tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post9022682351238630634..comments2024-03-28T14:11:24.265-07:00Comments on dhamma musings: Vegetarianism In Ancient IndiaShravasti Dhammikahttp://www.blogger.com/profile/06246408068143301108noreply@blogger.comBlogger13125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-16937368954232709392013-07-20T11:10:04.587-07:002013-07-20T11:10:04.587-07:00You are doing a great service to the Buddhism &...You are doing a great service to the Buddhism & India through your blog. I've collected a list of blogs & websites on Ancient India including yours and have displayed them through my blog. Please promote it so that people may reach to the maximum <br />contents in this valuable genre. It's <br />http://gloriousindia123.blogspot.in/<br />Ritesh Kumar Gupthttps://www.blogger.com/profile/03606863873274380548noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-2435290970952914472013-01-05T19:01:36.458-08:002013-01-05T19:01:36.458-08:00(i)‘Yajurveda’ XVI-3 enjoins strict 'ahimsa...(i)‘Yajurveda’ XVI-3 enjoins strict 'ahimsa' of mankind. Itsays:<br /> “MAA HIMSIIH PURUSAM”. “DO NOT KILL MEN”.<br />(ii)Likewise Yajurveda XIII-47 says:<br /> “IMAM MAA HIMSIIR DVIPAADAMPASUM.” “DO NOT DESTROY THE BIPED LIVING BEINGS”.<br />(iii)Again 'Yajurveda' XII-32 bans animal killing when it says:<br /> “MAA HINSIIST ANVAA PRAJAA.” <br /> “Do not destroy the bodies of your people”.<br />(iv)In Yajurveda I-1, The cow is called AGHNYAA [animalwhich must not be killed]. ‘Yajurveda’ XIII-49 forbids killing of cows for they provide milk to human beings. <br />It says:<br />GHRTAM DUHAANAM ADITIMJANAAYAAGNEMAA HIMSIIH.<br /> “Do not destroy the cow, giver of milk for mankind and innocent in nature”. According to Apte's dictionary ‘aditi’ means a cow.<br />(<br />v)Yajurveda XIII-48 says:<br />IMAM MAA HIMSIIREKASAPHAMPASUM VAAJINAM<br /> “Do not destroy the one hoofed animal, the horse” <br />2<br /> <br />(vi)In Rigveda VIII-56-17 cow slaughter has been declared a heinous crime equal to human murder. It says:<br />AARE GOHAA NRHAA VADH ASTU<br /> “One who kills a cow or murders a man should be awarded capital punishment.” (vii)Also Rg-veda X-87-16 calls those persons<br />YAATUDHAANA<br />(demonic persons) who eat raw meat of men or of animals and prays for their beheading. It says:<br />YAH PAURUSEYENA KRAVISAASAMBHUMKTEYO ASVYENA PASUNAAYAATUDHAANAH… AGNE TESAAMSII RSAANI HARSAA PIVRSCA<br /> “Those demonic people who relish (eat) raw meat of manor of animals like horses, oh God, kill them by beheading” (viii) In 'Atharva veda’ VI - 70 - 1, meat eating has been put at par with vices like drinking and gambling. It is said there:<br />YATHAA MAAMSAM YATHAA SURAAYATHAAAKSAA ADHIDEVANEYATHAA PUMSO VRSANYATASTRIYAAM NIHANYATE MANAH.<br /> “Surely, human mind gets polluted when it is lust-ridden and when it is set on meat eating, drinking and playing dice”. Thus, there are such clear tenets directly decrying the consumption of meat for human beings and declaring it as a vice equal in intensity to that of other vices like gambling etc. Is it not a travesty of facts to say that ancient followers of vedism were non-vegetarians as has been espoused by many western thinkers?kushal shuklahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01367236322322211539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-83212864497054027922013-01-05T19:00:54.086-08:002013-01-05T19:00:54.086-08:00Classical Hinduism or Vedidc Dharma in ancient Ind...Classical Hinduism or Vedidc Dharma in ancient India was totally against non-vegetarianism & by doing any forced translation of few Sanskrit literatures out of context does not prove that Hinduism or Sanatan Dharma did not introduce Ahimsa or non-Violence, Vegetarianism etc. Infact, Non-violence was introduced long ago by centuries before birth of Buddha in text of the Vedas. <br />But Irony is that Indian communist politicians, after colonialism period have forwarded translation of Vedas by illiterate & pseudo-sanskrit scholar like Max muller, Ralph T. Griffith who never even visited any Vedic Pathshala or Gurukul in their entire life. <br />//*******************************<br />Vedic thought is totally against non-vegetarianism'<br />Yajurveda' XL-6 says: “YASTU SARVAANI BHUUTAANYAATMANYEVAANUPASYATISARVE BHUUTESU CAATMAANAMTATO NA VICIKITSATI.” “He who sees all beings in the self and the self in all beings,feels no hatred against any creature in the world, for, he realises the similarity of all souls.” How could people who believed in the doctrines of indestructibility, transmigration and oneness (similarity) of souls as the followers of vedism dare to kill animals?<br />/*************************<br />‘Yajurveda’ XXVI - 18 says: “MITRASYA MAA CKSUSAASARVAANIBHUUTAANI SAMII KSANTAAM.MITRASYA CAKSUSAA SARVAANIBHUUTAANI SAMII KSEMITRASYA CAKSUAA SAMIIKSAAMAHE” “May all living beings look upon me as their friend, and may I too treat them as my own friends. Oh God, do arrange things in such a way that all (living beings) behave with one another as true friends”.<br /> <br />Can you expect people, who not only believed in vedic ideal of friendliness for all living beings, can act in a manner so as to kill their fellow beings whom they looked upon as their own friends merely for the flimsy and transitory gratification of their hunger?The doctrine of universal friendliness (love) enunciated above has culminated in absolute non-killing of any other form of living life in those days.<br />/*********************************kushal shuklahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/01367236322322211539noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-10916648734887323342012-11-20T04:09:15.930-08:002012-11-20T04:09:15.930-08:00avihinsaavihinsaDavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09680602948539528422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-8620709841772509262012-11-20T04:08:23.167-08:002012-11-20T04:08:23.167-08:00avihinsaavihinsaDavidhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/09680602948539528422noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-69725878145984808502012-11-16T15:47:24.674-08:002012-11-16T15:47:24.674-08:00Dear Yashas, I do not have a copy of the Mahaparin...Dear Yashas, I do not have a copy of the Mahaparinivana Sutra with me. But you can find the issue under discussion in Paul Williams’ ‘Mahayana Buddhism: The Doctrinal Foundations’. I don’t have a copy of it in my library either so I can’t give you the page number. I’m sure you can find it. Shravasti Dhammikahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06246408068143301108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-18591130523440968662012-11-16T06:05:23.277-08:002012-11-16T06:05:23.277-08:00You write:"It is also interesting to point ou...You write:"It is also interesting to point out that while the Nirvana sutra condems meat eating etc..." Found it now? According to Wikipedia Nirvana sutra is the same scripture as the MahaParinirvana Sutra, only a shorter name of it.Yashashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14531349728636182477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-49208950181408213182012-11-15T15:17:14.678-08:002012-11-15T15:17:14.678-08:00Dear Yashas, I re-read my post several times and c...Dear Yashas, I re-read my post several times and cannot find any reference to or translation from the Mahaparinivana Sutra. Please let me know what you are referring to and I will happily respond to your comments. Shravasti Dhammikahttps://www.blogger.com/profile/06246408068143301108noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-9015756738526921262012-11-09T04:34:21.042-08:002012-11-09T04:34:21.042-08:00Your quotation from Mahaparinirvana sutra is so in...Your quotation from Mahaparinirvana sutra is so inaccurate that it is false. I know the passage in the Charles D. Patton translation of the Great Parinirvana Scripture. What it says is similar to the standard Theravada political practice of protecting the nation and its the Sangha of monks. The Parinirvana Scripture just makes it plain and clear. <br />One would wish more respect for the mahayana sutras, that maybe asking for too much, You may have forgotten that they are regarded as the acual words and actual teachings of the Buddha by many people in the Mahayana.<br /> We should not forget that the teaching in most, if not all indian spiritual traditions, were oral for a considerable length of time. This means that Buddhism was more like the oral traditions of Australia, Africa, and South and North Americas. There is a huge cultural barrier here.<br /> We have to accept that Dharma was not an academic book culture, as the common false view takes it to be. This makes everything different, reality is different in an oral culture. We project the past from our present state of a technical culture, our view therefore contains fundamental errors.Yashashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14531349728636182477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-5538119722761627892012-11-07T06:18:03.479-08:002012-11-07T06:18:03.479-08:00There is some truth in what Philip Kapleau says, i...There is some truth in what Philip Kapleau says, it is difficult to prove it ofcourse, but buddhism has gone through phases of development, this we can be sure about. It is a socio-political issue, meat eaters had to be accepted into Buddhism, otherwise Dharma would not have spread very far at all.<br /> I find that Buddha demanded a very harsh dicipline from his monks(and other dedicated followers), if you can be happy and contended by eating only once aday, or just two times aday, it is a very powerful thing, more powerful than eating vegetarian meals and snacks five, six or seven times per day.<br /> Vegetarianism is part of buddhist identity, and important as such.<br /> Yashashttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14531349728636182477noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-48466289757721352242012-10-23T07:43:38.575-07:002012-10-23T07:43:38.575-07:00First time here. Very interesting and informative....First time here. Very interesting and informative. I find that in India people associate vegetarianism with Brahmanism while it is actually not so. The fact that it is only the very poor who eat certain types of animals shows that it is also an issue of survival. With regard to Jainism, I have never understood their brand of food preparation where one can hardly eat anything. -too austere!1Meera Sundararajanhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/15584671517551652378noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-20395553590438558282012-10-22T09:52:38.761-07:002012-10-22T09:52:38.761-07:00Thanks for this interesting post.
Through practic...Thanks for this interesting post.<br /><br />Through practice we increase compassion for other beings. Eventually that includes beings of all kinds. Eventually we realize that we act out of ignorance and at that point the desire to harm others in any way drops away naturally.MBensonhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/08073670710209348011noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-1012277645322483593.post-80684181543411941242012-10-22T07:47:19.154-07:002012-10-22T07:47:19.154-07:00Interesting review of the Indian literature on the...Interesting review of the Indian literature on the subject. Very useful for my own research into Buddhist vegetarianism.<br /><br />What's interesting is how vegetarianism took off in China come the 5th century, which I discuss here:<br /><br />http://huayanzang.blogspot.tw/2012/06/meat-eating-part-ii.html<br /><br />The monks at the time had mixed feelings about the new vegetarian laws, though it set the standard: East Asian Buddhism became strongly associated with vegetarianism. A lot of Chinese Buddhists are completely unaware that much of the rest of the Buddhist world does and historically did eat meat.Jeffrey Kotykhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/11466850119342584826noreply@blogger.com