Is Vegetarianism amongst Hindus an influence of Buddhism or Jainism

[Sivasenani Nori]

I am starting a new thread so as not to divert the focus of the other thread.

Salutations to the learned scholars!

I heard the assertion that Vegetarianism amongst Hindus is an influence of Buddhism or Jainism. As one example of the existence of this kind of thinking, Prof. Nagaraj Paturi recently wrote "Vegetarianisation of Hinduism or sections of it , even if it is the influence of Buddhism or Jainism or any other thing, is similar to developments such as changing from primitive food, clothing and shelter styles into later styles".

In a similar vein it is asserted that ahimsaa in Hinduism is an effect of Buddhism and Jainism.

What I want to know is this: Is there any textual evidence to say that practice of ahimsaa and vegetarianism amongst Hindus is an effect of these two religions? It is understandable that such references would not be found in Hindu texts, but surely somewhere Buddhism and Jainism would boast that they reformed Hinduism, or something to that effect?

About ahimsaa, based on what I read, from the days of Nirukta, stance of Sanatana Dharma is that killing in a sacrifice is not himsaa because Veda says so. Mimaamsaa has a similar stance - that only injury caused outside Vedic sacrifices is himsaa. Sankaracarya takes a similar stance.

Regards

N. Siva Senani

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Dr Sivasenani Nori garu,

> What I want to know is this: Is there any textual evidence to say that practice of ahimsaa and vegetarianism amongst Hindus is an effect of these two religions?

---- Let us divide this into two parts:

1. Is there any textual evidence to say that practice of ahimsaa  amongst Hindus is an effect of these two religions?

2. Is there any textual evidence to say that vegetarianism amongst Hindus is an effect of these two religions?

Answer to #1: Emphatic NO! Mention of ahimsā and mention of the principle "ahimsā paramō dharmah" description of the practice of ahimsā by r̥śis is very much pre-Buddhism and pre-Jainism. 

Answer to #2: You quoted my words, " Vegetarianisation of Hinduism or sections of it , even if it is the influence of Buddhism or Jainism or any other thing" (emphasis new )

'even if it is" in my words obviously shows that ' Vegetarianisation of Hinduism or sections of it  is the influence of Buddhism or Jainism or any other thing ' is not my opinion or stand. 

That part of my statement is part of a method of argument. 

In this method we grant validity to the pūrvapakṣa just temporarily,  just for the sake of argument and then counter that argument. 

My counter- argument was-

 just as the pūrvapakṣa can not walk/run nude or eat raw food /flesh, on the basis of primitive man being believed , by the pūrvapakṣa itself to have walked / to have run nude etc., the pūrvapakṣa can not justify today's non-vegetarianism on the basis of a pre-Buddhist or pre-Jainist non-vegetarianism being presented by them as pūrvapakṣa. 

I don't know any Buddhist or Jain text claiming to have reformed Hinduism. 

It is the modern westernized Indian  and some of the western researchers of Indian culture who emphasise the differences and discontinuities between Vedic and Buddhist / Jain thoughts sidelining /ignoring the continuities between them , that make such claims. 

As long as we overlook this divide and rule strategy of these groups and continue to look at each other with hostility, we render their strategies successful though unwittingly. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

Nagaraj Paturi

 

Hyderabad, Telangana, INDIA.

BoS, MIT School of Vedic Sciences, Pune, Maharashtra

BoS, Chinmaya Vishwavidyapeeth, Veliyanad, Kerala

Former Senior Professor of Cultural Studies

 

FLAME School of Communication and FLAME School of  Liberal Education,

 

(Pune, Maharashtra, INDIA )

 

 

 

[Hari Parshad Das]

my pranams.

There were always both types of sects among the adherents of the Vedas.

Especially the vaishnava sects were always vegetarian. In the book named 'Bhagavata Sampradaya', this is explained. For some reason I am unable to send attachment in the group. I am copy pasting the relevant pages here as images:

sādhu-caraṇa-rajo 'bhilāṣī,

hari parshad das.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[Bijoy Misra]

I just went through the massive Charaka samhita compiled by Segments I through VI.

While he creates a strong foundation for the wellness with rational explanation,

he has no hesitation in "prescribing" meats of bird, animals and fishes for use as 

diet and medicine.  The text is dated 2nd century BC.  This would suggest

that meat-eating was popular or various kinds of meat were widely available.

He has a great study on the biochemistry of various animal tissues and fat cells. 

When he recommends uncommon animals, he would like to hide the information

from the patient!  While he most likely compiles the information, his apparent

thorough grasp of of the tissues in the human body and their conditions could amaze 

any physician.

[Sivasenani Nori]

Sir

I understood your intention clearly, when I first read your post in the other thread. The following clarification from me is in order. Typically when we say that people say X or Y, it is customary to cite examples. Since you are much respected on this forum, I thought that your sentence is a good enough example. That is why I introduced your sentence with the remark "as one example of the existence of such kind of thinking" (emphasis added). This existence is not in you or your mind, but in loka, for only when people have such views will a scholar even make a poorvapaksha of it. For instance, we do not go to the trouble of stating as poorvapaksha, a view such as "Jesus Christ is the avataara of Prajaapati" (by the way, I did read some such view, voiced by an early nineteenth century first-generation Christian of Calcutta, who was originally from an orthodox family), since it is not widely prevalent.

So, while I do suspect that people like Romila Thapar and their speculations are responsible for such views, since I have not read works of, or about, Buddhism or Jainism, without the lens of Sanaatanadharma, I am asking for pointers, so that a considered view can be developed.

Having said the above, I realize that there is scope for some readers to think that the existence, referred to above, is in your views. I hereby clarify that such is not my intention. I will take care in future to draft sentences more precisely (may be with avacchedakas :-) ) to remove the scope for such misunderstanding.

Regards

N. Siva Senani

[Sivasenani Nori]

Sri Hari Parshad Das

Many thanks for the reference. While I was aware of the Mimamsa view, the Samkhya view was not known to me earlier. Since references were also given, the extract given by you is doubly beneficial.

Regards

N. Siva Senani

[Nagaraj Paturi]

"However, despite the divergent perceptions of ritual butchery noticeable in the Vedic and post-Vedic texts, the general Upanisadic idea of ritual killing of animals as futile gained in strength and may have culminated in the doctrine of ahimsa, which is the defining trait of Buddhism and Jainism."

Page 42 The myth of the Holy Cow by D N Jha

"The Sutta Nipata records the story that several old and decrepit but rich brahmanas once visited the Buddha at Jetavana to ask him whether their practices were in conformity with those of earlier times. The Buddha however answered in the negative and taught them that cattle should not be killed for sacrifice;9 for, like our parents and other kin, cattle are our great friends and give us food, strength, beauty, and happiness. Thereupon the brahmanas are stated to have given up the killing of cows." 

ibid pp 62

[Nagaraj Paturi]

For non-scholarly popular writings:

"The Hindus were originally meat eaters but due to the influence of Buddhism became vegetarian."

http://www.historydiscussion.net/buddhism/influence-of-buddhism-on-indian-culture/3020

"Towards the end of the first millennium CE, some changes took place in India. Buddhism waned and Hinduism, with a system of caste based on birth, reasserted itself. The revival was led by Adi Sankaracharya. Somewhere around this time, some castes chose to distinguish themselves from the Hindu masses by resorting to vegetarianism.

Brahmins, who had overcome the challenge of Buddhism, increasingly became vegetarian, along with the Banias (who were strongly influenced by the Jains). Why this happened is not yet very clear.

Simultaneously, there was born the ridiculous myth of vegetarian diet being 'superior' to the non-vegetarian diet, if only to help the Brahmin assert his own superiority over the other castes."

https://m.rediff.com/news/column/when-hindus-ate-beef-india-was-never-conquered/20150324.htm

[Nagaraj Paturi]

"The upper castes, who found members of their community deserting the "Hindu" fold for Buddhism or Jainism, increasingly came to adopt vegetarianism."

https://www.sscnet.ucla.edu/southasia/Culture/Cuisine/vegetar.html

"But the acceptance in the Dharmashastras of an attitude prohibiting animal sacrifice and meat eating was inevitable for the Vedic religion if it was to stem the tide of the propertied merchant and agricultural classes towards Buddhism and Jainism."

http://www.hindunet.org/hindu_history/sudheer_history/ahimsaindia1.html

[Lata Shenava]

just going through the http://ancientindianwisdom.com/ and like the vegetarianism & beef-eating Rishis  & dalit & women oppression narrative for Bharat, 

find that even our websites are falling for the East India Company fake Indologist conspiracies.

 it talks of the 

Ancient Indian Civilization, amongst other world civilizations is the oldest and is distinguished by its profound thought and wisdom.  This civilization is identified as the Vedic Civilization, Sindhu-Sarasvati civilization and Aryan civilization.  

the Dravidian Aryan Divide is the Biggest hoax pulled in by the EICo self-styled historians (who were just employees and evangelists) like Max Mueller & Bishop Caldwell who didnt know any sanskrit but used gullible sankrit pandits to translate for them, so that they could distort our shastras. 

and it is happening even today. sad we dont knowour own Itihasa

lata shenava, Ph.D.

Fulbright Scholar,

Research Scientist, IIT-B, EI-Certified Therapist, Consultant, Trainer & Life Coach.

"Our deepest fear is not that we are inadequate. Our deepest fear is that we are powerful beyond measure. It is our light, not our darkness, that frightens us most. We ask ourselves, 'Who am I to be brilliant, gorgeous, talented, and famous?' Actually, who are you not to be? You are a child of God. Your playing small does not serve the world. There is nothing enlightened about shrinking so that people won't feel insecure around you. We were born to make manifest the glory of God that is within us. It's not just in some of us; it's in all of us. And when we let our own light shine, we unconsciously give other people permission to do the same. As we are liberated from our own fear, our presence automatically liberates others."......Marianne Williamson

[Sivasenani Nori]

Thank you, Sir, for precisely the kind of reference that I was looking for.

Regards

N. Siva Senani

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The most quoted website for 'ahimsaa paramo dharmah';

http://www.hindupedia.com/en/Ahimsa_Paramo_Dharma 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

The pages to which I provided the link are just a few of scores if not hundreds of pages with that approach to the issue. Young people read these pages most often. 

Leftist and other anti-'Hindu' historians provide stuff to these popular writings.

D N Jha's book is an example. 

[Bijoy Misra]

Friends,

Many of you might disagree with the following observation of mine.

It contradicts the present theory of human behavior.  But I have pondered

on it for a long time through personal observation and observing others.

I was with a few Buddhist monks last night and we discussed.

Let me share.  The view can be stated as follows:

1.  Truth and non-violence are traits of human biological signature.

 

2.  From these two, non-violence is possibly the original attribute.  Man 

     can think, plan and defend.  Man need not directly confront.

     All men like to be self-contained.  

3.  Violence in mind can arise due to the scare of survival.  Men are not

     violent when they invite adventure like climbing a mountain or swiming

     ocean.  They get violent when their food is denied or they are attacked.

4.  Violence in mind is inflicted and not generated.  It develops through

     learning.  Learning is cultural in nature and is not biological.

5.  So we try to unlearn through various new learning or we try to discover

     our "self".

Please feel free to ignore or comment.

Best regards,

BM

(last day of summer in Boston!)

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Mahabharata is older than Buddhism and Jainism is undisputed and well established. 

Mention of Ahimsaa in it is obviously older than Buddhism. 

What is to be noted is that the book begins with the narratives against killing snakes etc. 

पौष्यपर्व in which this snake-narrative occurs in fact begins with the story of a dog cursing Janamejaya for hurting its baby. 

जनमेजयः पारिक्षितः सह भ्रातृभिः कुरुक्षेत्रे दीर्घसत्रमुपास्ते | तस्य भ्रातरस्त्रयः श्रुतसेन उग्रसेनो भीमसेन इति | ००१ | तेषु तत्सत्रमुपासीनेषु तत्र श्वाभ्यागच्छत्सारमेयः | स जनमेजयस्य भ्रातृभिरभिहतो रोरूयमाणो मातुः समीपमुपागच्छत् | ००२ | तं माता रोरूयमाणमुवाच | किं रोदिषि | केनास्यभिहत इति | ००३ | स एवमुक्तो मातरं प्रत्युवाच | जनमेजयस्य भ्रातृभिरभिहतोऽस्मीति | ००४ | तं माता प्रत्युवाच | व्यक्तं त्वया तत्रापराद्धं येनास्यभिहत इति | ००५ | स तां पुनरुवाच | नापराध्यामि किञ्चित् | नावेक्षे हवींषि नावलिह इति | ००६ | तच्छ्रुत्वा तस्य माता सरमा पुत्रशोकार्ता तत्सत्रमुपागच्छद्यत्र स जनमेजयः सह भ्रातृभिर्दीर्घसत्रमुपास्ते | ००७ | स तया क्रुद्धया तत्रोक्तः | अयं मे पुत्रो न किञ्चिदपराध्यति | किमर्थमभिहत इति | यस्माच्चायमभिहतोऽनपकारी तस्माददृष्टं त्वां भयमागमिष्यतीति | ००८ | स जनमेजय एवमुक्तो देवशुन्या सरमया दृढं सम्भ्रान्तो विषण्णश्चासीत् | ००९ | स तस्मिन्सत्रे समाप्ते हास्तिनपुरं प्रत्येत्य पुरोहितमनुरूपमन्विच्छमानः परं यत्नमकरोद्यो मे पापकृत्यां शमयेदिति | ०१० |

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Sir,

Can you please help us understand how this is connected to the present thread?

This approach to human nature is already found in modern Hindu thinkers such as Swami Vivekananda. He posits this 'human is inherently good, divine' approach of him against 'human is by birth a sinner' approach.

If you take purushaarthas as innate human urges, the imnate urge for dharma is already there in it. 

There is a thread alresdy discussing morals being intuitive or not, this may belong there.

[Bijoy Misra]

Dear Nagarajji,

I assume you are referring to my post.

I am sorry if you thought that the post did not follow the track.

I am of the view that vegetarianism in the trait of non-violence is a biological signature

than a religious injunction.  I expressed such view. 

The date and inception of Jainism are debatable

Please feel free to remove my post in case it is found irrelevant.. 

Best regards,

BM

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri Bijoy-ji,

>I assume you are referring to my post.

Yes, that was in reference to your post only. 

>Please feel free to remove my post in case it is found irrelevant.

Googlegroups technology does not have a provision for any other person than the posting member to remove the post. Even a moderator or any other management member can not remove the post. 

I did not intend to say that your post has objectionable stuff and does not deserve to get posted to the forum. I even suggested that it may suit to be posted in the other thread.

>The date and inception of Jainism are debatable

Let me try to get connected to this statement: It may mean, "You guys are saying that non-violence in Vedic literature such as Mahabharata are older than Jainism. It is not easy/possible to decide in this matter because the the date and inception of Jainism are debatable. You are saying this to counter the theory that non-violence in Vedic literature/culture is an influence of Buddhism and /or Jainism. But if an older date is proved for the inception of Jainism,  the theory that non-violence in Vedic literature/culture is an influence of Buddhism and /or Jainism may then be proved right. "

If this is how it gets connected to the present thread, let me say that dates of many things like Mahabharata, Vedas etc. are all debatable. The present discussion is based on the present understanding. If new dates are decided, the discussion is bound to change.

> I am of the view that vegetarianism in the trait of non-violence is a biological signature than a religious injunction.

Let me again try to connect to the present thread: It may mean, "Let us not debate Vedic non-violence and/ or vegetarianism older Buddhist/Jain non-violence and/ or vegetarianism older, non-violence and vegetarianism are in the origins of all human society. So there is no surprise if it is expressed in ancient Vedic literature. Opinions like those of D N Jha that Buddhists and Jains too ate non-vegetarian are questionable because there can not be non-vegetarian in the beginnings of any tradition of humans  "

There are both sides to this issue in biology. Vegetarian side is for example: 

https://blogs.scientificamerican.com/guest-blog/human-ancestors-were-nearly-all-vegetarians/

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/kathy-freston/shattering-the-meat-myth_b_214390.html 

https://vegaprocity.com/2014/10/human-canine-teeth-designed-eat-meat/

[Kalyan K]

//Mahabharata is older than Buddhism and Jainism is undisputed and well established//

Sri Nagaraj garu, The commonly assigned date for Mahabharata is 400 BCE to 400 CE. These dates are post-Buddhistic/post-Jainic. However, I am not sure how these dates are arrived at. If you have other dates that lead to your conclusions, please feel free to share. Thanks.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri Kalyan K garu,

There is no need to strive hard for these dates: even a cursory glance at sources like

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mahabharata

have

"the origins of the epic probably fall between the 8th and 9th centuries BCE" 

"Research on the Mahābhārata has put an enormous effort into recognizing and dating layers within the text. Some elements of the present Mahābhārata can be traced back to Vedic times.^[14] The background to the Mahābhārata suggests the origin of the epic occurs "after the very early Vedic period" and before "the first Indian 'empire' was to rise in the third century B.C." That this is "a date not too far removed from the 8th or 9th century B.C."^[2][15]"

Prof. Viswa Adluri successully counters the accretion and redaction theory about the composition of Mahabharata with the help

 of the Critical Edition research. 

https://www.academia.edu/28309493/Ways_and_Reasons_for_Thinking_about_the_Mah%C4%81bh%C4%81rata_as_a_Whole

https://www.academia.edu/25430948/Argument_and_Design_The_Unity_of_the_Mah%C4%81bh%C4%81rata

https://www.academia.edu/25588257/Argument_and_Design

Independent of this, no research could establish any reference to Buddha / Tathaagata in Mahabharata as is done in the case of Ramayana. 

On Sat, Sep 2, 2017 at 9:52 AM, Kalyan K <pk.k...@gmail.com> wrote:

//Mahabharata is older than Buddhism and Jainism is undisputed and well established//

Sri Nagaraj garu, The commonly assigned date for Mahabharata is 400 BCE to 400 CE. These dates are post-Buddhistic/post-Jainic. However, I am not sure how these dates are arrived at. If you have other dates that lead to your conclusions, please feel free to share. Thanks.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Bijoy Misra]

Nagaraji,

With due respect to all, I have to submit that I am extremely leery about the current 

dates assigned to various epochs of evolution of Indian concepts and events.

While I say this, I don't have a firm alternative.  All I can think that it has to be left for

the future researchers to reconstruct from further archaeology and mathematical 

modeling.  It may take several decades/centuries of fresh analytic work.

Best regards,

Bijoy Misra.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

True

[Hemant Dave]

I wonder if there any difference between the 'nucleus' of the text and the text as we have it (either Vulgate or CE). If the 'origins' of the text (or events?) are dated to the eighth century BCE, does such dating eo ipso prove that the text as we have it is equally old?

 

If Adluri is arguing against the "accretion and redaction theory" it is because his teacher Alf Hiltebeitel believes the Mbh to be a 'unitory' work written by a coterie of authors over a couple of centuries. To quote him: 'I suggest, then, that the Mahabharata was composed between the mid-second century B.C. and the year zero.' For Ramayana he says, ‘I think the Ramayana must have been written at about the same time as the Mahabharata, or if anything a little later’ (Rethinking the Mahabharata: A Reader’s Guide to the Education of the Dharma King. Chicago and London: The University of Chicago Press.2001, pp. 18–19. By the by, there is no “year zero”.)

 

We have on one side the ‘analysts’ and ‘unitarians’ on the other (to borrow these terms from “Homer”ic scholarship). Both the groups have their different data, different arguments and different epistemologies. When we naively club them together, we commit epistemic violence. Goldman, for instance, dates the kernel of the Ramayana before the Buddha (in his Introduction to the English translation of the Balakanda), but then he is an analyst (believe in accretions, interpolations, etc.); Hiltebeitel, on the other, takes these epics to be without any growth over the centuries but dates them post-Maurya. 

My question is: is it wise to eclectically (or arbitrarily?) place these epics (or maybe the Mbh alone!) in pre-Buddhist period and also deny any increments in them?

[Nagaraj Paturi]

>My question is: is it wise to eclectically (or arbitrarily?) place these epics (or maybe the Mbh alone!) in pre-Buddhist period and also deny any increments in them?

Did the Critical Edition team recognise additions to the 'original' text?

Yes, it did. 

Does Prof. Adluri agree with the team?

Yes, they do.

Thus does Adluri agree that there were increments to the text?

Yes, he does.

Then what is his point?

Critical Edition is a unitary text is his point.

What is he arguing against?

He is arguing against the view that the text is a compilation of mutually incoherent ideas.

In what way is it relevant here?

Ahimsaa paramo dharmah is integral to the text. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Hemant Dave]

​And does he accept that this text was there in 8th century BCE, pre-Buddhist in other words?​

 

"Weeds are flowers too, once you get to know them..."

[Nagaraj Paturi]

His focus is not that. 

That part of the focus is mine. 

Critical Edition is construed to be the 'original' form of the text. 'Original' form of the text is given the date earlier to Buddhism. 

If Critical Edition is given a post-Buddhist date, then what is the significance of the date 8th century being mentioned in connection with Mahabharata should be answered. If that is considered to be the date of an older form or the date of the oldest form of the text, which needs to be earlier than that of the Critical Edition, then the efforts of the team preparing the Critical Edition should be considered to be a failure because the very purpose of their efforts is to trace the oldest / original form of the text. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

1. Non-violence in Vedic tradition being pre-Buddhist /pre-Jainism or in other words independent of Buddhism / Jainism should not be surprising because expressions of non-violence or expressions such as "Ye, don't commit violence against...." are part of mantras of Rigveda and Yajurveda themselves. There are several mantras ending in मा हिंसीः।  

2. But the characteristic of Vedic tradition which baffles a non-discerning, non-subtle, crude, superficial observer is the thriving of its ideal of non-violence  always alongside its allowance to harm, kill, punish etc. There are Vedic mantras instructing to harm/kill harmful entities. Some mantras express a wish for courage, strength to succeed in such harming/ killing / punishing. 

That one way of looking at 'non-violence' is to save entities vulnerable to violence from such violence by resorting to violence against those committing violence against such vulnerable creatures is a subtle understanding of non-violence inherent in the Vedic world-view. क्षत्त्र or क्षत्त्रिय is an agent of such non-violence (no violence against the weak / vulnerable).

3. It is this subtle understanding of violence and /or non-violence rooted in the Vedic tradition right from the Veda mantras that is inherent in Mahabharata that fails a superficial reader of it in understanding the congruence of अहिंसा परमो धर्मः with the remaining parts of the book that make the book appear to be a book of war. 

4. Let us take the portions of the book that can not but be integral to the book and see if they have vegetarianism and non-violence. 

One such portion is  संभवपर्व , शकुंतलोपाख्यानम् । It can not but be integral to the book because it provides the source of the name of the book itself. It is the story of the birth of the वंशकर्ता of the वंश after which the book is named. The book or at least its early chapter is a वंशचरित्र and is structured as such. Within that वंशचरित्र , this portion is the most vital one because it is the story of the birth of the वंशकर्ता of the वंश after which the book is named. 

Now, in that story, one of the most significant characters is कण्व महर्षि। 

कण्व is described in that narrative as a vegetarian, non-violent sage. 

His non-violence is indicated through the description:

तत्र व्यालमृगान्सौम्यान्पश्यन्प्रीतिमवाप सः ||१८||

He (Dushyanta) was pleased to see even wild animals being mild (gentle) there (in Kanva's ashram)

Entire ashram is described in detail. Not even a single violent activity is described. Shaastras studied there are described.

in detail. None of them is a shaastra related to wars or such violent activities.

When asked about Kanva, Shakuntala says,

गतः पिता मे भगवान्फलान्याहर्तुमाश्रमात् | मुहूर्तं सम्प्रतीक्षस्व द्रक्ष्यस्येनमिहागतम् ||९||

Bharata growing on that campus, is described as

सिंहसंहननो युवा |

षड्वर्ष एव बालः स कण्वाश्रमपदं प्रति | व्याघ्रान्सिंहान्वराहांश्च गजांश्च महिषांस्तथा ||५|| बद्ध्वा वृक्षेषु बलवानाश्रमस्य समन्ततः | आरोहन्दमयंश्चैव क्रीडंश्च परिधावति ||६||

This violence by Bharata is not condemned by the extremely non-violent sages there.

Moreover they praised him for the valour and gave the title Sarvadamana to him.

ततोऽस्य नाम चक्रुस्ते कण्वाश्रमनिवासिनः | अस्त्वयं सर्वदमनः सर्वं हि दमयत्ययम् ||७||

Why did Dushyanta go there? For the violent activity of hunting.

But he showed extreme respect towards the extremely non-violent sages lead by Kanva.

Non-violent sages encouraged violent Bharata and violent Dushyanta showed utmost respect for the non-violent sages.

(to be continued) 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Why non-violent sages encouraged violent Bharata?

Since क्षत्त्र or क्षत्त्रिय as an agent of such non-violence (no violence against the weak / vulnerable), needs valour. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

 

One of the most prominent faces of movements of non-violent movements and environmentalist movements today is the anti-war philosophy.

Is Mahabharata an anti-war book? 

What is the angirasa of Mahabharata according to Anandavardhana? 

śānta.

What is the sthāyībhāva of śānta?

nirvēda or śama. 

What does that mean?

Aanandavardhanaachaarya of 9th century AD read the book as the one with vairāgya as the central emotion, not as a book of war and violence. 

-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is there an internal evidence in the book for the view that the book is an anti-war book?

What is the udyōga (effort) in udyōgaparva? 

The parva has simultaneous efforts of preparation for war and prevention of war. 

Let us take bhagavadyānaparva portion of udyōgaparva. 

There is a huge anti-war portion of  the lecture by Yudhiṣṭhira here. 

युद्धे कृष्ण कलिर्नित्यं प्राणाः सीदन्ति संयुगे |

-------------------------------- ||४१||

--------------------------------

--------------------------------

जयो वैरं प्रसृजति दुःखमास्ते पराजितः |

सुखं प्रशान्तः स्वपिति हित्वा जयपराजयौ ||५९||

जातवैरश्च पुरुषो दुःखं स्वपिति नित्यदा | अनिर्वृतेन मनसा ससर्प इव वेश्मनि ||६०||


and so on.

Does this mean that the entire discussion is anti-war? There is a long debate back and forth for and against war in this episode. Among many arguments offered in justification of war, the one that repeatedly crops up is the justifiability of punishment to the offenders of Draupadi. 

Then what is the whole context of the anti-war talk ?

The line of argument in all the lectures including that of Sri Krishna is that to prevent war is the foremost priority as per Dharma. But to allow the villains to grab the portion of kingdom even after the condition of vanavāsa and ajñātavāsa is fulfilled is also not Dharma. After all the Dharmas are balanced, the net result is that war should be executed only as the last resort only after exhausting all the options available for preventing the war are exhausted. 

This priority for prevention of war is what is being highlighted here as part of the discussion on non-violence.

(concluded)

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Error:

After all the Dharmas are balanced, the net result is that war should be executed only as the last resort only after exhausting all the options available for preventing the war .

not 

After all the Dharmas are balanced, the net result is that war should be executed only as the last resort only after exhausting all the options available for preventing the war are exhausted.  

[Hemant Dave]

Despite a lot of discussion on what critical edition is and what it is not in this forum, your following remarks make me think that you have some original views regarding it.

Critical Edition is construed to be the 'original' form of the text. 'Original' form of the text is given the date earlier to Buddhism.

If that is considered to be the date of an older form or the date of the oldest form of the text, which needs to be earlier than that of the Critical Edition, then the efforts of the team preparing the Critical Edition should be considered to be a failure because the very purpose of their efforts is to trace the oldest / original form of the text.

The idea was to trace the oldest possible and not the original text. What Sukthankar wrote was this:

Our objective should consequently not to be to arrive at an archetype (which practically never existed)...

To prevent misconception in the mind of the casual reader, it is best to state at first what the constituted text is not. […] this edition is not anything like the autograph copy of its mythical author, Maharṣi Vyāsa. It is not […] a reconstruction of the Ur-Mahābhārata or of the Ur-Bhārata […]. It is also not an exact replica of the poem recited by Vaiśampāyana before Janmejaya. It is further wholly uncertain how close it approaches the text of the poem said to be recited by the Sūta (or Sauti) before Śaunaka and the other dwellers of the Naimiṣa forest.

It is but a modest attempt to present ‘a version of the epic as old as the extant manuscript material will permit us to reach with some semblance of confidence. It is, in all probability, not the best text of the Great Epic, possible or existing, nor necessarily even a good one. It only claims to be the most ancient one according to the direct line of transmission, purer than others in so far as it is free from obvious errors of copying and spurious additions. 

(1933/1944: 128​-129; original emphasis)

​ 

= ​

​

Sukthankar, Vishnu Sakharam. 1933/1944. Prolegomena to the Ādiparvan. P. K. Gode (ed.) Sukthankar Memorial Edition, Vol. 1, Critical Studies in the Mahābhārata, pp. 10–140. Bombay: Karnataka Publishing House for V. S. Sukthankar Memorial Edition Committee.

​​

​

[Nagaraj Paturi]

'The oldest possible' is the point relevant to the thread too. 

The oldest version of the text is given the date between 8th and 9th centuries BCE. 

This is pre-Buddhist. 

Hence the oldest version version of Mahabharata is pre-Buddhist. 

The version reconstructed by the Critical Edition is pre-Buddhist. 

ahimsaa paramo dharmah is pre-Buddhist. 

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

pre-Buddhist or post-Buddhist are diachronic views. 

I brought in  an ahistorical /synchronic concept, 'independent of Buddhism'.

I argued on the basis of 'maa himsiih' mantras that non-violence (of course placed along side violence towards the harmful ) is part of Veda mantras themselves and hence independent of Buddhism. Mahabharata which is vedaartha upabrimhaNa inherits this view from such Veda mantras and hence its ahimsaa paramo dharmah is independent of Buddhism.   

[Venkatesh Murthy]

Namaste

Humane killing

http://kb.rspca.org.au/what-do-we-mean-by-humane-killing-or-slaughter_115.html

In ancient times killing animals in humane way was not possible because they did not have electric shocks to make animals unconscious before killing. or rifles for rapid death. Therefore they made the Ahimsa rule because killing was inhumane. This was the reason for vegetarianism. If you ask old people they will say they are not afraid of death but  they are afraid of suffering before death. They always wish for very quick and peaceful death without suffering. Himsaa is not only killing but it covers making the animal to suffer torture before death. The torture before death is worse than death.

Regards

 

-Venkatesh

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Dear Sri Vekatesh Murthy-ji ,

If possible, connect your point to the theme of the thread or post it in a relevant thread or create a new thread but bringing relevance to Sanskrit or Indic knowledge traditions. 

Thanks,

Regards,

Nagaraj

[Shashi Joshi]

Nagaraj ji,

I read all your posts, and learned a lot as well. I have had similar thoughts on this topic of ahimsa and sanatan dharma but didn't have the detailed references.

What I have found missing so far in the discussion is : since there are many later additions to Mhb, is it possible the ahimsa texts are later additions, after Buddhism or Jainism started to stress on it? I am not stating, just questioning the possibility. And I don't find it wrong either way. Just want to know.

There are references in Mhb that say that sanctioning of meat eating has been added by bad guys later, it was not like this before etc.

Now, this itself could be a later addition!

I am not sure either way, which is prakshipta later addition and which is original. And also not sure how one determines this.

Any light on this will be well appreciated.

Pardon any mistakes or miscommunication.

Thanks,
Shashi

[Nagaraj Paturi]

> I am not sure either way, which is prakshipta later addition and which is original. And also not sure how one determines this.

The threads on BVP on Critical Edition, Textual Criticism etc. deal, precisely, with this topic only. 

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/bvparishat/critical$20edition%7Csort:relevance/bvparishat/Kziie9QogX4/HdUeffggBgAJ

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/bvparishat/critical$20edition%7Csort:relevance/bvparishat/1DachGbPcbU/UaXYIiBgAQAJ

Once you understand through these threads or some other guidance, how prakshiptas are decided etc., please come back to this thread and follow it closely. 

You will be able to know that what you thought missing is exactly what is covered in the thread. 

If any portion of the Mahabharata text is found in Critical Edition, as per the theory of Critical Edition, is not a later addition. 

Please follow the thread:

https://groups.google.com/forum/#!searchin/bvparishat/violence$20in$20yajna%7Csort:relevance/bvparishat/Mhr_u4Q2qvU/soCEzOLTCAAJ

If you mean the same as what is being discussed in this thread, by your words,

"There are references in Mhb that say that sanctioning of meat eating has been added by bad guys later, it was not like this before etc.",

please note that the verse being discussed in the thread is part of Critical Edition, so should be considered as not a prakshipta. 

Ahimsaa paramo dharmah is also found in the Critical Edition. Hence not to be seen as a prakshipta. 

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Praveen R. Bhat]

Namaste,

Pujya Swami Dayananda Sarasvati ji ​​(Arsha Vidya Gurukulam) used to connect vegetarianism to the Taittiriya mantra, almost whenever he quoted ओषधीभ्योऽन्नम्। He used to say that food is only vegetarian. So our source of influence of vegetarianism lies in Vedas itself. I thought this might be relevant.

Kind rgds,
--Praveen R. Bhat
/* येनेदं सर्वं विजानाति, तं केन विजानीयात्। Through what should one know That owing to which all this is known! [Br.Up. 4.5.15] */

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Thanks Sri Prveen-ji.

This is a great way of looking at that line. 

Great evidence for vegetarian ideas in S'ruti. 

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[B Chandrasekar]

Also it's a well known fact that Buddhism and Jainism are off shoots of Sanathana Dharma.   The Vedic system which is the basis of Sanathana dharma emphasizes vegetarian diet.

Regards 

Chandrasekar 

Sent from my iPhone

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Hemant Dave]

​​​

Vishnu Sitaram Sukthankar was a great scholar. He had a great sense of humour too. Since I lack both, scholarship and humour, I quote him.

In his Meaning, Sukthankar refers to certain Professor Thadani, professor of English at the Hindu College of Delhi who thought that the Mahabharata is “but an account of the connection and conflict between the different systems of Hindu Philosophy and Religion”. The learned professor further assumed that the Great Epic is not a mere story of the deeds of mythological or historical gods or heroes ; but “a wonderful explanation of all systems of Hindu Philosophy and Religion ... which, when examined in the light of ancient method of Letter-analysis, reveals the great secret of its real meaning and mystery.”

 

On Professor Thadani’s original and ingenious views Sukthankar writes:

 

“This ‘letter-analysis’ is a real magic wand in the hands of .Professor Thadani. With the help of this mysterious instrument, the learned Professor gets the most astounding results. People have so long considered the Gambling Match as the most realistic and heart-rending scene of the Whole Mahabharata, and some soft-hearted people must have even shed surreptitiously a few tears when reading the pathetic scene of the denudation of the noble Princess of Pancala by the vicious Dushasana. Professor Thadani brushes away all this shallow and misplaced sentimentality. “The word for gambling in the text”, argues Professor Thadani, “is Dyuta (d, y, u, ta) meaning, (d) giving, (y) Buddhi, (u) woven with (u) the

senses of knowledge, and (ta) the senses of Action. The Gambling Match is thus a discussion between Buddhi on the one hand (Yudhishthira), and the senses of Knowledge and Action, the basis of Jainism (Shakuni) on the other.” A foreign critic has ungenerously remarked about the book that it is confusion worse confounded. I will not criticize this theory. Professor Thadani is right in insisting that for debate or discussion there must be a common ground of agreement between opposing views, without which a discussion is impossible. I have none with the learned Professor, nor have I had the good fortune of coming across anybody who had. Professor Thadani stands unchallenged.”

Best,

H.

PS: As an aside I may point out that in इतिहासपुराणाभ्यां वेदं समुपबृंहयेत् by Veda the Mahabharata is meant as shown by Professor M. A. Mehendale.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I could not respond to this long post as I was travelling and was carrying out the moderation work through my mobile phone. 

Now I went through the post. 

Though the post does not deal with the main theme of the thread, it connects us back to the post referring to Prof. Adluri's work on the unity of Mahabharata. 

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/bZAw1HWS-q4/XSLGm_YUAgAJ

Then what is his point?

Critical Edition is a unitary text is his point.

What is he arguing against?

He is arguing against the view that the text is a compilation of mutually incoherent ideas.

In what way is it relevant here?

Ahimsaa paramo dharmah is integral to the text. 

Now Sri Hemant Dave-ji is quoting Prof. Vishnu Sitaram Sukthankar's words, 

"A foreign critic has ungenerously remarked about the book that it is confusion worse confounded. I will not criticize this theory."

These are the kind of views argued against by Prof. Adluri. 

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

PS: As an aside I may point out that in इतिहासपुराणाभ्यां वेदं समुपबृंहयेत् by Veda the Mahabharata is meant as shown by Professor M. A. Mehendale.

Veda in इतिहासपुराणाभ्यां वेदं समुपबृंहयेत् is not Mahabharata. 

Mahabharata is one of the Itihaasa -PuraaNa books through which samupabrimhaNa of Veda i.e., the actual Veda in the form of Veda mantras, is being brought into a samupabrimhita form. इतिहासपुराणाभ्यां वेदं समुपबृंहयेत्  means  'Itihaasa -PuraaNa books  including Mahabharata are samupabrimhita forms of Veda. '

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.
To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Hemang Chawla]

Namaste and humble Pranams!

Is there a conclusion reached in this discussion? Do we have a conclusive text, a paper that show cases that vegetarianism in hindus is no necesarily the influence of buddhism and jainism?

[Sivasenani Nori]

Sir

Pranam.

Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. 

While one instance was pointed out from one of the Suttas, I was unable to locate it as exact reference was not given. Due to lack of earlier study, I took some time to figure out the relative positions of various texts within Buddhist tradition before reading long texts. It looks like I have to go through a rather long Sutta to get the exact line. Meanwhile work pressure is not allowing me to do further study. Since vegetarianism itself is not universal within Buddhism, at least as far as food is concerned my sense is that we will not find much in Buddhism, but one should expect to find some statements against animal sacrifice.

Food-wise, Jainism may be a richer source.

To sum up, not a whole lot of references have come up from members of BVP as of now, but unfortunately, that does not establish anything.

Regards

N. Siva Senani

[Shrikant Jamadagni]

As I mentioned in my earlier post Maharshi Manu puts his considerable weight on the side of vegetarianism; he promotes it, lauds it.

So what is the date of Manu-smriti as also non-vedic texts that advocate vegetarianism?

Does anybody think that Manu-smriti's pitch for vegetarianism is later addition?

thanks

Shrikant Jamadagni
Bengaluru

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

I already proved that vegetarianism and non-violence in Mahabharata are independent of Buddhism and Jainism. 

Where is the need for the question Hemang-ji, whether it is concluded?

Yes, it is concluded that vegetarianism and non-violence in Mahabharata, as an implication in 'Hinduism' are independent of Buddhism and Jainism

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--

You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.
To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Vegetarianism is not a universal norm in Hinduism ; it is part of diverse food habits of Hindus. 

Diversity is the norm of 'Hinduism'. 

Uniformity and universalism are inherited by modernity from semitic religions. 

[Nagaraj Paturi]

To demand / expect all Hindus to eat either vegetarian or non-vegetarian is against the spirit of diversity which is hallmark of Hinduism. 

Recently I heard an author who is in news for writing a controversial book on merchant caste, demanding on TV that all vegetarians must start eating non-vegetarian. 

Asking all non-vegetarians to start eating vegetarian is as ridiculous. 

Asking that on the basis that 'Hinduism is a vegetarian religion' is even more ridiculous. 

'Hiduism' has never been and is not  uniformly /universally vegetarian or non-vegetariam

[Hemang Chawla]

I ask this because if you see this series being hosted: https://overcast.fm/+LhbQbv5g

They claim that "Ahimsa (non-violence) emerges in iron age in India, with vegetarian Jain monks & nuns its torchbearers. Ian goes there to discover how vegetarianism began"

If this is false (which it is), can the sanskrit scholars and members in this group file a petition against spreading falsehood by this  organization? 

Also, what's up with "nuns"? I am yet to check funding of this organization.

Thank you

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@ googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/ optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

--
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्" group.

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com.

[Nagaraj Paturi]

Go to https://theveganoption.org/vegetarian-history/

DN Jha, who is one of the participants in VegHist Ep 1 is not there in VegHist Ep 2, because in his book he talks of non-vegetarianism in Buddhism too. 

In further episodes the Jain significance in the story is relegated into insignificance through Greek contributions, Egyptian contributions and what not. 

So the story is that Veganism has its origins all over. 

Good. 

Better than a guy who is nowadays going around blaming Brahmins, Jains and the merchant caste for the 'menace' of vegetarianism and demanding that non-vegetarianism should be forced on all these vegetarian groups. 

This website is useful to tell him that the white, his gods, are saying that the 'menace' of Vegetarianism has its origins all over, not from Brahmins, Jains and the merchant caste. 

To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to bvparishat+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com.

To post to this group, send email to bvpar...@googlegroups.com.
For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/d/optout.

[Hemang Chawla]

But what is the truth anyway?

This is this book: https://www.scribd.com/document/27692654/Jainism-the-Oldest-Living-Religion-001195

Also, Rishabhadeva (the first thirtankara in Jainism) is considered the re-initiator of Sramana philosophy, which would include ahimsa as a core philosophy, in this era and if he and his son is talked about highly in vedas that means they already existed as great kings before the vedas getting written.

In my opinion though, if jains accepted Rishabhadeva as a thirtankara does not make him a jain. Nor does it imply jainism, the specific religion which came later as an introducer of ahimsa or vegetarianism.

I agree this is good to show them that veg'ism did not only belong to India but I for one would not bow down to the goons. Instead I would like India to be the leader of vegetrianism and veganism in the world. We have science too on our side. No need to feel ashamed.