[Prev][Next][Index][Thread]
Re : Siva as Yogi ? and more
In reference to Krishna H. Susarla's posting (December )-
>> Buddha in his discourses to Bikshus also talks about what
food to accept as
>> alms. If a meat dish is offered they should accept it
provided that it wasn't
>> specially cooked for them. See "The Lion's Roar" for
instance. So Tibetan B. is
>> not probably "a far cry from what the Buddha himself
preached".
>None of the Buddhist texts can be traced back to the Buddha
>himself, since the Buddha did not write anything. Instead, it
>was his disciples who put his teachings into written form, and
>they only did so once he passed on. As a result, the
>various sects were born because each one let their own
>personal interpretations color what they were taught. That's
>why you have strange regulations like allowing people to eat
>meat cooked by another person even though Buddha was
>emphatically against violence of all kinds.
Really! Don't you believe in the Gita, which was written by Veda Vyasa( or
Lord Ganesha )? In fact, the Gita was "heard" by Sanjaya who was narrating it
to Dhritarashtra- and you believe all that, but you don't 'acknowledge'
what the Buddhist monks wrote about Buddha, whom they lived with!
The Gita is...let's see...from the Mahabharata, which was written
by Lord Ganesha, who was writing down what Veda Vyasa was
telling him, who narrated the episode of how Sanjaya saw
Krishna and Arjuna on the battlefield...!!
I do not mean that you are unwilling to accept Buddha's teachings,
but your words seem to indicate that Buddha's teachings were
" ONLY written, after all!".
I am a vegetarian who lives along with a non-veg friend of mine.
He's willing to accept the idea of vegetarianism if it is directed
towards non-violence. But he asked me a question which I
could not answer- I request some strict vegetarian to please
let me know the answer to this question-
If you find a dead chicken which does not carry any germs on
itself(it's a clean, dead chicken), can you eat it? It's dead
after all- why talk about non-violence for something which is
already dead? Why not cook and eat it, since it's actually good
food going waste?!
> And they all accept the 3-fold classification of the Puranas,
> with the sattvic ones being most authoritative.
What do you mean by 'most authoritative'?
>However, just to drive home the point, one need only look as
>far as the Bhagavatam which I will quote later on in this text.
( after some lines)
>"This beautiful Bhaavatam, compiled by the great sage
>yaasadeva [in his maturity], is sufficient in itself for God
>realization. What is the need of any other scripture? As soon
>as one attentively and submissively hears the message of
>Bhaagavatam, by this culture of knowledge the Supreme Lord is
>established within his heart." (SB 1.1.2)
>Also:
>nimna-gaanaam' yathaa gan'gaa
>devaanaam acyuto yathaa
>vaiSNavaanaam' yathaa s'ambhuH
> puraaNaanaam idam' tathaa
>"Just as the Gan'gaa is the greatest of all rivers, Lord Acyuta
>the supreme among deities and Lord S'ambhu [S'iva' the greatest
>of all VaiSNavas, so S'riimad-Bhaagavatam is the greatest of
>all PuraaNas." (SB 12.13.16)
>Note here that the Puraana states that 1) it is the greatest of
>all Puranas, 2) Vishnu (Acyuta) is the greatest of all deities,
>3) Siva is the greatest of all devotees of Vishnu.
>So, the most authoritative scripture has stated who Vishnu is
>and who Siva is.
I have some doubts on the Srimad Bhagavatam.
Adi Sankara has referred to the Vishnu Sahasranama, the
Vishnu Purana, the Gita, the Raamayana, in his teachings,
BUT there is no mention of the Srimad Bhagavatam anywhere!!
I request someone to please throw light on this. I find it
difficult to believe that Adi Sankara who has referred to so
many scriptures which extol Vishnu's greatness would miss
something so beautiful as the Bhagavatam, which has led me
to believe that the Bhagavatam was written AFTER Adi Sankara's
lifetime. In fact, the Bhagavatam also talks about Krishna
and Buddha as incarnations as the Supreme Naaraayana-
it just means that it was written after both the Krishnavatara
and the Buddhavatara. Assuming that it was, how did the author
describe the scenes in both the avatarsas?!
WHO is this mysterious author of the Srimad Bhagavatam?
I am inclined to believe that since Adi Sankara did not himself
refer to it, IT MIGHT NOT HAVE EXISTED DURING HIS LIFETIME.
Otherwise why should he leave it untouched if he has referred to
a host of other scriptures on Vishnu? In fact, it being
that the Srimad Bhagavatam is in fact the most important of all
puranas, I find it incomprehensible that Adi Sankara has left it out!
The above is a very sincere doubt. I find the Stanzas in the
Bhagavatam to be so beautiful, but it's hard for me to believe in them.
By the by,
>Yes, Shiva is described as ultimate truth for those who do not
>wish to accept Vishnu. But, nevertheless, it is Vishnu from
>whom Shiva comes:
What do you mean by `for those who do not wish to accept Vishnu?
Where does it say that? If you can say that, so can the Saivites
say that Vishnu is described as the ultimate Truth for those who
do not wish to accept Shiva.
But what I am most interested in knowing is- if it is in our
scriptures that " those who do not wish to accept Vishnu can
accept Shiva ", then can things like this be waived for some
people?
Sincerely,
Kartik
