Re: {भारतीयविद्वत्परिषत्} Fwd: Beef in Vedas-- really?

[Navaratna Rajaram]

August 31, 2012

 

    It can be argued that the very fact this injunction prohibiting beef-eating was incorporated as a sukta is evidence that the practice prevailed in those days. For example, there is no sukta that prohibits the eating of garbage.

 

    I don't think it is an important issue. Many things were done in the past we should not do now. It is called progress.

 

    I question the practice of looking to the past to justify the present. Each question should be examined on its merit and answers found in the present context. Revivalism is not the answer.

 

    (I am a student of the Vedas, have written several books on them, but I am not at all sure that I truly understand the Vedic milieu or how they lived.)

 

N.S. Rajaram

On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 8:20 AM, subodh kumar <subod...@gmail.com> wrote:

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: subodh kumar <subod...@gmail.com>
Date: 30 August 2012 17:49
Subject: Beef in Vedas
To:

--

            AV 5.18  Sukta ब्रह्मगवी-Seer -मयोभूः

WHY COW'S FLESH SHOULD NOT BE EATEN Cow  sustains the world for cheerfulness all around

 Subject of the Sukta Devta is देवता=  ब्रह्मगवी (ब्रह्मगवि:- ब्रह्म -भृ धातु से मन प्रत्यय लगा कर ब्रह्म श्ब्द बना है । भ्रीयते जगदस्मिन-जो संसार का अधिकरण है, अथवा भ्रीयते जगदनेन; जो संसार को धारण करने वाली है वह गवि - गौ । ब्रह्मगवि- गौ जो संसार को धारण करती है)

Seer ऋषि: of this chapter is मयोभू: = ( मयोभू -भूमि पर आनन्द की दृष्टि से )

Vedas do not spell out vegetarian and non-vegetarian diets.  But instead talk abot three classificationsof life style, food etc, Satvik, Rajasik and Tamsik. But strongly speak on AHINSA- nonviolence in every sphere.

 

 -

  1.5.1.1 AV5.18.1

 नैतां ते देवा अददुस्तभ्यं नृपते  अत्तवे।

 मा ब्राह्मणस्य राजन्य गां जिघत्सो जनाद्याम्‌ ॥ अथर्व 5-18-1

 Gods have not created this cow for your eating it. Strong powerful men should not resort to cow killings for food.

 अक्षद्गुग्धो राजन्यः पाप आत्मपराजितः।

 स ब्राह्मणस्य गामद्यादद्य जीवानि मा श्वः ॥ अथर्व 5-18-2

 Self ruined, by their own conducts in life, individuals given to gambling, evil, criminal behavior, if they indulge in killing cows and eating them, may be able to live today but will surely become extinct tomorrow.

 

आविष्टिताघाविषा पृदाकूरिव चर्मणा ।

 सा ब्राह्मणस्य राजन्य तृष्टैषा गौर नाद्या ॥ अथर्व 5-18-3

 Cow may appear to be made with covering of leather, but her interiors can be as if filled with venom of poisonous deadly snake. Noble ones should never be harsh to cows and ensure that cows are not eaten.

 (Incidentally this message is also provided in Koran by Prophet Mohammad---

 निर्वै क्षत्रं नयति हन्ति वर्चोऽग्निरिवारब्धो वि दुनोति सर्वस्‌ ।

 यो ब्राह्मणं मन्यते अन्नमेव स विषस्य पिबति तैमातस्य ॥ अथर्व 5-18-4

 Aggressive persons, who eat life sustaining agents like the cows, truly consume poisons. The negative environmental effects of consuming sustainable living strategies, boom rang on the society to cause overall destruction.

 य एनं हन्ति मृदुं मन्यमानो देवपीयुर्धनकामो न चित्तात्‌।

 सं तस्येन्द्गो हृदयेऽग्निमिन्ध उभे एनं द्विष्टो नभसी चरन्तम्‌ ॥ अथर्व 5-18-5

  The Enemies of civilized behavior think that cows cannot defend themselves. They kill cows, but by their conduct such persons, fire the hearts of right mind men who hound such enemies of civilized behavior to punish them here on earth in this world and the next world. 

 न ब्राह्मणो हिंसितव्यो3ग्निः प्रियतनोरिव ।

 सोमो ह्य स्य दायद इन्द्गो अस्याभिशस्तिपाः ॥ अथर्व 5-18-6

 They (Cows) should never be killed. They provide with warmth and comfort like fire, provide the highest forms of intellect, and fill the individuals with qualities strength and valor to be victorious in all situations.

 शतापाष्ठां नि गिरति तां न शक्नोति निःखिदन्‌ ।

 अन्नं यो ब्रह्मणां मल्वः स्वाद्व द्यीति मन्यते ॥ अथर्व 5-18-7

 The unfortunate persons, who kill and rejoice in eating their (cow’s) flesh, suffer with innumerable maladies from which they can never recover.

 

Subodh Kumar,
C-61 Ramprasth,
Ghaziabad-201011
Mobile-9810612898

Maharshi Dayanand Gosamwardhan Kendra , Delhi-96

http://subodh-vedainspirations.blogspot.com
http://subodh-cowsinindia.blogspot.com

A bird sitting on a tree is never afraid of  the branch breaking, because his trust  is NOT  on the branch but on it's own WINGS !!

Believe in yourself & WIN the world..

.

--

Subodh Kumar,
C-61 Ramprasth,
Ghaziabad-201011
Mobile-9810612898

Maharshi Dayanand Gosamwardhan Kendra , Delhi-96

http://subodh-vedainspirations.blogspot.com
http://subodh-cowsinindia.blogspot.com

A bird sitting on a tree is never afraid of  the branch breaking, because his trust  is NOT  on the branch but on it's own WINGS !!

Believe in yourself & WIN the world..

.

--
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

[Ganesh R]

Dear Raajaram Sir,

You have precisely hit at the right point and often this is your way
too:-) It is the least to say that am very happy with such a seasoned
pertinence towards any thing and especially so with the issues that
concern the scholars of Bhaarateeyavidyaa or Indic learning. But
unfortunately am quite sure that takers or votaries at least, for this
are quite a few here:-) Here I am reminded of one witty subhaaShita:

श्रोतारः सन्ति नो यत्र वक्ता तस्त् किं करिष्यति।
नग्नक्षपणके दॆशॆ रजकः किं करिष्यति॥
(Where none to listen, what is the fun for the speaker? How come a
laundryman is placed in a nudist colony?)

Any way, your timely and pertinent writings inspire people like me.

With utmost regards

ganesh

[Nityanand Misra]

I personally do not agree with Sh. Rajaram’s opinion. However, I have no idea what Sh. Ganesh is trying to convey below. Does he mean to say that there are a large number of takers for Sh. Rajaram’s opinion, for he uses the idiom “quite a few” which means “many” or “a fairly large number”? Or does he mean to say there are hardly any takers or no takers, as suggested by the verse used later. The message is obfuscating and is lost on me, he may want to clarify the same.

Anyway, in my humble opinion, whether there are “quite a few”, “a few” or “few” takers for an opinion is irrelevant. The whole scientific world was a taker for Caloric Theory at a time, and there were hardly any takers for theories of Copernicus and Galileo in their time. Today, the inverse is true for all the above theories.

Sent from my iPhone

[Hnbhat B.R.]

On Fri, Aug 31, 2012 at 5:49 AM, Navaratna Rajaram <rajaramn...@gmail.com> wrote:

August 31, 2012

 

    It can be argued that the very fact this injunction prohibiting beef-eating was incorporated as a sukta is evidence that the practice prevailed in those days. For example, there is no sukta that prohibits the eating of garbage.

 

    I don't think it is an important issue. Many things were done in the past we should not do now. It is called progress.

 

    I question the practice of looking to the past to justify the present. Each question should be examined on its merit and answers found in the present context. Revivalism is not the answer.

 

    (I am a student of the Vedas, have written several books on them, but I am not at all sure that I truly understand the Vedic milieu or how they lived.)

 

N.S. Rajaram

I agree with you in all respects. Now there is a group who believe that they only know the true meaning of Veda-s than our ancestors and commentators who were certainly earlier than to us and elevated in their insights as seers of Veda-s than us.

No body can go to the millenium in which the Veda-s were written if at all even accepting they are human creation and in the other way, as a Vedic Vijnan given by Brahma, himself, everybody can claim he is the real seer of the Vedic Vijnana taking advantage of this and according to his insight (दिव्यदृष्टि given by his guru) and give his own interpretation.  I am seeing many such blogs and articles on the net. 

This is my sincere opinion after reading many messages in the direction of revival of Vedic darshan or Vedic Vijnan.

 

--
Dr. Hari Narayana Bhat B.R. M.A., Ph.D.,
Research Scholar,

Ecole française d'Extrême-OrientCentre de Pondichéry

16 & 19, Rue Dumas

Pondichéry - 605 001

[Shrisha Rao]

El ago 31, 2012, a las 5:49 a.m., Navaratna Rajaram <rajaramn...@gmail.com> escribió:

> August 31, 2012
>
> It can be argued that the very fact this injunction prohibiting beef-eating was incorporated as a sukta is evidence that the practice prevailed in those days. For example, there is no sukta that prohibits the eating of garbage.

It is true that both विधि and निषेध relate to what is actually possible to do; neither prescription nor proscription applies in case of something that is not. Or else, we could say स हि शास्त्रस्य विषयो भवति यो अज्ञातो सन्दिग्धो विपर्यस्तो वा (VTVN टीका) -- that alone, which is [otherwise] unknown, controversial, or misunderstood, is a subject of a शास्त्र. The concept of अपूर्वता which is described as a लिङ्गं तात्पर्यनिर्णये could also be noted; there is no अपूर्वता in respect of things that are already known, and this in fact becomes a point of contention between varying interpretations of classical texts.

That the practice of beef eating is old is beyond doubt; some people (e.g., D.N. Jha in "The Myth of the Holy Cow") cite Panini's दाशगोघ्नौ सम्प्रदाने (अष्टा. ३-४-७३) as evidence that beef-eating was approved by Panini. However the अष्टाध्यायी is not regarded as a धर्मशास्त्र, and does not in general prescribe or permit specific conduct. In this case, as elsewhere, it merely defines the norm of usage -- one for whom a cow is killed (such as a guest to whom beef is given) is also linguistically described, by सम्प्रदान, as a गोघ्न, cow-killer (just the same as the one who does the actual killing). The same principle of course is also well known in law and common usage, where a person who arranges for another to commit theft, murder, etc. (or accepts the gains from such an act of another), is also regarded as a thief, murderer, etc., and is culpable as one. Stating this principle does not imply assent to theft, murder, etc.

Apte quotes Baudhayana as defining म्लेच्छ by

गोमांसखादको यस्तु विरुद्धं बहुभाषते |
सर्वाचारविहीनश्च म्लेच्छ इत्यभिधीयते ||

Yes, this also of course shows that there were such people even in Baudhayana's time, but it can hardly be understood that their conduct was approved of by him.

> I don't think it is an important issue. Many things were done in the past we should not do now. It is called progress.

It is an important issue to the extent that some (e.g., the aforementioned Jha) mis-state or selectively state the textual evidence about beef. It is hardly progress to let such views go unchallenged.

Regards,

Shrisha Rao

[Navaratna Rajaram]

 

    Good point. Panini cannot be taken as authority though he might have used an observed practice for illustrative purposes in his grammar-- to highlight a point in grammar or usage.

 

    Does Yaska have anything to sayon this. Anyway, I don't see it as a point of any great importance, just a curiosity. Appedal to authority is no logic.

 

N.S. Rajaram

[Shrikant Jamadagni]

Dear scholars, I agree with Shrisha Rao's approach. I would only add that just because an animal is killed for a sacrifice to gods or to honour most highly personages, it does not mean that the animal in question was a staple diet nor does it mean that was generally accepted as lawful. The example for the latter (i.e killing a calf in honor of guests) in literature is  in the drama Uttara-ramcharita Act 4. A calf is killed for feeding Vasishtha who is a guest at Valmiki's ashrama (this is of course a work of fiction). What is the date of   Manu Smriti?   In Manu Smriti Chapter 5, after mentioning the animals that are okay to be eaten, makes the following important points. (Translation by G.Buhler) This culture that is evident in these shlokas light-years away from the casual general statement made by anti-hindus that 'beef-eating was common in ancient/vedic Bharata'. Hence this issue needs to be clarified based on authoritative sources. 31. 'The consumption of meat is (befitting) for sacrifices' that is declared to be a rule made by the gods; but to persist (in using it) on other ocassions is said to be a proceeding worthy of Rakshasas. 37. If he (a Brahmana) has a strong desire for meat he may make an animal of clarified butter or one of flour, (and eat that), but let him never seek to destroy an animal without a (lawful) reason. 39. Svayambhu (the Self-existent) himself created animals for the sake of sacrifies; sacrifices (have been instituted) for the good of this whole world; hence the slaughtering (of beasts) for sacrifices is not slaughtering (in the ordinary sense of the word) 46. He who does not seek to cause the suffering of bondage and death to living creatures, (but) desires the good of all (beings), obtains endless bliss. 48. Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to (the attainment of) heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun (the use of) meat. 49. Having well considered the origin of flesh and the (cruelty) of fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh. 52. There is no greater sinner than that (man) who, though not worshipping the gods or manes, seeks to increase (the bulk of) his own flesh by the flesh of other (beings). 54. By subsisting on pure fruit and roots, and by eating food fit for ascetics, one does not gain (so great) a reward as by entirely avoiding (the use of) flesh.  warm regards. Shrikant Jamadagni Bangalore --- On Mon, 3/9/12, Navaratna Rajaram <rajaramn...@gmail.com> wrote:

[Shrivathsa B]

hariH OM,

   The view that cow was sacrificed for a guest is erroneous due to the following reasons:

1. Beef is not mentioned in the dharmashastras as an ingredient in madhuparka (western translators have mis-translated this).
2. The process of inviting a guest is continuous. The process consists of inviting him, giving him water to wash his feet, giving him water to sip, giving madhuparka etc. etc. There is no scope of waiting anywhere. AshvalAyana directs that in absence of honey, ghee may be used to mix with curd. This also seems to be a measure to prevent excessive waiting of the guest.
   
3. When the guest is at the door, the host asks him whether the cow may be gifted. If the guest is desirous of accepting, he may agree, else, he may pronounce the mantra "mAtA rudrANAM duhitA vasUnAM ...." and ask the cow to be let free.
   
4. The above being the case, the guest kept waiting for the whole duration while the cow is killed, a part of its flesh taken, cooked, and mixed with madhuparka is just unnaceptably illogical even for beef eaters. (but this is what the western translators and their brown-babu followers seem to think)
   
5. Killing a cow for two - three spoons of meat is just illogical and i don't think the shAstrakAras or the people were that foolish.
6. There is no "popular" meat preparation (as attested to by popular chefs, pl see link given below) which is prepared with sugar. Seems that there is no taste compatibility between meat and sugar. So, to claim that beef was taken and mixed with raw curd, honey etc. is the height of bad logic. Atithi is nArAyaNa, hence to give him something that tastes bad when he is at our door (that too after making him wait for about 1/2 to 1 hr when the beef was being cooked) is (pardon the pun) in "bad taste".
   

   You may read more about the above here:
http://www.panjabdigilib.org/webuser/searches/displayPageContent.jsp?ID=2931&page=4&CategoryID=1&Searched=beef

svasti,
             JAYA BHAVAANII BHAARATII,
                                                              shrivathsa.

2012/9/3 Shrikant Jamadagni <shrik...@yahoo.co.in>