Jai Jinendra

There is a limit on possessions i.e. parigraha even for laypersons in Jainism. Those lay persons who take minor vows—anuvrata—have to take a vow on limiting wealth.  While Mahavrata (great vows) are taken by the monks and nuns, lay persons are expected to take minor vows. This includes limiting ones income, wealth, jewellery, cars, even the pair of clothes taht they will purchase annually. The section of Anuvrata on Parigraha is quite long and elaborate. Taking anuvrata is a systematic activity which touches each and every sphere of your life and is normally taken under the guidance of experienced monks or sadhavijis. The vows can be taken lifelong or can be renewed annually.

I think most of the Jains are not aware that of anuvrata or have never taken them in their lives. As per our scriptures it is necessary, as a vowless life is a major cause of Karma bandha.

Regards,

Anish

A translation from one of my favourite jain text-bahenshreena vachnamrut
(digambar jain swadhyay trust)
Vachnamrut 17
Just as getting hold of the root of a plant,one obtains everything ( the whole
plant),so  holding on to the 'knowing'property of the soul,you will obtain
everything . You will not get your hands on anything by merely doing good
deeds.If you get hold of the main swabhav (nature of soul),then peace and
happiness will prevail under  any situation,:one will be able to remain in the
state of knower and perciever only



--- In jainlist@yahoogroups.com, "sramanopasaka" <manishymodi@...> wrote:
>
> Dear friends,
> Jay Jinendra
>
> I request you to please send us verse by verse translations, preferably on a
daily basis, of your favourite Jain scripture.
>
> We would like verse by verse translations, at a rate of no more than a verse a
day, so that the readers are not overwhelmed and everyone enjoys the beauty and
profundity of Jain scriptures.
>
> Please make sure that the translation is your ORIGINAL WORK.
>
> WE DO NOT WANT COPYRIGHT ISSUES CROPPING UP!
>
> So please specify that the translation has been done by you.
>
> I confess that I have been guilty of pramada, having started my translation of
the Bhagavati Aradhana and the Bhaktamara Stotra, and not having completed
either of them.
>
> I request Mr Anish Shah to begin sending us a translation of the 58 Bol and
his earlier excellent English translation of Prabhacandra's Tattvarthasutra.
>
> I request Prof Dr Kanaka Ajitadasa to begin sending us a translation of the
Tirukkurala.
>
> I request Mr Shreyans Sukhani to begin sending us his translation of Jain
Tattvavidya.
>
> I request all members to study Jain scriptures and begin sending us English
translation done by them of their favourite scriptures.
>
> Please note, there is no competition, no contest and no award of any sort for
the translations. This list is meant for the academic study of Jainism. Hence,
all of us who will be translating shall be doing it in order to enhance our own
svadhyaya. So please see these translations as not merely an intellectual and
linguistic exercise, but in the spirit of svadhyaya, which is amongst the 12
tapas prescribed for those who desire liberation.
>
> best regards,
>
> M
>

Thank you for your clarfication of History. As Jains,we are all aware that
Jainism is old with the first Tirthankar being Rushabdev. I have heard that
Rushabdev was also worshipped by the ancestores of current followers of
Hinduism.

Could it be possible that that Hinduism was a diversion from Jainsim by people
wanting the psycological protection of 'God the creator'.I also feel that the
followers of Krishna probably lost their course ; Krishna got enlightenment from
his cousin, Tirthankar Neminath Bhagwan. Instead of holding on to the knowledge
that Krishna parted, , people started worshipping him as a God, I
think.Neminath's temple was probably then converted , years down the line ,by
people who did not understand the message of Tirthankara and instead diverted
into  Bhakti (devotion). Degradation of the path then naturally follows as the
true message is lost.

Also, Shiva is not a person but a title given to a Gnani,an enlightened
being.Again,years down the line,this has become misinterpreted.Shiva worship is
the worship of the formless ie the worship of the soul, which is formless.

I have been told that many Idols of Tirthankaras were altered into that of Shiva
lingas , whether it was to hide the Idols from invaders or done by overzealous
Shiv worshipers, I do not know. To what extent this is true, I am not sure.

ANother  current misdirection of spiritual knowledge is about Jesus Christ,who
travelled to India in his missing Years He said he was messenger of God,then he
was son of God ,then He was God. Again,this smacks of Jain philosophy. One's
pure soul is God and as he evolved, Jesus Christ changed his words.I am sure he
must have shared his knowledge with his disciples, but years down the line it is
reduced to worshipping only, and having God the creater somewhere

  jainlist@yahoogroups.com, HIMANSHU PAREKH <him_parekh@...> wrote:
>
> THIRUMALAI - TIRUPATI - BALAJI- LORD VENKATESHWARA IS A JAIN TEMPLE OF DRAVID
CIVILIZATION.
>
> ( A fact supported by Historians, Archaelogist and researchers worldwide)
>
>
>
> WORLD'S RICHEST TEMPLE - This is originally a Jain temple converted by
Ramanujam/Sankarach arya around 8th century A.D onwards along with 1000s other
dravid temples.
>
>
>
> ORIGIN OF TEMPLE: THIRTHANKAR
>
> TEMPLE BUILT BY: DRAVIDIAN CIVILIZATION
>
> LORD VENKATESHWARA- NO HISTORICITY, NAME CONVERTED BY ARYAN BRAHMINS.
>
>
>
> ORIGINAL IDOL: THIRTHANKAR- NEMINATH -
>
> HIDDEN BY BIG NAMAM , JEWELLARY, FACE COVERED.
>
>
>
> Complete idol is covered to hide its original identity. Balaji has been
photographed on many occassions without Jewellary and it is found to be Standing
thirthankara, which many brahmins believe and admit. Archaelogical scientists,
honest historians have proved this to be a Jain temple.
>
> Brahmins also believe even Ramayana is myth and no real things existed
whatever depicted in it.
>
>
>
>
>
> Millions of people visit Balaji temple but no one know reality about this
temple. It is truly
>
> dravid temple, which is confirmed by Archaelogical department as Jain temple.
Many brahmins silently believe and agree that it is originally Jain temple
converted by Ramanujam and Sankaracharya as 1000s of other dravid Jain temples
converted, rechristened by Avatar philiosophy. No Historian can ever claim that
there was any god by name Lord venkateshwara.
>
>
>
> Many historians world wide believe - any given old temple in southern part of
India is originally a Jain temple. However it may have changed its name.
>
> As such Hinduism ( word coined by britishers) was not a single religion till
recently . It use to be known with hundreds other names in different part of
asia. Eg. Saivism, vaishnavism, sanatan, Vaidic and so many different names
according to geographical locations. No wonder there are millions of god
worshipped. thanks to britishers for reuniting and giving a common name.
>
>
>
> Archaeological Senior officers (who chose not to comment much due to political
and brahmin (aryan)dominance ) firmly believe that originally complete dravid
population was Jain who were not fighters like aryans, and believers of Ahimsa,
whose heritage was stolen by cunning aryans who came to India around 3500 years
ago. They slowly entered into dravid land grabbed their property, culture,
heritage and even literature.
>
>
>
> Brahmins had only means to survive with temples, caste system was created by
them according to their whims, fooled people with Avatars, mutilated dravid
temples,converted them into whatever name they fancied eg. venkateshwara,
kapalishwara, varadaperumal, etc which neither has historical identity nor these
gods are even talked about in any literature. Moreover these fabricated avatars
are not known in other sects of Brahmin religion and Hinduism. Let us say Lord
Kapalishwara, or Meenakshi, kamakshi cannot even be identified by people from
UP, Delhi, Rajasthan, Gujrat. These avatars are only known in few places in
South that too among those brahmins who converted Dravid temples to Aryan
temples by deceit.
>
>
>
> Recent historians who are not influenced politically or motivated by
brahimnisation firmly convey that even today no one is interested in publishing
real history of dravids which was superimposed by Aryans. their heritage is
neglected, their literatures are faked by Brahimins.
>
>
>
> For example Thirukural was product of dravid civilization ( written by Jain
Saints) but later it was labelled as Hindu literature at the time Hinduism was
not known with its present name around 1st century B.C.when sacrifice of animals
and vaidic religion was in vogue.
>
>
>
> To conclude Tirupati balaji temple is wonderful temple belonging to all
devotees, it can be run the way it is going. But atleast its true history and
identity has to be made known.
>
>
>
>
>
> How long millions of people will be fooled with fake identity given to this
temple by brahims? How long its abhisekham and other rituals will be performed
in private with closed doors.? I think most of gods elsewhere in hinduism whose
abhisekham is performed in public view, same way Tirupati's rituals need to be
done in open with public view. As we all believe god are not property of
brahmins alone, but they belong to devotees.
>
>
>
> Why Tirupati Lord venkateshwara' s face has to be hidden. When no face of Lord
Rama, Lord Krishna, Lord siva, Lord brahma, Lord Ganesha are hidden. This looks
quite weird hiding face of god to mislead its real identity.
>
>
>
> We would all love to have our god let it be brahmin or jain , it has to be in
open for everyone.
>
> Let us ask those brahmins to perform all pooja, abhisekham openly, not to hide
with curtains or by closing doors. There is absolutely no need to keep God in
private if this is real .
>
>
>
> One real good picture has to be published as it was created many centuries ago
as Lord Neminath without jewellary , namams and flowers, let their devotees see
their own lovely god without barrier. afterall devotee when comes with 100 %
pure devotion they must be allowed to see their real god 100%, not loaded with
jewellary, artificial foreign elements which are used for covering true
identity. This is one of reason only 2 % of complete structure is visible to
devotees, which doesn't happen with Lord Krishna, Lord Rama, Lord Hanuman, Lord
Ganesha in other parts of India. God's identy is hidden only in such temples
when temple would have been converted from Jain temple and their naming is done
on fabricated, non-historical avatars.
>
>
>
> Can we request temple authorities to reveal its true identity and to see full
face and posture of god . Can we have real photograph without artificial
projected hands, face and other parts.
>
>
>
> I think brahmins would never allow to do that. Our brahmin dominated society
is far away from truth, they have managed to reverse complete history of this
country.
>
>
>
> Let us request our government to atleast make the truth available to every
devotee, not living under the myths and stories. Indian courts have already
declared few decades ago, this being truly jain temple. Unfortunately today
people think jains are only who are from part of Rajasthan, Gujraj or some
pockets of North India who are basically trading community. But truth is that
real Jains are only who were dravidians. Present Jains in Rajasthan, gujrat are
only few who converted from Aryan brahmin religion. Original Jains from ages are
dravids (original inhabitants of bharat)who are living in Tamilnadu, Karnataka,
Maharashtra, Kerala , bihar into farming, labour jobs and are very poor, whose
heritage was looted, converted which is as old as 4th century b.c. - can be
found abandoned or converted all over. jainism existed much before lord
Mahavira.
>
> North American based historians have traced Jain history upto 8000 years old
with enough evidences and proof. An American historian has said Lord rishabnath
has been renamed as Lord Siva.
>
>
>
> From ages dravid history has been mutilated, wrongly potrayed by so called
responsbile vested interests of society, politics and even government. It is
Aryans whose history, mythology and wrong facts are superimposed over dravid
history, who were immigrants to India.
>
> Dr Santhalingam, senior director of Archaelogical survey and his assistant,
and ASI has unpublished researched facts which clearly state that , Every old
temple in south was once jain temple, presently known with different identity
created by brahmins, few such examples out of 1000s of dravid jain temples
converted to Brahmin temples are:
>
>
>
> 1) Madurai meenakshi temple
>
> 2) kanchipuram kamakshi temple (Kanchipuram has more than 100 temples)
>
> 3) varadaperumal temple ( kanchipuram)
>
> 4) thiruvanmalai Arunachalam temple
>
> 5)Mylapore kapaliswara temple
>
> 6) nagaraja temple nagercoil
>
> 7) Thirumala balaji temple, ( total resemblance to thirumalai jain temple in
Arni district)
>
>
>
> Dr. Santhalingam expressed that due to political circumstances these facts
cannot be disclosed or published, but facts remain same. He also said
thiruvalluvar was a Jain saint who wrote thirukural, he has done enough research
but unable to publish same.Even Tamil was evolved from dravid Jain civilization
born out of brahmi language. Enough evidences are avaialable from epigraphy. As
per him aryan brahims invaded jain temples and converted them as their source of
livelihood.
>
>
>
> Let us all pray to Lord venkateshwara ( Lord Neminath) to protect our devotees
and believers without the help of agents ( brahmins) , and let everyone know its
true identity and real name, no matter Aryan Jains, dravid jains, or saivist or
vaishnavaites control this temple. It is common for all the devotees. Worshiping
any god without knowing real identity can only add to our ignorance. There
shouldn't be any force which would work towards faking our very own god's name.
>
>
>
>
>
> Above information is well supported and contributed by:
>
>
>
> Archaeological survey of India , TN Branch
>
> American Historians
>
> German universities
>
> Few Historians from India.
>
> Foreign Universities.
>
> Professors from Madras University.
>
>
> Christians community of Nagercoil who were originally Jains
>
> Nadar community who were originally Jains whose origin is traced upto 4000
years-specified in book written by Dr. M Emmanuel- dravid lineage.
>

jai jinendra,

Aparigraha is not about possesions but about possesiveness.One puts his own
limits depending on status in society.philanthropy is a virtue leading to
aparigraha

--- In jainlist@yahoogroups.com, sanjay jain <sanjayjainuk@...> wrote:
>
> Hello all,
>
> With reference to Ahinsa, where Jainism discusses what people should do or not
do. I'm wondering if Jainism talks about limits to wealth parigraha for lay
people. Aparigraha is as important a principle as Ahinsa, but I don't often hear
of limits on wealth accumulation. If anything Jains are proud to be wealthy.
>
> And in my mind, much hinsa is committed due to parigraha, both in the process
of accumulation and the enmity caused by inequity.
>
> I realise that it's easier to say what you should or should not eat/kill, than
to fix an amount you can accumulate, wealth is a mixture of absolute, relative
and illusion, but I would be  interested to learn if Jainism has attempted to
quantify Aparigraha.
>
> Thanks
> Sanjay 
>

Dear Friends:

Jai Jinendra.

Happy New Year.

I quite agree with these concerns and with Ashok Metha's observations.

As someone not born into the tradition, I am continually surprised by the heavy
emphasis placed on wealth accumulation in the Jain community given that
Aparigraha is a central doctrine of Jain Dharma. When I have commented on this,
I alays get a "stock" answer that we can accumulate wealth as long as we are not
attached to it, but that is rather unsatisfactory for obvious reasons. And many
Jains make a point of emphasizing with great pride the economic prosperity of
Jains relative to that of other Indians.

When I spoke at the JAINA Convention last July, I pointed this out in my talk;
that we needed to evaluate more seriously the meaning of Aparigraha. I also
proposed that we needed to focus on Ahimsa in that many Jains continue to eat
dairy products, which, as an undisputable matter of fact, involve inflicting
suffering, distress, and death on mobile, multi-sensed beings.

In these regards, Jains are, of course, no different from those in other faiths.
For example, modern Christianity bears little resemblance to the teachings of
Christ.

Oh, if only people took these Dhramas seriously, the world would be a
better--not perfect, but better--place!

MIcchami Dukkadam.

Gary

Dear Sanjay,

Jai Jinendra,

This is a misconception that one does not need to take vows for meat eating. Even if one does not eat meat, but does not take a vow, then inadvertently he or she is keeping his options open for future meat eating. On the other hand a definitive vow on avoidance of meat eating signifies the intention of abstinence of meat eating.

A good conduct, but without  vows  is described in our scriptures like a bath of elephant who cleans himself with water but immediately sprays himself with mud and soil. As such its effect is fleeting. 

Even during Mahavir Bhagwan’s time, only those of took laymans vows were called shravaks.  Now a days it is wrongly assumed that if you are born in a Jain family there is no need to take Anuvratas. It is also wrongly assumed that if one is not eating meat, then there is no requirement to take vows. On the other hand if you are not doing something, it is better to take a vow of it. Atleast you will not be leading a vowless life.  As tattvarthasutra clearly says, vowlessness is the reason of bandha of karma.  No amount of knowledge or swadhaya will help us if we do not pay attention to proper conduct and vows are facilitators in this regard. It should be noted that vows are not an end in itself but a step in right direction.

This was one of the reasons that Acharya Tulsi started Anuvrata movement.

But, you have rightly raised a pertinent question and it is true that we focus too much on Ahimsa (more specifically on diet and eating habits) and less on aparigraha. It is not a problem with Jainism or Jain teaching as it lays an equal emphasis on Ahimsa as well as Aparigraha. It fact it was on the question of Aparigraha that division with Jainism took place (Whether White cloth constitutes as parigraha for monks). As noted earlier the section on aparigraha is quite elaborate in Anuvratas and touches each and every aspect of life. However it is up to us how we put these teachings into practice.

Regards,

Anish

I was surprized to find that the Dalai Lama eats meat on occasions
as was prescribed by a doctor after he contracted hepatitis back in 1966


How do you feel about this?

Manavendra

Jai Jinendra,

Very good suggestion, the listing of schools / colleges/institutes needs help of
every members by providing details of schools / colleges/institutes in their
area.
 
All are requested to make efforts & provide the details on the list.

Warm regards

Rajendra

Dear Manavendra,
Jay Jinendra

What the Dalai Lama eats is his business. Who are we to comment on it?

He is not a Jain and does not claim to be a vegetarian.

M

Most of the Indian philosophies believe in Karma theory. Vedic, Buddhist and
Jain, all have a faith on Karma and Karmafal. However, they differ in many
points.

Jainism has the most subtle description of Karma. Ninth of the fourteen "Purva"
is dedicated to Karma theory and named as "Karma Pravaad Purva". This is part of
"Drishtivaada", the biggest, greatest, most complicated part of teachings of
Lord Mahavira.

We can not find Drishtivaada as people can not retain it in their memory some
centuries after the Lord. Probably, Acharya Aryarakshita Suri was the last to
retain Karma Pravaad Purva with him.


Read more:
http://jain-and-jainism.blogspot.com/2009/10/karma-theory-in-jainism-origin-hist\
ory.html

N. B. Link to first part of the series is provided below. You can find links to
other parts in the post.


Thanks,
Jyoti Kothari

Dear Manish:

Jai Jinendra.

If the Dalai Lama were inflicting harm on human children, would we say that is
his business and we could not comment upon it?

Please understand that I am not saying that we should condemn or making
judgments about the DL on this or any other issue. That is not my point. I am
really asking a question about the nature of moral judgments within Jainism. 
Your statement would seem to imply a sort of relativism that I understand as in
conflict with the moral realism of Jainism. If we apply Anekantavada in a
relativistic way, then it leads to moral chaos, it would seem.

Micchami Dukkadam.

Gary

Jai Jinendra.

This is, indeed, an excellent article. Thank you for posting it!

Gary

Dear Knut,
Jay Jinendra

Thank you for your kind interest!

I am sorry, these lectures are not recorded. And anyway, these weekly lectures
are delivered in Hindi.

But Heidelberg has a grand tradition of Prakrit scholarship. (Assuming, of
course, that you live in Heidelberg!)

A large no. of universities in Europe have access to Prakrit scholarship. So if
you were to tell me where exactly you live, I shall write back to you
individually and let you know who is the Prakritist closest to you
geographically. And provide you with that person's contact information. After
that, you can simply check with them and see how you could arrange to learn this
great text under their guidance.

A Hindi translation of the Bhagavati Aradhana is available with us. I have
planned to carry out an English translation of the BA, but lost momentum after
translating about 48 verses. It is a vast work and somehow I have not been able
to find the time to translate all of it.

But it is a very important text, especially when you are contemplating the end
of your life. It is a wonderful practical guide on how to perceive your life
correctly in the Jain way, and how to take steps that lead to a better death.

And what to meditate upon when one lies at the deathbed.

So I hope that at some point in life, I will be able to not only translate it
ocmpletely, but also follow its teachings correctly.

For now, I remain one of those Jains who believe in the teachings of the Jinas
but struggle to practise them in their daily lives.

Thank you for your interest. Please stay in touch.

best regards,

M

Dear Gary,
Jay Jinendra

You got me there! If we apply anekanta indiscriminately, it would be
counter-productive and go against fundamental Jain teachings.

I would not have been so dismissive had a person been blamed for pedophilia,
necrophilia or cannibalism!

Jains and Buddhists have always viewed meat-eating differently, even though both
traditions cherish the ideal of non-violence.

A short story to illustrate the difference in attitudes between Jains and
Buddhists.

There was once a soldier who stood guard in a fort. Upon seeing a cart heavily
laden with gunnysacks about to enter the fort, he halted it and asked the driver
of the cart what his cargo was. The driver said that he was carrying a cartload
of potatoes. In order to confirm this for himself, the soldier randomly thrust
his bayonet inside one of the gunnysacks. At once, a child's voice cried out.
Upon opening the bag, it was discovered that the cart driver had been trying to
smuggle in a child and that the child had been unlucky to be in the gunnysack
that the soldier had randomly struck. The died from the wound inflicted by the
thrust bayonet.

Now, the question is - what sort of karmic consequences would the soldier have
to bear for his action?

The Buddhist answer would be - Since the soldier was only doing his duty and
checking the contents of the cart and did not intend to kill the child,
therefore the soldier would not suffer from the karmic consequences of killing
the child.

The Jain answer would be - Despite the fact that the soldier did not intend to
kill the child, he was guilty of pramada in carelessly thrusting his bayonet
inside a gunnysack and hence caused the murder of the child, the soldier would
suffer the karmic consequences of manslaughter due to negligence, not of
culpable homicide.

In keeping with the Buddhist answer, the DL and his followers eat meat that has
not been specifically killed for them. The Buddha himself ate meat if it was
offered to him, and is believed to have died of the rotten pork that was fed to
him.

Jains do not accept any excuses or justifications for the murder of a fellow
being. Hence, no Jain would eat meat. There is no question of a Jina accepting
meat, etc. Even under extreme duress, a Jina would not eat anything that was not
permissible for a monk to eat.

So perhaps the DL is within the edicts of his religion when he eats meat. I do
not in any way accept that meat-eating is right. I am a lacto-vegetarian and do
not partake of non-veg, alcohol and cigarettes, etc. But I do not think we
should comment on what non-Jains eat. It is not right.

Besides, I am a fan of the DL, especially the way he stands up to imperialist
China. I would like to see the Government of India take a firm stand against
China's territorial transgressions on the vast border that we share with China.

M

In the Hinayana sutras one finds quotations relating to the subject like the following passage from the latter part of Foundations of Medicine, a text contained in the Vinaya section of the Kangyur:

"The Buddha was dwelling in a multi-storey building by the monkey pond at Vaisali. In Vaisali there lived a captain called Sengge and whenever the people living nearby brought him meat, he ate it. One day he learnt from the Buddha what is true, and he did not eat meat any more. Nevertheless meat was still brought to him but it was given to the bhikshus, and in fact the bhikshus did eat it. Now the tirthikas made remarks about this, made fun and clapped their hands: "Knowledgeable ones, captain Sengge does not eat the meat that has been prepared for him, so it is given to the bhikshus of the son of the Shakyas. And the bhikshus of the son of the Shakyas eat the meat that was meant for captain Sengge." When they heard this loose talk the bhikshus asked the Buddha and the Buddha replied: "I have stated that meat which is not appropriate from the three points of view should not be eaten."

Thus the Hinayana sutra containing the Vinaya text Foundations of Medicine also rejects meat, i.e. meat that is not appropriate for eating on three counts. Nowadays, unfortunately, some intelligent and not so intelligent commentators have made the presentation of purity according to the three aspects, namely "not having seen, not having heard and not suspecting that a being has been killed for ones own consumption" into a rule which is as well-known as a famous quotations. As far as the presentation in the Vinaya sutra Foundations of Medicine is concerned, there can be no doubt that it is inappropriate to eat meat from a being who has been killed for oneself. However, the fact that the Buddha, referring to meat meant for someone (i.e. captain Sengge) other than those who actually eat it (i.e. the "bhikshus of the son of the Shakyas"), states "that meat which is not appropriate from three points of view should not be eaten" shows very clearly that eating meat from a being who has been killed for others is also not pure according to the three aspects or inappropriate for eating on the three counts. To good logicians this is clearly evident at closer examination.

The fact that the flesh of a nonhuman animal who has been murdered for oneself and the flesh of a nonhuman animal who has been murdered for others is equally impure according to the three aspects or equally inappropriate for eating on the three counts is made clear by the Vinaya sutra Foundations of Medicine. Relying on this sutra we can therefore see that it is unnecessary and pointless to take the statement from the extensive commentary on the Vinaya, "not having seen, not having heard and not suspecting" that a being "has been killed for ones own consumption" and make it suit our own interests in a narrow-minded fashion by drawing clever conclusions from it.

has notified the sender that this message has been received.

Dear Trisha,
Jay Jinendra

Thank you for providing the Buddhist explanation of not having seen, not having
heard and not having suspected. I did not know this.

I still do not agree with the Buddhist viewpoint on meat eating.

Yes, I agree that there is great himsa in dairy products.

best regards,

M

Trisha

The Dalai Lama promotes vegetariansim though he eats meat,he is said to eat meat
on doctor's advice when he aquired hepatitis in 1966 in India.

He said he does not eat it everyday.

The Tibetan monks I think are vegetarians.


Now is there a reason the Dalai Lama chooses to eat meat?

He has stated that is mission on earth is to help liberate-free all sentient
beings.

Maybe there is something we do not see in this


In extreme places of cold,or hot where there is not enough vegetarian food,what
will the people eat?

An example is the Eskimos of the Artic.

This is a perplexing question that I needed to ask

Manavendra



--- In jainlist@yahoogroups.com, "Trisha Roberts" <speciesism_will_end@...>
wrote:
>
> Dear M
>
> Jai Jinendra
>
> I wish to address 2 points:
>
> You wrote:  <<<<In keeping with the Buddhist answer, the Dalai Lama and his
followers eat meat that has not been specifically killed for them. The Buddha
himself ate meat if it was offered to him, and is believed to have died of the
rotten pork that was fed to him.>>>>
>
> The three tests is an excuse often used by Buddhists who want to continue
their flesh addiction and who defend eating flesh. I'm Buddhist so I feel I can
make constructive comment.
>
> Here's a small except from a teaching about the Buddha's statements on
avoiding meat by a highly qualified Gelug-pa Tibetan Geshe - Geshe Soepa :
> In the Hinayana sutras one finds quotations relating to the subject like the
following passage from the latter part of Foundations of Medicine, a text
contained in the Vinaya section of the Kangyur:
>
>   "The Buddha was dwelling in a multi-storey building by the monkey pond at
Vaisali. In Vaisali there lived a captain called Sengge and whenever the people
living nearby brought him meat, he ate it. One day he learnt from the Buddha
what is true, and he did not eat meat any more. Nevertheless meat was still
brought to him but it was given to the bhikshus, and in fact the bhikshus did
eat it. Now the tirthikas made remarks about this, made fun and clapped their
hands: "Knowledgeable ones, captain Sengge does not eat the meat that has been
prepared for him, so it is given to the bhikshus of the son of the Shakyas. And
the bhikshus of the son of the Shakyas eat the meat that was meant for captain
Sengge." When they heard this loose talk the bhikshus asked the Buddha and the
Buddha replied: "I have stated that meat which is not appropriate from the three
points of view should not be eaten."
>
> Thus the Hinayana sutra containing the Vinaya text Foundations of Medicine
also rejects meat, i.e. meat that is not appropriate for eating on three counts.
Nowadays, unfortunately, some intelligent and not so intelligent commentators
have made the presentation of purity according to the three aspects, namely "not
having seen, not having heard and not suspecting that a being has been killed
for ones own consumption" into a rule which is as well-known as a famous
quotations. As far as the presentation in the Vinaya sutra Foundations of
Medicine is concerned, there can be no doubt that it is inappropriate to eat
meat from a being who has been killed for oneself. However, the fact that the
Buddha, referring to meat meant for someone (i.e. captain Sengge) other than
those who actually eat it (i.e. the "bhikshus of the son of the Shakyas"),
states "that meat which is not appropriate from three points of view should not
be eaten" shows very clearly that eating meat from a being who has been killed
for others is also not pure according to the three aspects or inappropriate for
eating on the three counts. To good logicians this is clearly evident at closer
examination.
>
> The fact that the flesh of a nonhuman animal who has been murdered for oneself
and the flesh of a nonhuman animal who has been murdered for others is equally
impure according to the three aspects or equally inappropriate for eating on the
three counts is made clear by the Vinaya sutra Foundations of Medicine. Relying
on this sutra we can therefore see that it is unnecessary and pointless to take
the statement from the extensive commentary on the Vinaya, "not having seen, not
having heard and not suspecting" that a being "has been killed for ones own
consumption" and make it suit our own interests in a narrow-minded fashion by
drawing clever conclusions from it.
>
> =======
>
> You wrote<<<< I am a lacto-vegetarian and do not partake of non-veg, alcohol
and cigarettes, etc. >>>>
>
> There is great Himsa in dairy (and eggs) and that includes dairy in India. I'd
be happy to provide descriptions if anyone is interested.
>
> Trisha
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "sramanopasaka" <manishymodi@...>
> To: <jainlist@yahoogroups.com>
> Sent: Sunday, January 03, 2010 6:47 PM
> Subject: [JainList] Quantifying Aparigraha
>
>
> > Dear Gary,
> > Jay Jinendra
> >
> > You got me there! If we apply anekanta indiscriminately, it would be
counter-productive and go against fundamental Jain teachings.
> >
> > I would not have been so dismissive had a person been blamed for pedophilia,
necrophilia or cannibalism!
> >
> > Jains and Buddhists have always viewed meat-eating differently, even though
both traditions cherish the ideal of non-violence.
> >
> > A short story to illustrate the difference in attitudes between Jains and
Buddhists.
> >
> > There was once a soldier who stood guard in a fort. Upon seeing a cart
heavily laden with gunnysacks about to enter the fort, he halted it and asked
the driver of the cart what his cargo was. The driver said that he was carrying
a cartload of potatoes. In order to confirm this for himself, the soldier
randomly thrust his bayonet inside one of the gunnysacks. At once, a child's
voice cried out. Upon opening the bag, it was discovered that the cart driver
had been trying to smuggle in a child and that the child had been unlucky to be
in the gunnysack that the soldier had randomly struck. The died from the wound
inflicted by the thrust bayonet.
> >
> > Now, the question is - what sort of karmic consequences would the soldier
have to bear for his action?
> >
> > The Buddhist answer would be - Since the soldier was only doing his duty and
checking the contents of the cart and did not intend to kill the child,
therefore the soldier would not suffer from the karmic consequences of killing
the child.
> >
> > The Jain answer would be - Despite the fact that the soldier did not intend
to kill the child, he was guilty of pramada in carelessly thrusting his bayonet
inside a gunnysack and hence caused the murder of the child, the soldier would
suffer the karmic consequences of manslaughter due to negligence, not of
culpable homicide.
> >
> > In keeping with the Buddhist answer, the DL and his followers eat meat that
has not been specifically killed for them. The Buddha himself ate meat if it was
offered to him, and is believed to have died of the rotten pork that was fed to
him.
> >
> > Jains do not accept any excuses or justifications for the murder of a fellow
being. Hence, no Jain would eat meat. There is no question of a Jina accepting
meat, etc. Even under extreme duress, a Jina would not eat anything that was not
permissible for a monk to eat.
> >
> > So perhaps the DL is within the edicts of his religion when he eats meat. I
do not in any way accept that meat-eating is right. I am a lacto-vegetarian and
do not partake of non-veg, alcohol and cigarettes, etc. But I do not think we
should comment on what non-Jains eat. It is not right.
> >
> > Besides, I am a fan of the DL, especially the way he stands up to
imperialist China. I would like to see the Government of India take a firm stand
against China's territorial transgressions on the vast border that we share with
China.
> >
> > M
> >
> >
> >
> >
> > ------------------------------------
> >
> > JainNet http://www.jainnet.com - Comprehensive Resource on Jainism.Yahoo!
Groups Links
> >
> >
> >
>

To be factually correct,Manmohan Singh is a vegetarian,and why the Obama had a
special vegetarian dinner for him when he was a guest as the White House

Manavendra

--- In jainlist@yahoogroups.com, ANISH SHAH <anishshah19@...> wrote:
>
>
> Jai Jinendra,
>
> Dalai Lama eats meat and probably so does Obama and Manmohan Singh. The point
Manishbhai is probably trying to make is that meat eating does not affect the
stature of a person as a world leader. That does not decrease our respect of a
person as a politician or a world leader. Meat eating cannot be a criteria to be
a Judge for everything. Mohammedali Jinnah loved to drink Alchohol and eat pork.
But that does not stop Pakistanis from respecting him as father of Pakistan.
>
> I would vote for a person who is upright and good leader who maybe eating meat
rather than a corrupt wimp and lame duck leader who is a vegeterian. A proper
use of nayas help us in coming to a rational decision.
>
>
>
> Of course that does not mean  that we condone meat eating, it simply means
that under certain circumstances (Syat) it is not the criteria.
>
> Regards,
>
>
>
> Anish
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> To: jainlist@yahoogroups.com
> From: manishymodi@...
> Date: Sun, 3 Jan 2010 07:47:46 +0000
> Subject: [JainList] Quantifying Aparigraha
>
>
>
>
>
> Dear Gary,
> Jay Jinendra
>
> You got me there! If we apply anekanta indiscriminately, it would be
counter-productive and go against fundamental Jain teachings.
>
> I would not have been so dismissive had a person been blamed for pedophilia,
necrophilia or cannibalism!
>
> Jains and Buddhists have always viewed meat-eating differently, even though
both traditions cherish the ideal of non-violence.
>
> A short story to illustrate the difference in attitudes between Jains and
Buddhists.
>
> There was once a soldier who stood guard in a fort. Upon seeing a cart heavily
laden with gunnysacks about to enter the fort, he halted it and asked the driver
of the cart what his cargo was. The driver said that he was carrying a cartload
of potatoes. In order to confirm this for himself, the soldier randomly thrust
his bayonet inside one of the gunnysacks. At once, a child's voice cried out.
Upon opening the bag, it was discovered that the cart driver had been trying to
smuggle in a child and that the child had been unlucky to be in the gunnysack
that the soldier had randomly struck. The died from the wound inflicted by the
thrust bayonet.
>
> Now, the question is - what sort of karmic consequences would the soldier have
to bear for his action?
>
> The Buddhist answer would be - Since the soldier was only doing his duty and
checking the contents of the cart and did not intend to kill the child,
therefore the soldier would not suffer from the karmic consequences of killing
the child.
>
> The Jain answer would be - Despite the fact that the soldier did not intend to
kill the child, he was guilty of pramada in carelessly thrusting his bayonet
inside a gunnysack and hence caused the murder of the child, the soldier would
suffer the karmic consequences of manslaughter due to negligence, not of
culpable homicide.
>
> In keeping with the Buddhist answer, the DL and his followers eat meat that
has not been specifically killed for them. The Buddha himself ate meat if it was
offered to him, and is believed to have died of the rotten pork that was fed to
him.
>
> Jains do not accept any excuses or justifications for the murder of a fellow
being. Hence, no Jain would eat meat. There is no question of a Jina accepting
meat, etc. Even under extreme duress, a Jina would not eat anything that was not
permissible for a monk to eat.
>
> So perhaps the DL is within the edicts of his religion when he eats meat. I do
not in any way accept that meat-eating is right. I am a lacto-vegetarian and do
not partake of non-veg, alcohol and cigarettes, etc. But I do not think we
should comment on what non-Jains eat. It is not right.
>
> Besides, I am a fan of the DL, especially the way he stands up to imperialist
China. I would like to see the Government of India take a firm stand against
China's territorial transgressions on the vast border that we share with China.
>
> M
>
>
>
>
>
> _________________________________________________________________
> Windows 7: Simplify what you do everyday. Find the right PC for you.
> http://windows.microsoft.com/shop
>

Hi M

Jai Jinendra

What part do you not agree with? I was disagreeing with the statement
as to why Buddhists like HH Dalai Lama eat meat. The excuse
"not having seen, not having heard and not having suspected"
is just a distortion of a story about Captain Sengge.

If one was truly following the Bodhisattva vows and the basic refuge
vows in Buddhism, one would be vegan.
It's really as simple as that.

Here is the rest of the teaching by Geshe Soepa on statements by the
Buddha on avoiding meat and other animal products if anyone
is interested. [ http://www.lamayeshe.com/index.php?sect=article&id=434 ]

Micchami Dukkadam

Trisha

offcourse it can be palyed b4 jain devis and devtas.

Hi Manavendra

Jai Jinendra

In response to your comments.

HH Dalai Lama does wonderful things for peace on the planet, but to be honest,
advocating others eat vegetarian food, but he not following his own advice, is
not helpful. We have to be the change we want to see. If one believes in Ahimsa,
then one must be vegan.

About your comments in relation to HH Dalai Lama's health. It is totally
unnecessary for anyone to eat flesh and other animal products for their health,
in fact it is detrimental. The Dalai Lama's office has received advice on about
the benefits of a vegan diet and they were forwarded solid medical advice which
contradicted the advice given him by his physician. but his office did not
reply.

The Dalai Lama's entourage representative during a tour a few years ago in the
US was offered
vegetarian food at a restaurant in Wisconsin and HH Dalai Lama declined. The
restaurant owner was quite
surprised. HHDL said at one point, that he was a monk, not a vegetarian. HH
Dalai Lama and his entourage chose to eat veal and pheasant despite being
offered vegetarian food. [
http://www.lidovealandlamb.com/DalaiLamaEnjoysVeal.html ]

Many monks in the Tibetan Buddhist tradition eat meat. Things are changing, but
it is surprising that
flesh was ever considered appropriate.

You say that maybe there is something we do not see in the fact that HH Dalai
Lama eats the flesh of murdered sentient
beings? Would we say the same of someone if that someone were eating the flesh
of murdered children? There is no difference in the importance of the life of a
nonhuman or human sentient being.  Even the Buddha said that we must question
everything.

In places like Tibet there is access to plant based food now. I do not know
about Inuits in icy regions and their access to other foods but I do not
consider murdered sentient beings "food". I have to ask though how does what
Inuits eat relate to us?

Trisha

Jai Jinendra,



Thanks Manavendra...these are just meant to serve as examples for the point I am
trying to make. That's why I used the word "probably."



Regards,



Anish



PS: I just checked Manmohan Singh is a Vegetarian who occasionally consumes
fish. Obamas dinner hosted for our PM was veg with prawns.