Why did Buddhism and Hinduism switch places in India/East Asia

[ronki23]

Oh, sure, many do. Even brahmins. Kashmiri brahmins are non-vegetarian and so are Maithil brahmins (that is what I have been told). Kashmiris offer flesh during their Navratri puja.

Why do they offer meat if scriptures advise against eating meat in the first place? And I see Sikhs serve Jhatka meat during Hola yet at Gurudwaras serving meat is a no-no?

 

[Sb1995]

Once I saw a Zakir Naik I stopped reading, no thanks sir.

 

[Sb1995]

Why do they offer meat if scriptures advise against eating meat in the first place? And I see Sikhs serve Jhatka meat during Hola yet at Gurudwaras serving meat is a no-no?

Gurdwaras are vegetarian so everyone of every religion can eat the meals. Millions of Hindus who are vegetarian eat at the Gurdwara daily which is why it's vegetarian.

 

[ronki23]

Gurdwaras are vegetarian so everyone of every religion can eat the meals. Millions of Hindus who are vegetarian eat at the Gurdwara daily which is why it's vegetarian.

But why do Sikhs serve Jhatka meat on Hola? Special occasion?

And if Vedas said Vegetarianism is important, why did/ do Hindus OFFER meat as a sacrifice.

I agree on Zakir Naik being an extremely bias source BUT he is true in that some Hindus offer meat

and keeping with the thread title, is Ahimsa a Buddhist or Hindu school of thought? Because as I stated, the Buddhist countries like Vietnam,Cambodia, Malaysia, Laos,Thailand,Phillipines and Indonesia eat all animals, even more so than the Chinese! So how can it be Buddhist?

and why no 'pure' Buddhism in India. It's absorbed by Hinduism. But no Hinduism in South East Asia even though Thailand and Cambodia were Hindu. So this proves Hinduism absorbed Buddhism and Buddha wasn't a Hindu deity. Does this mean that with time, Christ will also become an avatar of Vishnu? Or Guru Gobind Singh a descendant of Rama?

 

[Poeticus]

Once I saw a Zakir Naik I stopped reading, no thanks sir.

B-b-b-but what about meat eating and Hindus, huh ? What about Khalistan ? What about India ? What about ____insert the most random things that have nothing to do with the OP____ ? And what about Khalistan ? And why did Indira do that ? And why again Khalistan ? Why ? Why ? What about Indian army ? What about Hindu gods in Sikh books ? Why ? WHY ?!?!?

- ronki​

 

[Chakra]

But why do Sikhs serve Jhatka meat on Hola? Special occasion?

And if Vedas said Vegetarianism is important, why did/ do Hindus OFFER meat as a sacrifice.

I agree on Zakir Naik being an extremely bias source BUT he is true in that some Hindus offer meat

and keeping with the thread title, is Ahimsa a Buddhist or Hindu school of thought? Because as I stated, the Buddhist countries like Vietnam,Cambodia, Malaysia, Laos,Thailand,Phillipines and Indonesia eat all animals, even more so than the Chinese! So how can it be Buddhist?

and why no 'pure' Buddhism in India. It's absorbed by Hinduism. But no Hinduism in South East Asia even though Thailand and Cambodia were Hindu

Brother, ahimsa is a Hindu concept. I am not going to say that Buddhism took this idea because ahimsa is an universal concept.

If a King is too attached to eating meat, the Vedas allow for regulatory sacrifices where specific animals are allowed to be killed once in a while to fulfill the King's desire. These are not meant to encourage meat eating, but only to regulate it.

Don't forget that this is the Kali-Yuga. People are fond of doing many stupid things these days.

 

[ronki23]

B-b-b-but what about meat eating and Hindus, huh ? What about Khalistan ? What about India ? What about ____insert the most random things that have nothing to do with the OP____ ? And what about Khalistan ? And why did Indira do that ? And why again Khalistan ? Why ? Why ? What about Indian army ? What about Hindu gods in Sikh books ? Why ? WHY ?!?!?

- ronki​

what can I say, i'm interested in these things. I'm also interested in Islam and the Middle East (if you look at my post history).

A certain 'appeal of the exotic'

 

[Aupmanyav]

Why do they offer meat if scriptures advise against eating meat in the first place?

Scriptures are not law. They are advice. The other thing is tradition. (Note: In my father in laws house it was necessary to tear the flesh to pieces by hand - heart and lung. Use of knife was not permitted)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Millions of Hindus who are vegetarian eat at the Gurdwara daily which is why it's vegetarian.

All Hindus do not go to Gurudwara for meals, they prepare it at home also. Though Hindus would love to take part in Gurudwara langars. It is vegetarian because though Sri Guru Nanak did not prohibit meat eating but certainly did not like killing.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Buddhist countries like Vietnam, Cambodia, Malaysia, Laos, Thailand, Phillipines and Indonesia eat all animals, even more so than the Chinese! So how can it be Buddhist?

and why no 'pure' Buddhism in India. It's absorbed by Hinduism. But no Hinduism in South East Asia even though Thailand and Cambodia were Hindu. So this proves Hinduism absorbed Buddhism and Buddha wasn't a Hindu deity. Does this mean that with time, Christ will also become an avatar of Vishnu? Or Guru Gobind Singh a descendant of Rama?

Buddha too did not prohibit meat eating, though he said do not kill for your own food. Buddha showed a very good way to live life and left it for the people to follow it. Indian religions do not have 'commandments' or 'sharia', they have suggestions. What reason would Hindus have to complain if these countries follow the last avatara of Lord Vishnu? Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji himself said that he was from Lord Rama's line, so what is the problem here? Till Christians and Muslims abandon 'exclusivity', they would remain separate from Hinduism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

A certain 'appeal of the exotic'

I would say it is more about authoritarianism.

 

[Aupmanyav]

he ate meat, that's what I meant

Of course, that is what was given to him that day.

 

[Madhuri]

I think the idea in Buddhism, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, is that one should not kill an animal or be responsible for the death of animals, but if one is offered meat by another it is acceptable to eat it. Hence why monks eat meat that is charitably given to them.

 

[ronki23]

Buddha too did not prohibit meat eating, though he said do not kill for your own food. Buddha showed a very good way to live life and left it for the people to follow it. Indian religions do not have 'commandments' or 'sharia', they have suggestions. What reason would Hindus have to complain if these countries follow the last avatara of Lord Vishnu? Sri Guru Gobind Singh ji himself said that he was from Lord Rama's line, so what is the problem here? Till Christians and Muslims abandon 'exclusivity', they would remain separate from Hinduism.

Ram Lakhan - Lohana are Gujarati. How can a Punjabi be a descendant of a Gujarati lord?

What about Guru Ram Das- is he also a descendant of Rama because of his name? And Hare Krishan and Arjun Dev descendants of Krishna and Arjun?

I don't think Guru Gobind Singh is a descendant, unless he is the only Guru descendant from God. Because if he was then without a doubt Sikhism is a branch of Hinduism!

 

[Poeticus]

Ram Lakhan - Lohana are Gujarati. How can a Punjabi be a descendant of a Gujarati lord?

What about Guru Ram Das- is he also a descendant of Rama because of his name? And Hare Krishan and Arjun Dev descendants of Krishna and Arjun?

I don't think Guru Gobind Singh is a descendant, unless he is the only Guru descendant from God. Because if he was then without a doubt Sikhism is a branch of Hinduism!

Ronki, it really isn't that difficult to do some research. There are numerous books and academic, scholarly articles on various castes of India and how many of them trace their lineage to mythological figures. In other words, there are a throng of ethno-linguistic groups and their related sub-ethnicities that pride themselves through the boasting of self-identification with a Hindu figure of importance. In other words, Lohanas are not the only ones that claim descent from Lord Rama. There are many others. And most of them are non-Gujarati. And Sikhism is not a branch of Hinduism. And the usage of Hinduaic names by non-Hindu groups (such as Sikhs and Jains) is a socio-cultural phenomenon.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Ram Lakhan - Lohana are Gujarati. How can a Punjabi be a descendant of a Gujarati lord?

What about Guru Ram Das- is he also a descendant of Rama because of his name? And Hare Krishan and Arjun Dev descendants of Krishna and Arjun?

I don't think Guru Gobind Singh is a descendant, unless he is the only Guru descendant from God. Because if he was then without a doubt Sikhism is a branch of Hinduism!

There are Trivedis, Ojhas in Punjab. How come my family landed up in Rajasthan from Kashmir? How did your family go to Africa? How come Babur came to India? People travel far for various reasons. Do you mean to say that all people who have Ram in their name descend from Lord Rama? Perhaps Sikhs do not consider Hindu Rama as a God but as an illustrious and just King. You ask very childish questions.

Even Buddha is said by some people to belong to Lord Rama's family. Same with Sri Guru Gobind Singh. Perhaps it is true. How do I know?

 

[ronki23]

There are Trivedis, Ojhas in Punjab. How come my family landed up in Rajasthan from Kashmir? How did your family go to Africa? How come Babur came to India? People travel far for various reasons. Do you mean to say that all people who have Ram in their name descend from Lord Rama? Perhaps Sikhs do not consider Hindu Rama as a God but as an illustrious and just King. You ask very childish questions.

Even Buddha is said by some people to belong to Lord Rama's family. Same with Sri Guru Gobind Singh. Perhaps it is true. How do I know?

Just saying that Lakhan is a Gujarati name, so Ram was Gujarati

And if Guru Gobind Singh (not Guru Ram Das as that claim wasn't made but RSS do believe Guru Gobind Singh were) was a descendant of Rama, Sikhs online wouldn't criticise Rama and Sikhs would celebrate Ram Navi and Dussera. Plus Sikhism would be a branch of Hinduism if this were true.

''
Eventually, Hinduism in Punjab will be a mish/mash of Sikhism and Hinduism and the Sikhs will lose their distinct identity. Given a few generations, Guru Nanak will be an Avtar of Vishnu just like the Buddha has become and the Sikhs will be eliminated."

By the way I've added to the Sikhi thread

And what happened to Hinduism in South East Asia- it was ' replaced'by Buddhism but there is no pure Buddhism in India. Hence the thread title

 

[ratikala]

namaskaram Madhuri ji

I think the idea in Buddhism, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, is that one should not kill an animal or be responsible for the death of animals, but if one is offered meat by another it is acceptable to eat it. Hence why monks eat meat that is charitably given to them.

yes , for the majority of monks this is most definately so , although in many cultures the laity are encoraged to follow ahaimsa , where Buddhism has entered non vegetarian cultures , due to many monks living on alms , they must accept the diet of the prevailing culture .


on the subject of Buddha eating pork ? .... many beleive the correct translation to be truffles , which localy at that time were refered to as ' pigs delight ' ....
http://uk.pinterest.com/pin/create/extension/

 

[Aupmanyav]

Just saying that Lakhan is a Gujarati name, so Ram was Gujarati.

Lakhan is also a purbi bhaiyya from Uttar Pradesh or Bihar, so Lord Rama was a UPian or Bihari. Even in South India, you have Ramanans and Kodandaramans and so many others. Perhaps Lord Rama was from South India. Not to forget Ram Singhs of Rajasthan or Rajaram Chhatrapati (the third Maratha Emperor), Ramraja (the fith emperor), Raghunath Rao (the general who defeated the Afghans and extended Maratha Empire till Attock near Peshawar) or social activist Raghunath Karve in Maharashtra. Where there are Hindus, Ram will certainly be there.

 

[LuisDantas]

I think the idea in Buddhism, and someone correct me if I'm wrong, is that one should not kill an animal or be responsible for the death of animals, but if one is offered meat by another it is acceptable to eat it. Hence why monks eat meat that is charitably given to them.

I believe that to be correct, although the degree of rigor is somewhat arguable. There are stories of monks that end up eating decorative flowers, perhaps out of a misunderstanding.