What do Buddhists - modern day and historical - think of Anekāntavāda ? There is this cryptic remark by Dharmakirti: > With the differentiation removed, all things have dual nature. Then, > if somebody is implored to eat curd, then why he does not eat camel?" > The insinuation is obvious; if curd exists from the nature of curd and > does not exist from the nature of a camel, then one is justified in > eating camel, as by eating camel, he is merely eating the negation of > curd. I could summarize it at such: *the truth/reality is complex and many-sided.* How does the quote apply to the subject matter? The truth/reality being complex and many-sided doesn't seem to end suffering, but at least it gives individuals some solace. Am I wrong?

When does an ideology become a religion rather than just philosophy (which is just a way of living)? Does each has any specific definition? or it depends upon person to person perception?

Mahavir(Jain GOD) was the contemporary of the Buddha of his time. Buddha did knew some details about Mahavir, Jainism(as its mentioned in the text) & about its own way of enlightenment which he tried only to discover the '**Middle Path**'. They even lived & preached in & around the area of '**Vaishali**' (ancient city in Indian state Bihar) for certain period of their time.But did they ever met?

I've come across Jainism through looking for texts on Buddhism and I've found there seems a considerable amount of overlap. Did Siddhartha Gautama encounter or study under any Jainist teachers? It seems Jainism predates Buddhism by a lot so were these concepts also predating Siddhartha too? Jainism: The ultimate goal of Jainism is the liberation of the self (jiva) from rebirth, which is attained through the elimination of accumulated karma (the consequences of previous actions). This occurs through both the disciplined cultivation of knowledge and control of bodily passions. When the passions have been utterly conquered and all karma has been removed, one becomes a Jina ("conqueror"), and is no longer subject to rebirth. These principles include non-violence in all parts of life (verbal, physical, and mental), speaking truth, sexual monogamy, and the detachment from material things. As part of the disciplined and non-violent lifestyle, Jains typically are strict vegetarians and often adhere to a quite arduous practice of non-violence, which restricts the sorts of occupations they may follow (no farming, for instance, since insects are inadvertently harmed in plowing). Jainism's ethical system is based on the idea that right faith, knowledge, and conduct must be cultivated simultaneously. Like comparing rules of monks and even the five precepts are identical from what I found. The five precepts and five vows are identical from what I saw. This is a list of comparisons and contrasts. Sounds a whole lot like Buddhism to me! Does anyone know about the Jainism/Buddhism comparison?

I've read that Jainism is one of the oldest Indian traditions, that Buddhism somewhat derived from it and that at some time they rivaled (I'm not sure if this was a political thing). Can you explain what are the connections between this two in terms of philosophy and practice?

Why are Buddhist monks not as extreme as Jain monks when it comes to non-violence? For example Jain monks sweep the floor in front of them to avoid stepping on insects/microbes. As far as I'm aware, Buddhist monks don't do this. I'm guessing it is just that the traditions of the two religions through time have been different. But wouldn't it make sense for the Buddhist monks to be as extreme as Jain monks as they also try to avoid harming any living thing? Or maybe Buddhist monks could justify not doing these things as it would eat up more time in their day thus leaving less time for meditation practice? Thoughts anyone? Thanks

If someone hires a person to kill another and the plot is discovered, both the hired killer and the one who hired him will be arrested and imprisoned. Yet, somehow, if a monk eats food given by others, no negative kamma is created, even though the monk is aware of and complicit in the process of killing, i.e. he knows someone else had to do the killing of the plant or animal for his ultimate benefit, even if it wasn't explicitly killed for him. Even worse, someone whose profession involves the daily killing of animals as is the case in a slaughterhouse, has to bear the mental consequences of this daily ritual as well as its kammic consequences. Yet a monk can avoid all this simply by waiting for someone to put the dead animal in his bowl. The morality of this doesn't make sense. I would think the only morally harmless situation would be for a monk to only eat an animal or plant that had already died naturally, either by scavenging for it or waiting for another to do so on his behalf. Question: Can a monk choose to eat only an animal or plant that had died naturally? This either by scavenging on his own or by waiting for others to offer this to him?

In his brief introduction to [Sivaka Sutta, SN 36:21](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/SN/SN36_21.html) , Thanissaro Bhikkhu states that the Sutta has been misinterpreted as saying that there are certain things not explainable as the results of Kamma. His argument, it seems to me, is that because the body is a result of Kamma (through rebirth), necessarily, the illnesses of the body are also encompassed as results of Kamma. But I’m not sure I understand his argument, as in my view, though the body is a result of Kamma, that doesn’t necessarily explain the arbitrary functions and conditions of the body. Am I missing something? Does anybody have an alternative explanation for Thanissaro Bhikkhu’s argument? Furthermore, I read [this other translation of the Sutta by Nyanaponika Thera](https://www.accesstoinsight.org/tipitaka/sn/sn36/sn36.021.nypo.html) and the meaning seems to change slightly. In this translation, it seems that the Buddha is censuring the Brahmans who fall into the absolutism of saying that everything is the result of Kamma because they haven’t attained that knowledge for themselves, and are instead just following the common views of the time. This would seem to be more in line with [MN 101](https://www.dhammatalks.org/suttas/MN/MN101.html) , in which the Buddha refutes the views of the Nigaṇṭhas through a series of very compelling logical arguments. I am somewhat confused at the moment, and I would really appreciate it if someone could provide some clarity regarding this. I understand that the results of Kamma are not equal to predestination, and that it’s a very important component of the Buddha’s teaching, but _how_ exactly it is that the law of Kamma allows for freedom of choice and variation is what I don’t understand. Thank you, and Metta.

I am born Hindu and have been following Buddhism for more than a year. The change has been a life changing experience but now I find myself at the junction of two religions. I sometimes face contradictory situations where its ok in one religion but violates the other. Traveling in two boats at the same time is certainly not possible but its also difficult to choose one over the other. So my question is:
1) Can one follow Hinduism and Buddhism at the same time?
2) How to maintain a balance between the two?
3) Or would I have to choose one over the other?
4) Or is it possible to choose Buddhism as subset of Hinduism, just like Jains do i.e. the mainly follow their own religion first & then they following Hinduism. So even in contradictory situations, they choose Jain rule over Hindu rule.

Isn't it possible that whatever they have realised is just a psychological effect? Doing continuously hard practices leads to affect their mind and they tend to believe that, yes, this is the truth. They started lying to themselves that they know the truth? **I truly respect their teachings which shows us the path to live a good life. I am just talking about the real truth (if there is any).** With love.

I'm working on a radio history of vegetarianism and featuring a dramatisation of the story of General Siha in the Mahavagga of the Vinaya Pitaka because it shows the difference between Jain (there called Niganthas - "tieless ones") and classical Theravada Buddhist attitudes to meat-eating. Here is a nineteenth century translation on archive.org. The story begins with the first sentence on the page: https://archive.org/stream/bookofdiscipline14hornuoft#page/324/mode/2up The story is told as if it vindicates the Buddha of the Jains angry accusations of himsa. But that seems flawed to me. General Siha himself - as a recent convert from Jainism (the 'Niganthas') - wouldn't have had any meat to hand in the first place if not for (in the Pali canon account) Gautama's influence. And grounds for suspicion had literally been shouted through the streets, albeit by a rival sect. I want to make sure that I accurately reflect the Theravada understanding of the story, but I can't find it anywhere. How is Gautama the wise sramana vindicated?

Consider a situation (just a silly example) like this: Suppose I'm walking on a road or grass field, and I know there are living beings like ants and other insects lying down on the surface, but I don't have any intention to kill any being while I walk there to reach my destination. But, as I'm walking, consequently, many little beings are killed by me by stomping on them, though I don't have intention to do so. Buddhism says that only an action done with intention will account as a Karma that will affect us accordingly.. Referring to this and the situation I gave for example, does it mean that the killing of insects without intention (though I know I'm going to kill them) isn't a bad Karma? Will I not face any effect due to that action I did unintentionally, but KNOWINGLY? If that's the case, why can't I rob a house and say that I just did it to quench my starving stomach, not to hurt anyone? Isn't the consequence of doing an unintentional action considered as a seed that can affect oneself? Why? If you say I'm wrong, then how is Karma in Buddhism different from that of Jainism, where every action is a Karma?