Are all religions equal?
Some thought-provoking excerpts from Separate truths by Stephen Prothero…OR why is it misleading — and dangerous — to think that religions are different paths to the same wisdom. Pl read on (Note: emphasis is mine).
*** Excerpts from “Separate Truths” by Stephan Prothero ***
…At least since…the 1960s, it has been fashionable to affirm that all religions are beautiful and all are true. This claim…is as odd as it is intriguing. No one argues that different economic systems or political regimes are one and the same. …The same goes for democracy and monarchy. Yet scholars continue to claim that religious rivals such as Hinduism and Islam, Judaism and Christianity are, by some miracle of the imagination, both essentially the same and basically good.
…This view resounds in the echo chamber of popular culture…Even the Dalai Lama, who should know better, has gotten into the act, claiming that “all major religious traditions carry basically the same message.â€
Image courtesy: Jason Less for the Boston Globe (from the website)
…To claim that all religions are basically the same…is not to deny the differences between a Buddhist who believes in no god, a Jew who believes in one God, and a Hindu who believes in many gods. It is to deny that those differences matter, however. From this perspective, whether God has a body (yes, say Mormons; no, say Muslims) or whether human beings have souls (yes, say Hindus; no, say Buddhists) is of no account because, as Hindu teacher Swami Sivananda writes, “The fundamentals or essentials of all religions are the same. There is difference only in the nonessentials.â€
This is a lovely sentiment but it is untrue, disrespectful, and dangerous.
The gods of Hinduism are not the same as the orishas of Yoruba religion or the immortals of Daoism. To pretend that they are is to refuse to take seriously the beliefs and practices of ordinary religious folk who for centuries have had no problem distinguishing the Nicene Creed of Christianity from the Four Noble Truths of Buddhism from the Shahadah of Islam. It is also to lose sight of the unique beauty of each of the world’s religions.
But this lumping of the world’s religions into one megareligion is not just false and condescending, it is also a threat. How can we make sense of the ongoing conflict in Kashmir if we pretend that Hinduism and Islam are one and the same? Or of the impasse in the Middle East, if we pretend that there are no fundamental disagreements between Judaism, Christianity, and Islam?
This naive theological groupthink — call it Godthink — is motivated in part by a laudable rejection of the exclusivist missionary view that only you and your kind will make it to heaven or nirvana or paradise.
…I understand what these people are doing. They are not describing the world but reimagining it. They are hoping that their hope will call up in us feelings of brotherhood and sisterhood. In the face of religious bigotry and bloodshed, past and present, we cannot help but be drawn to such hope, and such vision. Yet we must not mistake either for clear-eyed analysis.
When it comes to safeguarding the world from the evils of religion, including violence by proxy from the hand of God, the claim that all religions are one is no more effective than the claim that all religions are poison. As the New Atheists (another species of religious lumpers) observe, we live in a world where religion seems as likely to detonate a bomb as to defuse one. So while we need idealism, we need realism even more. We need to understand religious people as they are — not just at their best but also their worst. We need to look at not only their awe-inspiring architecture and gentle mystics but also their bigots and suicide bombers.
What the world’s religions share is not so much a finish line as a starting point. And where they begin is with this simple observation: Something is wrong with the world. …
So religious folk agree that something has gone awry. They part company, however, when it comes to stating just what has gone wrong, and they diverge even more sharply when they move from diagnosing the human problem to prescribing how to solve it. Moreover, each offers its own distinctive diagnosis of the human problem and its own prescription for a cure. Each offers its own techniques for reaching its religious goal, and its own exemplars for emulation.
Christians see sin as the human problem, and salvation from sin as the religious goal. Buddhists see suffering (which, in their tradition, is not ennobling) as the problem, and liberation from suffering as the goal. Confucians see social disorder as the problem, and social harmony as the goal. And so it goes from tradition to tradition, with Hindus seeking release from the cycle of life, death, and rebirth, Muslims seeking paradise via submission to Allah, and practitioners of the Yoruba religion seeking sacred connections — among humans, between humans and the persons of power they call the orishas, and between humans and the natural environment.
The great religions also differ fundamentally when it comes to the techniques they employ to take you from problem to goal.
…For more than a century, scholars have searched for the essence of religion. …Today it is widely accepted that there is no one essence that all religions share. What they share are family resemblances — tendencies toward this belief or that behavior. In the family of religions, kin tend to perform rituals. They tend to tell stories about how life and death began and to write down these stories in scriptures. They tend to cultivate techniques of ecstasy and devotion. They tend to organize themselves into institutions and to gather in sacred places at sacred times. They tend to instruct human beings how to act toward one another. They tend to profess beliefs about the gods and the supernatural. They tend to invest objects and places with sacred import.
These family resemblances are just tendencies, however. Just as there are tall people in short families (none of the other men in Michael Jordan’s family was over 6 feet tall), there are religions that deny the existence of God and religions that get along just fine without creeds. Something is a religion when it shares enough of this DNA to belong to the family of religions. What makes the members of this family different (and themselves) is how they mix and match these dimensions.
…
There is a long tradition of Christian thinkers who assume that salvation is the goal of all religions and then argue that only Christians can achieve this goal. Philosopher of religion Huston Smith, who grew up in China as a child of Methodist missionaries, rejected this argument but not its guiding assumption. “To claim salvation as the monopoly of any one religion,†he wrote, “is like claiming that God can be found in this room and not the next.†It might seem to be an admirable act of empathy to assert that Confucians and Buddhists can be saved. But this statement is confused to the core, since salvation is not something that either Confucians or Buddhists seek. Salvation is a Christian goal, and when Christians speak of it, they are speaking of being saved from sin. But Confucians and Buddhists do not believe in sin, so it makes no sense for them to try to be saved from it. And while Muslims and Jews do speak of sin of a sort, neither Islam nor Judaism describes salvation from sin as its aim. When a jailer asks the apostle Paul, “What must I do to be saved?†(Acts 16:30), he is asking not a generic human question but a specifically Christian one. So while it may seem to be an act of generosity to state that Confucians and Buddhists and Muslims and Jews can also be saved, this statement is actually an act of obfuscation.
A sports analogy may be in order here. Which of the following — baseball, basketball, tennis, or golf — is best at scoring runs? The answer of course is baseball, because runs is a term foreign to basketball, tennis, and golf alike. Different sports have different goals: Basketball players shoot baskets; tennis players win points; golfers sink putts. To criticize a basketball team for failing to score runs is not to besmirch them. It is simply to misunderstand the game of basketball.
So here is another problem with the pretend pluralism of the perennial philosophy sort: Just as hitting home runs is the monopoly of one sport, salvation is the monopoly of one religion. If you see sin as the human predicament and salvation as the solution, then it makes sense to come to Christ. But that will not settle as much as you might think, because the real question is not which religion is best at carrying us into the end zone of salvation but which of the many religious goals on offer we should be seeking. Should we be trudging toward the end zone of salvation, or trying to reach the finish line of social harmony? Should our goal be reincarnation? Or to escape from the vicious cycle of life, death, and rebirth?
While I do not believe we are witnessing a “clash of civilizations†between Christianity and Islam, it is a fantasy to imagine that the world’s two largest religions are in any meaningful sense the same, or that interfaith dialogue between Christians and Muslims will magically bridge the gap. You would think that champions of multiculturalism would warm to this fact, glorying in the diversity inside and across religious traditions. But even among multiculturalists, the tendency is to pretend that the differences between religions are more apparent than real, and that the differences inside religious traditions just don’t warrant the fuss practitioners continue to make over them.
We pretend that religious differences are trivial because it makes us feel safer, or more moral. But pretending that the world’s religions are the same does not make our world safer. Like all forms of ignorance, it makes our world more dangerous, and more deadly. False rumors of weapons of mass destruction doubtless led the United States to wade into its current quagmire in Iraq. Another factor, however, was our ignorance of the fundamental disagreements between Christians and Muslims, on the one hand, and Sunni and Shia Islam, on the other. What if we had been aware of these conflicts as of 9/11? Would we have committed 160,000 troops to a nation whose language we do not speak and whose religion we do not understand?
What we need is a realistic view of where religious rivals clash and where they can cooperate…
*** End of Excerpts ***
Somewhat Related Post: Excerpts from “The Dangers of Monotheism…â€
Are All Religions Same?
Some Hindus think that all religions are same, some say Jainism Buddhism and Hindu dharma are same. Here I share what I understand.
Those who (mostly the so called Hindus) say that the Vedas says that all the paths lead to the same god. Therefore all religions are same. This is their misinterpretation of the Vedic words. When the Vedas talked about “all the paths,†there was no other dharma than the Vedic dharma on this planet. Therefore, “all the paths†in the Vedas mean all the Vedic paths like karma yoga, gyan yoga, bhakti yoga, dhyaan yoga, worship of the devas (Indra, VaruNa, etc but mainly Shiva, Uma, Ganesh, sUrya, Hanuman) and Vishnu (Krishna) ultimately lead to the same god.
The behavior of different people with different religions is quite different. If you study the real history of these groups you will notice stark difference. For example, Christians think that god is jealous and he has a competitor – Satan. If all religions lead to same god, then the history of these groups should be similar. It is not. Some are aggressive, some are tolerant, and some are totally intolerant to other faiths.
Those who say all religions are same are mostly the so called Hindus, and they say it to the Hindus only. They do not take the responsibility to convince it to the Christians or the Muslims. And they do not give up Hindu dharma. If all religions are same, then there should not be any denial to give up one religion and accept another.
No Christian, Muslim, Buddhist, Jain, or Jew etc says all religions are same. So, then why the Hindus show should say it when it is not true? To say it is sheer foolishness. They sing asato maa sat gamaya, but they lie when they say all religions are same, and they do not know it is a lie.
Buddhism, Jainism, Sikhism are the offshoots from Hindu dharma (Vedic dharma). Being so, there is a lot common among them and the Hindu dharma. However, the differences should be understood.
Buddha is accepted as an incarnation of Vishnu. The avatar is predicted in Bhagavatam, and it happened. In the time of Buddha, the brahmanas were misinterpreting the Vedas and were doing violent yagnas, killing animals in yagnas and eating meat. Buddha said this is adharma. He revolted against them. They would not listen, saying it is in the Vedas. So, finally, Buddha said, “I do not accept the authority of the Vedas.†Forget the Vedas, he said. Ahimsa paramo dharma, he said. Give up animal killing, he said. Sri Prabhupada explains that one cannot advance spiritually if one eats meat. Therefore, becoming a vegetarian is the first essential step if one wants spiritual advancement.
However, Buddhism failed in two ways:
i. In his time and after it spread so much in Bharat, that even the children boys and girls began becoming Buddhist monks intending to live in celibacy in monasteries. This is hard, and male and female monks in math would engage in sex secretly. Also, the social system of the nation began to crumble. Then came Adi Shankaracharya. He propagated advaita vada (also known as gyan yoga) described in the Vedas. It spread in Bharat and thus Buddhism died in Bharat. It however spread out of Bharat – in orient.
ii. Today we see that no Buddhist country is without having an army. If ahimsaa paramo dharma, then no army is required. Dalai Lama, a Buddha incarnate, as is believed, ran out of his homeland Tibet in 1959, and lives exiled in Bharat. China forcibly occupied Tibet, and is killing Buddhism there. Dalai Lama cannot do anything. He the Buddha cannot stop China (the communist) from killing and occupying Tibet. He cannot do it with ahimsaa. He requests the “international community†to help stop China. So, note that ahimsa cannot solve the problem against China, Russia, Saddam Husain’s, Ben Ladins, or Hitlers. It works against the Hindus and Paarsis (Zoroastrians). So, ahimsa is not paramo dharma, not an absolute principle. If it were, it should be able to solve the problem of Dalai Lama. In contrast Hindu dharma includes kshatriya dharma. Therefore, Krishna recommends Arjun to fight, even when Arjun says (in Gita) he does not want to fight.
Jainism is perverted version of the dharma given by the Rishabh Dev incarnation of Vishnu. Srimad Bhagavatam talks about it in detail. The Jains originally were Hindus who were vaishyas (traders, baniyas). Trading or business is not possible when there is fighting and fear or anarchy in the society. They chose not to fight, and want to avoid himsa at all costs. The first Vaishnav aacharya – Ramanuj – challenged Jain siddhanta. The greatest Jain aacharyas of his time came to debate with him. The debate continued in the darbaar of a king in South India for days. The Jains could not win the debate. Instead of giving up Jainism and accepting Ramanuj as their guru per the Vedic tradition, they just waked out of the debate. (Now I saw that some Jains in Vadodra have formally become Vaishnavas.) Jains choose to live in the Vedic land and with the Vedic people. No Jain opens his shop or business in a Muslim country like Saudi Arabia or Afghanistan. They say there is no god, just follow and live like arihantas (the great personalities.) They say the particles of bad karma stick with the soul permanently and there is no way out except following ahimsa and fasting. They do believe in re-incarnation like Buddhists. Because there is no god for them, their sins cannot be washed out. They need to suffer the reactions of their sins. In contrast, the Vedic dharma has god. God or His advanced devotees can wipe out sins of one who surrenders to them completely. Now a days I see that Jains tend to accept Krishna as one of their arihantas. This is good, going back to the roots.
Where as the merchants who had no ability to fight became Jains, the farmers of Punjab chose to fight with the invading Muslims. Sikh dharma was born thus. Guru Nanak was a great saint. The Hindus of Punjab had to fight constantly against the invading Muslims coming from northwest. Guru Nanak created a dharma that he thought will be more palatable to the Muslims. Muslims say Allah has no form. So, Nanak accepted advaita siddhanta from the Vedas. And he accepted the kshatriya dharma from the Varnaasrama dharma. So, the Sikhs believe that God has no form, but god is all merciful in contrast to Allah that is not merciful to non-believers. They will fight with any one who does asuric things or tries to take away others’ rights or property. So, they are armed farmers. Now, Jains are unarmed traders. They rely on the Hindus for their protection. They donate to the fighters. Bhaamaashaa is an example.
This is all about knowing and understanding the truth. Truth is one, so it could unite when understood. Please see the videos (a pravachan by a swami) at these links:
Hindus : STOP preaching all religions are equal 1/2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aM4GOARP6Mk&feature=related
Hindus : STOP preaching all religions are equal 2/2
http://youtube.com/watch?v=aQao9-e3qxU&feature=related
==
Hindu Dharma is more than religion. Language is powerful
http://nishkamya.wordpress.com/
@Suresh Vyas I wish to raise one point regarding “If ahimsaa paramo dharma, then no army is required.” But sometimes monks do take up arms in defense of dharma from external influences and it happened in case of occupation of Tibet by China. There is a text called Vinaya Sutra which means taming of monk i.e. when Monks renounces their vows to take up arms and they retake their vows after they have surrendered their arms. In Tibetan-Buddhist history, there are many stories where they have justified violence in protecting the dharma. There was a story of a Rinpoche(Second in command to Dalai Lama) who killed a man in order to save lives of 500 monks.He said he is fully responsible for his actions and did so in order to protect Buddhist Dharma.
Shantanu and others,
Thanks for this. Please read this wonderful essay. I suggest reading a couple of times.
Does Hinduism Teach That All Religions Are The Same? A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism By Dr. Frank Morales, Ph.D. (Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya)
Read the rest here
http://www.dharmacentral.com/universalism.htm
Ramakrishna
Hi,
You mention Hindus believe in many gods. That is not true, hindus go beyond one God. As Swami Dayananda Saraswati says, Hindus believes not just there one God, but there is only God. Just as water can form lakes, oceans, pools, the same inherent thing is what is comprised in multitude names and forms, whether it is planets, plants, animals, mammals. So, what is and what is not apparent is all God. This is supported by modern day physicists, though they would not call God.
Regards,
Sekhar
Does Hinduism Teach That All Religions Are The Same?
A Philosophical Critique of Radical Universalism
By Dr. Frank Morales, Ph.D. (Sri Dharma Pravartaka Acharya)
The recent release of Dr. Morales’ historic critique of Radical Universalism on January 7, 2005 has created a dramatic impact on Hindu intellectuals and leaders globally. It was read by multiple thousands within just days of release, and is causing a thorough reassessment of the idea of Radical Universalism throughout the global Hindu community. In addition to dealing with the question of the equality of religions, the paper also discusses such important questions as: A) What is a Hindu?, B) What is authentic Sanatana Dharma versus Neo-Hinduism?, C) The challenges Hindu youth face today, D) The conversion issue, E) The Nature of God in Sanatana Dharma, F) What makes Sanatana Dharma unique and different from all other religions, G) and much more. Thus, in addition to being a critique of Radical Universalism, Dr. Morales’ historic work has also served as a modern Systematic Theology of authentic Sanatana Dharma. Considered by many Hindu leaders to be the definitive statement on the true nature of authentic and traditional Hinduism, the paper has been read by over 200,000 people as of October, 2005. Today it has been read by almost one-million people.
http://www.dharmacentral.com/universalism.htm
See the above web site for the full article. Quite thought provoking. Many may agree and some may disagree. Worth a read.
I did not see Amar’s posting. Shantanu , you could club it or remove mine as Amar posted before me.
interesting discussion here:
http://talkislam.info/2010/04/28/god-is-not-one-the-eight-rival-religion/
“Sarva dharma samabhava” is a historical reaction to being dominated by non-hindus for over a thousand years. Over the centuries, we have developed a lot of intellectual arguments to justify our weak position in the pack. By milli mouthing “sarva dharma samabhava” we hoped to gain the “equality” in principle, denied to us in the reality.
Hindus need to realise that they are the only ones who believe in this non-existent “sarva dharma samabhava”. Other religions laugh at us for our glib acceptance of this non-existent ideal ! Jihadis keep coming to India from its “neighbours” to convert us by force. Money keeps pouring in from the Middle East, Europe and USA to convert us by coersion. Yet, our leaders keep exhorting us to believe in “equality of religions”, time after time, bomb after bomb, murder after murder.
Read the rest of the article on http://www.pushti-marg.net/bhagwat/equality-r.htm
Great article by the writer and the comments as well!
@ Sugat: The current Dalai Lama has said recently that he (the Buddhism) cannot check China from taking over Tibet. Anyway, China is so big against Tibetans, they need external help to save Tibet.
So, if Buddhists can take arms and fight when necessary per the Buddhism theology, then it is in agreement with the Vedic dharma. No wonder, because the Buddhsim has grown from the Vedic dharma.
The Vedic scriptures say, ahimsaa paramo dharma, dharma himsaa tathaiva cha.
The second part of the message (which the Gandians never mention) says that it is also dharma to fight when necessary to check or kill adharmis.
Very good article.
Some of the comments and post underneath it need to be “corrected” though.
Buddha is not “predicted” in SM Bhagvatam. He is not even mentioned !
Its false idea that Buddha is an avatar of Vishnu. Its a later day attempt to convert Buddhists to Hinduism.
Buddha did not preach non-violence – Mahavir did.
Buddha wasn’t against meat eating – his last meal was pork ! Jains believed in not eating meat.
Buddha had no love for Hindu shastras or yagnas because it venerated Gods he did not believe in – nothing to do with sacrifice of animals !!
Meat eating was prevalent at the time of Rama and Krishna and both ate meat. Why else would Rama go “hunting” ?
Vegetarianism is a gift of Jains. They dislike violence of any sort and rest of India picked this up from them. After his trip around India, When Madhavacharya brought this concept to Kerala, there was a big hu-ha in the brahmin community as they still followed the ancient rites where animals were sacrificed at a yagna.
Even amongst Hindus, some castes and creeds allow meats of certain animals while banning others. It all depends on what was locally available. Hindus are pragmatic and that’s why they have survived when most other cultures have died ages ago.
There is a lot of ignorance about what Hinduism stands for and what philosophies it accepts as “authoritative”. Hindus need to educate themselves first before they educate others.
Unlike most religions Hindus are very accepting of others’ points of view. This however does not mean we should say “all religions are one”. That’s foolish in the most extreme and dangerous too !
Isn’t the fundamental concept of a religion that other religions are fake?
Its like the people who believed the earth was flat thought the round earth people were morons.
The greatest flaw with Hinduism is that we believe that misguided people like Gandhi are “Hindu” philosophers.
@HM
Can you give me link where it says Buddha ate pork and doesn’t preach non violence. Which school taught you this?
Lord Buddha is predicted in Srimand Bhagavatam 11th canto,4th Chapter 22nd verse:
bhümer bharävataraëäya yaduñv ajanmä
jätaù kariñyati surair api duñkaräëi
vädair vimohayati yajïa-kÃ¥to ‘tad-arhän
çüdrän kalau kñiti-bhujo nyahaniñyad ante
Translation by Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupad:
“To diminish the burden of the earth, the unborn Lord will take birth in the Yadu dynasty and perform feats impossible even for the demigods. Propounding speculative philosophy, the Lord, as Buddha, will bewilder the unworthy performers of Vedic sacrifices. And as Kalki the Lord will kill all the low-class men posing as rulers at the end of the age of Kali.”
Here I am quoting someone’s commnets above, and respondng.
“Isn’t the fundamental concept of a religion that other religions are fake?”
It is true of Islaam and Xianity.
It is not true of the Vedic dharma which gives spiritual science, nto a dogmatic “religion”.
“The greatest flaw with Hinduism is that we believe that misguided people like Gandhi are “Hindu†philosophers.”
It is not a flaw of the Vedic dharma, but the floa of the so called common Hindus who failed to correctly recognize Gandhi who was just a politician with Jainism at heart, and a bit of saintly qualities; but he was very low compared to many Vedic saints.
Another verse in Srimad Bhagavatam, SB 1.3.24, also predicts Buddha incarnation:
tataù kalau sampravåtte
sammohäya sura-dviñäm
buddho nämnäïjana-sutaù
kékaöeñu bhaviñyati
“Then, in the beginning of Kali-yuga, the Lord will appear as Lord Buddha, the son of Aïjanä, in the province of Gayä, just for the purpose of deluding those who are envious of the faithful theist.”
Suresh,
Responding to your comment. Even if you were to discuss Vedic Dharma here and its spiritual connotations, you would hard pressed to see it support the dogmatic principles of the Desert religions.
The issue is religions (barring Sanathana Dharma) have the absolutist principles i.e. you either believe it or you are a heretic.
Therefore going by counter logic there, if you suggest something different you are by definition proposing that the other religions/philosophies are a fraud.
@HM
If you are not replying giving link, than please don’t write trash which is just a garbage of your brain.
@Indian,
As per key historic documents it does appear that Buddha did not force all Buddhists to be vegetarians –> some details here http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Buddhist_vegetarianism and http://ccbs.ntu.edu.tw/FULLTEXT/JR-MEL/waley.htm
Even his principles towards non-violence was qualified and he did not preach pacifism like Gandhi did –> http://www.dharma.org/ij/archives/2002a/nonviolence.htm
I am amazed at the bile being spilled by “Indian” on this site !
Has he checked “facts” or is he simply spewing hate because I have said Buddha ate meat ? Or because I said Rama and Krishna ate meat ?
Check out the info about how the Buddha died on this page –
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha
As “Dirt Digger” has mentioned, Buddhists ate and still eat meat regularly. It is not against their religion.
Even amongst Hindus, meat eating is considered perfectly OK in certain regions and castes.
For example, Bengali of all caste and creed eat fish – even Brahmins.
Those who sacrifice animals to Goddess Kali eat the animal they have sacrificed.
People of the warrior caste all over India eat meat without any restriction.
Rama and Krishna used to go hunting in the forest. It wasn’t for sport ! They ate the animals they killed. That’s what all kshatriyas did than and still do. If you want proof, go look at antique paintings in the collection of Rajput kings – they show Rama and Lakshman cooking meat in the forest.
Vegetarianism is the gift of Jainism to all religions.
Mahavir and other tirthankars were against violence of any sort. There is evidence that Buddha tried Jainism before forming his own “middle path”.
As to those who insist Buddha was predicted in SM Bhagvatam – well that’s definitely not true. Lot of it by inference and by addition of sholkas later on to justify either Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu or as an anti-Hindu avatar or Vishnu !! Either way its a late entry to justify the popularity of this anti-Vedic preacher of new “Dhamma”.
Suresh Vyas – Buddha was not of the Yadu dynasty – he was Sakya.
At the time of Jayadeva, it was popular to say Buddha was an avatar of Vishnu. His Deshavatar stotra is very popular, especially in Eastern India. HH Shrila Prabhupada being Bengali, Jayadeva and his writing had a huge influence on him – hence he quotes that which is taught to him.
But read the original SM Bhagvatam without sectarian commentaries and you wont find Buddha there.
Infact there is no Radha in there either !
Radha is a later addition to the story by Nibakacharya and elaborated by Jayadeva. Radha is not mentioned in Mahabharata or HariVansha either.
Read the originals if you really want to find the facts.
Hindus have to read the originals if they are to really know what their religion stands for !!
In the current context, following the definition, all religions are not the same, thus not equal.
– All human beings takes birth and dies the same way.
– All human beings have the same basic needs in a varying degree.
– All human beings need love, care and relationship.
– All human beings goes through the same phases of life
– All human beings have equal rights to live, work, enjoy, participate and raise his family.
Does any of these religions, as mentioned above, considers that? NO, not the same way.
Thus, the original meaning of religion got lost in time.
the world need to think again in this context.
AAryan
|| namO Bhaartam namO Sanskritam||
@HM
The bile has been spilled by you without giving any links in your first comment. Isn’t it? Go to your comment which said they doesn’t preach non-violence. Really? they do actually by not hurting any living beings. And you said Lord Buddha’s last meal was pork. How you want others to believe what you are writing on net?
—-Has he checked “facts†or is he simply spewing hate because I have said Buddha ate meat ? Or because I said Rama and Krishna ate meat ?—
Show me where did I spewed hate on any religion in my comment? Just referring to hunting cannot give us glimpse of what they ate.
My point was not only you, there are millions who are on the path of hate who hates the others belief system and spewing venom on net without going into details. Just having net info and assumption doesn’t lead you and me to the truth. Everyday there is new twist in the stories, sometime back I heard Jesus visited India during his life time. They are showing many evidences which can easily prove the links. How can I believe? Should I check my “facts?”
I still doubt many things what you have written. May be when Buddhism was transmitted to many countries they amalgamated the Buddhism with their habits and culture. What I believe, Buddhist in India totally refrained from meat eating. It can also be seen on Ashoka’s inscription on stone after he adopted Buddhism.
We also need to go into the cooking of that time period and what has been cooked during Rama’s and Krishna’s period. If Krishna as a kshatriya was eating meat than all Vaishnava should be eating meat in present time too. Right! Dwarka, and must be surrounded with meat shops and archaeologist can give more glimpse in to it. No but thats not the fact. We cannot lead to the truth just by paintings, that is what I believe, I am not questioning you here. Mahabharat, Ramayana refers rice, yogurt, and fruits never meat as per what I know.
I will ask you to research more on Kalli stories. It was not connected to religion but Thugs who spread this rituals.
Everyone seems to be confusing “religion” with “spirituality”.
The two are not the same.
Religion(s) are man-made institutions and hence reflect the social, economic, political and ethical values of the time.
Spirituality is something totally different and all together much deeper. It is timeless, universal and eternal.
“Indian”, what’s with you and “links” !! Knowledge exits in more places than the net and its up to you to go look for facts once you have pointed in the right direction.
For your info, I will say it one last time – Hinduism and Buddhism learned to become vegetarian after Jainism popularized it. Original books on Buddha’s life clearly state he ate “Sukaramaddava” – soft pork – before he died. http://www.buddhanet.net/budsas/ebud/ebdha192.htm
Read the original Ramayan or Mahabhart and you will see how everyone ate meat at the time. Original, not commentaries by modern gurus or translators with sectarian bias. Here is a link to one of the most exhaustive and authentic translation of the original into English – line by line from the original. Ganguli’s translation was first published in 1883 and is still more authorative than most modern attempts.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/maha/index.htm
Hindus hate to be told that their ancestors ate meat – its a cultural aversion that is deeply ingrained since childhood – just as muslims of the sub-continent hate to be told they were once Hindus !
Yagnas of the Vedic and Puranic times had a lot of animal sacrifice attached to it. Read any text on yagnas to find the finds. Influence of Jainism eradicated animal sacrifice from most sects of Hiduism.
However, Devi worshipers still – to this day – sacrifice animals to her. Go to any Kali temple in Bengal, Orrisa, Assam, Meghalay etc and you will find plenty of chickens, goats and occasional buffalo being sacrificed. Even in Kerala and other South Indian places, worship of the Devi is often accompanied by animal sacrifice.
Vaishnavs have evolved out of Sanatan Dharma at a time and in a cultural milieu where vegetarianism had become the norm. Its a cultural thing and has nothing to do with original precepts of meat eating or not.
Archeology has never been seriously supported in India due to political pressures, so we wont know what people ate at the time of Shri Krishna from archeological digs. We have to examine the original texts – ORIGINAL – and they are clearly pointing to an omnivorous society.
Before you write your next letter, read the originals.
Know the facts.
Ref. Comment #24 by Bhagavat.
(Is the above line not better than “@Bhagavat” reference?)
Yes. I understand without any doubt that Srimad Bhagavad Gita gives the complete science of spirituality. Spirit means aatma and paramatma, and Krishna tells all about these.
Bhagwat is my name and this is how I spell it :))
SMB Gita gives a summary of all the major philosophies of the post Vedic period – from Sankhya all the way to Bhakti.
Its still an Indic view and hence limited to time and space of that period.
Spirituality is far more subtle and far wider than that. Shri Krushna says this in the SMB Gita at various times in various ways.
@HM
You are giving me the link of sacred text which is nothing but misrepresentation of the many facts, translated by English man. Who also claim the word Aryan or Arya as an immigrant, who couldn’t translate deep meaning of Sanskrit. It has been thrown into trash by many scholars which you claiming to be authentic. Food should be offered in sacrifice doesn’t mean sacrifice animal food, Today also many does homa and yagna and offer rice, ghee, water before we eat as prasada. Enlighment was not possible by bad karma and of no use to do Yagna or Homa.
—-Before you write your next letter, read the originals. Know the facts—-
Can I know what original you read and suggesting me to read? Who is interpreting?. And please suggest me some writings in Bhagwat Geeta or any orignal sacred book of Hindus who have said eat meat if you like. Your assumption was either I am Buddhist or Hindu who got hurt, or I don’t like the idea that Hindus were meat eaters has no base. Jainism does not reflect in many vegetarian communities. Did not you come across the dispute surrounding the word “Sukaramaddava’ on net? And also many branches of Buddhism?
Before moderator warns me for out of topic discussion, I will stop here.
HM,
Interesting claims:
Vegetarianism is the gift of Jainism to all religions
So there was no vegetarianism before Mahavira Tirthankar? So how does Mahabharata talk about Vegetarianism? Link: your favourite site:
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m12/m12b092.htm
One would also wonder how do some communities in Korea and Japan learn about vegetarianism if Buddha ate meat and early Buddhists did not mind eating meat and we Hindus are the worst offender in this area?
There is evidence that Buddha tried Jainism before forming his own “middle pathâ€.
So he lied about his sadhana and did not give due credit to Jainism, did he not? (if he did, we would have known him as Jain, would we not?) He simply could not figure out that 2500 years later HM would come along and catch his lie. Very impressive detective work. How did you do it?
As to those who insist Buddha … Either way its a late entry to justify the popularity of this anti-Vedic preacher of new “Dhammaâ€.
I see!!! It must be those desperate miserable Hindus – too desperate to leave a competing religion alone. So how did we Hindus forget to include Mahavira Tirthankar in our list of avatars? You see, Buddha was not really too great (he was an initial Jain according to you), Jainsim is the real eye-opener for all other religions, so what stopped my ancestors to include last Tirthankar in our list of avatars? As we can see, Jainism was really popular in India, so we crafty Hindus could have included him, could we not?
So, now that the desperate Hindus managed to pull it off, how did Buddhists manage to land Krishna as a character (not just any character, a prince, a warrior and king of Jambudwipa) in their Jatakas? Must be a desperate act to include a popular Hindu god, but they got the story pretty close to what SM Bhagvat Purana says.
Speaking of this inclusion, how did Jains then include Krishna (and not just Krishna, Balaram too) in their pretty long list of Tirthankaras? A major Hindu god-like figure who lived a life of violence (vasudeva and prati-vasudeva)!!! And then true to their grand tradition, cast him to the deepest hell?
One have to conclude that there was a major well-coordinated effort between Hindus and Buddhists to include each other’s main figures in their puranas or these men did exist and did perform roles that made them like a deity to the ancestors of both the communities. What is your discovery in this area?
At the time of Jayadeva, … HH Shrila Prabhupada being Bengali, … which is taught to him. – I would be interested to know if 13th century poet Joyadeva is the reason story of dasavatara is famous, then how did Guptas in sixth century built the dasavatara temple near Deoghar in U.P.? For the Guptas, according to your theory, concept of 10 avatars should be an obscure concept in sixth century, is not it? Any reference where Prabhupada quoted from Git Govinda? This is worse than Vijaya Prasad’s claim that Gita was originally written by Buddhists. Lastly, for your reference, Bhagvad Gita actually lists 22 avatars of Vishnu, although only 10 are considered Maha-avatars.
About your assertion about meat eating Hindus, there is nothing to assert that ancient Hindus were all vegetarians.
@Indian,
I will ask you … It was not connected to religion but Thugs who spread this rituals . – What sort of Dharmic are you if you deny the role of Shakti in Dharma? How is Purush complete without Prakriti? Let us not forget that at a time when Savisim was in distress in eastern India (due to the invasion of Turk-Afghan forces), it is the Shakti worshippers who kept the religion alive despite severe prosecution from the Islamic rulers. Until Sri Chaitanya arrived on the scene, Vaishanvism did not find any ground in Eastern India. My family follows Vaishnavism, I eat meat and as a Bengali, I would not deny my heritage of Kali-worshipping. It is this narrowness of “holier-than-thou” for which I refuse to go to Iskon temples. This is not only a ridiculous assertion, but also very depressing.
http://www.stephen-knapp.com/why_all_religions_are_not_the_same.htm
Sid, you are too entrenched in your views to have open conversation with. Sorry – its too obvious that you are not reading any of the info available to anyone with an iota of genuine interest.
Buddha’s life shows clearly how he tried the harsh meditation teachiques of Jains (starving the body, ignoring pain etc etc) and when he could not cross a stream one day due to lack of energy, he decided this was not the way. He had his first meal after that from Sujata etc etc. This is conventional history and nothing detective or far fetched. Words and names between early buddhists and jains are also similar – arhant, shraman etc etc. Look it up Sid – you ought to do that before mailing !!
Jain tirthankar Vrishabhdev is an acknowled avatar of Vishu in the list of 24. Read the originals and you will see, SM Bhagvatam does not mention Buddha. Once again check out originals, not someone’s take on it – not even the great Chaitanya or Prabhupada. Read the original of Vyasa.
Ignorance is no longer an excuse in the information age we live in.
@Sid
You misunderstood my point. I worship Maa Kali too with my whole heart, I bow to her. I was questioning HM, where in one of his comment he was indicting that killing of animal as a sacrifices is ritual of Hinduism. I said “No!” That rituals of killing people and animals were carried out in ancient time by thug who use to loot people on their way to pilgrimage to Kali temple. I will find its link and paste it here to understand it in detail. And I strongly believe killing of animals at holy places doesn’t reflects Hinduism. It may be the gift of too many cocktail culture of India on the pretext of getting blessed by sacrifices. I still remember the stories from many scripture that says Devas use to come on earth from heaven to protect rishis from demons who use to disturb the yagnas and homas by throwing bones and flesh in yagna.
@HM
Why are you threatening everyone to know their facts before mailing and writing. That shows you too are closed mind. Everyone has the same right to put their knowledge and truth. Don’t pat your self of knowing the truth which is also ignorance and net info in your part. You are just evading all truth by mentioning read oOriginals.
Show me where it says In Bhagwad Geeta eat meat?
Ignorance is close minded.
Knowledge sets you free – sa vidya vimuchatay.
Reading originals (Veda, Upnishad, Ramayan, Mahabharat etc) will open your eyes to a lot of confusion we term as “culture”.
Here is the link (for those who are fixed on such things) to a resource that has all the major scriptures, original and translated, on-line nad free !
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/index.htm
Facts are facts. I am not going to apologise for saying “read the originals” – that is what we need to do if we are to understand our own religion. You should be interested in Satya. Its your duty to yourself to know the satya.
Hindus, in general, do not read the originals and rely too much on commentaries from gurus of their sect. This often colors the original with sectarian overtones and hence all the confusion about what the scriptures actually say or mean.
Indian (32) Animal sacrifice was part of Vedic lore – Ashwamedha yagna wasn’t dreamed up for TV serials.
First ever sacrifice was of the Purusha Himself, when God sacrificed Himself for mankind (long before Christian’s thought of the idea).
There is evidence of human sacrifice too – Satyakama’s story is a case in point.
Recall the yagna of Daksha, it had a goat that was to be sacrificed. To restore his life, Shiva placed the head of that goat on Daksha’s head.
At one time, most yagnas required animal sacrifice of one sort of another. After 500BC, it became socially unacceptable to do this and so it was replaced by pseudo sacrifice of pumpkin,coconut etc.
Its there in the Vedic lore – you just have to read it with your eyes open.
Throwing bones etc to disturb yagnas is popular medieval interpretation of how the danavas disturbed the rishis. They despoiled the yagnas with “impure” things – animals and items that are considered unfit for yagna.
@HM,
Buddha’s life shows clearly … harsh meditation teachiques of Jains (starving the body, ignoring pain etc etc)
So, we have to understand that whoever followed the “harsh meditation” is a Jain. So great sages like Agasta were all Jains, so were Rakshasas like Ravana who followed those harsh techniques to please Siva. Countless Bharatiyas who undertake those long days of starving the body just do not know that they are performing Jain rituals. Seriously, are you out of your mind? So, vegetarianism and now meditation techniques. What is the next one to appropriate in the name of Jains – Yoga or Karma?
Words and names between early buddhists and jains are also similar – arhant, shraman etc etc. This is because they are based on Sanskrit/Prakrit/Pali. Next time you will show me that both Buddhists and Jains wrote in Pali thus they must all be same or Ashoka has a lot of Pali inscription so he must be a Jain.
Read the originals and you will see, SM Bhagvatam does not mention Buddha. –
1. SM Bhagbatam 1.3.24 has a sloka about Buddha. If your claim is true let me know what does your “original” book say in this sloka.
2. What would you call original and how do you reach that conclusion? Do not bother replying if you have a justification like the justification you gave for Buddha being an initial Jain.
Sri Chaitanya, Adi Sankaracharya and several others took long pain to read the originals and write explanation too. Unlike modern punks such as Thapar or Doniger, they have clear grasp and understanding of associated knowledge like sruti before they began to decipher the texts. What is the guarantee that whoever did the translation in sacred text are perfect translators or in the league of those men who in the past read and deciphered the old texts successfully?
You keep mouthing dogmatic declarations about how Hindus conveniently made Buddha an avatar yet fail to show a convincing proof. You also avoided answering me on what stopped our ancestors from appropriating Mahavira Tirthankar as our avatar. If your theory is correct then we should have appropriated Him too as Jainism was a popular religion too.
You yourself said that Jains accept one Vishnu avatar as a Tirthankar, but as we know they do not accept Hindu trinity as real. If you do not accept Vishnu as a deva, why are we talking about an avatar? So we can say that Jains appropriated Vishnu to get popular with Vishnu-worshiping rulers in western India. Are your prepared to live with this conclusion? If not, what is your explanation for this theological inconsistency?
Finally, learn some logic first. Logic and argument is also a big part of our heritage. For your information, avoiding uncomfortable questions and mouthing same set of sentences do not make your viewpoint true. It requires clear evidences along with proof of authenticity to convince the followers that it is true.
For 6000 years, basic principles of our Dharma remained same, but it’s dominant theology, understanding of philosophy and Purana evolved over time. This evolution itself indicates why it has survived for so long when other religions of it’s age are destroyed by very aggressive later theologies mixed with political ambitions. But this evolution does not mean that anyone can come up with any theory and try to ignore all contradicting evidences as “added later”. For a very long time Marxist historians tried every trick in the book to confuse us about our own Dharma and heritage, yet Hindu sastra proved to be too strong and too vast for their intellectual might. All this “added later” allegations and “Gita was written by Buddhists” theories are grand schemes that were floated since more than few decades without much evidences to back them up.
If you do not have something convincing to show other than writing “read originals and mail” sentences (and going by your trend I know you are going to write the same sentences after adding some abuse to my name), do not bother replying.
@Indian
That rituals of killing people and animals were carried out in ancient time by thug who use to loot people on their way to pilgrimage to Kali temple. – Yes, that is a historic fact. But then,
And I strongly believe killing of animals at holy places doesn’t reflects Hinduism – Some of the old Vedic practices may hurt our modern sensibilities but we can not deny rites like Aswamedha where the horse which passed through all Jambudvipa used to be sacrificed in front of the alter of Yagna. Lord Rama did an Aswamedha so did Pandavas. Our ancestors were perfectly comfortable in this because this was proper in their times and comfortable to their sensibilities at a time when waging war for Khatriyas was varna-dharma.
In following paragraphs, I would try to explain why I believe that the spirit of our Dharma never changed but our interpretations (based on full or partial understanding) of Dharma has changed over time.
These practices went perverted later. An orthodoxy was developed that focused more on rituals than the meaning or philosophy. Perhaps it was necessary because the meaning behind the rituals could have been too complicated for the illiterate masses. This orthodoxy separated rituals from it’s meanings, anybody who held the thread began to be called Brahman. Over time, those rituals began to be considered meaning less. Time and again, great men came, tried to give course correction as applicable in changing time, but they did not devise anything new, they derived their direction from original scriptures. Yet, their battle against orthodoxy was partly successful, that is why different sects are formed, each one disagreeing with each other on details (like vegetarianism for Vaishnavs and meat for shakti worshipers and Tantriks) and each one developing newer orthodoxy.
Later Europeans came, destroyed the old education system, installed a new education system which along with good stuff like new Maths/Physics/Chemistry/Medical sciences installed European cultural sensibilities whose roots can be traced back to a confused mix of dogmatic catholic teachings and new found rationalization. The product of this new system tried to interpret old customs and scriptures and found stuff that hurt their new-found sensibilities. This resulted in people denouncing their heritage (the coconuts or brown sahibs) or people becoming apologetic about their heritage (like Ram Mohan Roy) or people standing tall in their faith and culture and fighting with the entire society to abolish what they found to be incorrect according to Dharma (like Vidyasagar, in many ways his battle for widow-remarriage was more heroic than anything Roy ever did, Roy was more famous thanks to his European admirers).
We are a product of the same system with few things tweaked to look like a reformed system. Europeans who installed those systems, moved on and became more open and tolerant to other ideas and beliefs. We have not. We are still trying to judge our ancestors in the light of European thinking (like the idea that Khatriyas were inherently violent or “Draupadi” was deplorable to have five husbands). It is sad to see that in our declarations we are becoming more dogmatic and intolerant than Cathloic Church and old Caliphates.
Read PV Kane’s very long but very interesting “History of Dharmasastra” if you want to know more on how our beliefs systems and interpretations changed over time.
Finally, it is perfectly fine to adopt vegetarianism, but this is not the only path to God contrary to what you were told. Dharma is simply too big to make it fit into a vegetarian doctrine.
@B. Shah
So you agree with HM saying that Krishna as a kshatriya use to eat meat and only Jainism bought this changes. Can you please show me Krishna eating meat in Bhagwad Geeta. I really want to open my eyes. I only believe alive (enlightened)Jiva is Shiva. I don’t know more than that.
In present time in news there were 2 cases of honour killing in India belonging to the Hindu community. How many of us believe that it is the reflection of Hinduism? I say it does not. Because many remote community in different part of India had their local practices, belief system (which were more fear inclined), had their own social structure nothing to do with what is being preached in Dharma. I had come across temples in remote places with deity named given by the local people. Same as one can find temple of actors and actresses in Tamilnadu. My question is does it reflect Hinduism? And will become part of Hinduism after 1000 of years. Yes it may, though it is not the belief of Dharma.
@sid
Your comment appeared after I replied to B. Shah. so missed to include the point regarding your last comment in my previous comment.
You made a great points and will try to read the book you have mentioned. I was not being polite to those who eat meat but was against those who spread lies about tenant of Geeta or Hinduism and Ahimsa is one of them.
The very purpose of Bhawad Geeta is to remove miseries of human life by depicting stories in it and HM says Book itself is dark because of that stories in it. I cannot accept that at any cost and that was my fight. The point HM making is read the commentaries of Englishman but not of Hindu gurus. Why? because Hindu gurus ask us to practice Ahimsa by translating our books, that he cannot digest well as he claims only Jain has rights over it.
I respect all religion but not at the cost of lies.
@Sid
Please read polite as Impolite.
@Indian,
Your explanation is well understood, in HM’s religious view, every good started with Jains and ended with Hindus.
But I have to disagree with the final sentence. Enough damage has been done by associating Dharma with the word religion. Rich English vocabulary does not have any word to describe Dharma just like it does not have any word to describe Karma or Moksha or Nirvana. Same goes for Buddhism as described by Buddha. Most of the outsiders and some of our new generation gets confused with Dharma because when the compare their experience with other established dogmatic religions they can not compare them really well.
I do not see that I have a religion in the strict sense of the term. And this is why the question whether all religions are same question does not hold an importance to me.
Guys, why are you so close minded ?
The site I have mentioned has translations made by Ganguli in the late 19th century. He has made translations line by line and its verifiable when you read the sanskrit next to it. As this is a translation, there is no secatarian bias (vaishnav, shakta, shiva etc) I have verified this with Gorakhpur translation, once again, line by line with no sectarian colour added. Sastu sahitya’s translations are equally unbiased, and I have read them before making comments here.
Its clear, Sid and Indian are not prepared to open their eyes and read what’s out there. I have given my “facts” in my mails, its up to you to go read and confirm. I have done it already and don’t intend to spoon feed you.
BHagvad Geeta is a relatively short conversation on philosophy. It wont mention culinary delights of the time. To understand what people ate at that tiem, you have to read the Mahabhrat. If you want to find something – anything – you have to look in the right place.
BTW – I am a Hindu. I have no particular affiliation to Jainism.
What I have mentioned is “fact” as gleamed from research. It is not coloured by pro or anti views on any particualr religion or dharma. However, your views are very dogmatic. Reading scriptures and commentaries from a paritcular sect or section of any religion is not going to give you the full picture.
Fact, Hindus have accepted a Jain tirthankar as an avatar of Vishnu.
Jains have not receiprocrated that favour by making any Hindu god a tirthankar.
Fact, Hindus have accepted Buddha as an avatar of Vishnu.
Buddhists have not reciprocrated that by making Hindu Gods or Vishnu, as a Bodhisttava.
The harsh practicies of rishis were to attain God or an aspect of God.
Harsh practices of Jain sadhna are to free the mind from attachment to the body. They do not worship or meditate on a God – there is no God in Jain or Buddhist philosophy. That’s why they are beyond the pail of Vedic philosophies and sects.
Fact, When Adi Shankara and others debated with Buddhists and Jains, they used a whole host of arguments to win them over to Hinduism. All these are all written down for use by other in future debates. But once again, it requires reading and I am not sure if you guys are upto it.
“Satya” requires you to be brave enough to accept it as it is.
If you are brave, have a look at the “orignals”.
I have no desire to waste my time or energy on people whose mind is closed.
Good bye.
Bhagvad Geeta discusses major Vedic philosophies of the time – not stories (39)
There are plenty of tales of kings and even divine avatars going for a hunt. Surely, these guys did not just kill an animal for sport ! Surely they did not let the animal rot in the jungle after shooting it ! If they did, it would be cruel and unkind.
All the original scriptures mention hunting and meat eating. Only later ones, written by gurus in the medival times, air-brush meat eating and make all Hindus (past and present) vegitarian.
Temples of Kali, Kamakhya, Chandi, Chamunda etc are just as authentic as other Hindu temples. They are not in obscure places and are not minor. Meat eating has been given a bad name by those who have taken a moral high ground on this issue. Hinduism is far bigger than this. Dharma is far more sublte and wide rangeing than this one issue ! Being vegi is good from moral prespective of some and so that’s fine for us right now. But let us not look down on other Hindus who continue to eat meat as our ancestors did.
All arguments above move us away from the core subject – Hindus are the only ones who have been taught to accept all religions as one, while all other religions want to keep themselves “seperate from all others.” We should abandon this unilataral “sarvadharma sambhav” and learn what makes our religion / dharma / sects / subsects unqiue. Only when we know what we are, and who we are, will we be able to stand up for ourselves.
The site I have mentioned has translations made by Ganguli … line by line with no sectarian colour added.
Regardless of quality of Ganguli’s transaltion, you were not able to answer to any of the questions I have asked you. It shows that how open you are about your arguments!!!
Fact, Hindus have accepted a Jain tirthankar as an avatar of Vishnu.
Jains have not receiprocrated that favour by making any Hindu god a tirthankar.
So if Tirthankar is an avatar, which Hindu avatar he is?
Jains have actually accepted Hindu god as an avatar with their usually twisted pacifist interpretation.
In the light of my previous responses I gave to you, I have to say that you are taking extreme liberty with our scriptures when you stated the above “facts”. Repeatedly, I wrote what is in direct contradictory to your “facts”, you have not tried to show any counter evidence. It shows the clarity of your intellectual composition, clear as diet coke.
Damn, the Shantanu’s server ate my tags. To avoid confusion, I had to repost:
The site I have mentioned has translations made by Ganguli … line by line with no sectarian colour added.Regardless of quality of Ganguli’s transaltion, you were not able to answer to any of the questions I have asked you. It shows that how open you are about your arguments!!!
Fact, Hindus have accepted a Jain tirthankar as an avatar of Vishnu. Jains have not receiprocrated that favour by making any Hindu god a tirthankar.So if Tirthankar is an avatar, which Hindu avatar he is?
Jains have actually accepted Hindu god as an avatar with their usually twisted pacifist interpretation.
In the light of my previous responses I gave to you, I have to say that you are taking extreme liberty with our scriptures when you stated the above “factsâ€. Repeatedly, I wrote what is in direct contradictory to your “factsâ€, you have not tried to show any counter evidence. It shows the clarity of your intellectual composition, clear as diet coke.
Sandilya Upanishad
Sandilya questioned Atharvan thus: “Please tell me about the eight Angas (parts) of Yoga which is the means of attaining to Atman”.
Atharvan replied: “The eight Angas of Yoga are Yama, Niyama, Asana, Pranayama, Pratyahara, Dharana, Dhyana and Samadhi. Of these, Yama is of ten kinds; and so is Niyama. There are eight Asanas. Pranayama is of three kinds; Pratyahara is of five kinds; so also is Dharana. Dhyana is of two kinds and Samadhi is of one kind only. Under Yama (forbearance) are ten: Ahimsa, Satya, Asteya, Brahmacharya, Daya, Arjava, Kshama, Dhriti, Mitahara and Saucha. Of these, Ahimsa is the not causing of any pain to any living being at any time through the actions of one’s mind, speech, or body. Satya is the speaking of the truth that conduces to the well-being of creatures, through the actions of one’s mind, speech, or body. Asteya is not coveting of another’s property through the actions of one’s mind, speech, or body. Brahmacharya is the refraining from sexual inter-course in all places and in all states in mind, speech or body. Daya is kindliness towards all creatures in all places. Arjava is the preserving of equanimity of mind, speech, or body in the performance or non-performance of the actions ordained or forbidden to be done. Kshama is the bearing patiently of all pleasant or unpleasant things, such as praise or blow. Dhriti is the preserving of firmness of mind during the period of gain or loss of wealth or relatives. Mitahara is the taking of oily and sweet food, leaving one-fourth of the stomach empty. Saucha is of two kinds, external and internal. Of these, the external is the cleansing of the body by earth and water; the internal is the cleansing of the mind. This (the latter) is to be obtained by means of the Adhyatma-Vidya (Science of Self).
“Ahimsa is the not causing of any pain to any living being at any time through the actions of one’s mind, speech, or body”
This is clearly bought out in Sandilya Upanishad.
http://www.celextel.org/108upanishads/sandilya.html
Please go thru this conversation between Atharvan and Rishi Sandilya. It is very enlightening to read this.
Ref. comment #42 by HM: “Fact, Hindus have accepted a Jain tirthankar as an avatar of Vishnu.”
When god incarnated as Rishabhdev, there was no Jainism. Jainism started later from Rishabhdev’s teachings. No offence to anyone, but srimad bhagavtam describes jainism as a pakhand religion, and is not teching/preaching Rishabhdev’s teaching fully or correctly.
Sri Ramajunacharya debated in the court of the king with a group of the highest Jain authorities of the time for several days, and they could not win the debate. So, instead of accepting Ramanuj as their guru per the vedic tradition of debate, they just walked out of the court.
I consider Jains as part of the Vedic society. They can live happily only with a society that can fight adharma for them. Hardly any jain will prefer to live in Saudi Arabia or Pakistan or such Muslim countries that are not tolerlant.
@B. Shah
—-Surely, these guys did not just kill an animal for sport ! Surely they did not let the animal rot in the jungle after shooting it!—
This is your assumption not the facts. You cleverly avoided my question on Sri Krishna.
–All the original scriptures mention hunting and meat eating. —
Agriculture was what olden Bharat were dependent on. Most farmers, who were not Jains, were vegetarian. It can be easily seen in Varna system of Hindus, that feeding the nation was the job of farmers. Jains too were dependent on them.
Dhanvantri, yoga and Ayurveda based on plants life and natural substances would not have been gifted to the mankind through Hinduism.
—-Only later ones, written by gurus in the medival times, air-brush meat eating and make all Hindus (past and present) vegitarian.—
What a strong word, ‘air brushed!’ Terms such as satvik bhojan, and Annapurna devi; holy places like Varanasi, Dwarka, Mathura, Somnath, cannot be think about in your version of Hindus. Bheema was considered one of the best cook in Mahabharata.
Yes, Gurus went out of their mind to preach Yoga, importance of food and Aayurveda in medieval time. My assumption, only in medieval time people’s food choices changed.
—-Meat eating has been given a bad name by those who have taken a moral high ground on this issue—
No one can judge some ones moral standard, what people eat is their personal choice and it cannot be a issue of debate.
there are enough references in Valmiki Ramayana about Rama eating meat –
nihatya pR^iSatam ca anyam maa.msam aadaaya raaghavaH |
tvaramaaNo janasthaanam sasaara abhimukhaH tadaa || 3-44-27
Raghava(Shri Ram) then on killing another spotted deer and on taking its flesh, he hurried himself towards Janasthaana. [3-44-27]
suraaghaTasahasreNa maamsabhuutodanena cha |
yakshye tvaam prayataa devi puriim punarupaagataa || 2-52-89
“Oh, goddess! After reaching back the city of Ayodhya, I shall worship you with thousand pots of spirituous liquor and jellied meat with cooked rice well prepared for the solemn rite.”
http://www.valmikiramayan.net/
There are similar refferences to Krishna and Pandavas hunting and eating meat in the Mahabharat.
No one is saying “we” should eat meat.
Fact Rama or Krishna ate meat has nothing to do with being divine beings. Our faith and love for them should be for what they preached and achieved in life, not what they ate.
Why are you guys so fixed with vegetarianism ?
Get used to it – our ancestors ate meat ! Our scriptures allow us to eat meat. Check Manu smruti as an example.
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/manu/manu05.htm
Why do some of you have an allergy to the word “original” scriptures?
Its a sad fact that most of us are ignorant of our own scriptures and take no time to read them.
Its this sort of arguments on “meat or vegi” that is keeping us Hindus preoccupied and we aren’t concentrating on the real danger to our religion – that of people being converted through such sill notions as “sarva dharma sambhava”.
Focus on the article that’s here and work together to strengthen Hinduism.
Here is one of many hundreds of quotes to show Pandavas and others ate meat.
“Vaisampayana said, ‘Thus, O great king, was the sun that purifier of the world, adored (by Yudhishthira). ….. O king, accept this copper-vessel which I give unto thee. And, O thou of excellent vows, as long as Panchali will hold this vessel, without partaking of its contents fruits and roots and meat and vegetables cooked in thy kitchen, these four kinds of food shall from this day be inexhaustible. ….’
http://www.sacred-texts.com/hin/m03/m03003.htm
I don’t eat meat and do not intend to either.
However, knowing and following principles and philosophies of Hinduism is what defines me – not what I eat.
Would recommend “The Myth of the Holy Cow” by Prof DN Jha of JNU. While his socio-cultural leanings are well documented as being leftist in the JNU tradition, the book has good primary research annotations that show not just the various meat eating practices in ancient India but also the eating of beef. Incidentally, Hindus of Bali who practice an earlier form of Hinduism (the prevalent worship of Brahma for example) eat beef even today.
Eating or not eating meat, performing or not performing various rituals, wearing certain clothes and markers or not wearing certain markers are not what characterise Hindus. It is the unique philosophy and belief system & Dharma that needs to be understood.
This is not to say that meat eating is prohibited in Dharma, but you would do better by citing sources other than people from JNU. JNU is well known to be a collection of leftist incompetent intellectuals who can not make their living in the world outside academic establishment and live their life on tax payer’s money after insulting the culture/dharma of the majority of the tax payers. Unlike IITs and IIMs, I can not see the academic contribution of JNU if one disregards a steady supply of well-connected socialist/communist politicians keeping up the long tradition of being a leech on tax-payer’s money.
I just came across this line from somewhere,on transmission of truth because many scriptures whether Buddhism or Hinduism were never written down but passed verbally through one generation to another:
Language is simply too unstable to be a religious vehicle for truth. Words inevitably mean different things to different people and no word can hold a perfect correspondence to what it represents-all language is therefore suspect and troublesome because of linguistic diversity.
On killing that demon in the form of Golden Deer, and also on hearing his yelling, Rama is ensorcelled with a frantic fear caused by his own gloom. [3-44-26]
Raghava(Shri Ram) then on killing another spotted deer and on taking its flesh, he hurried himself towards Janasthaana. [3-44-27] – from the webpage of valmikiramayan.net cited in Comment 49.
People ‘ensorcelled with frantic fear’ are of course known to look around for ‘another spotted deer’ to kill and take flesh of before ‘hurrying’ homewards.
Sita devi was definitely referring to ‘spirituous liquor and jellied meat’, which stuff Ganga devi is known to have a weakness for (if you didn’t know this before, now you do).
Of course, there is only one meaning for every Samskritam word, and it is independent of context or logic.
References to kshatriyas going to hunt in puranas automatically means that they went to get meat for dinner table and to enjoy the killings, after all kshatriyas were there to kill people, weren’t they ?
Any idea that kshatriyas were only interested in upholding dharma, and not in killing people, is incorrect.
Similarly, any suggestion that kshatriyas those days went for hunts only to keep up their ‘weapon weilding skills in unfamiliar environment’ which is necessary for upholding dharma, and that while doing so, they were careful to kill only animals of prey as necessary for ensuring balance in ecology, not for the purpose of ‘enjoying the killing and to eat animal meat’, is not acceptable.
Thefore Shri Indian’s comment at 54 is not acceptable.
We need ‘english education’ to read up and understand the ‘sacred-texts’ of our culture. Thanks to shri max Mueller and many of his english educated students, we have almost all the relevant ‘sacred-texts’ translated ‘correctly’ for us. We must read them and ‘enlighten’ ourself.
Also, we must eat meat. Those poor animals there are begging for us to kill them and eat them, and thereby give them moksha. How can we remain deaf to the entreaties of those poor animals ?
Every time I see a chicken or a lamb, I am reminded of my obligation towards them- to provide them immediate opportunity to attain moksha, and promptly endeavour to do the needful.
How anyone can think of making these poor creatures live a long torturous life in their cages and to rot after a natural death is beyond me. To borrow a phrase from comment 43, ‘it would be cruel and unkind’!
ahimsa referred in comment 46 does not mean ‘to desist from causing injury’. The ahimsa practiced by bharatiyas throughout millenniums, not causing injury to any being, is not the correct ‘Ahimsa’. Correct ‘Ahimsa’ is only an ‘inner experience’ while the person may outwardly kill and eat animals.
If you are unable to digest this, you need to study in JNU.
namaste