is buddhism, jainism.......

[gHari]

I did not like the derogatory comparison between the Hindu religion and the Buddhist 'religion'. Here is a more authorative view:

ParamahaMsa: But not all of us are Christians. Some of us are Muslims, and in the Koran Mohammed says that eating meat is all right. In fact it is required to be a good Muslim, to eat meat.

PrabhupAda: They spoke in the desert. What will they eat? But you are not in the desert. Meat-eating is a crude form of eating when people are uncivilized. When there is no other food, you cannot produce. But when you are civilized, when you learn how to produce other foods, why would you eat meat? How are you civilized?

Amogha: SrIla PrabhupAda, in Sikhism there was Guru Nanak and Guru Granth Sahib. Is that actually a real scripture, and was Guru Nanak actually a devotee? Or is that not correct?

PrabhupAda: They created a system of religion which can include Hindus and Muslim. That was at the time needed. But that is not a good system of religion.

ParamahaMsa: You mean a compromise between the two.

PrabhupAda: Compromise, yes. There was too much strain between Hindus and Muslims, so he wanted to make a compromise. Actually there was only Vedic culture all over the world. As the things deteriorated, new systems of religion came in. Either the Sikh religion or the Christian or this religion, Muslim religion. They are, what is called, deformed type of religion. Religion is that sarva-dharmAn parityajya mAm ekaM [bg. 18.66]. That is religion. These are later on deformed.

GaNeza: So is that according to time, place and circumstance we must discriminate in our eating?

PrabhupAda: What?

GaNeza: According to time, place and circumstance we must discriminate whether to eat meat, whether to eat the vegetables?

PrabhupAda: Yes, you must eat. But when good things are available, why should you eat bad things? You must be pacified.

Amogha: Was there a story? The Hindus always tell this story about I think VizvAmitra RSi eating a dog or something?

PrabhupAda: Sometimes. There was no food.

Amogha: They like that story. What about in the Buddhist philosophy; we understand that...

PrabhupAda: No killing.

ParamahaMsa: ...in the higher stage...

PrabhupAda: No killing.

Amogha: Yes, but the Buddhist monks, when they beg, they simply accept whatever alms they receive, and if they receive meat then they'll eat that, and if they receive some raw grains then they eat that. Actually that is a higher state of renunciation.

ParamahaMsa: And if they receive some cigarettes they'll smoke them.

Amogha: Yes, and if they receive--they'll take anything, they are so renounced. So isn't that more spiritual?

PrabhupAda: They have no idea what is spiritual. Buddhist religion is not a spiritual. It is material. If you kill me then I feel pain; therefore I shall not kill you. This is.

 

Excerpt from SB 6.1 lecture Dec 22/70:

And a godless scripture, that is not accepted as religion. Therefore in India, although Lord Buddha appeared in India--he was a kSatriya, and he started some religious principle--it is not accepted because it is not, in the Buddha religion, there is no acceptance of God or soul.

So these are some of the points. But the BhAgavata says that although in the Buddha religion there is no, I mean to say, mention of worshiping God, but Lord Buddha is himself incarnation of God, and he induced his followers to worship him. Therefore in the BhAgavata it is said that he cheated the atheists. The atheists were against God. He appeared before them. He said, "Yes, you are right. You don't worship God. You worship me." And he is incarnation of God. Kezava dhRta-buddha-zarIra jaya jagadIza hare. He is accepted in the Vedic literature as incarnation of God, but he says that "There is no God. You worship me. You follow me," because his principle was to stop animal-killing. Sadaya-hRdaya darzita-pazu-ghAtam. God became very much compassionate. When people were too much addicted in killing animals unnecessarily, He appeared as Lord Buddha. Sadaya-hRdaya darzita-pazu-ghAtam. Pazu-ghAtam. The pazu-ghAtam means they were being implicated in innumerable sinful activities by this process. Therefore God wanted to... YadA yadA hi dharmasya glAnir bhavati [bg. 4.7]. In the name of religion, they were killing so many animals. Therefore to stop this nonsense, he appeared. And he declined to accept the Vedic principles because there was no other way to stop. If he would have accepted Vedic principles, then these animal-killers would have shown him evidences that in the Vedas there is mention of animal-killing in the sacrifice. But he wanted to stop completely animal-killing; so therefore he adopted a new type of religion. But those who were followers of Vedic religion, they did not accept because that is not religion because it is against the Vedas. These are the principles.

SaGkarAcArya... SaGkarAcArya, after Buddha, His Holiness SaGkarAcArya appeared to drive away Buddhism, and he established again Vedic religion. But that Vedic religion, being impersonal, that is also not Vedic religion. That is also another thing, that God is person. Nityo nityAnAm. NityAnAm, the so many living entities--every one is person. How God can be imperson? If God is the supreme father... If you are a person, then how your father can be imperson? So that is imperfect knowledge. When we speak of God as imperson, that is imperfect knowledge.

vadanti tat tattva-vidas

tattvaM yaj jJAnam advayam

brahmeti paramAtmeti

bhagavAn iti zabdyate

[sB 1.2.11]

The Absolute Truth is presented in three different phases. One is Brahman, impersonal Brahman, another is localized ParamAtmA, and another is the Supreme Personality of Godhead. So we shall discuss again. Next morning we shall...

 

[laksri]

Originally posted by vinay:

can we say that buddhism, jainism are a part of hinduism or r they considered to be two different religions?

is it true that these two religions are atheist religions, since they do not have a belief in the supreme being.

I see lot of offshoots to this topic, but let us stay within the topic.

 

There can be any number of ism, and schools of thought within it. But what is Hinduism first ?

 

What is given to us by our AcharyAs is hinduism or the religion of the smrithis, srutis and ithAsams. So one has to accept these pramAnas to be a hindu. If you accept that then next comes the question of interpretation. We cannot come up with something, it has to be in line with our disciplinic succession starting with the supreme nArAyanA/vishnu/vAsudevA as our foremost teacher.

 

given all these it does not matter much about the history of buddists or jainas,though

1) Adi buddhA and Adi thirtAnkara where amsa of vishnu

2) lot of populism and fashion was there at one time

3) actually, first the buddhist and later the jainas dominated the political support and theology from 5 BC - 12 A.D, in large parts of india from time to time is a historical fact.

 

Now, whether such a religion started by our own Supreme master is acceptable to us. Whether his own words while said in bagavat gIta is accepted why not in buddism ?

 

krsnA, out of his supreme mercy teaches us, that even if he himself teaches against his doctirnes in the smriti, sruti and the itihAs, then it is not for us. What is consistent with the scriptures only that we take and only that is his command.

 

Let him bless us with ever merciful line of acaryas to show us the path of dharmA as thought by him to our masters.

 

 

[ramakrishna]

Both Buddhism and Jainism deny the existence of God or the First Cause which is responsible for the entire creation. But both acknowledge the presence of gods, who are higher than human beings in status but subject to change and evolution and also plane of higher beings, called Jinas or Kevalins by Jains and Bodhisattvas by Buddhists. The Bodhisattvas take interest in the welfare of the world and work for its liberation, but the Kevalins are rather indifferent to our prayers and problems and remain unaffected.

 

so if both do not accept the existence of gods, how can we say that they are the very incarnations of the lord, especially in the case of buddha, who is considered 2 b an incarnation of vishnu

 

 

[laksri]

Originally posted by ramakrishna:

Both Buddhism and Jainism deny the existence of God or the First Cause which is responsible for the entire creation. But both acknowledge the presence of gods, who are higher than human beings in status but subject to change and evolution and also plane of higher beings, called Jinas or Kevalins by Jains and Bodhisattvas by Buddhists. The Bodhisattvas take interest in the welfare of the world and work for its liberation, but the Kevalins are rather indifferent to our prayers and problems and remain unaffected.

 

so if both do not accept the existence of gods, how can we say that they are the very incarnations of the lord, especially in the case of buddha, who is considered 2 b an incarnation of vishnu

 

 

I wish so too, why we should accept them as avataras ? but it not our option. If it is said so in the scriptures, then it is so.

 

Let me quote from vishnupurAnA. Chapter XVII

to show the creation of these people.

 

"There was formerly a battle between gods and demons, for the period of a divine year, in which the gods were defeated by the demons under the command of Hrada."

.......

[The gods go and pray to the glorious vishnu. They ask for his protection against the daityAs, who] "Engaged in the duties of their respective orders, and following the paths prescribed by shAstrA, praticing also religious penance, it is impossible for us to destroy them."

........

[When the mighty vishnu heard their request, he emitted from his body an illusory form, which he provided to the gods, and thus spake:" This deceptive [entity] shall wholly beguile the Daityas, so that, being led astray from the path of the shAstrAs, they may be put to death ......"

......

"daityas were seduced from their proper duties by the repeated lessons of their illusory perceptor, maintaining the equal truth of contradictory tenets"

.......

"and in turn became teachers of the same heresis, and perverted others; and these, again, communicating their principles to other, by whom were still further disseminated, and shAstrAs were abandoned by many"

 

[Guest guest]

Jainism and Buddhism are 2 different religions, but i cant give a staright answer this is just a guess after all i am only at High school. <font color="pink"> </font color>

[Guest guest]

Does anyone know who Siddartha's tribe is?? Because im studying Buddism in R.E at school and have to do a assesment on it!