Buddha Avatara

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

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 ??????????

 

Once again, Ajahn Jagaro isn't the Buddha... let's see what the Buddha Himself has to say:

"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

"Abandoning the taking of life, the ascetic Gautama dwells refraining from taking life, without stick or sword."

--Digha Nikaya 1.18

[lokeshvara]

for clarification. the buddha didn't die from eating pork products. he died from poison truffles. you'll have to forgive me as i don't remember the pali or sanskrit term for it but it was rendered as not being pigs' meat as in pork but the food pigs eat:ie: truffles. this is common belief within almost all of buddhism with the acception of some theravada traditions. the quotes from the ajanh are from a theravada perspective and the majority of buddhists in the world do not belong to this tradition. as for the buddha's stance on vegatarianism, within the mahayana tripitaka it is clear that meat products are adharmic and should be avoided, dairy is ok but even that is avoided by many of the devout.

[Bishadi]

 

Lord Buddha is clearly an avatar of Bhagavan, as is detailed in shastra, so why are there any Hindus (especially Vaishnavas) who refuse to recognize Him as such when He is clearly called an Avatar of Bhagavan in the Srimad Bhagavata Purana?

 

Sanskrit:

tatah kalau sampravrtte

sammohaya sura-dvisam

buddha namnanjana-sutah

kikatesu bhavisyati

English:

Then, in the beginning of Kali Yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.

--Srimad Bhagavata Purana 1.3.24

 

Are we now allowed to pick and choose which avatars are real avatars based on our personal preference?!

No picking a teacher as the teacher must offer the knowledg equal to all mankind.

 

The last buddha is the same as the antichrist as it is when the last conveys what is true that no religions will be the key to understanding ever again.

 

The choice was a selfless choice to learn over the course of life for the purpose of tomorrow. Just as all the others had done as in evolution, knowledge has also evolved but the difference is now we have the internet and knowledge from the globe can be touched by a simple choice.

 

The birth is of the 'west'. In a month/year of 6/66 June of 1966. With only one ear deformed (statues all show both ears) and brings the knowledge of light grounding all the religions, sciences and philosophies in one change to comprehending energy itself.

 

ie.... the trinity of existence is 'all mass, all energy (light) and all time and the math is thought to be the 'name of god'.......... the total; ONE!

 

when you bump into the compassionate giver of truth, please share to the world as only by choice can one pursue what is true.

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

No picking a teacher as the teacher must offer the knowledg equal to all mankind.

 

The last buddha is the same as the antichrist as it is when the last conveys what is true that no religions will be the key to understanding ever again.

 

The choice was a selfless choice to learn over the course of life for the purpose of tomorrow. Just as all the others had done as in evolution, knowledge has also evolved but the difference is now we have the internet and knowledge from the globe can be touched by a simple choice.

 

The birth is of the 'west'. In a month/year of 6/66 June of 1966. With only one ear deformed (statues all show both ears) and brings the knowledge of light grounding all the religions, sciences and philosophies in one change to comprehending energy itself.

 

ie.... the trinity of existence is 'all mass, all energy (light) and all time and the math is thought to be the 'name of god'.......... the total; ONE!

 

when you bump into the compassionate giver of truth, please share to the world as only by choice can one pursue what is true.

Hey, I'm 'pro-choice' (figuratively speaking) for most things. But, I don't think that Vaishnavas need to start choosing which Avatars in the Maha Dasha Avataram they want to throw out based on their own personal whimsy. The Lord's incarnations aren't just some game of 'eeney meeney miney moe, catch a tiger by the toe, if he hollers let him go, eeney meeney miney moe', where we can just pick and choose which Avatars to throw out and which Avatars to keep. They are who They are, and it's not our decision to pick and choose. That's like saying, "Well... I really didn't like Teddy Roosevelt too much, so he's not a president of the U.S. to me... but I really like Abraham Lincoln, so he can stay as a president of the United States. I'm going to re-write the history books and say that Teddy Roosevelt was never a president!" That's not how it works. We can't change history and we can't change the Lord's Avatars. It's not something we have a say in. It's not an election or a popularity contest. If you don't want to believe in one of the Lord's avatars, then don't believe in any of them, because that might as well be what someone is saying when they start picking and choosing avatars to throw out of the Maha Dasha Avataram. If you leave out one Avatar (especially when there's shastric evidence to the contrary) then you're calling into question the existence of all of Them and might as well stop believing in any of Them.

[theist]

 

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

I also have mentioned this many times. There is even an incident in the Bhagavatam of sacricing a "man/animal". Even in Vrndavan we read this. Krishna and His cowherd friends were playing in the forest.They became hungry and sought foodstuff from the house of brahmanas. The brahmanas were busy doing animal sacrifice but their wives were attracted to Krishna and fed Him and His friends.

 

Very instructive as to what real sacrifice entails.

[ARJ]

 

Lord Buddha is clearly an avatar of Bhagavan, as is detailed in shastra, so why are there any Hindus (especially Vaishnavas) who refuse to recognize Him as such when He is clearly called an Avatar of Bhagavan in the Srimad Bhagavata Purana?

 

Sanskrit:

tatah kalau sampravrtte

sammohaya sura-dvisam

buddha namnanjana-sutah

kikatesu bhavisyati

English:

Then, in the beginning of Kali Yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Anjana, in the province of Gaya, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.

--Srimad Bhagavata Purana 1.3.24

 

Are we now allowed to pick and choose which avatars are real avatars based on our personal preference?!

 

can you explain this:

 

Srimad Bhagavata Purana canto 1, chapter 3, verse 13:

 

ashtame merudevyam tu

nabher jata urukramah

darsayan vartma dhiranam

sarvasrama-namaskritam

 

The Chaturyuga Khanda Dvitiyadhyayah, Bhavishya Purana, chapter 19, verse 30:

 

isha muurtirt-dradi praptaa

nityashuddha sivamkari

ishamasihah iti ca

mama nama pratishthitam

 

don't see any difference between you & a guy named zakir naik

[ARJ]

 

Once again, Ajahn Jagaro isn't the Buddha... let's see what the Buddha Himself has to say:

 

You mean buddha whispered this into your ears ?

 

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

[ARJ]

 

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.

 

On the other hand there are so many verses in Vedas against animal killing & meat eating. The oldest scripture mentioning 'Ahimsa' is the Taittiriya Samhita of the Yajurveda (TS 5.2.8.7) & yet some idiots think that vegetarianism & Ahimsa was a buddhist influence on hinduism

 

The results speak for themselves, can a meat eating buddhist like Dalai Lama be compared with Swami Ramdev ?

[Bishadi]

 

Hey, I'm 'pro-choice' (figuratively speaking) for most things. But, I don't think that Vaishnavas need to start choosing which Avatars in the Maha Dasha Avataram they want to throw out based on their own personal whimsy. The Lord's incarnations aren't just some game of 'eeney meeney miney moe,

 

I agree. It is almost like the idea of not eating meat for sustenance.

 

Funny people...... almost like the 'holy rollers' .... 'who ever can endure the most pain wins'

 

And that has nothing to do within reality; its a faith issue!

 

 

We can't change history and we can't change the Lord's Avatars. It's not something we have a say in. It's not an election or a popularity contest

 

But it seems that in order to be heard, one must fit into the mold created by the religion.

 

It is one reason the younger generations will be vindicated with the truth, as it is usually the elders who are the most ignorant and bend on maintaining rituals and unnecessary time spent in being humble rather than digging for the truth.

 

Perhaps if more time was spent seeking, then remaining complacent, it may not have taken so long.

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

can you explain this:

 

Srimad Bhagavata Purana canto 1, chapter 3, verse 13:

 

ashtame merudevyam tu

nabher jata urukramah

darsayan vartma dhiranam

sarvasrama-namaskritam

 

The Chaturyuga Khanda Dvitiyadhyayah, Bhavishya Purana, chapter 19, verse 30:

 

isha muurtirt-dradi praptaa

nityashuddha sivamkari

ishamasihah iti ca

mama nama pratishthitam

 

don't see any difference between you & a guy named zakir naik

The eighth incarnation was King Rsabha, son of King Nabhi and his wife Merudevi. In this incarnation the Lord showed the path of perfection, which is followed by those who have fully controlled their senses and who are honored by all orders of life.

-Bhagavata Purana, 1.3.13

--------

What does this have to do with this conversation? We were talking specifically about the Lord's incarnation as Buddha, and not about His incarnation as King Rsabha. Could you please explain your train of thought?

 

Translation for the second verse please? Is it something about Jesus or Mohammad, which you often claim are in the Bhavishya Purana? But, once again, if the verse does have to do with 'Jesus' or 'Mohammad', their parents aren't called by name, the place they appeared (or made their appearance known) isn't mentioned, the time in which they were born isn't described, and their missions aren't described. Oh, and let's not forget that they aren't considered as members of the MAHA DASHA AVATARA (Ten Great Incarnations of the Lord) by any Vaishnava, since you'd have to get rid of one or two (like... oh, say... Lord Buddha?) to make room for them.

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

You mean buddha whispered this into your ears ?

 

You are so thick, it's utterly ridiculous. I quoted the Buddha's words from scripture which refute Ajahn Jagaro's position.

 

 

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

Since I guess you can only read some Buddhist scriptures at certain times, I'll give you the basic jist of the Maha Parinirvana Sutra that I've posted about eighty times on here.

In the Maha Parinirvana Sutra, the Buddha says that the reason why he sanctioned meat eating in only some circumstances was to limit his disciples' eating of meat, so that he could slowly wean them off of meat in order to make them vegetarians.

--------

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

--------------------------------

Also, in the Pali Canon, the Buddha says that a disciple shouldn't practice business in meat! Stating that it's equal to business in poison and slavery! Yea... that sure sounds like something a viscious animal torturer would say.

------------------------------

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 Sutra, Anguttara, 5.177

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

I also have mentioned this many times. There is even an incident in the Bhagavatam of sacricing a "man/animal". Even in Vrndavan we read this. Krishna and His cowherd friends were playing in the forest.They became hungry and sought foodstuff from the house of brahmanas. The brahmanas were busy doing animal sacrifice but their wives were attracted to Krishna and fed Him and His friends.

 

Very instructive as to what real sacrifice entails.

Exactly. I mean, it's pretty obvious that animal sacrifice has been around for a very long time, even in glorious, infallible, absolutely perfect India, which has perfectly infallible citizens who could NEVER mininterpret a Vedic verse that is clearly talking about a (possibly symbolic?) sacrifice... especially when it would suit their own needs. Hence the reason that Lord Krishna specified the things He wanted offered to Him (of course, puja has been around for a long time as well, and He wouldn't have specified exactly what He wanted offered to Him if people were already offering what He wanted without any extra (e.g.-animal flesh, which is, strangely enough, the only food item He doesn't mention)).

[theist]

Another obvious example is the ashwamedha or horse sacrifice. Supposedly the King of Heaven does this one also. I have my doubts but that is another thing.

 

Animal sacrifice is simply barbaric in my opinion. Call it vedic or not I don't care but if one thinks he can cleanse his heart of sin by torturing some innocent creature then that man is fool number one. IMO

[krishnadasa]

 

Another obvious example is the ashwamedha or horse sacrifice. Supposedly the King of Heaven does this one also. I have my doubts but that is another thing.

 

Animal sacrifice is simply barbaric in my opinion. Call it vedic or not I don't care but if one thinks he can cleanse his heart of sin by torturing some innocent creature then that man is fool number one. IMO

 

if the animal is sacrificed for its benifit, guess thats good for it.. also people knew to bring back the animal if they want...however, now animal killing is only for food i.e sense gratification/....

[theist]

 

if the animal is sacrificed for its benifit, guess thats good for it.. also people knew to bring back the animal if they want...however, now animal killing is only for food i.e sense gratification/....

 

That's what they say. Not sure I believe it though. One thing is for sure, that is not the case today.

[shvu]

 

On the other hand there are so many verses in Vedas against animal killing & meat eating. The oldest scripture mentioning 'Ahimsa' is the Taittiriya Samhita of the Yajurveda (TS 5.2.8.7) & yet some idiots think that vegetarianism & Ahimsa was a buddhist influence on hinduism

 

It is a naive approach to selectively pick out verses of our choice and ignore everything else.

 

The same scripture that talked about ahimsa also elsewhere advocated animal sacrifice - for which there is ample evidence from no less a source than the Mahabharata and more recently Madhva's biography.

 

Is it possible that the same source talks about ahimsa and also about animal sacrifice? Why not? The claim is the animal is slaughtered to not know any pain and will ascend to higher realms, something that is not available to other animals. It is considered a privilege and is beneficial to the animal. And what do you do with the meat? Waste it or eat it? Yajnavalkya, et al., made it abundantly clear that they ate and enjoyed the tender meat of these calves that ascended heaven.

 

Look at real life; people raise pets in their homes and treat them as family members. And yet they also eat meat. By your binary logic, such a thing should not be possible, but it is for real and there exist millions of such people.

 

In short, it is possible to reconcile ahimsa, love for animals and meat eating. They are not mutually contradictory as we see in real life.

 

 

The results speak for themselves, can a meat eating buddhist like Dalai Lama be compared with Swami Ramdev ?

 

How about comparing a Swami Ramdev with a meat eating Jesus? Do the results speak for themselves here too? And how do the results speak whn we compare two vegetarian Swami's? If one is more popular than the other, does it mean he is more vegetarian than the other?

 

Cheers

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

Is it possible that the same source talks about ahimsa and also about animal sacrifice? Why not? The claim is the animal is slaughtered to not know any pain and will ascend to higher realms, something that is not available to other animals. It is considered a privilege and is beneficial to the animal. And what do you do with the meat? Waste it or eat it? Yajnavalkya, et al., made it abundantly clear that they ate and enjoyed the tender meat of these calves that ascended heaven.

So then it'd be okay to kill a sadhu or a sannyasi (b/c you know that they're in Maha Samadhi and you'll just be sending them to God) and then eat their flesh as well?

[shvu]

 

So then it'd be okay to kill a sadhu or a sannyasi (b/c you know that they're in Maha Samadhi and you'll just be sending them to God) and then eat their flesh as well?

 

Sacrifices in Yajnas were for animals...not humans.

 

Cheers

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

Sacrifices in Yajnas were for animals...not humans.

 

Cheers

What's the difference? Intelligence? Does that mean that it's okay to sacrifice babies as well?

[shvu]

 

What's the difference? Intelligence? Does that mean that it's okay to sacrifice babies as well?

 

By your own logic, No. Humans are capable of advancing spiritually which animals are not. Hence, the differentiation as this is the only shortcut available to animals.

 

Cheers

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

By your own logic, No. Humans are capable of advancing spiritually which animals are not. Hence, the differentiation as this is the only shortcut available to animals.

 

Cheers

So, it's more merciful to slit an animal's throat, eat it's flesh, and let it go on it's way to it's next life (which, we don't even know what the animal will be reincarnated as) than to let it live out it's own life, learn what it needed to learn from that life in the first place, and then die naturally?

[shvu]

 

So, it's more merciful to slit an animal's throat, eat it's flesh, and let it go on it's way to it's next life (which, we don't even know what the animal will be reincarnated as) than to let it live out it's own life, learn what it needed to learn from that life in the first place, and then die naturally?

 

Aren't we being a little dense?

 

This is not about slaughtering animals for food. It is about *sacrificing* animals following prescribed rites. You may like it or leave it, but this was the belief and was practised for thousands of years until it ceased to be fashionable.

 

Just in case you are thinking I endorse the practise and am sacrificing animals in my backyard, I am not.

 

If you want to know more, read "Myth of the holy cow".

 

Cheers

[RadheyRadhey108]

 

Aren't we being a little dense?

 

This is not about slaughtering animals for food. It is about *sacrificing* animals following prescribed rites. You may like it or leave it, but this was the belief and was practised for thousands of years until it ceased to be fashionable.

 

Just in case you are thinking I endorse the practise and am sacrificing animals in my backyard, I am not.

 

If you want to know more, read "Myth of the holy cow".

 

Cheers

I'm sorry. I thought you were supporting animal slaughter. Many apologies. I know you don't sacrifice animals, but I just thought you were supporting the slaughter of animals for food by using Vedic sacrifice as a justification. Once again, my deepest apologies for my grevious misunderstanding.

[ARJ]

 

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

 

Kali Yuga is meant for scoundrels.

[theist]

 

Kali Yuga is meant for scoundrels.

 

You are the kali-yuga scoundrel if you consider Lord Buddha a scoundrel.