous that only a few select Vaishnavas know of Him. And that He would be so similar (same titles, similar missions, large life events happening in the same place, mothers having the same name, etc...) to another, later, and more famous Buddha. Unless He expressed the exact same Lila twice in the same Yuga, I'm not thinking that there are two Buddhas (the incarnation being the far less famous).

[Kingdecember]

 

So, I take it you don't believe in Krishna Lila, since we only know of it through Puranas (the Mahabharata covers some of it, but not all of it)? It's always nice to have a mleccha at Audarya.

 

All of the Puranas are not bogus, but some have been definitely tampered with by missionaries & invaders.

 

"Veda na maniya baudha haya ta nastika" - Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami, so now you know who's mleccha here.

 

 

There is another way of looking at this verse other than a referral to a literal birth.

 

One could say Siddhartha was born in Lumbini and the Buddha appeared at the time of His enlightenment in Gaya for that is when he is said to have become the Buddha.

 

There is also one more possibility, may be Siddhartha Gautama exploited this prophecy, adopted the name or made closed ones to call him Buddha & purposely chose the place Gaya.

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

All of the Puranas are not bogus, but some have been definitely tampered with by missionaries & invaders.

 

"Veda na maniya baudha haya ta nastika" - Srila Krishnadas Kaviraj Goswami, so now you know who's mleccha here.

 

Yea... you're still the mleccha, since you still believe that the Puranas have been so defiled that even the Dasha Avatara are now in question.

 

 

There is also one more possibility, may be Siddhartha Gautama exploited this prophecy, adopted the name or made closed ones to call him Buddha & purposely chose the place Gaya.

And He also made people call His mother Anjanaa?

But, could you please give me any information on this other Buddha Avatar of the Lord, who's not Gautama? What was His birth name? How long did He live? Where did He live? Why is He not famous in the slightest?

[theist]

 

So, I take it you don't believe in Krishna Lila, since we only know of it through Puranas (the Mahabharata covers some of it, but not all of it)? It's always nice to have a mleccha at Audarya.

 

"Mleccha"? C'mon now. He offered his opinion in a gentlemanly manner and deserves to be responded to in the same fashion.

[theist]

The verse is given in the form of a prophecy concerning future events. Gaudiyas accept the Bhagavqtam to be 5,000 years old. Others say it is younger. Myself I don't care. But if it's accepted as 5,000 years then where is the scope for it referring to an older Buddha? It has to be Gautama who appeared some 2600 years ago.

[theist]

 

 

 

There is also one more possibility, may be Siddhartha Gautama exploited this prophecy, adopted the name or made closed ones to call him Buddha & purposely chose the place Gaya.

 

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

[indulekhadasi]

It is written in Lalitavistara grantha that Gautama Buddha performed penances at the same place of the Vishnu Avatara Buddha. In fact both of them are quite similar, thus the confusion.

Theist prabhuji, Lumbini is basically in the Nepal area, whereas Gaya is in the heart of India. I know there is much similarity between the two Buddhas. I consider both Gautama Buddha to be a supremely pure personality, please don't get me wrong.

[shvu]

Here is a short analysis related to avatarizing the Buddha.

 

Let us assume the Bhagavatam, Vishnu Purana and the Mahabharata are 5000 years old or at least older than the Buddha, i.e., before 2600 years old and the author through magical vision predicted the arrival of a Buddha whose teachings would be atheistic. Now flash forward to the time of Sidharta who has just been enlightened and is gradually getting famous.

 

1. Who is the superbrain who decided this Sidharta was the predicted Buddha? There were a number of famous teachers during that time, most of them preaching atheistic philosophies.

 

2. Or do we assume that somehow (magically) no one in the Buddha camp read the Mahabharata or any of the Puranas; were completely unaware of the prediction and just innocently named him Buddha?

 

3. There were never any predictions. A bunch of unscrupulous Purana editors inserted the story of Buddha being an avatar of Vishnu who intentionally came down to preach false philosphies.

 

#3 is the most logical choice to me. There is extensive Purana research available from Winternitz, Hazra and others to show the Buddha was not avatarized until the 5th century AD. And perhaps the most compelling reason would be that the Buddhists themselves do not see the Buddha as an avatar. Hence, such ideas of a Buddha avatara that originate externally have no value.

 

Simpler to see the Buddha as yet another teacher like Mahavira and others whose teachings became popular due to royal patronage & missionary activities from Ashoka and other kings.

 

Cheers

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

Here is a short analysis related to avatarizing the Buddha.

 

Let us assume the Bhagavatam, Vishnu Purana and the Mahabharata are 5000 years old or at least older than the Buddha, i.e., before 2600 years old and the author through magical vision predicted the arrival of a Buddha whose teachings would be atheistic. Now flash forward to the time of Sidharta who has just been enlightened and is gradually getting famous.

 

1. Who is the superbrain who decided this Sidharta was the predicted Buddha? There were a number of famous teachers during that time, most of them preaching atheistic philosophies.

 

2. Or do we assume that somehow (magically) no one in the Buddha camp read the Mahabharata or any of the Puranas; were completely unaware of the prediction and just innocently named him Buddha?

 

3. There were never any predictions. A bunch of unscrupulous Purana editors inserted the story of Buddha being an avatar of Vishnu who intentionally came down to preach false philosphies.

 

#3 is the most logical choice to me. There is extensive Purana research available from Winternitz, Hazra and others to show the Buddha was not avatarized until the 5th century AD. And perhaps the most compelling reason would be that the Buddhists themselves do not see the Buddha as an avatar. Hence, such ideas of a Buddha avatara that originate externally have no value.

 

Simpler to see the Buddha as yet another teacher like Mahavira and others whose teachings became popular due to royal patronage & missionary activities from Ashoka and other kings.

 

Cheers

Why (if we are to assume that Gautama isn't the Buddha Avatara) isn't the Buddha avatara famous? All the other avatars of the Lord are famous and we know Their different Lilas. Why is this one different?

And, if # 3 is the most logical choice, then how can we trust the Puranas on Krishna or Rama or any of the other Avatars?

[shvu]

 

Why (if we are to assume that Gautama isn't the Buddha Avatara) isn't the Buddha avatara famous? All the other avatars of the Lord are famous and we know Their different Lilas. Why is this one different?

 

If we take the avatar route, then any position other than equating Siddharta <=> Gautama Buddha <=> Vishnu avatar will raise more questions and increase complexity. Simpler to go with the option of one Buddha who was the founder of the religion and also the predicted avatar.

 

 

And, if # 3 is the most logical choice, then how can we trust the Puranas on Krishna or Rama or any of the other Avatars?

 

It is possible because,

 

1. The followers of Krishna & Rama see them just as they are described in the Puranas. This is not the case with the Buddha as his followers follow a different set of scripture which is very unlike the Puranas.

 

2. Krishna and Rama are not predicted. All the sources describing them are written after their existence on earth. This is different from the case of the Buddha who is a prediction.

 

3. Historically, Ashoka's patronage to Buddhism resulted in major changes in the status of the Brahmana in society. Perhaps for the first time, people from lower varnas were holding more authority than Brahmanas, which was a red flag. It is natural that they would have attempted to check their growth by discrediting the Buddha's teaching as false.

 

4. The Buddha avatar is not found in all avatar lists. There are several instances in the Puranas and even in the Mahabharata where the Buddha avatar is not mentioned. No such problem exists in the case of Krishna and Rama.

 

5. Finally, it is well know that the Mahabharata and all the Puranas have been subject to interpolation from a long time. Hence, it is not necessary to accept them verbatim. The general approach is look for corroboration, preferably in the Vedas and if not, then there is always the possibility of doubt.

 

Cheers

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

If we take the avatar route, then any position other than equating Siddharta <=> Gautama Buddha <=> Vishnu avatar will raise more questions and increase complexity. Simpler to go with the option of one Buddha who was the founder of the religion and also the predicted avatar.

I agree.

 

It is possible because,

 

1. The followers of Krishna & Rama see them just as they are described in the Puranas. This is not the case with the Buddha as his followers follow a different set of scripture which is very unlike the Puranas.

 

2. Krishna and Rama are not predicted. All the sources describing them are written after their existence on earth. This is different from the case of the Buddha who is a prediction.

 

3. Historically, Ashoka's patronage to Buddhism resulted in major changes in the status of the Brahmana in society. Perhaps for the first time, people from lower varnas were holding more authority than Brahmanas, which was a red flag. It is natural that they would have attempted to check their growth by discrediting the Buddha's teaching as false.

 

4. The Buddha avatar is not found in all avatar lists. There are several instances in the Puranas and even in the Mahabharata where the Buddha avatar is not mentioned. No such problem exists in the case of Krishna and Rama.

 

5. Finally, it is well know that the Mahabharata and all the Puranas have been subject to interpolation from a long time. Hence, it is not necessary to accept them verbatim. The general approach is look for corroboration, preferably in the Vedas and if not, then there is always the possibility of doubt.

 

Cheers

Some good points made. I still think the Buddha Avatar was Gautama (and that there was a Buddha Avatar), but I must say you make your point well.

[tackleberry]

 

so what esle do you expect if you on a Hindu forum would assert that animal killing & meat eating is sanctioned in Vedas & whatever is practised at Kalighat temple is Vedic in nature ?

 

?

 

Where did he say that? This topic is about buddha avatara, isn't it?

[theist]

 

It is written in Lalitavistara grantha that Gautama Buddha performed penances at the same place of the Vishnu Avatara Buddha. In fact both of them are quite similar, thus the confusion.

Theist prabhuji, Lumbini is basically in the Nepal area, whereas Gaya is in the heart of India. I know there is much similarity between the two Buddhas. I consider both Gautama Buddha to be a supremely pure personality, please don't get me wrong.

 

Indu,

 

Check this map. We may not be referring to the same Gaya. The Gaya or Bodh Gaya here is very close to the border with Nepal. It is in the same region and very close.

<table align="center" border="0" cellpadding="0" cellspacing="0" width="698"><tbody><tr><td colspan="2" height="3" width="618">

</td> </tr> <tr> <td colspan="2" height="3" width="618"> </td> </tr> </tbody></table>

 

 

 

 

 

The Upper Ganges Valley (India) at the time of the Buddha showing the major sites.

 

Sixth century BC India was in a state of profound social and philosophical revolution. In the land watered by the Ganges, new monarchical states, such as Kosala and Magadha were expanding. While the cities of 6th century BC swarmed with shifting new populations, the roads were busy with the movement of religious wanderers and teachers. It was into this climate that Sidhartha Gautama, the Buddha-to-be, was born into the Shakya clan, whose capital was Kapilavastu, at the Lumbini Grove in the foothills of the Himalayas.

 

 

 

 

• Birth (Lumbini) - 624
  B.C.E.
  
  
  
  
• Marriage (Kapilavastu) - 608
  B.C.E
  
  
  
  
• Renunciation (Kapilavastu) - 595
  B.C.E
  
  
  
  
• Enlightenment (Bodh Gaya) - 589
  B.C.E
  
  
  
  
• 1st Year after Enlightenment (Sarnath) - 588
  B.C.E.
  
  
  
  
• Death / Parinirvana at Kushinagar - 544
  B.C.E

 

[Kingdecember]

 

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

 

So buddha was happily complying with the prophecy ?

[theist]

 

So buddha was happily complying with the prophecy ?

 

I have no idea if he even knew there was such a prophecy. I can't speculate on what he may or may not have known.

[lokeshvara]

i'm unsure of whether or not this information will be helpful in this debate but here some things that are not so commonly known about the buddha's teachings. maybe it can point one way or the other (i don't know, just throwing it out there)

 

1) as mentioned by others within the buddhist world view, Siddhartha Gautama was not the first or only buddha. He was the fifth buddha to appear on earth.

 

2) the biography of the buddha found in the buddhacaritam refers to the appearance of the buddha as not a single unique event but as the continuation of the tathagata's (thus come one's) lila.

 

3) within theravada the veneration of brahma and vishnu often takes place at buddhist temples. in mahayana (the largest branch) the buddha of compassion- avalokiteshvara (the most venerated deity in the buddhist pantheon) is refered to as Nilakantha, Narayana, Isvara, and Yogeshvara. some of the buddhist hymns also refer to him as Lord Vishnu. he has three heads (that of a boar, and handsom man, and a lion) he has four arms and caries a chakra, a mase, a lotus, and a conch. he also wears a black snake as the his sacred thread. he is not seperate from gautama buddha but a manifestation of supreme compassion.

 

4) although it is often believed that all of the buddha's teachings were atheistic, this is not entirely true. devotion was taught and encouraged. primarily devotion to avalokiteshvara and buddha amitabha (spiritual father of avalokiteshvara) this devotion mainly consists of the constant repition of the sacred name.

 

5) in the Lankavatara Sutra, a key mahayana text, the buddha makes a statement along the lines of "some call me the thus come one, others the buddha, still other isvara, and others ram, but none know the true meanings of these names and do not understand the true reality of who i am" something close to that anyway.

 

does this show similarities in traditions, yes. does it show siddhartha gautama as buddha avatara i don't know. take this info for what it's worth in conjunction with the sacred texts and draw your own conclusions.

 

for me personally i believe they were one in the same but that is my opinion.

 

Jai Sree Vishnu!!!

[krishnadasa]

if the heart knows it, then one knows it afterall

if the heart doesnt then one doesnt at all

 

Lakshmi ramana Govinda!!!

[Avinash]

I have been to Bodh Gaya many times. Yes, it is close to Nepal border. Many people take bus to go from Bodh Gaya to Lumbini via Sravasti.

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

?

 

Where did he say that? This topic is about buddha avatara, isn't it?

Here's the conversation that went on in the 'Isn't Buddhist just a form of Vedanta?' thread:

 

Indulekha Dasi said (quoting Srila Jayadeva Goswami):

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.

 

To which Kingdecember said:

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

 

To which I said (as a means of showing that sacrifices are, at the very least, alluded to in the Vedas):

"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.

 

So, I guess what I said was so terrible that I needed to be called an idiot.

 

And, about Kalighat, here's what happened there:

 

ARJ (another guy on the 'Buddhism' forum):

1st how did you know [animal sacrifice] did occur

Me:

It still occurs! Some Hindus still sacrifice animals to God b/c they think that He wants it from the Vedas! Do you really think that every historian in the world is wrong about animal sacrifice having been perfomed in ancient India? I mean, it still occurs today. Why wouldn't it have occured at the beginning of the Kali Yuga as well?

ARJ:

Ever heard about the 'Lies of White Men'

Me:

Oh please. Once again, many Hindus still practice animal sacrifice today based on their ideas of Vedic sacrifice... but I suppose the Kalighat Temple is also a lie of the white man... right?<!-- BEGIN TEMPLATE: bbcode_quote -->

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

No I'm not familar with him. I will stay out of your feud. Of course it would be good if both of you could keep the feud off Audarya Fellowship and limit it to other foums. Just my two cents.

Yea.

"But... he... he called me names first!" Sounds rather childish, I suppose.

[theist]

 

Yea.

"But... he... he called me names first!" Sounds rather childish, I suppose.

First I heard of him was this thread. Now as I said leave me out of your little fued.

[shvu]

 

Yea.

"But... he... he called me names first!" Sounds rather childish, I suppose.

 

On the topic of slaughter, the vedic religion of India did sacrifice animals in yajnas as was the practice in most old world religions with the exception of jainism. And of course, the sacrificed animals were always eaten.

 

It was only after Buddhism became popular that the practise of vegetarianism became fashionable and appears to have made its way into some Hindu sects. Live animals were replaced by flour animals for sacrifices.

 

According to Madhva's biography [sumadhva vijaya], animal sacrifice by Brahmanas was still happening during his time - 13th century AD. Soon after he became the head of his Matha, he opposed the concept, stood firm against stiff opposition and replaced live animals with flour animals. He did not say animal sacrifice was not sanctioned in the Veda, his position was it is not required in Kali Yuga.

 

JHa's book [Myth of the Holy Cow] also makes a strong case to show Brahmanas engaged in animal sacrifice and meat eating during the Vedic period - before the Vedic religion evolved into Hinduism.

 

Cheers

[Kingdecember]

 

It was only after Buddhism became popular that the practise of vegetarianism became fashionable and appears to have made its way into some Hindu sects. Live animals were replaced by flour animals for sacrifices.

 

Buddha himself was a meat eater, his last supper was contaminated pig-meat.

 

Now lets see what a buddhist monk named Ajahn Jagaro has to say about vegetarianism & buddhism :

 

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 Ganges Valley throughout India, moving south to Sri Lanka, across to Burma and Thailand, then north towards Tibet and eventually China. Over the centuries it began to fragment into various schools. Some of these schools flourished in different parts of India 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 India 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.

 

A chicken cries "we have buddha to save us from these savages (hindus), but who would save us from buddha ??????????

[theist]

Buddhists like to emphasize compassion as a core principle to their path. So to me the question is not if one should eat meat or not but rather should one slaughter an animal for food or not. Especially when in our society the alternatives are easily and readily obtainable.

 

How can a Buddhist justify the cruel practice of animal slaughter and at the same time advocate being compassionate towards other living beings?

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

On the topic of slaughter, the vedic religion of India did sacrifice animals in yajnas as was the practice in most old world religions with the exception of jainism. And of course, the sacrificed animals were always eaten.

 

It was only after Buddhism became popular that the practise of vegetarianism became fashionable and appears to have made its way into some Hindu sects. Live animals were replaced by flour animals for sacrifices.

 

According to Madhva's biography [sumadhva vijaya], animal sacrifice by Brahmanas was still happening during his time - 13th century AD. Soon after he became the head of his Matha, he opposed the concept, stood firm against stiff opposition and replaced live animals with flour animals. He did not say animal sacrifice was not sanctioned in the Veda, his position was it is not required in Kali Yuga.

 

JHa's book [Myth of the Holy Cow] also makes a strong case to show Brahmanas engaged in animal sacrifice and meat eating during the Vedic period - before the Vedic religion evolved into Hinduism.

 

Cheers

Finally, a sane person on Audarya who admits that sacrifices were committed in the name of God in Vedic times.