Why is Buddhism More Accessible in the US

[jignyAsu]

There's no requirement for vegetarianism in Buddhism

anymore :-), if I may. Because even Buddhist monks eat non-veg and I heard that they justify it by saying that only slaughtering is wrong and not eating what is offered to them. I wonder then what problem Gautama Buddha had with slaughtering in yagnas in the first place, who was extremely careful not even to hurt an ant. He could have let them cook his meat.

So we have so much contrast b/w the Buddha and his followers. Buddha was vegetarian, silent (as not indulging in philosophical debates), meditative. Seeing this drastic difference and with great Hindu Acharyas in 100s walking throughout the land, its an explanation enough for me about the disappearance of Buddhism in India.

although slaughtering an entire group of people due to a distasteful depiction of Buddha is extremely adhārmika and goes against Hindu, Jaina, and Bauddha beliefs.

I would agree. Yet the picture of Buddhist that reaches the Hollywood (to the point of the thread) is being ever peaceful, meditative, nonviolent. While with Hinduism only poverty, superstition etc. manage to reach there.

Agreeing that it is against the tenets of Buddhism, it seems to have spread a lot by political alliance, conversions etc. And also there seems to have been lack of individuals, unlike in the Hinduism, with divine powers to be able to revive it in India.

No doubt our India has been enriched with the existence Hindu/Buddhist and Jaina traditions. I wish that positives of all these reach the west.

[Sudas Paijavana]

Buddha was vegetarian...

Namaste,

Didn't he die from choking on pig's meat? Something to do with a bone being stuck in his throat?

[Jeffery D. Long]

Buddhist monks are required to accept anything that they are given to eat, whether vegetarian or non-vegetarian. They are forbidden, though, to ask for any particular type of food, and if they are aware that an animal is to be killed specifically for them, they are required to refuse that and save the life of the animal. If a householder already has meat sitting around, though, and gives it to Buddhist monks, they are to accept it without complaint. The focus is not ahiṃsā in this situation so much as vairāgya with regard to food.

The Buddha was, according to the Pali scriptures, given meat which had gone bad and died of food poisoning. So he did not choke on a bone. The householder who gave it to him was apparently horrified at what he had done, but the Buddha forgave him, pointing out that the body is in any case impermanent.

No doubt our India has been enriched with the existence Hindu/Buddhist and Jaina traditions. I wish that positives of all these reach the west.

I see this as my mission in life! I have studied Buddhism and Jainism at least as much as I have Hindu traditions, though my heart and soul are with Hinduism. A non-theistic tradition, for me, is incomplete, however much beneficial wisdom it may possess.

[Jaskaran Singh]

...to which you could have simply answered:

"No, the ones that you are talking about were, in fact, related to the Shramanic traditions, and was an example of Nāstika on Nāstika violence rather than an example of Nāstika on Hindu violence"...

Jus' sayin', Jas...

I take pleasure in being unnecessarily long-winded in my responses.

[jignyAsu]

Namaste,

Didn't he die from choking on pig's meat? Something to do with a bone being stuck in his throat?

LOL. There is all kinds of stories associated with his last moments. The versions I hear is he ate pig's flesh offered to him (told as a justification for their non veg habits) or he ate something grown on soil trodden by pigs and so forth.

I am just not able to reconcile all this with the problems he had with animal sacrifices in yagna. And moreover the butcher alone seems to accountable for meat eating or army alone for a religion that believes in "turning the other cheek".

I see this as my mission in life! I have studied Buddhism and Jainism at least as much as I have Hindu traditions, though my heart and soul are with Hinduism. A non-theistic tradition, for me, is incomplete, however much beneficial wisdom it may possess.

+1

[Sudas Paijavana]

I am just not able to reconcile all this with the problems he had with animal sacrifices in yagna. And moreover the butcher alone seems to accountable for meat eating or army alone for a religion that believes in "turning the other cheek".

Namaste,

It never made sense to me either. Double standards, perhaps? It sounds like a Holier Than Thou attitude to me...

At least it's confirmed, thanks to Dr. Long, that Buddha died from food poisoning caused by consuming meat.

I take pleasure in being unnecessarily long-winded in my responses.

Namaste,

[Jetavan]

Buddhist monks are required to accept anything that they are given to eat, whether vegetarian or non-vegetarian. They are forbidden, though, to ask for any particular type of food, and if they are aware that an animal is to be killed specifically for them, they are required to refuse that and save the life of the animal. If a householder already has meat sitting around, though, and gives it to Buddhist monks, they are to accept it without complaint. The focus is not ahiṃsā in this situation so much as vairāgya with regard to food.

I believe at least some Chan monks do inform householders that eating meat (from the almsbowl) would violate the precept against killing.

[Jetavan]

I am just not able to reconcile all this with the problems he had with animal sacrifices in yagna. And moreover the butcher alone seems to accountable for meat eating or army alone for a religion that believes in "turning the other cheek".

The Buddha may have been trying to thread a 'middle path' between an asceticism that tries to eliminate every conceivable form of killing (as found in ascetic Jainism) and a sacrificial culture in which paśuyajna was deemed necessary for relationship with the devas.

[Jeffery D. Long]

I believe at least some Chan monks do inform householders that eating meat (from the almsbowl) would violate the precept against killing.

That is true, but it is a much later development. Early in the Common Era, some Mahayana Buddhists in China (quite a few, in fact) began to practice vegetarianism very seriously as a natural outgrowth of the ahiṃsā precept. (Even today, there is a vegetarian option at many Chinese restaurants in the US called "Buddha's Delight.") The Chan tradition is from this period and reflects this movement toward vegetarianism. In the Pali Vinaya, though, the emphasis is on vairāgya: eating any food that one is given without regard for flavor, content, etc.

[sunyata07]

Namaste,

If I could award you any more rep points, I would Jeffery. You were able to word my thoughts on this exactly. I wonder if much of the reason why Buddhism as the alternative non-Christian religion is so prevalent in the west is because it is driven by the media. In this modern celebrity-obsessed culture, where the slightest mental ripple can be shared worldwide via the likes of Twitter and other social networking sites, people are able to track intimately what their favourite stars are currently trending in religious practice and belief. Buddhism - amongst other New Ageist type faiths - seems to be the dominant player. I myself have known a host of people and acquaintances who have expressed their "interest" in Buddhism, having visited the likes of Thailand and Cambodia, and yet it seems less like spiritual thirst that motivates them to explore the path than it is simply the "go to" religion for people who want something other than what Christianity had to offer. Many of these people who now tentatively call themselves Buddhist are some of the biggest meat eaters I know! In fact, aside from the burden of having to claim belief in a god, all other behaviour before (drinking alcohol, smoking tobacco, etc.) seems pretty much intact. Is it safe to say it was not merely introspection on the humane treatment of living things that drove them to seek another path? Dharmically, not much is changed for them. I hope this does not sound too harsh, but it seemed almost like a change made for fashion rather than true spiritual evolution.

A couple of years ago when I was first exploring other religious paths, I found myself drifting in and out of Buddhism and Hinduism, unsure which I felt closer to. Initially, it was Buddhism I was pulled towards. Partially it was because I had more exposure to Buddhism, but the basic premise was something I was already familiar with. Hinduism just seemed much too vast (a path with millions of gods?!) to know even where to begin, and so perhaps might seem initially intimidating to someone who has already struggled to understand just one (albeit, a very contradictory one). It also seemed so much harder to get even basic information about Sanatana Dharma as opposed to books on Buddhism which is far more prolific and accessible in libraries and bookshops.

Om namah Shivaya