beef eating in vedas and other hindu texts

Beef eating in Vedas and other Hindu texts

Written by Mushafiq Sultan

[SOURCE: http://www.islamhinduism.com/hinduism/analysis/164-beef-eating-in-vedas-and-

other-hindu-texts]

Special Thanks to Brother Neer Mohammed, who has been really helpful throughout

the writing of this article and also gave valuable points.

Present day Hindu culture is pivoted solely on the cow. Its material and spiritual

concepts are both engulfed in cow worship. Such an animal worship is known as

zoolatry. The Hindutva brigade propaganda machinery uses the politics of cow to

mobilize the blind Hindu masses and works them into a frenzy. The taboo on cow

slaughter is one of the pillars of the Hindutva ideology. According to M.S.Golwalkar,

a Hindutva ideologue, cow slaughter in India began with foreign domination. "The

Muslims started it and the Britishers continued it" (M.S.Golwalkar, Bunch of

Thoughts, Pg 496). In the past, several futile attempts have been made by

proponents of Hindutva to pass a law to ban the slaughter of cows at the national

level. In the NCERT school textbook for Class VI (2002) we read:

―Among the animals the cow was given the most important and sacred place.

Injuring or killing of cow was prohibited in the Vedic period. The cow was called

Aghnya (is not to be killed or injured). Vedas prescribe punishment for injuring or

killing cow by expulsion from the kingdom or by death penalty, as the case may be‖

(Social Sciences Textbook for Class VI, Pg 89.).

But the theory that the in Vedic times there was no cow slaughter is historically

inaccurate. Although cow was revered and treated as sacred, it was also offered as

food to guests and persons of high status. The fact remains that ancient Hindu

scriptures clearly permit the consumption of meat, even of cows. True scholars, and

not modern frauds, know this. For example, Swami Vivekananda who is considered

as a major force in the revival of Hinduism in modern India, admitted that ancient

Hindus used to eat meat. He says,

http://www.islamhinduism.com/hinduism/analysis/164-beef-eating-in-vedas-and-other-hindu-texts

http://www.islamhinduism.com/hinduism/analysis/163-mushafiq-sultan



"You will be astonished if I tell you that, according to the old ceremonials, he is not a

good Hindu who does not eat beef. On certain occasions he must sacrifice a bull and

eat it."

[The complete works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume 3, Pg 536]

In the same volume on page 174 he says,

"There was a time in this very India when, without eating beef, no Brahmin could

remain a Brahmin;"

Let us now look at the evidence from Hindu texts, which proves that Hinduism not

only permits beef eating but also requires its folowers to institute certain cow

sacrifices. I will simultaneously refute the common arguments of Hindus.

Yajna and animal sacrifices

In Hinduism, Yajna is a ritual of sacrifice derived from the practice of Vedic times. It

is performed to please the gods or to attain certain wishes. A Vedic yajna is typically

performed by an adhvaryu priest, with a number of additional priests such as the

hotar, udgatar playing a major role, next to their dozen helpers, by reciting or singing

Vedic verses. How to deal with the animal, that is to be sacrificed in the Yajna, be it a

goat, a horse or a cow, is mentioned in the Aitareya Brahman of the Rigveda as

follows:

"6. ...Turn the animal's feet northwards. Make its eyes go to the Sun, dismiss its

breath to the wond, its life to the space, its hearing to the directions, its body to the

earth. In this way the Hotar (priest) connets it with these world. Take of the entire

skin without cutting it. Before opening the navel tear out the omentum. Stop its

breathing within (by stopping its mouth). Thus the Hotar puts breath in the animals.

Make of its breast a piece like an eagle, of its arms (two pieces like) two hatchets, of

its forearms (two pieces like) two spikes, of its shoulders (two pieces like) two

kashyapas (tortoises), its loins should be unbroken (entire); make of its thigs (two

pieces like) two shields, of the two kneepans (two pieces like) two oleander leaves;

take out its twenty-six ribs according to their order; preserve every limb of its in its

integrity. Thus he benefits all its limbs. Dig a ditch in the earth to hide its excrements.

7. Present the evil spirits with the blood."

[Aitareya Brahman, Book 2, para 6 and 7]

Subsequently, the same Aitareya Brahman instructing on how to distribute different

parts of the sacrificial animal says,

"Now follows the division of the different parts of the sacrificial animal (among the

priests). We shall describe it. The two jawbones with the tongue are to be given to

the Prastotar; the breast in the form of an eagle to the Udgatar; the throat with the

palate to the Pratihartar; the lower part of the right loins to the Hotar; the left to the

Brahma; the right thigh to the Maitravaruna; the left to the Brahmanuchhamsi; the

right side with the shoulder to the Adhvaryu; the left side to those who accompany

the chants; the left shoulder to the Pratipasthatar; the lower part of the right arm to

the Neshtar; the lower part of the left arm to the Potar; the upper part of the right

thigh to the Achhavaka; the left to the Agnidhra; the upper part of the right arm to the

Aitreya; the left to the Sadasya; the back bone and the urinal bladder to the Grihapati

(sacrificer); the right feet to the Grihapati who gives a feasting; the left feet to the wife

of that Grihapati who gives a feasting; the upper lip is common to both, which is to be

divided by the Grihapati. They offer the tail of the animal to wives, but they should

give it to a Brahmana; the fleshy processes (maanihah) on the neck and three

gristles (kikasaah) to the Grahvastut; three other gristles and one half of the fleshy

part on the back (vaikartta) to the Unnetar; the other half of the fleshy part on the

neck and the left lobe (Kloma) to the Slaughterer (Shamita), who should

present it to a Brahmana, if he himself would not happen to be a Brahmana.

The head is to be given to the Subrahmanya, the skin belongs to him (the

Subrahmanya), who spoke, Svaah Sutyam (to morrow at the Soma Sacriice); that

part of the sacrificial animal at a Soma sacrifice which beloings to Ilaa (sacrificial

food) is common to all the priests; only for the Hotar it is optional.

All these portions of the sacrificial animal amount to thirty-six single pieces, each of

which represents the paada (foot) of a verse by which the sacrifice is carried up..."

"To those who divide the sacrificial animal in the way mentioned, it becomes the

guide to heaven (Swarga). But those who make the division otherwise are like

scoundrels and miscreants who kill an animal merely."

"This division of the sacrificial animal was invented by Rishi Devabhaaga, a son of

Srauta. When he was departing from this life, he did not entrust (the secret to

anyone). But a supernatural being communicated it to Girija,the son of Babhru. Since

his time men study it."

[Aitareya Brahman, Book 7, Para 1, Translated by Martin Haug]

I have come across certain bigots among Hindus, who make the excuse that these

are the translations of a non-Hindu European scholar with 'ulterior motives'. This is a

common response of half-baked Hindus, who have negligible knowledge of Hindu

scriptures. To establish the authenticity of the above translations, I will produce

before you passages from the 'Purva Mimamsa Sutras' of Jaimini, its commentary

called 'Shabarbhasya' and the views of renowned Arya Samaj scholar, Pandit

Yudhishthira Mimamsak on them.

It must be noted that the Purva Mimamsa Sutras (compiled between 300-200 BCE),

written by Rishi Jaimini is one of the most important ancient Hindu philosophical

texts. It forms the basis of Mimamsa, the earliest of the six orthodox schools

(darshanas) of Indian philosophy.

Commenting on Purv Mimansa Sutra Adhyaya 3, Pada 6, Sutra 18, the

Shabarbhasya says,

च - , , , , ,

There are also certain details to be performed in connection with the animals, such

as (a) Upaakaranam [Touching the animal with the two mantras], (b) Upaanayanam

[Bringing forward], (c) Akshanyaa-bandhah [Tying with a rope], (d) Yoope niyojanam

[Fettering to the Sacrificial Post], (e) Sanjnapanam [Suffocating to death], (f)

Vishasanam [Dissecting], and so forth.

[Shabhar bhashya on Mimamsa Sutra 3/6/18; translated by Ganganath Jha]

Expounding on this, Arya Samaj scholar, Pandit Yudhisthira Mimamsak writes in is

'Mimamsa Shabar Bhashyam'

"In this case and otherwise it appears from the Jaimini Sutras that the offering of

sacrificed animals is to be made in the Yajnas. It is clearly mentioned in the

Mimamsa Sutrs."

[Mimamsa Shabharbhasyam, adhyaya 3, Page 1014]

Moving on let us see Mimamsadarshan Sutra 3/7/28 which says,

च

The 'Shamita' (slaughterer of the animal) is not distinct from the major priests.

Commenting on it the Shabarbhashya says,

च च

"The liver and the upper quarter belongs to the Shamita Priest ; one should give it to

a Brahmana if he be a non-Brahmana."

[Shabhar bhasya on Mimamsa Sutra 3/7/28; translated by Ganganath Jha]

Notice that this is exactly the same things that we saw was said in Aitareya Brahman

Book 7; Para 1 above (the highlighted part). This proves that Shabarbhashya is

confirming the Aitareya Brahman and the translation is also accurate.

Pandit Yudhisthira Mimamsak also confirms this when he says,

"The division of the meat of the sacrificed animal as instructed in the Aitareya

Brahman clearly proves that during the time of the writing of Aitareya Brahman

and the time when it was edited by Saunaka, animals were sacrificed in the

Yajnas and their meat was consumed by the Brahmins"

Some half-baked Hindus who like to play games might try to call all these references

as later interpolations. However, the scholar Yudhisthir Mimamsak outrightly rejects

such a bogus conclusion when he says,

"There is no strong evidence to consider these passages as later interpolations."

[Mimamsa Shabarbhashyam by Yudhishthir Mimamsak Adhyaya 3, Page 1075]

Further in Mimamsa Sutra 3/8/43 it is mentioned,

च

"Only the 'Savaniya' cakes should consist of flesh"

All these passages prove that the flesh of the sacrificed animal was consumed as

per the instructions of the Hindu texts.

Refuting the modern Hindu polemic of

'No violence in Yajna'

Hindu Argument (quoted from a Hindu apologetics website)

Yajna never meant animal sacrifice in the sense popularly understood. Yajna in the

Vedas meant a noble deed or the highest purifying action.

—————————————–

Adhvara iti Yajnanaama – Dhvaratihimsaakarmaa tatpratishedhah

Nirukta 2.7

According to Yaaska Acharya, one of the synonyms of Yajna in Nirukta or the Vedic

philology is Adhvara.

Dhvara means an act with himsa or violence. And therefore a-dhvara means an act

involving no himsa or no violence. There are a large number of such usage of

Adhvara in the Vedas.

Response

This argument is incorrect because the word 'Adhvar' has been misplaced and

interpreted incompletely. Yaska is merely giving the etymology of the word 'Adhvar'

and not where it is to be applied and what constitutes violence. To know the true

application of the word 'Adhvar' we will have to turn to Shatapath Brahman, which

gives the complete understanding of why 'Yajna' is called 'Adhvar'. Shatapath

Brahman 1/4/1/40 says,

devānha vai yajñena yajamānāṃtsapatnā

asurā dudhūrṣāṃ cakruste dudhūrṣanta eva na śekurdhūrvituṃ te

parābabhūvustasmādyajño adhvaro nāma

"For once when the gods were engaged in sacrificing, their rivals, the Asuras, wished

to injure (dhvar) them; but, though desirous of injuring them, they were unable to

injure them and were foiled: for this reason the sacrifice is called adhvara ('not

damaged, uninterrupted')."

Thus the argument of the polemicist turns out to be a deception aimed at fooling

those who have no access to the original texts. The passage of Shatapath Brahman

makes it clear that 'Adhvar' is called so because the priests performing the Yajna did

not become victims of violence. It has no connection to the violence of the animals

done in the Yajna.

Renowned classical commentator of the four Vedas, Sayana Acharya, also gives the

same reason for calling Yajna as 'Adhvar'. He says in his comments on Rigveda

1/1/4,

"Adhvar is called 'without violence' because being protected by Agni on all sides it is

uninterrupted by Rakshashas or violent enemies, who are unable to mar it."

Again we see that Acharya Sayan expresses the same view as that of the Shatapath

Brahman i.e the violence referred in the 'adhvar' is not for the sacrificial animal in the

Yajna.

Renowned Hindu scholar, Swami Prabhupada explains the so-called violence in the

Yajna in the following words,

―Although animal killing in a sacrifice is recommended in the Vedic literature, the

animal is not considered to be killed. The sacrifice is to give a new life to the animal.

Sometimes the animal is given a new animal life after being killed in the sacrifice,

and sometimes the animal is promoted immediately to the human form of life.‖

[Bhagavad Gita As It Is 18/3]

Even Manu Smriti echoes the same opinion in a more clear way in Chapter 5, verse

39 when it says,

"Svayambhu (the Self-existent) himself created animals for the sake of sacrifices;

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)."

Again Manu Smriti Chapter 5, verse 44 says

"Know that the injury to moving creatures and to those destitute of motion, which the

Veda has prescribed for certain occasions, is no injury at all; for the sacred law

shone forth from the Veda."

Thus, this argument stands nullified. For more scholarly explanation that the violence

of animals in the Yajna is actually no violence please see the last section of this

article namely 'The testimony of classical scholars'.

Animal sacrifices in Vedas, including

cow sacrifice

Chapter 24 of the Shukla Yajurveda is a unique chapter that will help us throw light

on the animal sacrifices in the Vedas. This chapter contains an exact enumeration of

animals that are to be tied to the sacrificial stakes, with the names of the deities to

which they are dedicated. Several of the animals cannot be identified. This entire

chapter is a weird puzzle, which is difficult to solve for the modern vegetarian

Hindus. They are simply unable to explain the coherent meaning of this chapter. You

will be amazed to know that even a Vedic scholar like Swami Dayanand is unable to

throw any light on it. He merely says that we should know the qualities of each

animal by relating to the qualities of the deity to whom they are dedicated. This

statement of the Swami is itself a puzzle, as it gives no clear beneficial knowledge to

us. Even Pandit Devi Chand, an Arya Samaj scholar, who based his English

translation of the Yajurveda on Swami Dayanand's work is clueless about the exact

meaning of this chapter. He says in the footnote to verse #1,

"The exact significance of these animals being attached to the forces of nature (or

Deities) is not clear to me." (words in brackets mine)

Does this mean that no Hindu scholar for thousands of years has been able to

understand the meaning of this chapter? I would say that is not the case. If we go to

the Brahmanas and the classical commentators of the Vedas, the puzzle is solved.

According to them each animal dedicated to a particular diety in this chapter has to

be sacrificed to that deity. See Shatapath Brahmana 13/2/2/1-10

If this view is not accepted as the correct one, then every verse of this chapter would

be a question mark with no answer. For example, verse 1 dedicates 'a cow that slips

her calf' to Indra. But the question is, what will Indra do with such a cow? Is Indra

going to give a sermon to her? or is Indra going to punish her? Such questions

require satisfactory answers which modern vegetarian Hindus are unable to provide.

In the Yajnas meant for obtaining Rice, meat of bulls was cooked and offered to the

diety.

Rigveda 10/28/3 mentions this as

|

च ||

"Your worshippers express with the stone fast flowing exhilarating Soma-juices for

you. You drink them. They roast bulls for you, you eat them when you are invoked,

Maghavan, to the sacrificial food."

This is interpreted by Sayana Acharya as follows:

"You (O Indra), eat the cattle offered as oblations belonging to the worshippers who

cook them for you."

Acharya Sayana explicitly mentions about sacrificing a bull in the introduction to

Atharvaveda 9/4/1 as follows

"The Brahman after killing the bull, offers its meat to the different deities. In this

hymn, the bull is praised, detailing which parts of the bull are attached to which deity

as well as the importance of sacrificing the bull and the rewards of doing the same."

The Ashwamedha Yajna

The 'Practical Sanskrit English Dictionary' by V. S. Apte (1890) gives the following

meaning of 'Ashwa-medha'

"A Yajna in which a Horse is primarily sacrificed is called Ashwamedha. [A Horse

Sacrifice]"

The dictionary further goes on to say

"In Vedic times this sacrifice was performed by kings desirous of offspring."

This statement is right when we turn to Shatapath Brahman 13/1/9/9.

To give readers a brief idea of Ashwamedha Yajna, I will briefly mention the entire

ritual based on Hindu texts like Katyayana Srauta Sutra, Apastamba Sutra, etc; but I

will not mention the obscene portion of the Ashwamedha ritual as it is irrelevant with

the topic at hand.

The horse to be sacrificed 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). The horse is

associated with the Sun, and its yearly course. 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.

During the absence of the horse, an uninterrupted series of ceremonies is performed

in the sacrificer's home.

After the return of the horse, more ceremonies are performed. I HAVE OMITTED

THE OBSCENE PORTION OF THIS YAJNA IN THIS ARTICLE. Those who wish to

read them can see Shukla Yajurveda Chapter 23; verses 19-31 and the commentary

of classical scholars.

After this, the horse, a hornless he-goat, a wild ox 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, according to a commentator

609 in total (Yajurveda, chapter 24 consists of an exact enumeration).

Then the horse is slaughtered. The horse is dissected, and its flesh roasted. Various

parts are offered to a host of deities. Prayers are made for wealth, offspring and

body strength.

In Rigveda, the clearest mention of Ashwamedha is made in Mandal 1 Sookt 162. I

will be quoting those verses of this hymn which directly prove that a horse was

sacrificed and consumed. As we have already read the passages of Aitareya

Brahman concerning the method of sacrificing the animal and distributing its meat,

the following passages of the Rigveda will be easier to comprehend.

Rigveda 1/162/3 says,

ए |

||

This goat, the portion of Pushan, fit for all the gods, is brought first with the fleet

courser, so that Twashtri may prepare him along with the horse, as an acceptable

preliminary offering for the (sacrificial) food.

Simultaneous Hindi Translation and Commentary:

http://vedamu.org/VedaImages/192708.GIF

Next verse 1/162/4 says,

|

ए ||

'When the priests at the season (of this ceremony) lead forth the horse, the offering

devoted to the gods, thrice round the (sacrificial fire) ; then the goat, the portion of

Pushan (or Agni), goes first, announcing the sacrifice to the gods.'

That is, the goat is first sacrificed and then the horse.



Verse 9 says,

|

||

Whatever the flies may eat of the raw flesh of the horse; whatever is smeared upon

the brush or upon the axe; (what is smeared) upon the hands or the nails of the

immolator, may all this be with you, (horse) among the gods.

Here we clearly see that the belief of the Vedic people was that horse was not

actually dying. It was rather going to the world of the gods to enjoy a much better life,

quite similar to the explanation given by Swami Prabhupada above.





Verse 10 says,

|

च ||

Whatever undigested grass fall from his belly whatever particle of raw flesh may

remain;let the immolators make the whole world free from defect, and so cook the

pure (offering) that it may be perfectly dressed.



verse 11 says,

|

||

Whatever (portion) of your slaughtered body fall from your carcase when it is being

roasted by the fire, (escaping) from the spit; let it not be left on the ground, nor on the

(sacred) grass, but let it (all) be given to the longing gods.



verse 12 says,

|

च ||




Let their exertions be for our good who watch the cooking of the horse; who say, it is

fragrant; therefore give us some; who solicit the flesh of the horse as alms.



verse 21, addressing the horse says,

ए |

||

Verily at this moment you do not die; nor are you harmed; for you go by auspicious

paths to the gods. The horses of Indra, the steeds of the Maruts shall be yoked (to

their cars), and a courser shall be placed in the shaft of the ass of the Ashwins (to

bear you to heaven).

Again, this verse explicitly proves the belief of the Vedic people that the sacrificial

horse did not actually die but was trasported to noble heavenly worlds.



After finishing all the rites of the sacrifice, prayers were made for wealth, male

offspring and bodily strength as is revealed by verse 22.

|

||

May this horse bring to us all-sustaining wealth, with abundance of cows, of excellent

horses, and of male offspring: may the spirited steed bring us exemption from

wickedness: may this horse, offered in oblation, procure for us bodily vigour.





This hymn would be nonsense if the horse was not really killed and cooked. That the

horse was to be actually immolated and that the body was cut up into fragments is

clear ; that these fragments were dressed, partly boiled, and partly roasted, is also

undisputable ; and although the expressions may be differently understood, yet there

is little reason to doubt that part of the flesh was eaten by the assistants, part

presented as a burnt offering to the gods.

Refuting Hindu polemics concerning

Ashwamedha

Hindu Argument (quoted from a Hindu apologetics website)

The biggest accusation of cattle and cow slaughter comes in the context of the

Yajnas that derived their names from different cattle like the Ashwamedh Yajna, the

Gomedha Yajna and the Nar-medh Yajna. Even by the wildest stretch of the

imagination the word Medha would not mean slaughter in this context.

It’s interesting to note what Yajurveda says about a horse

——————————————————–

Imam ma himsirekashafam pashum kanikradam vaajinam vaajineshu

Yajurveda 13.48

Do not slaughter this one hoofed animal that neighs and who goes with a speed

faster than most of the animals.

———————————————————-

Aswamedha does not mean horse sacrifice at Yajna. Instead the Yajurveda clearly

mentions that a horse ought not to be slaughtered.

In Shathapatha, Ashwa is a word for the nation or empire


The word medha does not mean slaughter. It denotes an act done in accordance to

the intellect Alternatively it could mean consolidation, as evident from the root

meaning of medha i.e. medhru san-ga-me

Raashtram vaa ashwamedhah

Annam hi gau

Agnirvaa ashwah

Aajyam medhah

(Shatpath 13.1.6.3)

Response

Even this argument is not upto the mark. The tactic used by the Hindu apologists

here is quoting only part of a verse (Yajurveda 13.48) and ignoring the rest; thus,

attempting to mislead the gullible. Doing so gives a completely different picture that

Vedas are instructing people not to kill a horse.

Firstly, we need to ascertain that who is this mantra being spoken to? Is it a legal

prohibition or a prayer? Is this general or specific? Let us read the full mantra.

"O Agni, don't harm this one-hoofed beautiful horse, swifter than most animals. I

point out to you the wild rhinoceros. Let the wild rhinocerous be harmed by you. Let

the enemy whom we hate be harmed by you."

As you can see this is actually a prayer by a selfish person asking his firegod Agni

not to harm his own horses but to harm the wild animals, in this case a rhinocerous.

So this verse is not a legal prohibition from killing horses. It is also prayer for the

welfare of one's own animals as every animal owner will naturally do. For example,

there are many shepherds who pray to God to protect their cattle from undue harm

so that he can sell them or kill them for food and thus they do not go waste. This

prayer is on the same lines and thus cannot be taken as a prohibition of slaughtering

horses.

The next argument that Ashwa means a

nation or empire, in the reference to

Shatapath Brahman is also incorrect. For

example, we all know that water is

essential for the existence of life on this

planet. But in many campaigns to prevent

the wastage of water, we find slogans like

'Water is Life'. Does this make the

meaning of water to be life or the meaning

of life to be water? Not at all. It is a mode

of speech where figuratively water and life are equated to establish the importance of

water. Similarly, in Vedic times, the horse-sacrifice was considered essential for a

strong empire so much that it was equated to the nation itself. Performance of this

sacrifice depicted the royal granduer. But the meaning of Ashwa can thus never

become a nation. To claim so is ignorance.

If we read the quoted Brahman (13.1.63) further, it clearly differentiates between a

nation and the ashwamedha by saying, "let him who holds royal sway perform the

ashwamedha".

A counter example to further nullify this argument will come from the same

Shatapath Brahman. Who does not know that the Sacrifice (Yajna) and the Sacrificer

(Yajmaan) are two different things. Yet Rishi Yajnavalkya says in Shatapath

Brahman 13:2:2:1

Yajmaano Yajna

meaning the 'Sacriice is the Sacrificer'. This mode of speech is very common in the

Brahmanas. Only a person with the intention of twisting the meanings does not

reveal this. Seeing all these evidences this argument of the Hindtuva polemicist also

turns out to be false.

The final blow to this argument comes from the historical narratives of Mahabharata

and Ramayana, where Hindus are clearly shown sacrificing a horse and other

animals including cows.

The Ashwamedha Parv of Mahabharata, section 89, shlokas 1-5 says

1 [ ]

2

3

4

5

Vaisampayana said, 'Having cooked, according to due rites, the other excellent

animals that were sacrificed, the priests then sacrificed, agreeably to the injunctions

of the scriptures, that steed (which had wandered over the whole world). After cutting

that horse into pieces, conformably to scriptural directions, they caused Draupadi of

great intelligence, who was possessed of the three requisites of mantras, things, and

devotion, to sit near the divided animal. The Brahmanas then with cool minds, taking

up the marrow of that steed, cooked it duly, O chief of Bharata's race. King

Yudhishthira the just, with all his younger brothers, then smelled, agreeably to the

scriptures, the smoke, capable of cleansing one from every sin, of the marrow that

was thus cooked. The remaining limbs, O king, of that horse, were poured into the

fire by the sixteen sacrificial priests possessed of great wisdom.

Meat Eating in Vedas including Cow

meat

The Sanskrit word for meat is 'Maamsam'. Yaska Acharya's Nirukt 4:3 says

'Maamsam maananam va' ( ) and 'Maanasam va' ( ). The meaning

of the former is 'it is honoured', while the later means 'it is thought'. Durga Acharya,

the most important classical commentator of Yaska's Nirukt, explains the phrase

'Maamsam maananam va' to mean, "It is prepared for a person who is honoured".

Explaining the phrase 'Maanasam va' he says, "It is enjoyed by a person with hearty

pleasure or by those who are intelligent'.

So we see that the very sanskrit word for meat is actually a permission for meat

eating.

Atharvaveda 18/4/20 mentions the following.

Rich in cakes, rich in flesh, let the dish (charu) take seat here; to the world-makers,

the road-makers, do we sacrifice, whoever of you are here, sharing in the oblation of

the gods.

verse 42 of the same hymn reads.

The mingled draught, the mess of rice, the flesh which I present to you, May these

be full of food for you, distilling fatness, rich in sweets.

The serving of meat to the guests is confirmed by Shatapath Brahman 3/4/1/2 which

says,

Now as to why it is called 'guest-offering.' He, the purchased Soma, truly comes as

his (the sacrificer's) guest,--to him (is offered) that (hospitable reception): even as for

a king or a Brâhman one would cook a large ox or a large he-goat--for that is

human (fare offered to a guest), and the oblation is that of the gods--so he prepares

for him that guest-offering.

Goghna- the guest for whom a cow is

killed

Literally the word 'Goghna' means a killer of cows. However in the ancient Indian

context it has a unique application. The word 'Goghna' occurs in ancient Indian

Grammarian Panini's book Ashtadhyayi. He mentions in Ashtadyayi 3/4/73

"The words 'daasa' and 'goghna' are irregularly formed and the affix in these

denotes the idea of the Dative or Recipient."

What does Panini mean that the word 'goghna' denotes the idea of recipient? He

intends to say that in popular usage 'goghna' does not mean 'the killer of cow' but

'he on whose coming the cow is killed in order to give him, that is to say, a guest'. It

is this irregularly formed word 'goghna' which is made applicable to the priests,

guests, sons-in-law, and not the regularly formed word 'goghna' which means 'a killer

of a cow'.

Thus guests in ancient India were called 'goghna', because on their coming a

cow was slaughtered to be served to them.

This is exactly the explanation given in the 14th century grammar book Siddhanta

Kaumudi by Pandit Bhattoji Dikshit. This book is taught to university level students

across India for learning sanskrit grammar. In it, the sutra of Panini

is explained in the 'Uttarkradant' chapter as follows:

.

For it a cow is slaughtered; a guest is called 'goghna'

Almost similar definition of 'goghna' is provided by the Vedic commentator Acharya

Sayana in his book Maadhaviya dhaatuvrittih. He writes

"A person for whom a cow is slaughtered, is known as 'goghna' and 'atithi' (guest)."

Thus it is clear that in ancient India, cows were slaughtered for honouring the guests.

Refuting the Hindu polemic of cow

being called 'Aghnya'

Many Hindus trying to somehow hide these clear evidences give some lame

arguments. One common argument is that a cow in Vedic literature is called

'Aghnya' meaning 'not fit to be killed' and therefore a cow cannot in any way be

killed. Let us address this argument.

Hindu Argument

Not only the Vedas are against animal slaughter but also vehemently oppose and

prohibit cow slaughter.Yajurveda forbids killing of cows, for they provide energizing

food for human beings

———————————

Ghrtam duhaanaamaditim janaayaagne maa himsiheeh

Yajurveda 13.49

Do not kill cows and bulls who always deserve to be protected.

In Rigveda cow slaughter has been declared a heinous crime equivalent to human

murder and it has been said that those who commits this crime should be punished.

—————————————–

Sooyavasaad bhagavatee hi bhooyaa atho vayam bhagvantah syaama

Addhi trnamaghnye vishwadaaneem piba shuddhamudakamaacharantee

Rigveda 1.164.40 or Atharv 7.73.11 or Atharv 9.10.20

The Aghnya cows – which are not to be killed under any circumstances– may keep

themselves healthy by use of pure water and green grass, so that we may be

endowed with virtues, knowledge and wealth.

Response

As with the previous arguments, this argument also has serious shortcomings. We've

already dealt with Yajurveda 13/48 and seen that it wasn't a legal prohibition against

killing a horse. Similarly, this verse also is a prayer to protect one's cows. Let me

post before you the full mantra to demonstrate my position.

"O Agni, don't harm this our cow, the giver of thousands of comforts, the source of

immense milk, yielding butter for the people. I point out to you the forest cow. Let

the wild forest cow be harmed by you. Let the enemy whom we hate be harmed by

you."

Again we see, as in verse 48, that there is no legal prohibition in this verse on killing

a cow for food. It is a prayer being made to the fire god Agni to protect one's cows

from undue harm due to the wrath of the fire god.All cowherds in the world pray to

their own god to keep their cows safe from harm, so that they can sell their milk and

other dairy products and earn profit. This does not mean that certain cows cannot be

killed for food. To say so will be just an assumption. If this verse was about

prohibiting killing of cows, why would it talk about killing the forest cow? Anyone who

would read the complete verse will realize that this verse cannot be taken as a

prohibition for killing cows. That is why the Hindu polemicists never give the

complete verse to their audience.

The next argument was that in the Vedas, a cow is called 'Aghnya' meaning 'not fit

to be killed'. By this argument they try to establish that as per the Vedas cows are

not to be killed. This is again a flawed argument as even according to the cultures

who have beef for food know that certain cows are not fit to be killed who bring more

profit through dairy products; but there are also cows who do not give much profit

and thus are fit to be killed. Even the Vedic references where a cow is called

'Aghnya' cannot in any way be generalized for all the cows.

Consider the following mantra from Rigveda 1/164/27.

|

||

"Making the 'hin' sound, the treasure queen, desiring the calf of treasures with her

mind, has approached. Let this cow (aghnya) yield milk for the two Asvins, and may

she grow for greater prosperity"

This mantra is speaking about a particular cow which gives milk to the Asvins, the

divine twin horsemen in the Rigveda. Again it is not a legal prohibition, but rather is a

prayer to yiled milk for the Asvins. Moreover, classical Hindu commentators like

Acharya Sayana interpret this verse and the one before it i.e. verse 26 in terms of

metaphors of clouds, rain and the earth. He opines that the cow may be the rain

cloud, the milk being the rain and the milker Vaayu, the god of wind who causes it to

flow. The calf is the world longing for the rain to fall.

Thus, it will be incorrect to insist that this verse is speaking about all cows in the

world, referring to them as 'Aghnya'. In order for anything to be prohibited it should

be stated explicitly and without any ambiguity, This is the basis of all law. However,

nothing on the lines of prohibition can be deduced from this verse and other verses

where the word 'Aghnya' exists.

But this one more important point I wish to share with regards to the meaning of the

word 'Aghnya'. I agree that a meaning of 'Aghnya' is 'not fit to be killed', however,

this does not tell us the entire story. According to Yaska Acharya's Nirukt, the word

has two meanings as follows:

Aghnya means 'not fit to be killed' or 'destroyer of sins'

Thus, we see why all the noise is being made on the first meaning of the word i.e.

'not fit to be killed'; while the second meaning i.e. 'destroyer of sins' is being

completely brushed under the carpet. This is a clear proof of intellectual dishonesty.

Applying the second meaning to the verses where the word 'Aghnya' appears in the

Vedas appears to be a more appealing prospect. Let us now read Rigveda 1/164/40

with this very meaning:

|

च ||

"O Aghnya (destroyer of sins), may you be rich in milk through abundant fodder;

that we also may be rich (in abundance); eat grass at all seasons, and roaming (at

will), drink pure water."

Notice that now this verse speaks nothing about not killing cows. A cow may be

called 'destroyer of sins' due to the very fact that it was sacrificed as a burnt offering

for cleansing a person's sins. This is not a far fetched conclusion. However, the

primary point is that in no terms in this verse and other verses like it implying any

prohibition of cow slaughter. Even if 'Aghnya' is taken to mean 'not fit to be killed', it

can only be taken to mean a particular kind of cow.

Thus, this argument also is not valid.

Some Hindus still try to show more mantras. which according to them, prohibit the

killing of cows. However, when we look at those mantras, we find that they are again

quoted out of context. One most commonly used mantra of that sort is Atharvaveda

1/16/4 which says,

"If you destroy a cow of ours, a human being, or a steed, We pierce you with this

piece of lead so that you may not slay our men."

Even on a simple reading of this mantra, one cannot conlude that it is prohibiting

killing cows for food. It is a merely threat for the enemies to not kill any cow, horse or

people of the Vedic people so as to cause loss to them. For example, we know that

chicken are bred in poultry farms so that they can later be sold in the market and

people can consume them as food. Any owner of such a farm knows this. But still, if

someone would want to harm his chicken unnecessarily, it would mean loss of

wealth for him. As such he is ready to take protective action and ensure the safety of

his chicken. He makes sure that no one steals any chicken from his farm to kill them,

even though chicken are meant for food. So, he will ensure that such theieves are

punished. Also, there is threat from many animals who might eat the chicken when

he is unaware. For that he even kills the harmful animals to save his chicken.

Consider that chicken owner saying, "if anyone will harm MY chicken, I will punish

him". Will the Hindutvavadis interpret his statement to mean that the chicken are not

meant to be eaten? No. That would be totally ridiculous.

Similarly, in the verse of Atharvaveda, it is a threat of punishment for those who

harm the cattle of Aryans. It is in no way a prohibition on slaughtering a cow for food.

Considering all the evidences presented in this article, insisting that cows and other

animals are not meant for food will be illogical.

Other evidences of beef eating

Brihadaranyak Upanishad 6/4/18 suggests a 'super-scientific' way of giving birth to a

super intelligent child. It says,

"If a man wishes that a son should be born to him who will be a famous scholar,

frequenting assemblies and speaking delightful words, a student of all the Vedas and

an enjoyer of the full term of life, he should have rice cooked with the meat of a

young bull or of one more advanced in years and he and his wife should eat it

with clarified butter. Then they should be able to beget such a son."

Some Hindutvavadis try to play tricks even here by trying to twist the translation of

few words like 'Auksha' and 'Aarshabh". They say they refer to certain medicinal

plants and not a bull. To refute them, we are fortunate to have available the most

ancient commentary on this mantra by none other than Adi Shankaracharya, revered

by Hindus as the reviver of Hinduism in India and finishing off Buddhism and

Jainism. Commenting on this verse he writes,

. - . च

. . .

"Odan' (rice) mixed with meat is called 'Mansodan'. On being asked whose meat it

should be, he answers 'Uksha'. 'Uksha' is used for an ox, which is capable to

produce semen. Or the meat should be of a 'Rishabh'. 'Rishabh' is a bull more

advanced in years than an 'Uksha'."

Thus people trying to twist the mantras have no ground to stand on except deceit

and fraud. This verse of Brihadaranyak Upanishad is clearly encouraging the eating

of beef.

Animal Sacrifices in Mahabharata

The Anushasan Parv (Book 13); section 88 mentions many animal sacrifices which

are can be done to please the Pitris (fathers). I will quote the significant sholkas

1[ ]

च

"Yudhishthira said, 'O you of great puissance, tell me what that object is which, if

dedicated to the Pitris, becomes inexhaustible! What Havi (oblation), again, (if

offered) lasts for all time? What, indeed, is that which (if presented) becomes

eternal?'"

[ ]

5

च

6 च

7

8 ए

9

10

च च

Bhishma said, "With fishes offered at Sraddhas, the Pitris remain gratified for a

period of two months. With mutton they remain gratified for three months and with

the flesh of the hare for four. With the flesh of the goat, O king, they remain

gratified for five months, with bacon for six months, and with the flesh of birds for

seven. With venison obtained from those deer that are called Prishata, they

remain gratified for eight months, and with that obtained from the Ruru for nine

months, and with the meat of the Gavaya for ten months. With the meat of the

buffalo their gratification lasts for eleven months. With beef presented at the

Sraddha, their gratification, it is said, lasts for a full year. Payasa mixed with ghee is

as much acceptable to the Pitris as beef. With the meat of the Vadhrinasa the

gratification of the Pitris lasts for twelve years. The flesh of the rhinoceros, offered

to the Pitris on the anniversaries of the lunar days on which they died, becomes

inexhaustible.

Clearly there can be no doubt that meat of all kinds was extensively used in sacrifice

rituals to please one's fathers who had died.

Sacrificial slaughter of cows is also mentioned in Mahabharata, Shalya Parv,

Section 41. A king called Rantidev is mentioned in the Vana Parv, section 207 as

well as section 199, as follows

7

8

"And in days of yore, O Brahmana, two thousand animals used to be killed every day

in the kitchen of king Rantideva; and in the same manner two thousand cows were

killed every day; and, O best of regenerate beings, king Rantideva acquired

unrivalled reputation by distributing food with meat every day."

Some Hindus bigots try to claim that these are interpolation and later additions in

Mahabharat. However, there is no evidence to conclude that. This is only a bogus

claim of those who are unwilling to accept that their ancestors used to eat beef.

Nowadays an effort is being made in India to establish the society based on the

principle of Manu, however, no clear-cut picture or its implementation is drawn out. It

is interesting that the same Manu permits eating of meat and does not list the killing

of cows in the major sins.

Manu Smriti 5/35 mentions,

"But a man who, being duly engaged (to officiate or to dine at a sacred rite), refuses

to eat meat, becomes after death an animal during twenty-one existences."

Manu Smriti 5/56 says

"There is no sin in eating meat, in (drinking) spirituous liquor, and in carnal

intercourse, for that is the natural way of created beings, but abstention brings great

rewards."

The testimony of ancient Indian

medical texts

Modern Hindus usually are seen boasting about India's scientific heritage, especially

of medical texts like Charaka Samhita and Sushruta Samhita, which they think are

proof of the advancement of science in the ancient Hindu society. No doubt that like

other nations of the word ancient Hindus too have contributed to our knowledge,

epecially science and mathematics. I will now reveal before you the medicinal

benefits of cow meat as enshrined in ancient Indian medical texts. I will not be

commenting on the medical validity of the passages. They are only given to prove

that cow meat was consumed.

"Cow meat is beneficial in curing breathing problems, Ozaena, Ague, dry cough,

fatigue, diseases due to burns and marasmus."

[Charaka Samhita, Sutra Sthaanam, 27/79-80]

Charaka Samhita, Chikitsa Sthaanam 8/163 says,

"A person of magnanimous heart who eats meat along with a wine named as

'Maadhveek', is quickly relieved of tuberculosis.

Charaka Samhita, Chikitsa Sathaanam 8/165 says,

"While consuming the above mentioned kinds of meat, one may have a dose of

whichever wine is appropriate such as 'Prasanna', 'Vaarooni', 'seedhu', 'arisht',

'aasava' and 'madhu'."

Besides the cow, meat of other animals is also prescribes for various diseases. For

example, Sutra 158 of the same chapter says,

"Meat of a peacock, patridge, rooster, goose, swine, camel, donkey, cow and buffalo

is beneficial for developing one's body."

Although there are numerous other references from Charaka Samhita prescribing

meat for various other ddiseases, I feel the above mentioned passages are sufficient

to prove that no meat was prohibited in ancient Indian society. It was freely taken as

cure for various diseases and improving one's health.

The testimony of classical scholars

To conclude my article establishing that the Vedas and the subsidiary texts permit

beef eating as well as sacrificing animals, I will post the testimony of renowned

classical Hindu scholars, besides the other notale scholars I have already quoted.

1. Adi Shankaracharya

Adi Shankaracharya has written an extensive commentary on the famous Brahma

Sutras. In his commentary on Brahma Sutra Adhyaai 3, Paada 1, Sutra 25 he writes,

"None therefore can know, without scripture, what is either right or wrong. Now from

scripture we derive the certain knowledge that the gyotishtoma-sacrifice, which

involves harm done to animals (i.e. the animal sacrifice), is an act of duty; how then

can it be called unholy?--But does not the scriptural precept, 'Do not harm any

creature,' intimate that to do harm to any being is an act contrary to duty?--True, but

that is a general rule, while the precept, 'Let him offer an animal to Agnîshomau,'

embodies an exception; and general rule and exception have different spheres of

application. The work (i.e. sacrifice) enjoined by the Veda is therefore holy, being

performed by authoritative men and considered blameless;"

2. Acharya Ramanuja

Acharya Ramanuja also has written a very famed commentary on the Brahma Sutras

called 'Sri Bhasya'. Commenting on the same Sutra 25 he writes,

"Scripture declares that the killing of sacrificial animals makes them to go up to the

heavenly world, and therefore is not of the nature of harm. This is declared in the

text, 'The animal killed at the sacrifice having assumed a divine body goes to the

heavenly world'; 'with a golden body it ascends to the heavenly world.' An action

which is the means of supreme exaltation is not of the nature of harm, even if it

involves some little pain; it rather is of beneficial nature."

3. Sikand Swami

This 7th century commentator of the Vedas, while commenting on Rigveda 1/1/4

writes,

"Yajna is good for everyone, and no one is injured. The animals who are sacrificed,

also gain ultimate good. The ancestors say, "the animals that are sacrificed in the

Yajna, obtain the higher worlds"

There must remain no doubt in the anyone's mind after seeing all these testimonies

that the Vedic religion permits beef eating and also sacrificing the animals is

considered as an investment for greater good.

Note: I have refuted the most popular Hindu arguments to deny beef eating in

the Vedas. If any other 'VEER' displays some other 'VEERTA', it would be dealt

with at that time.

BROUGHT TO YOU BY

http://www.islamhinduism.com/

http://www.islamhinduism.com/

beef eating in vedas and other hindu texts

Documents