12/n
A couple of comments to a recent VV article are relevant as the interaction illustrates the typical behaviour of other Hindus whenever one among them dares to make an observation of fact as to antiquity if not origination w.r.t. the other Indic religions.
First, though, a statement from the actual article: the piece is on ahimsa, where Sandhya Jain quickly corners Ahimsa and vegetarianism (elsewhere claimed fervently by Buddhists) for her own religion:
vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=2252
"Jaina dharma compelled Hindus ... to accept the supremacy of Ahimsa and vegetarianism, and fashioned these into cornerstones of Indian culture". Really? Why, because she is so absolutely sure that there was nothing of vegetarianism independent of Jainism in Hindu religion?
Sandhya's quick to declare that Vaishnavas "became" vegetarian (as an implied consequence to her "Jaina dharma compelled Hindus and Bauddhas to accept the supremacy of Ahimsa and vegetarianism"). Curious that she knows to mention "Vaishnavas" - in what seems like pre-emption - though Vaishnavas' vegetarianism, as that of other Hindus, can most easily be derived from the MBh etc. "Sadly" (oftewel: "Helaas Pindakaas"), even the Mahabharatam does not appear to know of the existence of Jainism, though it knows of ahimsa AND vegetarianism as Vedic ideals rather well, as is evident even in that tiny MBh excerpt in one of the related posts directly above. (Indeed, some at IF had posted translations from IIRC the Atharvaveda (?) on vegetarianism and/or preservation of animal life or something - which sounded quite insistent on these matters. As usual, Hindus don't have to look beyond their own religious literature to find ideals that *Hindus* today respect or even hold to.)
What actually bothers me, but it's ceased to surprise me, is that most of the Hindus commenting (including IIRC Radha Rajan) sounded - as always - quite cheerfully approving of the claims made for Jainism, as if they don't know better. Nary a demur.
Also, where is it stated that it was Jainism that "compelled Bauddhas to accept the supremacy of vegetarianism"? Whenever anything has been said on the subject, either Buddhists claim most vocally that their religion came up with it, or they have started taking recourse to ascribing it to the invented ur-Shramanism to make sure Hindus can't claim it, or, when any external influence on vegetarianism in Buddhism is finally admitted (indeed, it's admitted that Buddhism adopted vegetarianism reactively rather than vice-versa as Buddhism now chooses to claim), the argument sounds a variation of the following - x-posting relevant bit (but leaving my comment in purple in):
www.ianchadwick.com/forum/index.php?/blog/1/entry-15-buddhas-death-reconsidered/
On this bit in Sandhya's quoted statements:
She doesn't appear to know that several Shaiva and Shakta communities are and have been pointedly vegetarian - and most specifically remain so during their rituals - not just the Brahmanas among them. (Because some Shaktas simply do not do animal sacrifice, since they have their own Shakta rituals of their own ancestral Shakta path, and they are *required* to be vegetarian).
But then, lots of Hindu sub-communities within the Hindu religion are and have been vegetarian. Quite like how not every Hellene was a vegetarian, but many ascetic individual Hellenes and even entire communities of Hellenes *were*. Facts of history. The same goes for Daoists. Several brahmana sects are particularly vegetarian, go back as far as you will. (Again, Not counting Vedic sacrifices in earlier periods at any rate. Come sacrifice, some among the Daoist and Hellenistic vegetarians ceased to insist on ahimsa too, even if some Daoists chose not to eat of the sacrifice. However, the case of animals in sacrifice had been a source of internal debate among Daoists as also Hellenes. Similarly, it led to changes and reforms within Vedic ritualists as well. But Note: *some* Daoist communities always sacrificed only vegetarian fare in their rituals to the Gods since the most ancient times, others in time changed over to pure-vegetarian sacrifices.)
"But once the vegetarian ethic was established as the superior moral ethic"
Superior moral ethic...? Not sure about the infallibility of the assertion.
Humans' vegetarianism is better for animals certainly, just as animals who don't end up sacrificed have the chance to continue their life in this world (something I would wish no less for myself). But the true gain - as with any choice - is only when the individual *chooses* of their own personal insight and deliberation to do anything that they deem is right and worthy toward their fellow creatures. Not by others insisting for them that such-and-such is the "superior moral ethic". It's also why I agree with one particular kind of Hellenistic argument in favour of other animals' right to self-determination: why *not* let others live their lives unencumbered, to its natural completion, where such is in our power?
A couple of comments to a recent VV article are relevant as the interaction illustrates the typical behaviour of other Hindus whenever one among them dares to make an observation of fact as to antiquity if not origination w.r.t. the other Indic religions.
First, though, a statement from the actual article: the piece is on ahimsa, where Sandhya Jain quickly corners Ahimsa and vegetarianism (elsewhere claimed fervently by Buddhists) for her own religion:
vijayvaani.com/FrmPublicDisplayArticle.aspx?id=2252
Quote:Very early in its development, Jaina dharma compelled Hindus and Bauddhas to accept the supremacy of Ahimsa and vegetarianism, and fashioned these into cornerstones of Indian culture. Among Hindus, the Vaishnavas became vegetarian though devotees of Shakti practice animal sacrifice on ritual occasions, and many coastal and other groups retain meat in their diet. But once the vegetarian ethic was established as the superior moral ethic, it could never be dislodged through the centuries that followed.
"Jaina dharma compelled Hindus ... to accept the supremacy of Ahimsa and vegetarianism, and fashioned these into cornerstones of Indian culture". Really? Why, because she is so absolutely sure that there was nothing of vegetarianism independent of Jainism in Hindu religion?
Sandhya's quick to declare that Vaishnavas "became" vegetarian (as an implied consequence to her "Jaina dharma compelled Hindus and Bauddhas to accept the supremacy of Ahimsa and vegetarianism"). Curious that she knows to mention "Vaishnavas" - in what seems like pre-emption - though Vaishnavas' vegetarianism, as that of other Hindus, can most easily be derived from the MBh etc. "Sadly" (oftewel: "Helaas Pindakaas"), even the Mahabharatam does not appear to know of the existence of Jainism, though it knows of ahimsa AND vegetarianism as Vedic ideals rather well, as is evident even in that tiny MBh excerpt in one of the related posts directly above. (Indeed, some at IF had posted translations from IIRC the Atharvaveda (?) on vegetarianism and/or preservation of animal life or something - which sounded quite insistent on these matters. As usual, Hindus don't have to look beyond their own religious literature to find ideals that *Hindus* today respect or even hold to.)
What actually bothers me, but it's ceased to surprise me, is that most of the Hindus commenting (including IIRC Radha Rajan) sounded - as always - quite cheerfully approving of the claims made for Jainism, as if they don't know better. Nary a demur.
Also, where is it stated that it was Jainism that "compelled Bauddhas to accept the supremacy of vegetarianism"? Whenever anything has been said on the subject, either Buddhists claim most vocally that their religion came up with it, or they have started taking recourse to ascribing it to the invented ur-Shramanism to make sure Hindus can't claim it, or, when any external influence on vegetarianism in Buddhism is finally admitted (indeed, it's admitted that Buddhism adopted vegetarianism reactively rather than vice-versa as Buddhism now chooses to claim), the argument sounds a variation of the following - x-posting relevant bit (but leaving my comment in purple in):
www.ianchadwick.com/forum/index.php?/blog/1/entry-15-buddhas-death-reconsidered/
Quote:Waley makes an educated guess that vegetarianism arose among Hindu followers of Vishnu a century or two before the Mahayana movement took root (the Vishnu cult was the rising movement in Hindu culture at that time).
(Actually, vegetarianism among Hindu communities - at times as something distinct from ritual sacrifices involving animals - has existed much longer than even that and goes back to old Hindu religious texts, but saying so could invite trouble. Hence one strikes such a statement from the official record. As in, I didn't say anything.)
Cultural and social pressures from the Hindu majority may have pushed the minority Buddhists to accepting their neighbours' vegetarian lifestyle in order to reduce friction in their communities. This became doctrinal when the Mahayana texts were being written, somewhat later.
On this bit in Sandhya's quoted statements:
Quote:Though devotees of Shakti practice animal sacrifice on ritual occasions
She doesn't appear to know that several Shaiva and Shakta communities are and have been pointedly vegetarian - and most specifically remain so during their rituals - not just the Brahmanas among them. (Because some Shaktas simply do not do animal sacrifice, since they have their own Shakta rituals of their own ancestral Shakta path, and they are *required* to be vegetarian).
But then, lots of Hindu sub-communities within the Hindu religion are and have been vegetarian. Quite like how not every Hellene was a vegetarian, but many ascetic individual Hellenes and even entire communities of Hellenes *were*. Facts of history. The same goes for Daoists. Several brahmana sects are particularly vegetarian, go back as far as you will. (Again, Not counting Vedic sacrifices in earlier periods at any rate. Come sacrifice, some among the Daoist and Hellenistic vegetarians ceased to insist on ahimsa too, even if some Daoists chose not to eat of the sacrifice. However, the case of animals in sacrifice had been a source of internal debate among Daoists as also Hellenes. Similarly, it led to changes and reforms within Vedic ritualists as well. But Note: *some* Daoist communities always sacrificed only vegetarian fare in their rituals to the Gods since the most ancient times, others in time changed over to pure-vegetarian sacrifices.)
"But once the vegetarian ethic was established as the superior moral ethic"
Superior moral ethic...? Not sure about the infallibility of the assertion.
Humans' vegetarianism is better for animals certainly, just as animals who don't end up sacrificed have the chance to continue their life in this world (something I would wish no less for myself). But the true gain - as with any choice - is only when the individual *chooses* of their own personal insight and deliberation to do anything that they deem is right and worthy toward their fellow creatures. Not by others insisting for them that such-and-such is the "superior moral ethic". It's also why I agree with one particular kind of Hellenistic argument in favour of other animals' right to self-determination: why *not* let others live their lives unencumbered, to its natural completion, where such is in our power?