 |
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|
.. stuff deleted ..
> That is a matter of debate. The fact remains that Buddha was a
> non-vegetarian by the definition of vegetarians today.
There is no point in trying to dilute the fact that Buddha advocated
ahimsa and advocated compassion to all living beings. In fact he
was against animal sacrifice.
Yes, but the actions of the man should be used together with his
teachings to ascertain the meaning of "ahimsa" and "compassion." The
man's actions provide the context in which he understood those terms
and thus how you should understand those terms.
Compassion for all living beings certainly did not prevent Gautama
Buddha from eating a non-vegetarian meal. And that remains a fact
that cannot be denied. Thus his notion of "ahimsa" and "compassion"
was quite different from that advocated today. Perhaps his compassion
was more well-balanced than the vegetarian approach who go around
insisting that no animal be killed at all! Why didn't Buddha go and
tell the guy who offered him the meat that he should not be eating
meat ?
> He was
> indifferent to meat or vegetables but vegetarians have a strong
> aversion towards meat.
Everybody is not a Buddha. As I pointed out he ate meat because it
was offered to him unlike having a regular non-veg diet. Similiarly
Shirdi Sai Baba drank liquor when it was offered to him. This
cannot be taken as a green signal for all drunkards. In that case
drunkards should be able to drink molten iron which also Sai Baba
did when it was offered to him. Similiarly I have read in srv or
I'm not sure what you mean by the statement, that this can't be taken
as a "green signal." Why are you so concerned about other people
practicing drinking? And how did you equate drinking with drunkards ?
As for Shirdi Sai Baba drinking molten iron, that is a highly
questionable statement and I would require more proof than simply a
statement from you or another follower of Sai Baba.
srh that Meera Bai said that if abstaining from sex can lead one to
God then eunuchs would be the first to attain him. This sounds
similiar to your Buddha quote. But it should not be taken as an
encouragement of immorality. Such quotes should be taken in the
right spirit and not as aids to hypocrisy.
This does have relevance on the definition of "morality" or the
understanding of "morality" by great religious figures. Remarkably,
you keep insisting that people should not take either the actions or
the statements of great men/women to imitate. But despite such
actions they should interpret morality as you present it to them, that
such actions still constitute "immorality". Can you provide any
justification for your claim other than insistence ?
The fact remains that if Meera Bai said so, it is authoritative for
those following in her footsteps, similarly for Buddha. Buddha not
only made that statement but in my opinion was quite correct in making
the statement that eating grass cannot give one "religious merit."
Let's take a special case to illustrate why thinking is necessary
before proceeding on any religious path and why the actions of
religious figures must be accounted for. Let's assume that some yogi
says that a vegetarian diet is beneficial to practice of yoga and yoga
is beneficial in achieving union with the Brahman. Could that be
translated to saying that eating a vegetarian diet accords "religious
merit?" NO!. Those who make this mistake are misled and some may
believe that eating vegetables without practicing yoga would give them
the benefits of yoga! Secondly, does that preclude a non-vegetarian
from practicing yoga? No, not really, though according to the yogi,
he may make slower progress! Thirdly, can this be taken to mean that
a vegetarian diet is superior in an absolute sense ? No, again, for
the statement only pertains to the specialty of the person making that
statement. i.e. IT HAS TO BE TAKEN IN CONTEXT!
Thus the worship of any deity requires understanding and the use of
intelligence. For only intelligent understanding can lead one to
understanding the essence of the deity. Blind devotion can only lead
one in circles.
And there is no harm in having aversion to meat if you have not
tasted it at all. It is natural. One has so many aversions.
Having an aversion is equivalent to having hatred. Having a blind
aversion is a sign of stupidity for you cannot even prove the claim
that the vegetarian diet is beneficial to your health, because you
haven't tried anything different!
Trying out all of them is not the solution to becoming indifferent
to them. One cannot become a jnani like Buddha just by imitating
him. It would be like a crow sporting peacock feathers.
But if you do not wish to imitate Buddha, why worship him ? So you
could interpret him in your own context of preferences so that you
could worship yourself effectively ? Is that your end goal ?
> .. stuff deleted ..
>
> To answer your question directly, Merit and sin is not only
> associated with action but also the knowledge, attitude and
> sincerity that is behind the action. Therefore lower level things
> do not attain merit/sin because they do things mechanically, but man
> does because he can discriminate between right and wrong and is thus
> responsible for his actions.
>
> Unh, unh, unh! If lower-level things operate mechanically and do not
> incur either merit or sin, then how do they advance in your system to
> higher levels ? (Puranically, things like this are expressed as "thus
> Vishnu was frozen and could not move. ;-)).
Nature takes care of their evolution.
This is a ridiculous statement. It is equivalent to hand-waving!
> If only man has intelligence and only he incurs sin, then only man
> could evolve either into a lower or higher form! No? Of course in
> your model he would just get stuck in the lower form because he won't
> be able to ever incur merit ever again. Is that your model? I want
> to first establish a common understanding of your theory.
Suffering for sins need not be by a permanent reverse in evolution.
In fact one can suffer more as being born as a man.
Then man is a "lower" form and not a "higher" form on the scale of
religious merit.
> The second question that arises with such models which allow
> independence to the great "thinking human beings" is that why would we
> have independence ? Why would God give us independence ? Does that
> not make him less powerful ? Or does he want to torture us ?
All this is god's leela and beyond our comprehension through
questions like why? In other words I cannot explain why :-).
NO DON'T BLAME IT ON SIMPLY GOD'S LEELA, IT IS THE WEAKNESS IN YOUR
PHILOSOPHICAL FRAMEWORK!
Contrary to what people believe these questions have been asked in
Bharat in the past. They were asked in direct opposition to
Vaishnavism resulting in the rise of materialists which were
eventually integrated into Shaivism with the birth of Parvati.
> > And yet Vaishnavism
> > believes man to be the highest form why ? So what if he has
> > intelligence, obviously you could obtain religious merit by eating
> > grass!
>
> If you eat grass not to attain religious merit, not to prove a
> point, but because you genuinely cannot bear any harm caused to
> living things and also if you are a devotee of the lord you will
> definitely attain very great religious merit.
>
> Let me get this straight. First you claim that you must not eat grass
> to attain religious merit, but because you cannot bear any harm done
> to a living thing. But if you do eat grass, and believe in the Lord
> then you WILL get religious merit. Is that what you want to say ?
Yes.
This is the height of irrationality!
> Thus you do not wish things to die and exhibit a great fear of things
> dying. Thus please explain what harm can I cause to another thing,
> should it "die"!
Everybody fears death and goes through suffering while dying. So
killing another causes harm because it undergoes suffering. If you
are hinting at "Atma never dies" and all that stuff, it should be
applied for the right reasons and not for enjoyment of non-veg.
> How is dying equivalent to "harm" in your
> philosophy. Should I die naturally, is that harmful to my future
> karma ? Who bears the bad karma for my so called "natural" death ?
> Does not your Lord cause it ?
Natural death is inevitable. Birth and death is part of our own
karma.
How is "natural" death different from "artificial" death. Please make
the distinction. Does someone who eats badly or is not able to earn
enough to eat well incur sin ? He could have lived longer, had he
done so. What do you consider a "natural" death vs an "artificial"
death. You make the discrimination, and I being a Shaivite will unite
the two.
> And yet the Upanisads say that the entire Universe is food and all
> entities in it are food! I wonder if that is true, what do you think
> ?
I have not heard of this. It sounds like the christian concept
that all creatures are made for man. Anyway it is better to accept
positive things first and accept other things only after a proper
understanding.
Incorrect! How have you translated the above to giving man a special
position in the universe! Nowhere does it say that man is not food
for the rest of the universe. Don't worry, germs are eating away at
you right now!
|
||
|
||
| Advertise with us! |
|
|