Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Is it correct or a Mis-interpretation of Vedic...

[Narsing Rao]

The interpretation is correct. Here are the relevant sutras:

AGS 3.10 एतावद्गोरालम्भनमतिथिः पितरो विवाहश्च

These are the occasions for the sacrifice (आलम्भनम्) of a cow (गोः) - (the
arrival of) a guest, (offerings to the) ancestors, and a wedding.

AGS 13.15 गौरिति गां प्राह

(The host) announces the cow saying "the cow"

AGS 13.17 यद्युत्सृजेदुपांशूत्तरां जपित्वोमुत्सृजतेत्युच्चैः
If (the guest) wishes to let loose the cow, he should mutter the next in
a low voice (उपांशु) and say loudly (उच्चैः) "Om let it loose" (ॐ उत्सृजत)

Note: "Next" refers to the next mantra in the Mantrapatha (AKA
Ekagnikanda). In this case it would be: पिबतूदकं तृणाण्यत्तु (May it drink
water and eat grass).

AGS 13.18 अन्नं प्रोक्तमुपांशूत्तरैरभिमन्त्र्य ॐ कल्पयतेत्युच्चैः
(Otherwise) he should mutter the next over the announced meal and say
loudly "Om prepare it" (ॐ कल्पयत)

Note: "Next" refers to: सा विराट् तन्मा क्षायि तस्य तेऽशीय तन्म ऊर्जंधाः ।

There is no doubt that the Vedic people sacrificed bulls/cows and also
ate beef. Please see the attached document for more details. However,
that does not mean that we should do the same. Doing something just
because some ancient people did it is silly.

This may be embarrassing to some; but scholars should accept the truth
and not live in denial.

Regards,
Narsing Rao

On 30-Dec-12 1:15 PM, Sati Shankar wrote:
> Mannyavar,
>
> I came across a Vedic reference with interpretation, which came to me
> as shocking with surprise. Its source link is
> http://www.scribd.com/doc/116974573/Cow-Slaughtering-in-Brahmin-marriages
>
> We encounter many mis-interpretations originating from people like
> Jakir Naik etc and do not give attention to it, but this time it is
> from (apparently) our side.
>
> I am directing it to your attention to know it interpretation is
> really correct or is a mis-interpretation, which is go signal to
> society accordingly.
> For your convenience I have attached the document here with.
>
> I would highly appreciate your judgement.
>
> With Best Wishes
> Regards
> Sati Shankar
>
>
>
>
> --
> --
> निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
> to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
> https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
> To unsubscribe from this group, send email to
> bvparishat+...@googlegroups.com
>
>
>

[Shrisha Rao]

El dic 30, 2012, a las 10:28 p.m., Narsing Rao <sthir...@gmail.com> escribió:

> There is no doubt that the Vedic people sacrificed bulls/cows and also ate beef. Please see the attached document for more details.

There are a number of points in that document (and otherwise in such literature) which beg for closer inquiry, e.g., the claim that a guest is designated as a "cow-killer." This point has been discussed before here; see https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/browse_thread/thread/ce9039396d2701f5/ for more.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

[Narsing Rao]

No Sir, it does not mean that.  All I am saying is that there is enough evidence that rituals involving the slaughter of cows existed since they are described in many places.

I am attaching the following:

• Apastamba GS 3.10, 13.15-18 with the commentaries Anakula (by Haradatta Misra) and Tatparyadarshana (by Sudarshanacharya).  Haradatta lived around the 14th CE and Sudarshanacharya a little later.  Sudarshanacharya in particular is a highly regarded commentator.  Please read them to remove any doubts about what Apastamba meant (unless you want to dismiss them by saying that they misinterpreted everything).  There is enough detail about the ritual (for example - तस्याः संज्ञपनं कृत्वा वपामुत्खिद्य , etc.), and Haradatta also quotes the Ashvalayana GS (end of first chapter): नामांसो मधुपर्को भवति भवति ॥
• Shulagava ritual described in the Ashvalayana GS with the commentary of Haradatta (see sutras 21 to 25 for gory details).  The Shulagava is also described by Baudhayana and several others
  

Now I cannot say how frequently these rituals were performed. There are innumerable details about animal sacrifices in the Vedic literature -  the Aitareya Brahmana Chapter 33 even gives details about how the parts of the sacrificial animal is divided between the priests (हनू सजिह्वे प्रस्तोतुः , श्येनं वक्ष उद्गातुः , etc.)

What I find more shocking is that some people deny that animal sacrifices are even mentioned in the Vedic literature.

Regards,
Narsing


On 31-Dec-12 8:13 AM, Pramod Kushwaha wrote:

तर्हि सर्वे हिन्दवः अपि गोमांसाशिनः भवेयुः वा?

 

(प्रमोद कुशवाहा)

[V Subrahmanian]

The Brahma sutra 3.1.25 अशुद्धमिति चेन्न, शब्दात् and its commentary by Shankaracharya could be seen:

// शास्त्राच्च हिंसानुग्रहाद्यात्मको ज्योतिष्टोमो धर्म इत्यवधारितः स कथमशुद्ध इति शक्यते वक्तुम्  ।

 

ननु 'न हिंस्यात्सर्वा भूतानि' इति शास्त्रमेव भूतविषयां हिंसामधर्म इत्यवगमयति   ।

बाढम्  । उत्सर्गस्तु सः । अपवादः 'अग्नीषोमीयं पशुमालभेत' इति । उत्सर्गापवादयोश्च व्यवस्थितविषयत्वम् । तस्माद्विशुद्धं कर्म वैदिकं, शिष्टैरनुष्ठीयमानत्वादनिन्द्यमानत्वाच्च   ।

regards

subrahmanian.v

[Narsing Rao]

This in fact proves that animal sacrifice is ordained by the Vedas. Shankaracharya's explanation that killing animals is not OK in general but permitted in the Yaga is just a way of justifying slaughter of animals (I find this moral stand unacceptable).  So we have to convince ourselves that the animal is neither killed nor hurt  - see Taittiriya Brahmana 3.7.7  -  (Sayana : अथ पशोः संज्ञप्यमानस्य परावृत्तौ मन्त्रमाह)  न वा उ एतन्म्रियसे न रिष्यसि ।

Ramanuja in his Sribhashyam offers the explanation: हिरण्यशरीर ऊर्ध्वः स्वर्गलोकमेति.

I can give more references from the Taittiriya Samhita that describe animal sacrifices.

Such views have led to justifiable criticism such as

पशुश्चेन्निहतः स्वर्गं ज्योतिष्टोमे गमिष्यति । स्वपिता यजमानेन तत्र कस्मान्न हिंस्यते ॥  from the Charvakas, and
यूपं छित्वा पशून् हत्वा कृत्वा रुधिरकर्दमम् । यद्येवं गम्यते स्वर्गं नरके केन गम्यते ॥ from the Jainas (quoted by मल्लिषेण in his स्याद्वादमञ्जरी).

In response to Shri Misra's message I would like to say that it is possible that both views co-existed.  Some people opposed the sacrifice of animals whereas others supported it.

Regards,
Narsing Rao

[Dr. P. Ramanujan]

अत्र संलग्ने
आपस्तम्बगृह्यसूत्रव्याख्यायां
तृतीयपृष्ठे
तात्पर्यदर्शने "अयं च
संज्ञपनपक्षः
कलियुगानाचारेषु
पठितत्वादिदानीं त्याज्य
एव" इति वचनमवधेयम् । [In the attached
AGS-3.10-13.15-18.pdf file, page no. 3 of 4 in line just before the 17th
sutra].

धर्मः देश, काल, वर्तमान, वर्ण,
आश्रम, सामान्य, विशेष,
आपदादिभिः उपाधिभिः बहुधा
भिद्यते इति प्रामाणिकमेव ।
धर्मस्य तत्त्वं निहितं
गुहायां महाजनो येन गतः स
पन्थाः इति च ।

रामानुजः
On Mon, Dec 31, 2012, Narsing Rao <sthir...@gmail.com> said:

>
> --------------040802050308010809040306
> Content-Type: text/plain; charset=UTF-8; format=flowed
> Content-Transfer-Encoding: base64
>
> Tm8gU2lyLCBpdCBkb2VzIG5vdCBtZWFuIHRoYXQuICBBbGwgSSBhbSBzYXlp
> bmcgaXMgdGhhdCB0aGVyZSBpcyBlbm91Z2ggDQpldmlkZW5jZSB0aGF0IHJp
> dHVhbHMgaW52b2x2aW5nIHRoZSBzbGF1Z2h0ZXIgb2YgY293cyBleGlzdGVk
> IHNpbmNlIHRoZXkgDQphcmUgZGVzY3JpYmVkIGluIG1hbnkgcGxhY2VzLg0K
> DQpJIGFtIGF0dGFjaGluZyB0aGUgZm9sbG93aW5nOg0KDQogICog

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This e-mail is for the sole use of the intended recipient(s) and may
contain confidential and privileged information. If you are not the
intended recipient, please contact the sender by reply e-mail and destroy
all copies and the original message. Any unauthorized review, use,
disclosure, dissemination, forwarding, printing or copying of this email
is strictly prohibited and appropriate legal action will be taken.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[V Subrahmanian]

Here are some references:

पस्पषाह्निक - भाग ११

११ - २०-३५ - वेदे खलु अपि पयोव्रतः ब्राह्मणः यवागूव्रतः राजन्यः आमिक्षाव्रतः वैश्यः इति उच्यते ।

११ - २१-३५ - व्रतम् च नाम अभ्यवहारार्थम् उपादीयते ।

११ - २२-३५ - शक्यम् च अनेन शालिमांसादीनि अपि व्रतयितुम् ।

११ - २३-३५ - तत्र नियमः क्रियते ।

११ - २४-३५ - तथा बैल्वः खादिरः वा यूपः स्यात् इति उच्यते ।

११ - २५-३५ - यूपः च नाम पश्वनुबन्धार्थम् उपादीयते ।

६ - ८-२० - तत् यथा भक्ष्यनियमेन अभक्ष्यप्रतिषेधो गम्यते ।

६ - ९-२० - पञ्च पञ्चनखाः भक्ष्याः इति उक्ते गम्यते एतत् ॒ अतः अन्ये अभक्ष्याः इति ।

६ - १०-२० - अभक्ष्यप्रतिषेधेन वा भक्ष्यनियमः ।

The Valmiki Ramayana is said to contain references to Rama delighting Sita with meat preparations while in the forest.


http://www.aa.tufs.ac.jp/~tjun/data/gicas/ap2_frame.html  (agni purANam)

शशकः शल्यकी गोधा खड्गः कूर्म्मस्तथैव च ॥ 20cd
भक्ष्याः पञ्चनखाः प्रोक्ताः परिशेषाश्च वर्ज्जिताः । 21ab
पाठीनरोहितान्मत्स्यान् सिंहतुण्डांश्च भक्षयेत् ॥ 21cd

regards
subrahmanian.v 

2012/12/31 Narsing Rao <sthir...@gmail.com>

This in fact proves that animal sacrifice is ordained by the Vedas.

I can give more references from the Taittiriya Samhita that describe animal sacrifices.

Regards,
Narsing Rao

[Nityanand Misra]

2013/1/1 V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>

Here are some references:

The Valmiki Ramayana is said to contain references to Rama delighting Sita with meat preparations while in the forest.

Posters are requested to back such bizarre and controversial claims with appropriate citation from a reliable source. "Said to contain" is a misleading statement - by whom? Where? Which publication?
 

http://www.aa.tufs.ac.jp/~tjun/data/gicas/ap2_frame.html  (agni purANam)

शशकः शल्यकी गोधा खड्गः कूर्म्मस्तथैव च ॥ 20cd
भक्ष्याः पञ्चनखाः प्रोक्ताः परिशेषाश्च वर्ज्जिताः । 21ab
पाठीनरोहितान्मत्स्यान् सिंहतुण्डांश्च भक्षयेत् ॥ 21cd

This has nothing to do with consumption of beef or with Srirama's diet in forest. Also, this is a highly irresponsible citation made without understanding of the context of the original text. The whole chapter 168 in Agni Purana describes महापातकs on consciously or unconsciously eating certain things or performing certain actions and and how to perform प्रायश्चित्त for these महापातक. Right before these verses you quoted, there are verses which explicitly say that a person who commits the महापातक of eating the meat of cow has to perform the तप्तकृच्छ्र व्रत to become pure (Agni Purana, Chapter 168, verses 14 to 16).

शुष्काणि जग्ध्वा मांसानि प्रेतान्नं करकाणि च ॥
क्रव्यादशूकरोष्ट्राणां गोमायोः कपिकाकयोः ।
गोनराश्वखरोष्ट्राणां छत्राकं ग्रामकुक्कुटं ॥
मांसं जग्ध्वा कुञ्जरस्य तप्तकृच्छ्रेण शुद्ध्यति ।

Regarding Verses 19-20, they say that the meat of five-nailed animals - Shashaka (hare), Shallaki (porcupine), Godha (probably iguana), Khadga (rhino), Kurma (tortoise) and certain fishes may be eaten. Seen in the context of the chapter on महापातक, this means that for any reason (consciously, unconsciously, or under compulsion), if one consumes the above, then the person is not impure and there is no व्रत/प्रायश्चित्त to be done. One may refer the 1904 English prose translation of Agni Purana by Manmatha Natha Dutt Shastri (Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, Varanasi) which has the same interpretation of these verses - the book is available at Digital Library of India (Barcode 4990010112813).
 

On a controversial topic like this, members are again requested to post with proper citation. Even though I do not agree with Dr. Narsing Rao, I find his posts well written and supported with reliable citations, and we all need to learn from this.

--
Nityānanda Miśra
Vice President, Equity Markets, Citigroup, Hong Kong SAR
Member, Advisory Council, JRHU, Chitrakoot, Uttar Pradesh, India
http://nmisra.googlepages.com

[Nityanand Misra]

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Pramod Kushwaha <pramod...@sify.com> wrote:

 

तदापि वैदिके विषये गोमांसाशनं इतरमांसाशनं च उभयौ समानौ नैव । एकस्य मतस्य उदाहरणम् अपरस्मै मताय पोषणाय असमीचीनम् एव ।

 

(प्रमोद कुशवाहा)

साधूक्तम्। इतरमांसं यथा मत्स्यं तु वाममार्गिणः पञ्चमकारसेविनो भक्षन्त्येव। परन्तु गोमांसं तु सर्वदक्षिणवामसम्प्रदायेषु निषिद्धम्। नरमांसमपि सर्वसम्प्रदायनिषिद्धम्।

[R. Narayana iyengar]

अयि भो महाभागाः 

सांप्रतं गोमांसनिषेधविषये वैदिकेषु लौकिकेषु च मतभेदो नास्ति | किन्तु सांप्रदायिकाचराणानां विकसनं ऐतिहासिक दृष्ट्या द्रष्टव्यं | पुरातनकाले केचन वैदिकाः अत्र तत्र गोमांसाशिनः आसन् इति कथने किञ्चिदपि असत्यं  न विद्यते इति मम अभिप्रायः ||

इति 

नारायणः 

साम्प्रतम् हिन्दुषु नैकेषु मतभेदेषु सत्सु अपि तेषु गोमांसं निषिद्धम्
इति
मतैक्यम् अस्ति । एतत् सर्वं सद् अपि यत् वैदिकाः गोंमांसाशिनः बभूवुः
इत्यस्य
कथनस्य कः अभिप्रायः ?
भवदीयम् कथनम् निश्चयेन उपपद्यते ।

(प्रमोद कुशवाहा)

On Tuesday, January 1, 2013 7:06:58 AM UTC+5:30, Nityanand Misra
wrote:

> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 9:12 AM, Pramod Kushwaha <pramod...@sify.com<javascript:>

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

2013/1/1 V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>

Here are some references:

The Valmiki Ramayana is said to contain references to Rama delighting Sita with meat preparations while in the forest.

Posters are requested to back such bizarre and controversial claims with appropriate citation from a reliable source. "Said to contain" is a misleading statement - by whom? Where? Which publication?

There is nothing bizarre in what I reported.  I said that on the authority of a renowned scholar's  public discourse in Kannada in Bangalore.

One may go through this too:

http://www.valmikiramayan.net/aranya/sarga73/aranya_73_prose.htm

Lakshmana's killing, dressing of birds and fishes, and Rama's munching them - is a heatedly debated topic in web forums of all sorts. Some commentators of Ramayana have totally contrived the above expressions, to give a touch of vegetarianism. Even when Rama killed Rohi animals as offerings to dead Jataayu, there also it is contrived to mean as some roots or tubers. When Seetha says to Ravana who came in the guise of Brahman friar, that Rama will fetch much meat and I offer that on cooking aamiSam aadaati puSkalam This also is contrived as some tubers and fruits.

"It is un-pebbly, un-slippery, un-weedy thereabouts, oh, Rama, equal are its quaysides and emersed are its sandbanks, red and blue lotuses beautify that Pampa Lake... There the indwellers of Pampa Lake's waters, oh, Raghava, namely the swans, cranes, Kraunca-s and fish-hawks will be letting out peeps in tuneful voice... Thereabout birds will be unflustered on seeing humans, because they are artless to avoid hunting, because none kills them, and you may savour them because those birds will be best and burley, similar to ghee-gobs...

Comment: A word about Rama's vegetarianism or otherwise is incorporated at endnote.

"Oh, Rama in that Pampa Lake there are best fishes, red-carps, and blunt-snouted small porpoises, and a sort of sprats, which are neither scraggy, nor with many fish-bones. Lakshmana will reverentially offer them to you on skewering them with arrow, and on broiling them on iron rod of arrow after descaling and de-finning them. While you eat those fishes to satiety, Lakshmana will offer you the water of Pampa Lake, which will be in the bunches of flowers of that lake, and which will be lotus-scented, pellucid, comfortably cool, shiny like silver and crystal, uncontaminated and that way pristine, by lifting it up that water with lotus leaf, making that leaf a stoup-like basin...//

And my citing the Agni purANam was not in any relation to Rama's diet.  Just because of the citation coming next to Rama's name you mistook it to refer to Rama.  I showed the Agni puraNam only to show that meat eating was a practice.  I had seen in what context these verses occur.  Nowhere did I connect beef eating with my citations.  I was largely responding to Sri Narasing Rao's comment on 'animal (not cow) sacrifice in the Veda'.  

 

[Ganesh R]

I am a vegetarian by birth and choice and I remain to be be so. In
spite of this I cannot afford to distort or deny the fact that in our
vedic culture we do find the references to non-vegetarianism. Coming
to RaamaayaNa under discussion, here are a few references from the
edition of the well knwn Vedaanta-vyaakraNa-alaMkaara vidvaan
mahaamahOpaadyaaya N. Ranganaatha Sharmaa:

raama's word to lakShmaNa:

mRugaM hatvaa aanaya kShipraM...........(ayOdhyaakaaNDa 56-23)

aiNEyaM shrapayasvaitat.......................


maaMsaani ca sumRShTaani phalaani vividhaani ca
raamasyaabhyavahaaraarthaM kiMkaraastUrNamaaharan (uttarakaaNDa 42-19,20)

There are few more. But due to my back pain i am unable to search now
it self and so here is a rather small information.


regards

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 10:59 AM, V Subrahmanian
<v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>
> On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 6:24 AM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>> 2013/1/1 V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>
>>>
>>> Here are some references:
>>>
>>> The Valmiki Ramayana is said to contain references to Rama delighting
>>> Sita with meat preparations while in the forest.
>>>
>>
>> Posters are requested to back such bizarre and controversial claims with
>> appropriate citation from a reliable source. "Said to contain" is a
>> misleading statement - by whom? Where? Which publication?
>
>
> There is nothing bizarre in what I reported. I said that on the authority
> of a ren>

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Dear Scholars,

The topic in question was raised on the reference in Apastramba 

 Aapastambha Gruhyastra; 3 Khanda -6 sutra; Vivahe Gowh10-Etaavadgoraalambhasthanam atidhih pitaro vivahasch

and not meat eating in general or cow slaughter or गोमांसभक्षण is a general practice or not.

I don't it need be pulled out or dragged into vegetarianism or non-vegetarianism today found in our society nor any movement such as world wide vegetarian congress or so we are popularly know through net work.

This aspect had already been discussed in an earlier thread in our group:

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/sCg5ZqnBi0M/discussion

Mr. Narasing  Rao has quoted the relevant commentaries on the above portion and there is little doubt about it. Centuries old discussion was held by Vishvanatha Nyaya Pancanana on this point of meat eating as mentioned in a message:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/sCg5ZqnBi0M/3QfV9kIU5OgJ

One can refer to the book and pass their comments. It may be interesting whether the killing of animals is a "himsa" or not which is a deviation from the point raised. Atithiyajna is one of the five yajna-s of a गृहस्थ and the above reference of Apastamba is to be taken in this point of view and not as a general practice or not. An example of Vishvanatha's argument can be cited for sample:

There is a rite prescribed श्येनयाग for destroying the enemy's life as आभिचारकर्म.  The killing of श्येन is not considered as हिंसा as it is prescribed by the श्रुति and it is exempted from हिंसा as prohibited by  मा हिंस्या सर्वा भूतानि which is not special for any animal, not only cow in any case. Now, the result of such आभिचार costing the life of another fellow human being is certainly against the ordainment, which is certainly हिंसा. Hence it is not advisable and against the श्रुति and will result in accruing resultant पाप or अधर्म. 

Again, if a king uses this as a weapon against his enemy, it comes within his राजधर्म by all means to eliminate the enemies and not meant for an ordinary man to revenge somebody. 

And again, if one comes to kill you, you have no other way to escape, and if you murder him it is considered as justifiable:

आततायिनमायान्तं हन्यादेवाविचारयन् 

नाततायिवधे दोषो हन्तुर्भवति कश्चन॥- मनु० ( ८ | ३५०-३५१ ) 

It is not for eating meat of human being.

With reagards

[Hnbhat B.R.]

One more link to the question of beef-eating discussed in bvp earlier:

https://groups.google.com/d/topic/bvparishat/zpA5OW0nAfU/discussion

and one more message with a link against beef-eating in Veda-s posted:

https://groups.google.com/d/msg/bvparishat/zpA5OW0nAfU/DokJxm8r1cMJ

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Scholars,

The topic in question was raised on the reference in Apastramba 

 

Sir,

I found this information in a website:

http://shrigaurbrahmanmahasabhabikaner.webs.com/

// Apastamba (Apastamba Dharmasutra) gives another list of animals not to be eaten. He also mentioned that during Shraddha meat should be offered to the ancestors.^[6]//

• I have heard from a Bengali Brahmin that those meat-eating families among them prepare meat during all functions like shrAddha, marriage but not during upanayanam.  The guests are given a choice to partake of vegetarian food too during those functions.
• A Nepali brahmin who is a vidyArthi in Brindavan had come to Bangalore for a workshop on Vedanta and Nyaya at the Purnaprajna Samshodhana Mandiram.  Upon my asking he said: Among Nepali brahmins, just like Bengalis, there are meat-eating families.  Intermarriages are allowed but the girl from a non-meat eating brahmin family has to give her consent before she is married into a meat-eating brahmin family. 
  
• I have heard from elders that the 'uLuttham vaDai / uddina vaDe' माषापूपः  served during shrAddham in our Southern people's homes is representative of the meat offering during this occasion in olden times.   

Could you pl. verify from the Apastamba sUtras the above information of offering meat during shraaddham?

regards

subrahmanian.v

[Hnbhat B.R.]

Please see the document in the first post and the subsequent commentaries provided by Narasing Rao. It is the same reference.

[Nityanand Misra]

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 5:27 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Scholars,

The topic in question was raised on the reference in Apastramba 

 

Sir,

I found this information in a website:

http://shrigaurbrahmanmahasabhabikaner.webs.com/

// Apastamba (Apastamba Dharmasutra) gives another list of animals not to be eaten. He also mentioned that during Shraddha meat should be offered to the ancestors.^[6]//

The above page is copy-pasted from several Wikipedia article, with the above sentence from the Wikipedia article on Brahmin Diet. Neither Wikipedia nor any clones of it are reliable references.

[Nityanand Misra]

Respected Dr. Ganesh

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 2:19 PM, Ganesh R <avadhan...@gmail.com> wrote:

I am a  vegetarian by birth and choice and I remain to be be so. In
spite of this I cannot afford to distort or deny the  fact that in our
vedic culture we do find the references to non-vegetarianism. Coming
to RaamaayaNa under discussion, here are a few references from the
edition of the well knwn Vedaanta-vyaakraNa-alaMkaara vidvaan
mahaamahOpaadyaaya N. Ranganaatha Sharmaa:

raama's word to lakShmaNa:

mRugaM hatvaa aanaya kShipraM...........(ayOdhyaakaaNDa 56-23)

aiNEyaM shrapayasvaitat.......................

The interpretation of ऐणेयं मांसं as the flesh of a deer in VR 2-56-22 and मृगं as deer in VR 2-56-23 is not beyond debate, and has been contested by many scholars. The biggest problem with this interpretation is that it contradicts several other verses in VR itself, notably VR 2-20-29, VR 2-34-49 and VR 2-54-16. Janakinath Sharma has logically contradicted both interpretations, though he has only briefly delved on this, in the Hindi translation of VR - please see both footnotes in the page attached from Sharma's translation published by Gita Press, Gorakhpur, 1996 (first edition 1960).
 

maaMsaani ca sumRShTaani phalaani vividhaani ca
raamasyaabhyavahaaraarthaM kiMkaraastUrNamaaharan (uttarakaaNDa 42-19,20)

Here again, मांसं can mean the fleshy part of the fruit, as in VR 2-56-22 by Sharma. Both meanings of मांसम् (flesh of animal and flesh of a fleshy fruit) are listed in Monier Williams and V S Apte dictionaries.
 

There are few more. But due to my back pain i am unable to search now
it self and so here is a  rather  small information.


regards

Thanks, Nityanand
 

[Ashok Aklujkar]

Dear Prof. Iyengar,

First, let me congratulate you on the excellent critique of Prof. B.N. Achar's writing in the area of archaeo-astronomy that you kindly  shared with the BVP membership a few days ago. Although I value Prof. Achar's work, too, I think your review, along with his original essay, should be regularly read in the courses on research methodology that are so commonly offered in Indian universities these days. The emphasis you placed on sound philology should particularly be noted by the younger members of the BVP list. 

As to the issue with which your remark below and the remarks of some other well-informed scholars who have recently written to the list are concerned, I have the following questions to ask or observations to make:

1. Why is it that beef-eating is talked about only in the context of certain situations and, perhaps, only in reference to certain types of individuals? One implication of this feature of the evidence will be that beef-eating was not common and was not generally recommended / approved of / entertained.

2. The contexts, as far as they have so far been mentioned, provide no hint to the effect that beef was offered because it was thought of as an expensive commodity or as a rare delicacy. 

3. If 1 and 2 are valid, how far justified would we be in seeing a historical or chronological development in attitudes toward beef-eating? 

4. As has already been observed, the scholars who think that only limited beef-eating existed see an esoteric reason behind the practice; that is, even though they do not know what that reason was, they are willing to believe that it existed. If we view this defensive posture as appearing only in (relatively) later times, we could characterize it as apologetics (and, therefore, worthy of dismissal). However, if the evidence substantiating beef-eating as a practice, when taken collectively,** indicates that there was  only a restricted acceptance of the practice (comparable to alcohol-drinking in Sautraama.nii), the esoteric defence of the practice could be said to have been as old as the practice itself; it would not be a case of modern apologetics somehow trying to get rid of an inconvenient fact.  In other words, some kind of view or theory about the interrelationships of wordily entities (objects, human beings, other life forms) must have preceded the practice. We may not know the precise nature of the theory. It may even not be a theory we would accept. But it will be difficult to deny that serious thought preceded the admission of beef-eating in specific situations -- that beef-eating might not have been introduced for the negative reason of curtailing a common practice but for a positive reason of achieving something that other means could not achieve or could not achieve equally well. 

** In the collectivity of evidence, we should also include passages containing aghnyaa etc. which indicate that a cow was not to be killed and which seem to be at least as old as, if not older than, the passages testifying to the existence of beef-eating. 

5. So far no reference has been made to Dwijendra Narayan Jha. 2002, Holy Cow: Beef in Indian Dietary Traditions; paperback (2004) ISBN 1-85984-424-3. I have not read this book. It was said to have been banned in India (banning of books is usually not a wise course of action).

With warm regards,

a.a.

[V Subrahmanian]

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 4:15 PM, Nityanand Misra <nmi...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 5:27 PM, V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com> wrote:

On Tue, Jan 1, 2013 at 12:38 PM, Hnbhat B.R. <hnbh...@gmail.com> wrote:

Dear Scholars,

The topic in question was raised on the reference in Apastramba 

 

Sir,

I found this information in a website:

http://shrigaurbrahmanmahasabhabikaner.webs.com/

// Apastamba (Apastamba Dharmasutra) gives another list of animals not to be eaten. He also mentioned that during Shraddha meat should be offered to the ancestors.^[6]//

The above page is copy-pasted from several Wikipedia article, with the above sentence from the Wikipedia article on Brahmin Diet. Neither Wikipedia nor any clones of it are reliable references.

While giving that piece of information I had made a request that this could be verified with the original text (the Apastamba sutra) so as to find out what exactly is contained there on this topic.

subrahmanian.v

 

[Shrisha Rao]

El ene 1, 2013, a las 10:26 p.m., Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.a...@gmail.com> escribió:

> 5. So far no reference has been made to Dwijendra Narayan Jha. 2002, Holy Cow: Beef in Indian Dietary Traditions; paperback (2004) ISBN 1-85984-424-3. I have not read this book. It was said to have been banned in India (banning of books is usually not a wise course of action).

I believe Jha made a song and dance about it when the book appeared about a decade ago and gave interviews playing the injured martyr, saying he had been threatened, etc., but I don't believe a formal ban was ever put in place. Even if there were, it should hardly be a bother because the book can be ordered from amazon.com and other sources.

I have read the book but unfortunately cannot commend the author on his scholarship; not only is his style and approach needlessly offensive and confrontational, but the work is partial, poorly structured, and superficial, and does not at all acknowledge that there is also a tradition whence cows were regarded as sacred (e.g., the Puranic tales of Kamadhenu, Nandini, etc.).

For far better scholarship on this subject, I would much rather recommend the excellent paper "To Kill or Not to Kill the Sacrificial Animal (Yajna Pasu)" by Jan E.M. Houben, in an anthology titled "Violence denied: violence, non-violence and the rationalization of violence in South Asian cultural history" -- see http://books.google.co.in/books?id=6znfIA3UfWcC&lpg=PA105 for the same. The paper is from page 105 onwards. Houben does a creditable job, and looks at a much larger portion of the literature on this topic, from primary प्रस्थान-त्रय sources to Vedantic commentators.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

> With warm regards,
>
> a.a.

[narayanan er]

Respected Scholars,

विष्णुस्मृतिः says: मधुपर्के च यज्ञे च पितृदैवतकर्मणि। अत्रैव पशवो हिंस्या नान्यत्रेति कथंचन। । ५१.६४ । ।
यज्ञार्थेषु पशून्हिंसन्वेदतत्त्वार्थविद्द्विजः। आत्मानं च पशूंश्चैव गमयत्युत्तमां गतिम्। । ५१.६५ । ।
Manu says: मधुपर्के च यज्ञे च पितृदैवतकर्मणि। अत्रैव पशवो हिंस्या नान्यत्रेत्यब्रवीन्मनुः। । ५.४१। ।
एष्वर्थेषु पशून्हिंसन्वेदतत्त्वार्थविद्द्विजः। आत्मानं च पशुं चैव गमयत्युत्तमां गतिम्। । ५.४२। ।
गृहे गुरावरण्ये वा निवसन्नात्मवान्द्विजः। नावेदविहितां हिंसां आपद्यपि समाचरेत्। । ५.४३। ।
या वेदविहिता हिंसा नियतास्मिंश्चराचरे। अहिंसामेव तां विद्याद्वेदाद्धर्मो हि निर्बभौ। । ५.४४। ।
योऽहिंसकानि भूतानि हिनस्त्यात्मसुखेच्छया। स जीवांश्च मृतश्चैव न क्व चित्सुखमेधते। । ५.४५। ।
यो बन्धनवधक्लेशान्प्राणिनां न चिकीर्षति। स सर्वस्य हितप्रेप्सुः सुखमत्यन्तमश्नुते। । ५.४६। ।
It is very clear from these Smrti's that the slaughtering of animals on a regular basis had not been supported in any era. But any prolonged social practice could not be stopped by any ruler forcefully (As Manu being a ruler then, who can hardly ignore a social practice and says: न मांसभक्षणे दोषो...५.५६). Then the only way left is to restrict the slaughter to different special occasions. The dilemma stands between the following the status co practice of Vedic ritual practices (with a view to establishing whatever Veda preaching is harmonious) and the regular slaughter control. Here the question is not that of vegetarianism or carnivorous practice in Vedas, but eatables and non-eatables, whereas non-eatables include even vegetables like: onion, garlic and any vegetable produced out of filthy garbage prohibited in Yajna, parental and divine offerings. Naciketas (the Kathopanisad) might have smelt the consequence of donating a number of barren cows by his father might lead to the regular slaughtering (only cow-dung and no milk products from barren cows). On special Vedic rituals the occational slaughtering does not harm the animal population equilibrium of the universe, but the carnivorous addiction is not harmonious. This is what the Vedic message transformed through the Smrtis.

Regards,

Narayanan

---

From: Shrisha Rao <sh...@dvaita.org>
To: Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.a...@ubc.ca>; Bharatiya Vidvat parishad <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Wednesday, 2 January 2013 11:53 AM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Is it correct or a Mis-interpretation of Vedic...

--
--
निराशीर्निर्ममो भूत्वा युध्यस्व विगतज्वरः।। (भ.गी.)
to subscribe go to the link below and put a request
https://groups.google.com/group/bvparishat/subscribe
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to

bvparishat+unsub...@googlegroups.com

[V Subrahmanian]

Here is a small collection from the Valmiki Ramayana on the episode of Vali's questioning Rama's propriety in slaying him.

http://valmiki.iitk.ac.in/index.php?id=translation

अधार्यं चर्म मे सद्भी रोमाण्यस्थि च वर्जितम्।
अभक्ष्याणि च मांसानि त्वद्विधैर्धर्मचारिभिः।। 4.17.37।।

मे mine, चर्म skin, अधार्यम् is not fit to be worn, रोमाणि hair, सद्भि: by good people, अस्थि च bone also, वर्जितम् is avoided, त्वद्विधैः by men like you also, धर्मचारिभिः by righteous people, मांसानि meat, अभक्ष्याणि च is not fit for eating.

My skin can not be worn by pious men. My hair and bones are also not permitted for any use. My meat is not fit to be eaten by followers of dharma like you.

पञ्च पञ्च नखा भक्ष्या ब्रह्मक्षत्रेण राघव! ।। 4.17.38।।
शल्यक श्श्वाविधो गोधा शशः कूर्मश्च पञ्चमः।

राघव Rama, ब्रह्मक्षत्रेण by brahmana and Kshatriya, शल्यकः the porcupine, श्वाविधः the hedgehog, गोधा the alligator, शशः the rabbit, कूर्मश्च the turtle, पञ्चमः the five, पञ्चनखाः five-nailed creatures, भक्ष्याः are permitted to be eaten.

Only the porcupine, the hedge hog, the alligator, the rabbit and the turtle are among the five-nailed animals permitted to be eaten by brahmins and Kshatriyas.

चर्म चास्थि च मे राजन् न स्पृशन्ति मनीषिणः।। 4.17.39।।
अभक्ष्याणि च मांसानि सोऽहं पञ्चनखो हतः।

राजन् O king, मनीषिणः learned people, मे mine, चर्म च even skin, अस्थीनि bone, न स्पृशन्ति do not touch, मांसानि च and the flesh, अभक्ष्याणि should not be eaten, पञ्चनखः five -nailed animal, सः अहम् such me, हतः killed.

O King! Learned people do not touch my skin or even bone.They do not eat my flesh. You have killed me who is such a five nailed animal.

तिलकटीका - यद्यपि क्षत्रियस्य मृगहननमप्यस्ति, तथापि मद्विषयमिदमप्रयोजनमित्याह- अधार्यमिति । वर्जितम् अस्पृश्यत्वेन स्मृतिषूक्तमित्यर्थः ।। 4.17.38 ।।

अभक्ष्याणीत्यत्र प्रमाणमाह- पञ्चपञ्चेत्यादि । ब्रह्मक्षत्रेणेति समाहारद्वन्द्वः । शल्यकः खड्गी । शुक्तिकाकारशल्यावृतसर्वाङ्गो जन्तुविशेषः इत्यन्ये । श्वाविधः कण्टकाकारदीर्घरोमभिः शुनां वेधको जन्तुः ।। 4.17.39 ।।

सो ऽहं पञ्चनखो हतः । अभक्ष्यः पञ्चनखो हत इत्यर्थः ।। 4.17.40,41 ।।
शिरोमणिटीका -
त्वद्विधैः धर्मचारिभिः धर्मप्रवर्तकैः सद्भिः मे चर्म अधार्यं रोमाणि अस्थि च वर्जितम् अस्पृश्यमित्यर्थः, मांसानि अभक्ष्याणि ।
मद्धननं निरर्थकमेवेत्याह-- चर्मेति । हे राम! मनीषिणः यस्य मे चर्मादि न स्पृशन्ति, मांसानि चाभक्ष्यणि स पञ्चनखो ऽहं हतस्त्वयेति शेषः ।। 4.17.40 ।।

regards
subrahmanian.v

[Nityanand Misra]

On Wednesday, January 2, 2013 2:23:54 PM UTC+8, Shrisha Rao wrote:

El ene 1, 2013, a las 10:26 p.m., Ashok Aklujkar <ashok.a...@gmail.com> escribió:

I believe Jha made a song and dance about it when the book appeared about a decade ago and gave interviews playing the injured martyr, saying he had been threatened, etc., but I don't believe a formal ban was ever put in place.  Even if there were, it should hardly be a bother because the book can be ordered from amazon.com and other sources.

I have read the book but unfortunately cannot commend the author on his scholarship; not only is his style and approach needlessly offensive and confrontational, but the work is partial, poorly structured, and superficial, and does not at all acknowledge that there is also a tradition whence cows were regarded as sacred (e.g., the Puranic tales of Kamadhenu, Nandini, etc.).  

Completely agree with the comments of Dr. Rao on the writing of  D N Jha. I have not read Holy Cow: Beef in Indian Dietary Traditions but I have read parts of its republication The Myth of the Holy Cow (ISBN 9781859846766, published by Verso in the UK and the USA). The text is poorly presented,  the copy-editing is far from professional, the analytical logic conspicuous by its absence. Have a look at this from page 37 of the book: 

<Quote>

The Myth of the Holy Cow

Whether or not the Vedic Aryans ate consecrated or sacrificed beef or other animal flesh, the heart of the matter is that the milch cattle including the cow was not sacred during the Vedic and post-Vedic centuries. The term aghnya/aghnyā (lit. not to be slain) has been used at four places in the Ṛgveda and the Atharvaveda 'as a masculine noun equivalent to bull or ox and 42 times with a feminine ending to mean a cow'.¹⁰⁸ Attention has also been drawn to the use of words for cow as epithet or in simile and metaphor with reference to entities of highest religious significance,¹⁰⁹ though these occurrences do not indicate their primary sense with reference to the actual animal. Neither of the two types of evidence adduced in favour of the sacredness of the Vedic cow, therefore, points to the basically unslayable character of cows.  On the contrary the references seem to emphasize their economic value.¹¹⁰ When slaughtered they provided food ...

<Unquote>

This is the start of a section. I read the paragraph several times over to see if I missed something between the two pieces of evidence he is trying to refute and the word "therefore" which precedes his conclusion. The deductive process beat my twelve years of training in logic, statistics and econometrics. The author brings up two claims he wishes to refute, then makes a random statement about primary sense without offering any reason or proof, and abracadabra here we have a conclusion of the hypoethesis!! No linguistic analysis, no quoting of Yaska, no Paninian analysis, no analysis of commentaries, no context or elaboration of the 46 occurrences of the words aghnya/aghnyā, no logical reasoning and you have a conclusion. Maybe the reasoning is from some other author(s) buried in the footnotes, maybe it is the editor's slip, but I expect something more professional. This is all the more surprising since prima facie, to most grammarians, the word aghnya just means what Dr. Jha is trying to deny - unslayable/not to be slain. One would expect a good 3-4 page treatment to counter this evidence, I did not see it.

This is just one example, the book abounds in similar leaps of faith disguised as logic which led me to conclude that this is not a piece of historical research where evidence is analyzed to reach a conclusion but an exercise in polemic where one starts with the conclusion and builds up evidence to support the conclusion. The author concludes that only cows offered as a Dakshina to a Brahmin were unslayable, a conclusion which is a guess or belief at best, not a matter of fact as reported by glowing reviews of the book in The Hindu, New York Times and Guardians (the usual suspects, playing to the gallery, anyone?). Dr. Rao has already pointed out that he has skipped tomes of evidence from Itihasa, Puranas, et cetera which are much older than when Dr. Jha thinks Hindus started attaching sacredness to the cow.

Dr. Jha may be an eminent historian, which I am definitely not. He may be well versed in Vedas, grammar and Sanskrit, where I am a beginner at best. I am only a logical reader trying to analyze "analytical reasoning process" of his works, and with all my experience in hypothesis testing, I find it lacking in scientific rigour. We have a genre for science-fiction (sci-fi), but we need a new genre called "historical fiction" (hi-fi) to categorize these pseudo-scientific works.

[Narsing Rao]

Scholars may want to read the comments by Yogi Omanand Teerth in his scholarly section on षड्दर्शन समन्वय in the commentary on Patanjali Yoga Sutras titled पातञ्जलयोगप्रदीप (Gita Press 2007, ISBN 8129300117, p. 9). Omanand Teertha denies any beef and meat in Vedas and cites a Purvamimamsa Sutra and a reference in Mahabharata which say that it was started by the evil. I have attached the relevant page.

Here are my comments on the page you have attached part of which is reproduced below:





First, his claim that references to the offerings of animal flesh are a later interpolation into the Purvamimamsa are unsubstantiated.

Secondly, his quote of 12.2.2 is incomplete and also out of context.

Here, the context is the  गार्हपत्याद्यग्निषु लौकिककर्मानुष्ठानाधिकरणम् which address the objection that shrauta fires can also be used for laukika acts (such as cooking, heating, burning, lighting and so on).

12.2.1    विहारो लौकिकानामर्थं साधयेत्प्रभुत्वात् ।

Purvapaksha - The विहार (meaning गार्हपत्य and other fires) can also be used to accomplish लौकिक acts, because of their capacity for doing so (प्रभुत्वात्).

12.2.2 मांसपाकप्रतिषेधश्च तद्वत्

Purvapaksha continued: Because cooking of flesh (for लौकिक purposes) is prohibited, but not other activities.

Here is the Shabara bhashya on this sutra:

मांसपाकप्रतिषेधो भवति तद्वत् । यद्वन्न्यायोपदिष्टः । मांसं न पचेयुस्तस्मिन्नग्नौ, यत्पचेयुः क्रव्यादं कुर्युरिति । लौकिके हि पाके मांसप्रसङ्गो न वैदिके , शामित्रे मांसपाकः ।

The resolution is in the next sutra:

12.2.3 निर्देशाद्वा वैदिकानां स्यात्

By being ordained as such, these fires can be used only for Vaidika acts. (i.e. not for Laukika acts)

I am attaching the translation in English of the Shabara bhasya on this adhikarana by Ganganath Jha.

In fact references to animal sacrifices are so numerous in the Purva Mimamsa that I don't see how is is possible to deny them.

The excellent reference provided by Prof. Shrisha Rao can be read in its entirety online and provides numerous reference to animal sacrifices:
_______________________________________

For far better scholarship on this subject, I would much rather recommend the excellent paper "To Kill or Not to Kill the Sacrificial Animal (Yajna Pasu)" by Jan E.M. Houben, in an anthology titled "Violence denied: violence, non-violence and the rationalization of violence in South Asian cultural history" -- see http://books.google.co.in/books?id=6znfIA3UfWcC&lpg=PA105 for the same.  The paper is from page 105 onwards.  Houben does a creditable job, and looks at a much larger portion of the literature on this topic, from primary प्रस्थान-त्रय sources to Vedantic commentators.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

_______________________________________

Regards,
Narsing Rao

[V Subrahmanian]

On Thu, Jan 3, 2013 at 6:42 PM, Narsing Rao <sthir...@gmail.com> wrote:

Omanand Teertha denies any beef and meat in Vedas and cites a Purvamimamsa Sutra and a reference in Mahabharata which say that it was started by the evil.

Sir,

There is a famous 'ashvamedha yAga' in our Veda.  The 5th and the 7th kAnDa of the Yajurveda samhita mention this yAga. Scholars may pl. identify these
parts and help us understand how exactly this yAga is performed. This yaga is famed by many noted persons having performed it:

Is there a description of this yAga in the Valmiki Ramayana where Rama commences this yAga and even Dasharatha performs it in the bAlakANDa?

In fact the Mahabharata itself mentions about this yAga:
 

http://www.yogamag.net/archives/2007/bfeb07/vedic.shtml
//The epic Mahabharata is replete with examples testifying that yajna was an indispensable activity for kings and emperors. In the Shanti Parva, there are numerous stories of ashvamedha yajna being performed by virtuous kings and emperors. Dushyanta, son of Bharata, completed 100 ashvamedha yajnas, Bhagiratha performed several more, and King Dilip completed 1000 such rituals of fire. King Yudhishthira too conducted an ashvamedha yajna.//

http://www.telugubhakti.com/telugupages/monthly/mahabharat/content1201.htm

This site also mentions the ashwamedha yaga in the Shanti parva of the Mahabharata.

Scholars may pl. help us know more about this ashwamedha yAga.  The 'how' of it is most important.  On the internet I could find this:

http://bachodi.wordpress.com/2010/07/26/ashvamedha-yaga/  I am not saying that this site is 'authentic' but this is perhaps the best explanation of the
method of the yaga I could find upon a search.

// The Ashvamedha could only be conducted by a king ( rājā ). Its object was the acquisition of power and glory, the sovereignty over neighbouring provinces, and general prosperity of the kingdom.

… The horse is sprinkled with water, and the Adhvaryu and the sacrificer whisper mantras into its ear. Anyone who should stop the horse is ritually cursed, and a dog is killed symbolic of the punishment for the sinners. The horse is then set loose towards the North-East, to roam around wherever it chooses, for the period of one year (or half a year, according to some commentators). …. If the horse wanders into neighbouring provinces hostile to the sacrificer, they must be subjugated. The wandering horse is attended by a hundred young men, sons of princes or high court officials, charged with guarding the horse from all dangers and inconvenience.

… the horse, a hornless he- goat , a wild ox ( go-mrga , Bos gavaeus ) are bound to sacrificial stakes near the fire, and seventeen other animals are attached to the horse. A great number of animals, both tame and wild, are tied to other stakes, …

…Then the horse is slaughtered …

… The horse is dissected, and its flesh roasted. Various parts are offered to a host of deities and personified concepts with utterances of svaha “all-hail…//

see also this wikipedia:  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashvamedha

regards

subrahmanian.v

[Shrivathsa B]

hariH OM,

   for a beautiful explanation on ashvamedha, please read the following article by Subhash Kak:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/76292503/ASHVAMEDHA-The-Rite-and-Its-Logic-Subhash-Kak

svasti,

            JAYA BHAVAANII BHAARATII,

                                                             shrivathsa.

2013/1/3 V Subrahmanian <v.subra...@gmail.com>

[V Subrahmanian]

There is also a very famous 'sarpayAga' performed by King Janamejaya described in the Mahabharatha where thousands of snakes were sacrificed:

http://sa.wikisource.org/wiki/%E0%A4%AE%E0%A4%B9%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%AD%E0%A4%BE%E0%A4%B0%E0%A4%A4%E0%A4%AE%E0%A5%8D-01-%E0%A4%86%E0%A4%A6%E0%A4%BF%E0%A4%AA%E0%A4%B0%E0%A5%8D%E0%A4%B5-003

Here is the story in English:

http://www.mahabharataonline.com/stories/mahabharata_story.php?id=28

regards
subrahmanian.v

[rniyengar]

Dear Members,
This type of response is too jarring and unwarranted in a scholarly group.
"यदि भवान् इच्छति तर्हि गोमासं भक्षयतु....कृपया मोदेन स्वीकुर्वन्तु"   what kind of scholarly answer is this? Dr.Narasing Rao, is not trying to convert the other person to his views, nor is he seeking permission for NV-ism!  Let not Vidvat be reduced to Vid.ambanam & Vitan.d.aa.

Cheers!

RN Iyengar

On Thursday, January 3, 2013 9:15:26 PM UTC+5:30, Pramod Kushwaha wrote:

महोदय

 

यदि भवान् इच्छति तर्हि गोमासं भक्षयतु । किन्तु वयं न मन्यामहे । अस्मदीयं मतं स्पष्टं यत् श्रुतयः गोमांसं न प्रतिपादयन्ति इति । वयं भवदीयं मतं परिवर्तितुं न शक्नुवन्ति भवता च आस्माकीनं मतं परिवर्तितुं न शक्यते । वयं गोमासं न भक्षयिष्यामः नैव च आस्माकीनं मतं परिवर्तिष्यामहे । किमर्थं अस्मदीयं मतं इत्थं वयं अग्रे न विवदतुं इच्छामः । एतानि प्रमाणानि भवन्तं गोमासं भक्षयितं अवसरं लम्भयन्ति । कृपया मोदेन स्वीकुर्वन्तु ।

 

(प्रमोद कुशवाहा)

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Dear Dr. Iyengar,

================= Mod Note===========

 Point has been noted. No personal remarks are to be made in any scholarly discussion of BVP.  A mail has been sent to the member and my apologies for the lapse.
Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

[Ganesh R]

Dear Sirs,

I completely agree with Prof. R N Iyengar in this regard and Dr. Narsing Rao and the others with him in this thread are not for any avocation and it is just pure satyaanvEShaNaM based on hard facts. Those who are so weak and mean as not even to see these discussions with a sense of scholarly detachment are not fit to be called as vidvaan-s in the primary sense.

regards

ganesh

On Fri, Jan 4, 2013 at 10:56 AM, rniyengar <narayana...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Narsing Rao]

I found the following book quite useful:

The History and Principles of Vedic Interpretation
by Ram Gopal
Concept Publishing Company
New Delhi

Link: http://www.conceptpub.com/servlet/Getbiblio?bno=00000126

Regards,
Narsing Rao

On 04-Jan-13 11:52 AM, Sati Shankar wrote:

Maanyvar,

I am thankful to all of you vidvat jana, and to Vidvat Parishat in general for such extensive referencing to my little query. Yes variants have been there and in a sense it comprises the inherent beauty and inner currents so necessary to survival of the subject matter.

However, please allow me to put a technical question which I have been wandering so far to judge between Sayana and Yask's interpretations of Rig Veda.

My question is," Are there some rules defines in Indian Logic for  interpretations which suggest where and to what extent we should adhere to esoteric meanings and for what go for literal??

As usual, I will remain obliged for directions.

Regards

Sati Shankar

On Sunday, December 30, 2012 1:15:10 PM UTC+5:30, Sati Shankar wrote:

Mannyavar,

I came across a Vedic reference with interpretation, which came to me as shocking with surprise. Its source link is 

http://www.scribd.com/doc/116974573/Cow-Slaughtering-in-Brahmin-marriages

We encounter many mis-interpretations originating from people like Jakir Naik etc and do not give attention to it, but this time it is from (apparently) our side.

I am directing it to your attention to know it interpretation is really correct or is a mis-interpretation, which is go signal to society accordingly.

For your convenience I have attached the document here with.

I would highly appreciate your judgement.

With Best Wishes

Regards

Sati Shankar

[Gmail Team]

Jan 4, 2013

 

Dear Sati Shankar,

 

There is no limit to interpret  esoteric meanings behind almost all religious books of the ancient India. They say there are seven layers of meanings in Vedas. How many layers one hope to understand in one life time?  There is hermeneutic (pardon for spelling if wrong) etymology and linguistic etymology. There was discussion in ancient India about VarNavaada and Sphotavaada. Thanks. N.R.Joshi.

____________________________________________________________
Woman is 57 But Looks 27
Mom publishes simple facelift trick that angered doctors...
ConsumerLifestyles.net

[VKG]

Dear Scholars

Pranam. I was wondering what purpose are we serving by discussing this point and similar points.

On another hand, MIM (Political party) Legislator is getting arrested or about to be detained, for making similar nuances though with different intention.

Words are similar. Please refer to news paper reports.

Every faith/ tradition/ religion has its strong points and weak points; based on the view point/ perspective of the analyst.

In the name of truth finding, let us not continue this subject. I hope that the moderators of this note of mine and do the needful.

BVP is a public forum. It is not privy communication between two individuals.

From legal aspect, any persons; taking objection and claiming to be hurt for religious offensive/ blasphemy take the writers and moderators to court/ police. 

We should be mindful that Cyber Law, is not yet formally amended. (Same provisions giving discretion for a willing Police Officer to arrest anyone for pressing LIKE button; are still in vogue, albeit with some some change in guidelines.)

Whatever is the case, this type BEEF discussion should be beefed up. (If the moderators are lenient, few people like us might be forced to leave BVP, because we do not know which law enforcement agency will take - what sort of view of each offensive comment. I am sure that, none of these scholastic personalities and votaries of free speech would stand in front line to defend all concerned and spare resources for the purpose.)

Due apologies for bringing stark reality to the notice of scholar community.

Personally, I opine that those who need clarifications/ information on contention issues, can seek guidance of scholars thru private communication, instead of putting the same in public forum.

Regards

Dr.Vamshi Krishna Ghanapathi

[VKG]

Dear Scholars

Pranam. I was wondering what purpose, are we serving by discussing this point and similar points about Go Maamsa..

On another hand, MIM (Political party) Legislator is getting arrested or about to be detained, for making similar nuances though with different intention.

Words are similar. Please refer to news paper reports.

Every faith/ tradition/ religion has its strong points and weak points; based on the view point/ perspective of the analyst.

In the name of truth finding, let us not continue this subject. I hope that the moderators of this note of mine and do the needful.

BVP is a public forum. It is not privy communication between two individuals.

From legal aspect, any persons; taking objection and claiming to be hurt for religious offensive/ blasphemy take the writers and moderators to court/ police. 

We should be mindful that Cyber Law, is not yet formally amended. (Same provisions giving discretion for a willing Police Officer to arrest anyone for pressing LIKE button; are still in vogue, albeit with some some change in guidelines.)

Whatever is the case, this type BEEF discussion should be beefed up. (If the moderators are lenient, few people like us might be forced to leave BVP, because we do not know which law enforcement agency will take - what sort of view of each offensive comment. I am sure that, none of these scholastic personalities and votaries of free speech would stand in front line to defend all concerned and spare resources for the purpose.)

Due apologies for bringing stark reality to the notice of scholar community.

Personally, I opine that those who need clarifications/ information on contention issues, can seek guidance of scholars thru private communication, instead of putting the same in public forum.

Regards

Dr.Vamshi Krishna Ghanapathi

[Narsing Rao]

Not sure what your problem is.  Are you suggesting that

• Certain topics should not be discussed because they hurt the religious sentiments of some, and that
  
• People who feel offended by opinions expressed by others can take them (or even the moderators) to court?

If so, I disagree and also think that this is a dangerous precedent.  The whole point of a scholarly discussion is that ideas (backed by citations and/or evidence) are discussed even if there is disagreement.

Also, the term "Bharatiya", as I understand it refers to Indian, without the connotation of any particular religion or sect.

Regards,
Narsing Rao

[Dr.BVK Sastry]

Namaste

    Certainly this thread of discussion seems to be drifting to unwarranted corners !  On a review of the points deliberated, i notice the following 'clear agenda' in pushing this debate in pre-planned ways ! When the word 'Go / Ashwa ' have multiple meanings in the resource traditional text, why is a preferred meaning being hanged out ? And in terms of generic meat eating, Ayurveda marks specific guidelines. Why shift that debate to Veda related ? These days, Many Ayurveda schools  are very shy to admit to be a part of Original Vedic tradition ! The preference being to go by ' Bottled - Ayurveda encapsulated approach' ! 

  Here below is my notes for making this notes, as a pointer to the ' breakdown in India on the understanding of vedas , which in other words tantamount  to misinterpretation'. 

    It is sheer ' klaibya' on the part of many traditional scholars and institutions in not making  whole hearted attempt to raise voice in the public and academia to ' kill  these misinterpretations, once for all' on a global scale.  

   Unless one addresses the ' poorva-paksha / even if it is bad and worse '  formed in the referential document  -  'Riddles in Hinduism' , penned by Dr.Ambedkar, available for free study at the url ,  http://www.ambedkar.org/riddleinhinduism/21A1.Riddles%20in%20Hinduism%20PART%20I.htm#r06,  these debates can go for 'ages /kalpaanta'. One may also explore - http://valmikiresearch.com/index.htm?file=main.htm   . 

  No result will emerge out of these discussions. 

    The deliberations on this theme have been there in the name of  ' Academic Scholarship '- ever since colonial writings interpreting the vedic traditions and meemaamsaa technicalities. The deliberated data and practices goes to the ' pre-internet / black / stone ages '  before Google, internet, computer !   No scholar seems to pass through this  veil of time and address  the question : How to fix the meaning of a Vedic Word , as it was envisaged in a BCE period ! Why Yaska and Panini become referential authority ? Why Karma Kanda approach is important compared to the Acharya -Vedanta Paddhati ? Why Vednaga interpretation anchor is more important than Vedanta -Acharya Paddhati '. 

Here below are the points for contemplation.

Point 1:   This thread of discussion on ' Misinterpretation of Veda' / seems to be slowly trickling to topics like cow slaughter,beef eating, historical ritualism of Ashvamedha with a pointed agenda. This model of agenda driven and ' breast beating'  debate has been  the hall mark of the combined teams : Colonial interpretations and Politicised Dalit struggle - Anti brahmin movements.  The debate starts with the most innocuous topic of veda /vedic ritual, claiming to be an investigation of Truth and real history of Vedic practices. The debate is deliberately pushed to focus on  Ashwamedha and Go-medha. The next step is taking the segments of (a) Ashwamedha to point out the obnoxious practices of ' getting the ritual priests engaged with the queens' for getting the royal progeny (b) Go-medha to point out the ' secret meat eating to fulfill the carnal pleasures of vedic brahamanas  under the cover of a pitru-yajna' ? This line of argument and debate has gone on ad-nausea in cyber circles . The seeds of ' authority '  for this denigrative interpretation of Vedas and Vedic traditional practices is pointed to the writings of Dr. Ambedkar on Ramayana and Mahabharata. It may not seem politically right to make this pointer; but the refutation needs to be made loud and clear. How many of the Traditional teams are ready to team up, pool resources and address this issue  to save misinterpretation of Vedas / and save their own ' aura a guardians of Vedas'  ?

Point 2 :  All said and done, the debate of 'Ashwamedha /Go-medha' in the veda /referential documents are dated prior to a BCE period. Given the fact that society is dynamic, and current brahmana / generic hindu society has anchored its current practices to Acharya Paddhati's which are not earlier to  700 C.E, ( assuming a very liberal and conservative upper date for Acharya Shankara  establishing the Panchayatana Pooja paddhati and related Mathas for guding veda-Dharma Abhyaasa, how is the current debate going to enrich the ' Knowledge of Vedic traditions, and its history' - ? any way better than what Acharyas established in a span of around 700 years  and is a continuing tradition ?  

Either we end up saying Acharyas made a wishful, wanton, conscious deviation from  earlier authentic vedic  tradition to guide the society differently  ( which is bad per se !)  Or 

Acharyas were ignorant of the true vedic tradition, and did not follow the  'poorvaacharya' s' - which is worse. 

It is a self hurting double edged sword in either approach. 

So what is better point to emerge in this deliberation of  'Misinterpretation of Vedas ' :  Conceding Acharyas wilful intervention in derailing a tradiiton  OR Ignorance of Acharyas of the established traditions ( which seem to be unearthed as a Modern research ? ) 

 Point 3:  Assuming that the ' old text, interpreted by modern  'Rishi -Scholars (NutanaiH Rishibhih) is really correct, would it still be appropriate to go for the large scale slaughter of Cows /animals for meeting the carnal pleasures , in a civilized society ? 

 Mixing up religion and Politicised Societal economics is NEVER a good cocktail.

  So the action point question rests in answering in house the questions, ( which demands an answer to the question: What is Veda? What is Samskrutham as the Language of Documents of Veda?' )   :  

(1)  What is the traditional standard to establish the ' RIGHT MEANING OF VEDAS?  The Corollary questions being : (a)   What is the RIGHT WAY to PRONOUNCE  the VEDA-Akshara, in EACH SHAKHAA (b)  WHAT IS THE RIGHT PEDAGOGY of TEACHING VEDA ?  

(2) Are Traditional schools and community adhering to these standards by referencing to  three clear periods : (i) BCE period of Muni's and Rishi's :  - where the standard is ' Shadango Vedo Adhyetavyah' . (It is Not Vedaanga ;  It is NOT Vedanta ).  (ii) The C.E Period of Acharyas from 700 to 1400 CE - up to Sayana Madhava Vidyaranya ( iii) Post 1700 CE till date - colonial period, with ' Nutana-Rishi's and Yogi's ' -   impacting the working of traditional institutions, ushering in new ' Dharma Shastra Dynamics' ? 

Regards

BVK Sastry

[Ajit Gargeshwari]

Dear Dr. Sastry,

Thanks for you  your views. Your views can only lead to further controversies and not any solutions is my opinion. I feel no need to counter or answer in detail the points raised by you.
Regards
Ajit Gargeshwari

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

Namaste:

I am bit puzzled with Dr Gargeshwari's remarks.

My generic question to all the scholars on this list are:

a.   Is there an issue ?
b.  Are we willing to admit the problem?
c.  Who should shoulder the responsibility for making appropriate corrections.
d.  Not addressing the issue is just like hiding the pregnancy.  OR

Is the issue that we know we are pregnant but we do not want to be told that that we are pregnant.

Best Rgds

Dr Yadu

---

From: Ajit Gargeshwari <ajit.gar...@gmail.com>
To: sastr...@gmail.com
Cc: भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत् <bvpar...@googlegroups.com>
Sent: Sunday, January 13, 2013 7:52 AM
Subject: Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Re: Is it correct or a Mis-interpretation of Vedic...

[Dr. Yadu Moharir]

Respected scholars,

I meant to add some of the shlokas that I was instructed to recite and contemplate upon during  my personal "snadhyaavandana" practice.  These eventually became my staff through the years.

सुलभाः पुरुषा राजन्सततं प्रियवादिनः .
अप्रियस्य तु पथ्यस्य वक्ता श्रोता च दुर्लभः

and

कामस्तदग्रे समवर्त्तताधि मनसो रेतः प्रथमं यदासीत् ।

Desire in mind is the first step before anything can possibly get manifested. I glad to see that Dr BVK is sincerely looking for collaboration and pooling of resources to progress our understanding.

I sincerely hope that all scholars will help to clarify, purify and preserve our ancient wisdom for future generations.

Best regards,

Dr Yadu

[Gaurang Lade]

Respected scholars,

To understand what meant of "Bali" in yagna, one have to understand culture were present during Veda period means 5000yrs before. 

Rishis mentioned in Veda about "aahuti" of horse , cow in yagna to praise god, now if we think they to kill horse to praise god then that they should have got "gou-Hatya" paap.

Now in reality fact that time they use to take part of nail, or hair from animal to present it as "Bali" or sacrifice of that animal. 

Today we have tradition to provide our hair at lord venkatesh., that does not meant we sacrifice our entire body to god. 

But scientifically looking our rishis know that any  part of body cell have DNA of person or animal that part represent. And to say god that they sacrifice animal they use to cut hair or nail of animal as representation . 

Please think above explanation in detail  , compare how we can write sacrifice as a part of communication to other person then only we can understand what our rishis actually meant to say for sacrifice. 

Also "Aja" word in Sanskrit many are interpreting as beef or something else but if we go at interior part rural India , "Aja" actually meant raw rice seeds without polished. 

Thanks,

Glade