Re: Buddha...and Hinduism...
In article <email@example.com>, firstname.lastname@example.org (
H. Krishna Susarla) writes:
|> line noise (email@example.com) wrote:
|> The purpose of the Buddha avataar, like all of the avataars, was to
|> dharma where adharma had become prevalent. My understanding of this
|> as much as they could understand at that time. Because of the rampant
|> materialism, Buddha therefore did not teach about the concept of a personal
|> God, going no further than saying there was a higher spiritual truth than
|> material life (Nirvana?). This concept of an impersonal, higher, spiritual
|> Truth was appealing and easily understood by people fallen into materialism,
|> and thus quickly spread. However, with the spread of Buddhism, respect for
|> the Vedas and the Vedic Truths began to diminish.
Essentially what I understand, but let me add one point,
from what I understand:
People had become really big on animal sacrifice, due to
misinterpreting the Vedas. They were also using their poor
interpretation as a rationalization of this, and were using
the Vedas to justify meat-eating, etc [*]. Since the people
were so entrenched in their interpretation of the Vedas, the
Buddha avatar essentially told people to reject the Vedas
entirely, rather than try to get them to go for the real
meaning. This also stopped the animal sacrifice and meat
eating, until, of course, Buddhism got misinterpreted.
[*] footnote: the Vedas have references attempting to regulate
meat-eating and promising all manner of good benefits to those
who abstain from certain kinds of flesh for certain periods of
time. This shouldn't be seen as an endorsement of meat-eating.
Instead, I use this analogy: "If you want to shoot yourself with
a gun, aim for the thigh, not the head. However, not shooting
yourself is entirely preferable". Likewise, avoiding all meat
is preferable, but if someone is intent on eating meat, regulating
it is better than not regulating it.