So why can't buddhists eat ginger, onion and garlic?
-
If the Budda did said that, why did the Theravada's said he didnt?Originally posted by sinweiy:or if search engine fyi:
Mahayana vs. Theravada
http://sg.search.yahoo.com/search?p=Theravada+Mahayana+&sm=All+the+Web&fr=FP-tab-web-t&toggle=1
/\
Either he said or he didn't isn't it.
So one must be wrong isn't it. -
Only 1 is telling the truth...take your best shot
-
"This teaching ofOriginally posted by maggot:Only 1 is telling the truth...take your best shot
mine is that of the Buddha whereas any other is that of evil
demons." quoted by Buddha. -
Ok, I just wanna know what is the basis for Theravada's to say Buddha did not say cannot eat garlic?Originally posted by grandeur:"This teaching of
mine is that of the Buddha whereas any other is that of evil
demons." quoted by Buddha. -
No basis.Originally posted by marcteng:Ok, I just wanna know what is the basis for Theravada's to say Buddha did not say cannot eat garlic?
It's simply that Shurangama Sutra/Brahma Net sutra is not found in the Pali canon, therefore they never heard of such topics being mentioned.
Brahma Net Sutra is specifically on Bodhisattva Precepts and is meant for Bodhisattva practitioners. -
Are there compilations of the canons into a complete voulme like the Bible?Originally posted by An Eternal Now:No basis.
It's simply that Shurangama Sutra/Brahma Net sutra is not found in the Pali canon, therefore they never heard of such topics being mentioned.
Brahma Net Sutra is specifically on Bodhisattva Precepts and is meant for Bodhisattva practitioners. -
No... there are just too many discourses. It's said that the Pali canon alone (not to mention other huge sutras from other canon) is 11 times the Bible in volume.Originally posted by casino_king:Are there compilations of the canons into a complete voulme like the Bible?
Buddha taught for 49 years in total..