Agama And Tripitaka Comparative Study

Author(s): Nagaraj Muni
Publisher: Today and Tomorrows Printers and Publishers

Page 53

13
be a lump of oil-cake or a gourd, then he does not incur the sin of killing a man or a boy. And I would go further to add that the cooked meat is wholesome and is good enough for the breakfast by the enlightened (buddhas).
Continuing in the same strain, the bhikṣu added,
Ārdrakakumara! My philosophy lays down that if someone entertains with food 2000 snataka (7) (bodhisattva) monks everyday, he acquires a place in the celestical existence, and is born as Aropya, the best among the gods (8).
Monk Ardraka - It is not fit for a monk to kill two - to four-organ beings and flora-bodies (etc.) and to extol it to be no-sin. Those who preach like this, and those who listen such discourses - both are ignoramous, and both are condemned to ill-fare. Can anyone who practis es restraint and non-injury to life, who is free from delusion, and who understands the real nature of mobile and immobile beings, indulge in such talks? Is it practicable to cook a boy by considering it to be a gourd, or a gourd by considering it to be a boy? Those who speak like this indulge in falsehood and are non-Aryans.
(Continued he:)
Is it the sign of a restrained person that in his mind he understands a boy to be a boy and still he calls him a gourd ? Suppose some people kill a thick and fat ram, carefully cut and separate its meat, pour salt on it, fry it in oil, dress it with spices and prepare it for your sake; and you eat that meat and brag that you have committed no sin. This indicates your wickedness and your greedy tongue. If someone inadvertently eats this meat, still he commits a sin. If this be correct, then, if somebody ways that he ate the meat without knowing it to be meat, and that he is not telling a flat lie?
(Ārdrakakumāra went on:)
The monks in the order of Nataputta avoid purposive food out of fear of sin because they cherish compassion for all living beings and they avoid all conscious lapses. Those