Buddha's 7 types of wives - Page 2 - VeggieBoards
Forum Jump: 
 13Likes
Reply
 
Thread Tools
#31 Old 01-26-2004, 07:15 AM
Veggie Regular
 
vegan23's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Posts: 268
awww,these must surely be the cutest FAQ's ever:



http://pub32.bravenet.com/faq/show.p...num=2692425141



i'm agnostic but i must say many of the answers make a lot of sense.



*loads his water pistol,hides behind the sand bags and patiently waits for the roaring bikes*
vegan23 is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#32 Old 01-26-2004, 07:21 AM
Banned
 
Artichoke47's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Posts: 3,903
Looks like people with too much time on their hands, trying to evaluate women and their "roles."



I've got news for those who believe we do have some sort of role pertaining to men: We are not here to please you. We do not serve a purpose for you, just as animals don't serve a purpose for humans. You may need us to reproduce, but only if we let you.
Artichoke47 is offline  
#33 Old 01-26-2004, 07:24 AM
Veggie Regular
 
1vegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2003
Posts: 8,440
I don't have a problem with separate bank accounts.



My ex and me had three or four accounts when we started living together.



One for each person and a joint account for the things we had to pay every month. (like rent)



Every month we would transfer an amount from the personal account to the joint account.
1vegan is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
#34 Old 01-26-2004, 07:29 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Christy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2003
Posts: 6,414
I have the only account. I pay all the bills. He gives me his check to deposit, then I give him money back to use for the week. I handled the mortgage refinance. I'm handling the trading in of old car and purchase of a new car. I handle it when the furnace acts up. I pretty much handle anything that does not involve car or home repair. So, yeah. Not submissive or obedient.
Christy is offline  
#35 Old 01-26-2004, 11:00 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Jeffer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2003
Posts: 787
I can't figure out why anyone would want a wife that was submissive and obedient. I have two dogs for that.

It's right down the middle in our family and I wouldn't want it any other way.

We both just do what needs to be done to get the job done, that's all. Sometimes I pay the bills, sometimes she does, who ever has time cooks, cleans, does laundry, etc, etc, etc,. I really don't think there is such a thing as a man's role or a womans role. It's OUR role together. The money pot is all in one too. It's all the same. That's why our marriage works I guess. We trust each other before anything else.



Jeffer
Jeffer is offline  
#36 Old 06-23-2015, 04:29 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jun 2015
Posts: 1
Buddha, at first, was not willing to initiate women into the order. He was asked several times but he refused all attempts.
Once Venerable Ananda made him to accept Maha Pajapati Gotami as a nun. But Buddha created 8 special rules which has to be followed by all the nuns.

Also he declared that, by accepting nuns into the order, the Holy Life and the Sublime Dhamma would not last long. Instead of thousands of years, it will last only for 500 years. And as he predicted Buddhism had almost completely disappeared from India in 500 years and maybe the Sublime Dhamma disappeared as well.
merit is offline  
#37 Old 06-23-2015, 08:03 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Joan Kennedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lovettsville, VA and Portland, OR
Posts: 1,982
This is the first time I've seen it translated as "attendant" wife. In the past I've seen that translated as "slave" wife. I think each of the "good" types of wives is supposed to be an option for a married female incarnation, depending on what she wants to accomplish/experience/learn during that life cycle. For example, maybe a turn as a "slave wife" after a life as a high-handed or unkind husband. Perhaps with the exact same spouse but with the tables now turned. And the "bad" wives are what we become if we lose track of our purpose and go off the rails. As with all sacred texts, probably best to keep it in perspective of the time it came out of, and the types of gender roles everyone was so locked into. What interests me more is that within contemporary Buddhism, it is still controversial as to whether someone can attain Enlightenment while in female form. There are female teachers who are recognized as "enlightened," but I think they're believed to have attained Enlightenment while male in a previous lifetime.

Last edited by Joan Kennedy; 06-23-2015 at 09:11 AM.
Joan Kennedy is offline  
#38 Old 06-23-2015, 09:58 AM
Oryzatarian
 
Auxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USDA z7a
Posts: 1,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by merit View Post
Buddha, at first, was not willing to initiate women into the order. He was asked several times but he refused all attempts.
Once Venerable Ananda made him to accept
This is a common myth, but is simply incorrect according to the actual buddhist suttas. On the eight day after he started teaching the dhamma, one of his first discourses, the buddha very clearly said he intended to start a order of monks, and an order of nuns, and instruct them in the dhamma. It was the plan from the start.
Also, in the case of Pajapati Gotami, Ananda didnt 'make' the buddha ordain her. She asked and the buddha said no, then she talked to Ananda and he asked and twice the buddha said 'dont ask me this, Ananda' and on the third time the buddha said yes. One thing to keep in mind here is that the suttas arent exactly as originally spoken. Immediately after a sermon they were modified into chant form in a way to make them easier to memorize, one trick used is by making things repeated in triplicate so it has a rhythm. So all we know is Ananda was like 'hey, lets ordain her' and the Buddha was like 'Her? seriously... dont go there'
Another thing to keep in mind is that Pajapati Gotami was only mentioned in the suttas twice, obviously she didnt end up influential or advanced in practice. The other time she appeared was some time before requesting ordination. She brought really fancy robes for the buddha and requested that he wear them and show them off as her gift. It was conceit and the buddha explained to her why she shouldnt be so conceited and should just give the robes to the monastery store room. People only assume it was because of her gender that he didnt want to ordain her. Thats sexist. Its more likely he just knew she, as a person, wouldnt make a good nun.
Lastly she was the second nun, not the first. Well before Pajapatis ordination there was another woman, I forget her name, she was a rogue philosopher that would go into a town, stick a stick in the ground and stand by it as a challenge to anyone to debate her, and she would debate philosophy with the best minds around. The buddha met her and he was like 'sh*t, your cool, come be a nun!'. She accepted. It was the only time in the pali canon that there was no nun ordination ceremony, no ceremony was needed because there was no nuns community to assemble for it... because she was the first.

Quote:
Originally Posted by merit View Post
Also he declared that, by accepting nuns into the order, the Holy Life and the Sublime Dhamma would not last long. Instead of thousands of years, it will last only for 500 years.
This is not the teaching of the buddha, its abidhamma made up by some later guy and pasted into a sutta. The linguistics of those passages dont match the language of the earliest strata of pali script. I think Bhante Sujato has some articles or even books on that subject.
Its also the only spot that the buddha purportedly made a long term prediction- that just very clearly wasnt his style and should be viewed as suspect on that alone, if nothing else.
And, any way, its been 2600 years now. The "prediction" was obviously wrong.

As for the 7 types of wives thing that started this thread thats almost old enough to vote
Is that in the sevens of the anguttara nikaya? I dont remember that sutta, and I've read most of the AN.
LedBoots likes this.
Auxin is offline  
#39 Old 06-23-2015, 10:55 PM
Veggie Regular
 
rasitha.wijesekera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 551
Uhh I'm a Buddhist and I've never heard of this.
rasitha.wijesekera is offline  
#40 Old 06-26-2015, 05:14 AM
Veggie Regular
 
varun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 338
No religion is as confusing as Buddhism, its had a wonderful start.. it preached stuff like peace & vegetarianism & all, BUT, it all went into kooky territory once the Chinese got hold of a religion which was essentially, Indian. There are way too many contradictions today, some say meat is allowed while majority are against it. Buddha himself never asked for people to become monks like himself.. he only opened people's minds to the idea that sometimes less can be more, sometimes only your mind can be your companion to help with the vagaries of life. Becoming a monk was HIS way to understand why there is abject poverty on the one end while he himself grew up within the luxuries of his kingdom, he wanted to experience suffering & disease to understand life.

Today Buddhism has 3 views, all of them agree on the basic story of Buddha, but after that the versions vary quite a lot in terms of fables, dietary rules and discourses. The Indian view can be concluded as most accurate (Buddha lived most of his life in India), followed by the Sri Lankan view. The Chinese view is most inaccurate portraying Buddha as a pot-bellied jolly man in many statues (no one can be that shape if they lived on veggies & berries and walked across states to impart knowledge), and also a common view of meat being accepted in the diet.

The earth has enough resources for everyones need but not their greed.

varun is offline  
#41 Old 06-26-2015, 05:48 AM
Veggie Regular
 
rasitha.wijesekera's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 551
Quote:
Originally Posted by varun View Post
No religion is as confusing as Buddhism, its had a wonderful start.. it preached stuff like peace & vegetarianism & all, BUT, it all went into kooky territory once the Chinese got hold of a religion which was essentially, Indian. There are way too many contradictions today, some say meat is allowed while majority are against it. Buddha himself never asked for people to become monks like himself.. he only opened people's minds to the idea that sometimes less can be more, sometimes only your mind can be your companion to help with the vagaries of life. Becoming a monk was HIS way to understand why there is abject poverty on the one end while he himself grew up within the luxuries of his kingdom, he wanted to experience suffering & disease to understand life.

Today Buddhism has 3 views, all of them agree on the basic story of Buddha, but after that the versions vary quite a lot in terms of fables, dietary rules and discourses. The Indian view can be concluded as most accurate (Buddha lived most of his life in India), followed by the Sri Lankan view. The Chinese view is most inaccurate portraying Buddha as a pot-bellied jolly man in many statues (no one can be that shape if they lived on veggies & berries and walked across states to impart knowledge), and also a common view of meat being accepted in the diet.

I didn't know India still had Buddhists. Are they called Buddhists?
varun likes this.
rasitha.wijesekera is offline  
#42 Old 06-26-2015, 05:58 AM
Veggie Regular
 
varun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by rasitha.wijesekera View Post
I didn't know India still had Buddhists. Are they called Buddhists?
Yes they are called Buddhists but they are a minority no doubt, well under a million of them. It used to be more than that but I guess over time they all went back to their native religion.

The earth has enough resources for everyones need but not their greed.

varun is offline  
#43 Old 06-26-2015, 08:30 AM
Vegan as f**k
 
Go Vegan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Worthing, England
Posts: 2,228
Wife #7 looks pretty good...
Go Vegan is offline  
#44 Old 06-26-2015, 09:33 AM
Oryzatarian
 
Auxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USDA z7a
Posts: 1,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by rasitha.wijesekera View Post
I didn't know India still had Buddhists. Are they called Buddhists?
India is 0.8% buddhist. Given their population, thats a fair amount of people. They still maintain a order of monks and an order of nuns.
Quote:
Originally Posted by varun View Post
No religion is as confusing as Buddhism
Its not as confusing as it is diverse. Buddhism is based on a set of core teachings common to all schools, but it freely hybridizes with any culture it encounters to give birth to a new school.
Even before it left india it hybridized with brahmanical culture adding myths and the little baby dreadlocks on the buddha statues, etc. When it got to china it absorbed the contemporary chinese cosmology and practices adding deities, ceremonies, and an abundance of new teachings, etc. In tibet it hybridized with bonpo shamanism, and in southeast asia it crossed with their shamanism. They all still have the original teachings in there somewhere tho, even if they are neglected.
Quote:
Originally Posted by varun View Post
The Chinese view is most inaccurate portraying Buddha as a pot-bellied jolly man in many statues (no one can be that shape if they lived on veggies & berries and walked across states to impart knowledge), and also a common view of meat being accepted in the diet.
That fat statue is not a statue of the buddha, thats a western misconception, its a mythological buddhist monk called Pu Tai akin to Santa Claus. According to the fable he was a jolly fat man who wandered china and gave children toys from his magical sack, lol. The myth states that his reincarnation is still going on and once buddhism is lost from the world his reincarnation will become the next buddha. One might assume he'll loose weight in the process
If one were to argue for inaccuracy of chinese buddhism, the pure land sect would be a better target.
varun likes this.
Auxin is offline  
#45 Old 06-26-2015, 11:30 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Joan Kennedy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: Lovettsville, VA and Portland, OR
Posts: 1,982
Isn't Dharamsala, India, the refuge for the Dalai Lama and the other monks who were chased out of Tibet by the Chinese government in the 1950s?
Joan Kennedy is offline  
#46 Old 06-26-2015, 07:55 PM
Veggie Regular
 
varun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Auxin View Post
Its not as confusing as it is diverse. Buddhism is based on a set of core teachings common to all schools, but it freely hybridizes with any culture it encounters to give birth to a new school.Even before it left india it hybridized with brahmanical culture adding myths and the little baby dreadlocks on the buddha statues, etc.
Thanks for explaining but my view still remains, why not look at a religion or its propagator for what they really were? Its like a patent, from my limited knowledge of Buddhism its clear that Siddhartha never wanted to hurt animals for food or otherwise, yet these Chinese people have absorbed it & edited it in ways which makes meat eating ok, even the Dalai Lama eats meat every other day which in his opinion makes him "vegetarian for 6 months a year". This is absolute sacrilege/blasphemy in my view. I'm a brahman but I've yet to hear of a Buddha fable, maybe it is limited to certain areas. Brahmanism is so far the only large religion that effectively speaks of vegetarianism for all.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Auxin View Post
That fat statue is not a statue of the buddha, thats a western misconception, its a mythological buddhist monk called Pu Tai akin to Santa Claus. According to the fable he was a jolly fat man who wandered china and gave children toys from his magical sack, lol. The myth states that his reincarnation is still going on and once buddhism is lost from the world his reincarnation will become the next buddha. One might assume he'll loose weight in the process If one were to argue for inaccuracy of chinese buddhism, the pure land sect would be a better target.
True but again most of them worship like he is/was always the current Buddha. Buddha is to my knowledge only a honorific title to refer to an "awakened" man. It can be anyone, but silently shoehorning a Chinese-origin man who may or may not have existed
seems to be propaganda pushing to me. I always look at religions from the point of their origin, since that would explain why those regions are the way they are. I admire Judaism because its the only non-negotiable, hole-free religion, no alternative versions, no 100 gods.. just the ONE.

The earth has enough resources for everyones need but not their greed.

varun is offline  
#47 Old 06-26-2015, 08:04 PM
Veggie Regular
 
varun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 338
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joan Kennedy View Post
Isn't Dharamsala, India, the refuge for the Dalai Lama and the other monks who were chased out of Tibet by the Chinese government in the 1950s?
That's right, I don't know where exactly he is but India is the only nation that still supports his existence, almost every other country has aligned with China to deny him a place to stay.

The earth has enough resources for everyones need but not their greed.

varun is offline  
#48 Old 06-27-2015, 01:34 AM
Oryzatarian
 
Auxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USDA z7a
Posts: 1,359
Quote:
Originally Posted by varun View Post
...from my limited knowledge of Buddhism its clear that Siddhartha never wanted to hurt animals for food or otherwise, yet these Chinese people have absorbed it & edited it in ways which makes meat eating ok, even the Dalai Lama eats meat every other day...
True, the buddha did not support the killing of animals. Buddhist monastics are forbidden from killing not just animals but also mosquitoes, ticks, and back when they drank from rivers they used filter cloths to remove any innocent larvae or eggs that might be in the water. However, buddhism only had rules for monastics. For the laity there are layers of optional practices because the religion wasnt supposed to force itself on anyone. So thats why most lay people eat meat. The monks and nuns can only eat what is offered to them, and so that often means meat. [Although they are forbidden from eating meat if they reasonably suspect the animal was killed for them]. I'm not sure about the dalai lamas situation but I know that many monks who have tried eating vegan eventually got weak and sickly from eating little more than an inadequate quantity of unfortified white rice day after day. Its one of the things that would make me hesitate in becoming a monk.
Quote:
Originally Posted by varun View Post
...but again most of them worship like he is/was always the current Buddha...
Some do. But when people are a certain religion by default rather than conscious choice, most of them dont actually know much about it or take it seriously.
Quote:
Originally Posted by varun View Post
...Buddha is to my knowledge only a honorific title to refer to an "awakened" man...
Close. An arahant is an awakened person (male or female), fully enlightened. Buddha is a special title for the first arahant in an age, there cant be another until the teachings of the last one are all forgotten.
varun likes this.
Auxin is offline  
#49 Old 06-27-2015, 10:00 AM
Vegan since 1991
 
David3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2015
Posts: 3,652
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kreeli View Post

sometimes i wish there were at least one major philosophy or religion in the world that truly values women as autonomous human beings.

Yep.


Also, what does the Buddha know about marriage? He was married only briefly, and then lived the rest of his life as a monk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha

_________

Specific recommendations for a healthy diet include: eating more fruit, vegetables, legumes, nuts and grains; cutting down on salt, sugar and fats. It is also advisable to choose unsaturated fats, instead of saturated fats and towards the elimination of trans-fatty acids."
- United Nations' World Health Organization
http://www.who.int/topics/diet/en/
David3 is offline  
#50 Old 06-27-2015, 11:39 AM
Veggie Regular
 
Jasminedesi16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: philadelphia
Posts: 590
I used to really admire Buddhism because I thought women were treated quite equal in Buddhism but I guess I was wrong :P I don't think there is any religion where women are completely equal
Jasminedesi16 is offline  
#51 Old 06-27-2015, 08:00 PM
Oryzatarian
 
Auxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USDA z7a
Posts: 1,359
Its not fair to so easily judge a religion of a billion people which is 2600 years old.
There are segments of buddhism which are more, or less, equal toward women, homosexuals, races, etc.
From the very beginning buddhism was radically pro-equal rights. Women were allowed in as true equals and many achieved arahantship, putting them on equal footing with the buddha himself. The Therigata is a 2550 year old book of the life stories of some of those enlightened nuns. Cool stuff. In early buddhism homosexuals were recognized as equals and, interestingly, no one seemed bothered by that. Far more shocking was race equality, that was the single biggest threat to the first decade of the buddhas career- he insisted on racial unity. So the beginnings were great, its the millennia that followed where things occasionally got messed up, lol. My own school recently had quite a drama when a faction of the highest ranking monks re-ignited complete gender equality in their tradition after generations of people stalling or just plain ignoring the issue.
So things shift and flow and no single group of a billion people is composed entirely of saints.
LedBoots likes this.
Auxin is offline  
#52 Old 07-06-2015, 04:39 AM
Newbie
 
Join Date: Jul 2015
Posts: 1
Quote:
Originally Posted by David3 View Post
Yep.


Also, what does the Buddha know about marriage? He was married only briefly, and then lived the rest of his life as a monk: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gautama_Buddha
You are right from one (half) marriage you may not know much about marriage. But Buddha has explored thousands of life times through several world cycles under the Bodhi Tree during his meditation. All what he taught was based on a lot of experience. Also he has explored life of others. In several of his explanations of basic truths he used examples from life of others (including past lives of them).

E.g. how to stop hatred, in the story of Kaliyakkhini: there were two beings who was fighting each other through several life times. And in their life time, during Buddha was on Earth, one of them tried to get protection at his feet. And Buddha told them there story of the fight, the origin and how it destroyed their lives, one after the other. And taught them how to stop this downward spiral which destroyed them both.

Buddha also told that you should not blindly believe in the things which are told by an "authority" even if it is told by himself. But filter it and see whether it really matches the reality. But it is difficult to bear the times when your weaknesses are pointed out and you must face them and overcome them. It happens regularly that instead of facing it you look into different direction and you say that it is a lie or you just ignore it.
merit.first is offline  
#53 Old 07-06-2015, 12:02 PM
Oryzatarian
 
Auxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USDA z7a
Posts: 1,359
The more mystical parts of the buddhas story probably wont hold much weight for non-buddhists. So his recollection of countless past lives through multiple big bangs wont be counted as practical life experience
If you start reading the tripitaka, however, what is clear is that for the 45 years he was wandering present day india and nepal on foot he was constantly talking to people and learning. You dont have to be married for half a century to learn about people.

I checked and I was right, this sutta is in the anguttara nikaya in the sevens and its called the Bhariya Sutta.
It went pretty much as I expected. The buddha did not say a wife had to act a certain way, strictly speaking he didnt say there were only seven types of wives. In the suttas the buddha routinely (as in hundreds of times) breaks things down into lists of 'types', in these instances its almost invariably just a way to emphasize a point by showing different ways to look at a thing- rather than an absolutist categorization. So the 'seven types' only applied in the context of what was going on that morning in a mansion outside of Savatthi. Most teachings were like that, in a very specific context and situation. Anyway... in this one the buddha visited Anathapindika, a major supporter of the buddha and a general philanthropist, and there was this big fuss and bother going on- lots of shouting and yelling. The buddha was like 'what the heck, its noisy as a fishermans wharf in here!' and Anathapindika was like 'yeah thats my new daughter-in-law, she's screaming at the servants again' so the buddha talked to her and was like 'look, so your not happy here- ok, but your actions are causing you even more suffering. Getting upset and screaming at people wont make you happy' and in the conversation he listed seven relevant broad archetypes of behavior and asked which she wanted to be, she essentially said that she still doesnt like her new husband but, ok, she'll stop abusing the servants.
This sutta was in no way a guide to how wives should behave. It was the buddha calming down a single specific angry teenager who was pissed off about her arranged marriage, lol
LedBoots and varun like this.
Auxin is offline  
#54 Old 07-06-2015, 07:20 PM
Veggie Regular
 
varun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 338
@Auxin have you heard of Jainism? I've been thinking, and not many people in India realize the similarities between Jainism & Buddhism. King Mahavira born 599 B.C, renounces his kingdom at age 30, does meditation for 12.5 years before attaining enlightenment so to speak & moksha at 72. Region of birth - Bihar which is exactly one border away from Nepal and a place where Buddha himself spent the majority of his time. Jainism is the strictest when it comes to the concept of ahimsa i.e non violence to animals with the priests avoiding harm even to insects and microscopic organisms.

The similarities are obvious, with minute differences in years, if wiki is to be believed Buddha was born just 24 years earlier and died approx. 543 B.C at age 80, whereas Mahavira died 527 B.C. Since both were kings, there is no chance that they would've been unfamiliar with each other as is popular belief. The distance between their kingdoms wouldn't have exceeded 200 miles. Somethings are overlapping here, it cannot be mere coincidence. At the same time it cannot be possible that one influenced the other since timelines clash there as well. A mystery indeed.

The earth has enough resources for everyones need but not their greed.

varun is offline  
#55 Old 07-07-2015, 01:27 AM
Oryzatarian
 
Auxin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: USDA z7a
Posts: 1,359
Yup, I'm somewhat familiar with jainism. I cant imagine how its a popular belief that they were unfamiliar with eachother, in the buddhist suttas there are quite a few instances where the buddha met jain monastics. For instance, Bhadda Kundalakesa was a jain nun who converted to buddhism and became one of the great arahants. She was the enlightened nun I couldnt remember the name of in an earlier post, I'm told she has scriptures surviving in the jain tradition too. Also, in both the jain and buddhist scriptures there are records of the buddha and mahavira meeting and talking. From the perspective of the pali suttas its clear the two religions had quite a bit of contact in those early years. I havent read the ancient jain scriptures.
varun likes this.
Auxin is offline  
#56 Old 07-07-2015, 04:55 AM
Veggie Regular
 
varun's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2013
Posts: 338
I can vouch for the effectiveness of Jainism, majority of the followers are very pious, incredibly honest & do not look at meat from a mile. In my professional experience dealing with Jains has been nothing but great, they do not believe in undue profiteering & mean what they say.. incredibly morally balanced. In this way I have a lot of respect for the religion. From what I can see it is more or less like Buddhism except that Buddhism got watered down by countries like China, Indonesia etc and became overly flexible as you had mentioned above.

Jainism holds the values of honesty and vegetarian diet as very important, even critical to attaining higher wisdom. Sure 1-2% of the people will always stray away from the rules like they do with every religion but overall it is responsible for almost 6 million of the Indian population being vegetarian & since they along with Brahmins hold a very influential position in society, they compel food companies to always produce eggless & animal-ingredient free options across every product.
Jasminedesi16 likes this.

The earth has enough resources for everyones need but not their greed.

varun is offline  
#57 Old 07-07-2015, 12:04 PM
Veggie Regular
 
Jasminedesi16's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: philadelphia
Posts: 590
Quote:
Originally Posted by varun View Post
I can vouch for the effectiveness of Jainism, majority of the followers are very pious, incredibly honest & do not look at meat from a mile. In my professional experience dealing with Jains has been nothing but great, they do not believe in undue profiteering & mean what they say.. incredibly morally balanced. In this way I have a lot of respect for the religion. From what I can see it is more or less like Buddhism except that Buddhism got watered down by countries like China, Indonesia etc and became overly flexible as you had mentioned above.

Jainism holds the values of honesty and vegetarian diet as very important, even critical to attaining higher wisdom. Sure 1-2% of the people will always stray away from the rules like they do with every religion but overall it is responsible for almost 6 million of the Indian population being vegetarian & since they along with Brahmins hold a very influential position in society, they compel food companies to always produce eggless & animal-ingredient free options across every product.
I agree about the Jains. All of my experiences with Jains have been overwhelmingly positive.
varun likes this.
Jasminedesi16 is offline  
Reply

Quick Reply
Message:
Options

Register Now

In order to be able to post messages on the VeggieBoards forums, you must first register.
Please enter your desired user name, your email address and other required details in the form below.
User Name:
If you do not want to register, fill this field only and the name will be used as user name for your post.
Password
Please enter a password for your user account. Note that passwords are case-sensitive.
Password:
Confirm Password:
Email Address
Please enter a valid email address for yourself.
Email Address:

Log-in


Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page


Forum Jump: 

Posting Rules  
You may post new threads
You may post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off