Beef Eating in Vedas and Other Hindu Texts

10/7/12 Beef eating in Vedas and other Hindu texts
Beef eating in Vedas and other Hindu texts

Written by {ga=mushafiq-sultan} | 28 November 2011
Like 1,187 people like this. Tw eet 1 3 Share
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 Textb ook for Class VI, Pg 89.).
But the theory that 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,
"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:
islamhinduism.com/hinduism/analysis/164-beef-eating-in-vedas-and-other-hindu-texts?tmpl=compo…
"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,
islamhinduism.com/hinduism/analysis/164-beef-eating-in-vedas-and-other-hindu-texts?tmpl=compo… 2/24
"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 'Shab arb hasya' 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 Shab arb hasya says,
सं
त च पशु
धमाः- उपाकरणं
, उपानयं
, अ णया बं
धः, यू
पेनयोजनम,्
संपनं
, वशसन म ये
वमादयः
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 Shab ar 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,
श मता च श दभे
दात ्
The 'Shamita' (slaughterer of the animal) is not distinct from the major priests.
Commenting on it the Shab arb hashya says,
लोमा चा वं
वै
कतनं
च श मतु
ःत ा मणाय द यात ्
य य ा मणः यात ्
"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,
मां
सं
तुसव नयानां
चोदना वशे
षात
"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,
अ वरंहं
सार हतम ्वि नना सवतः पा लतं
य ं
रा सादयो हं
सतु
ंभवं
त
"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
अ णा ते
मि दन इ तू
यान सुवि त सोमान पब स तवमे
शाम |
पचि त ते
वषभानि स ते
षां
प ण य मघवन हू
यमानः ||
"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'
अ वः धानतया मेयतेहंयते
अ
"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,
एष छागः पु
रो अ वे
न वािजना पू
णो भागो नीयतेव वदेयः |
अ भ यं
यत परु
ोळाशमवता तव टे
दे
नंसौ वसाय िज व त ||
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,
यद ध व यं
रतश
ुो दे
वयानं
त रमानष
ुाः पय वं
नयि त |
अ ा पू
णः परथमो भाग ए त य ं
दे
वेयः पर तवे
दय नजः ||
'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,
यद व य वषो म काश यद वा सवरौ सव धतौ र तमि त |

यद ध तयोः श मतु
यन नखे
षु
सवा ता ते
अ प दे
वेव तु
||
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,
यदव
ू यमद
ुर यापवा त य आम य कर वषो ग धो अि त |
सुता त छ मतारः क व तू
त मे
धंशतपाकंपच तु
||
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,
यत ते
गा ादि नना प यमानाद भ शू
लंनहत यावधाव त |
मा तद भूयामा श रषन मा तणषु
दे
वेय तदश
ु यो रातम तु
||
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,
ये
वािजनं
प रप यि त प वं
य ईमाहु
ः सु
र भ नहरे
त|
ये
चावतो मां
स भ ामु
पासत उतो ते
षाम भगू
तन इ वतु
||
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,
न वा उ एतन म रयसे
न र य स दे
वा नदे
ष प थ भः सु
गेभः |
हर ते
युजा पषती अभू
तामु
पा थाद वाजी धु
र रासभ य ||
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.
सु
ग यं
नो वाजी सव यं
पु
सः पुानु
ं त व वापु
षं
र यम |
अनागा वं
नो अ द तः कण तु
कष ं
नो अ वो वनतां
ह व मान ||
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.
10/7/12
"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 [व]
शम य वा पशू
न अ यान व धवद द वजस तमाः
तु
रगं
तंयथाशा म आलभ त द वजातयः
2 ततः संा य तु
रगंव धवद याजकषभाः
उपसं
वे
शयन राजं
स ततस तां
द पदा मजाम
कला भस तसभ
ृी राजन यथा व ध मनि वनीम
3उ ृ
य तु
वपां
त य यथाशा ं
द वजषभाः
शरपयाम आसु
र अ य ाः शा वद भरतषभ
4 तं
वपा धम
ूग धं
तुधमराजः सहानज
ुः
उपािज द यथा यायं

सवपा मापहं
तदा
5 श टा य अ गा न या य आसं
स त या व य नरा धप
ता य अ नौ जह
ुुवरुधीराः सम ताः षॊडशि वजः
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' (मा
सं
ं मा
ननंवा
) and
'Maanasam va' (मा
नसं
वा). 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
दाशगो नौ संदाने
"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 दाशगो नौ संदाने
is
explained in the 'Uttarkradant' chapter as follows:
गां
हंत त मै
गौ नो.अ त थः
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
गौय मै
दातु
ं
ह यते
स गो नः अ त थः
"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 b hagavatee hi b hooyaa atho vayam b hagvantah syaama
Addhi trnamaghnye vishwadaaneem pib a 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.
हङक वती वसु

प नी वसू
नां
व स मछ ती मनसा यागात |
दहुामि व यां
पयो अ ये
यंस वधतां
महते
सौभगाय ||
"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:
13/24
सू
यवसाद भगवती ह भू
या अथो वयं
भगव तः सयाम |
अ तणम येव वदानींपब शुमु
दकमाचर ती ||
"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,
मां
स म मोदनंमां
सौदनम.्त मां
स नयमाथमाह - औ ेण वा मां
से
न. उ ा से
चनसमथः पु
गव तद यं
ं
मां
सम.्रषभ ततो.अ य धकवया त द यमाषभंमां
सम.्
"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 [य]
कं
स वद द तंपत ृयॊ वै
भव य अ यम ई वर
कं
ह वश चररा ाय कम आन याय क पते
"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?'"
[भ]
5 दवौ मासौ तु
भवे
त तिृतर म यै
ः पतग
ृण य ह
तर न मासान आ वके
नाहु
श चातु
मा यं
शशे
न तु
6 आजे
न मासान पर य ते
प चै
व पतरॊ नप
ृ
वाराहे
ण तु
षण मासान स त वै
शाकु
ने
न तु
7 मासान अ टौ पाषते
न रौरवे
ण नवै
व तु
गवय य तु
मां
से
न तिृतः सयाद दश मा सक
8 मासान एकादश पर तः पतण
ॄां
मा हषे
ण तु
ग ये
न द ते
शरा े
तुसं
व सरम इहॊ यते
9 यथा ग यं
तथायुतं
पायसं
स पषा सह
वा ीणस य मां
से
न तिृतर दवादश वा षक
10 आन याय भवे
द द तं
ख गमां
संपत ृये
कालशाकंच लौहं
चा य आन यं
छाग उ यते
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 रा ॊ महानसे
पू
व रि तदे
व य वै
द वज
दवे
सह े
तुव ये
ते
पशू
नाम अ वहं
तदा
8 समां
संददतॊ हय अ नं
रि तदे
व य न यशः
अतु
ला क तर अभवन नप
ृ य द वजस तम
"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.
Don't forget to share this post
Similar articles
Beef eating in Vedas and other Hindu texts

Textual Corruption in Vedas- Exposing the Asinine Arguments of Agniveer
Bhagvad Gita too has been changed by Hindu priests- UNBELIEVABLE FACT
The Q’uran is meaningless if the book was already given to Moses
Concept of Gods in Arya Samaj (Protestant Hinduism) -Part 1
Hits: 12052 Email This Bookmark Set as favorite
Trackback(0)
TrackBack URI for this entry
Comments (28)
Subscribe to this comment's feed
...
written by sudeepta, November 28, 2011
Mushafiq, that was some research I must appreciate. However I didn't understand what you wanted to prove. Animal sacrifice
related stuff are all known facts and fool is the person who refutes it (or wants to (re)establish such points). Some of the
conclusions are off the mark and I would like you to read the commentaries in full. Beef eating was not a general practice. Read
what Shankar says general rule and exceptions have different spheres of application. Also purely from a theological point of view
Charak Samhita or Manu Smriti don't qualify as religious texts.
...
Also I think you have to understand the esoteric meanings some renonwned commentators have attributed to words like Ashva,
Go with respect of sun's position and that can be used to give different meanings to the same hymns that you have quoted.
...
written by al- Khwarizmi, November 28, 2011
Mushafiq bhai,
Thanks for this well researched, well formulated and well compiled article.
You have dismantled an epic lie being propagated by the Hindutvavadis. I especially liked the part where you exposed Agniveer's
half quoting of verses. Hats off to you !!!
@Sudeepta, the purpose of the article is established in the first few paragraphs itself. Don't embarass yourselves with such silly
statements. Good to know that you have agreed "Animal sacrifice related stuff are all known facts". But, there are a few radical
Hindu sites which doesn't accept these known facts, then twists the mantras to suit their ideology and present them to the
ignorant masses, at the sametime making a big issue on the sacrifice during Id. This is an article responding to such hypocrites.
Where in the article does it say that Charaka Samhita is a religious text. The reason why it is quoted is also said in the article
"They are only given to prove that cow meat was consumed." Now coming to Manu Smriti, It still is an important text to consider. If
not, why ManuSmriti has been extensively quoted by Dayanand? He could have simply given them the status of Puranas and call
them corrupt. Just visit the comments section of the articles on ManuSmriti and you can see how many Hindus actually support
its laws.
Regards.
...
@al-khwarizmi
Why is it 'good to know' that I agreed with something? Well, if it makes you feel good, good for you. And which silly statements are
you referring to? Are these the same that have made you 'good to know'? Or do you believe the maxim that if it supports me its
good, if it doesn't it must be silly? Anyway if that be the case it is not 'good to know'.
...
written by Anti Loon, November 29, 2011
@ Mushafiq Sultan and Neer Muhammad
Excellent article brothers, great research! Your expose of the FAKE 'veerta' (oops! half quoting of scriptures) of 'Hindu apologetics
website' was too good!
@sudeepta
Why do you sound frustrated?
...
@Anti Loon.
Ask yourself because you are hearing me sound frustrated. You definitely seem quite elated. Calm down I say and read what I
have written. And I wonder what makes you think that I am frustrated! Is it because I said those who refute animal sacrifice in
Vedas (Hindu apologetics) and also those who try to establish the same ( Muslim apologetics, Mushafique here) are both fools?
...
written by al- Khwarizmi, November 29, 2011
Sudeepta, I already explained what I felt silly about your comment. You couldn't even understand what the author was trying to
prove by this article, even after going through the entire article and even making a comment on couple of things. Its like asking
"Why did Rama go to Lanka" after reading the entire Ramayana. Anyways, my apologies if you got too offended by this remark.
And what makes me feel good and what maxims I believe in are none of your concerns. Relax boy.
...
written by Fuzail Dumbledore, December 02, 2011
Wish, your footnote had a 'like' button.
'Veerta' of this 'veer' stands exposed. Awesome article, Mashaa'allah.
...
written by Mushafiq Sultan, December 02, 2011
The only response I have received so far is some abuses, personal attacks and death threats.
...
written by al- Khwarizmi, December 02, 2011
Mushafiq bhai, take it as a compliment ! That's the only thing they are good at. All they do is copy-paste from some anti-Islamic
sites and present an argument. Anyone with internet access can do that. No big deal or effort there. When it comes to answering
questions on their religion, they are a total failure. Agniveer is having a hard job trying to reinterpret Vedas to suit his followers.
Anaryans in Vedas means "Terrorists" today. And hence, all violence in Vedas against Anaryans are justified !!! Appolloreach is
another guy who gives an attempt. He would come up and say "Cow means knowledge, hence it was knowledge that was given
to the guests and not beef". And after a philosophical ride, blames West Asian thinking and Abrahamic mindset !!! Any sensible
and rational person can realize if Vedas are really worth their time.
Regards.
...
written by Fuzail Dumbledore, December 03, 2011
What else can you expect from those stuborn?
Btw, some one is upto its rebuttal and that would be published on yashwant mehta's blog.
...
written by faizifaizi, December 03, 2011
@al-khwarzmi,
i super like your comment regarding agniveer and apolloreach. i have seen the level of apolloreach when he was discussing with
me regarding veg vs non-veg in vedas promote hatred and crime-II. he has given reference of a website and i was shocked to
see his completely wrong arguments. i am giving one simple example, he has written that dog has highly acidic saliva and
herbivors have basic saliva and we human also have basic saliva so we are more suited to vegetarian diet. when i told that
brother human saliva is exactly 6.8pH which is slightly acidic (NOT ALKALINE)then he said that i have given the reference of
website you can search that website it is not my opinion. you can see how they are deceiving the poor peoples. apolloreach is not
so innocent that he can UN-intentionally give such wrong arguments.
another example is translation of anaryan as terrorist?? i have searched many dictionaries of sunskrit but no where i found
anaryan as terrorist. you can see in history no where anarya word used for terrorist but it was used for lower caste peoples and
suddenly dayanad saraswati came and explored the new meaning of anarya and justified vedas teaching of killing, beating and
stealing wealth of anaryas because anaryas are terrorist???
agniveer is making them fool.
...
written by shameer khan, December 30, 2011
http://www.facebook.com/groups/152282201493925/
very nice work done by author.. may allah grant him jannah... ameeen
...
written by Nitin Khandelwal, January 15, 2012
You don't have proper knowledge of Hinduism becoz in Hinduism there is two ways of attaining power one is vadic way in which
any animal sacrifies were banned and which was followed by saint. And second is Tantric way in which these sacrifies were
allowed and which is followed by demons to acquire power and in this tantric way animal eating and sacrifies were allowed.
...
written by david, January 31, 2012
@ mushafiq sultan- bro, can u pls let me knw the book that contains the ref to beef by adi shankaracharya??
Thanks.
...
written by Mushafiq Sultan, January 31, 2012
@ David.
I think I've already provided the reference. It is Adi Shankaracharya's commentary/bhashya on Brihadaranyak Upanishad 6/4/18
मा
स म मो
ं दनं
मासौ
ं दनम्
. त मा
स नयमा
ं थमा
ह- औ े
ण वामा
से
ं न. उ ा
सेचनसमथःपु
गव तदयं
ं मासम्
ं . रषभ ततो
.अ यधकवयातदयमा
षभं
मासम्
ं .
"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'."
...
written by david, January 31, 2012
@ mushafiq sultan - sorry that was not what I was looking for. I understand your ref about brihadaranyak upanishad. It's just that if
I have to look into it, do I have to ask for ' brihadaranyak upanishad ' or any specific name of the book.
I Intend to have a look at the book bro, that's why I was asking your help there.
I have some que about bhavishya purana and dr. Zakir naik's ref to it. Can I post it here or mail you?
...
written by Mushafiq Sultan, February 03, 2012
@David
I think you want to buy the book. OK you need to ask for Shankara's Bhashya (commentary) on Brihadaranyak Upanishad. or if you
want in english just buy Brihadaranyak Upanishad translated by Swami Maadhavaananda.
And I am not concerned with Bhavishya Purana, neither l am concerned with Dr zakir.
...
written by kad joe, February 04, 2012
Zakir naik's so called 'scientific' study n agniveer both r biased n foolish.
...
written by Ganesh Mughal, February 04, 2012
Food intake changes frm place to place. When Aryan tribes were living in Central Asia, there was not much scope of farming. But
when Aryan tribes entered in Green n biodiverse region of India, then it become unnecessary to eat meat as India was full of veg
food resources n planes on which farming was possible. If u look it geographycally, eating meat is common in hilly regions than
that of plains.
...
written by shireen , February 08, 2012
very good article bro Keep going on I have personally observe many hindus when the truth is reveal in front of them regarding thier
scripture and book they have just one comment
YOU DONT KNOW HINDUISM
Here I can Know More Hinduism
Kindly write more Article to remove Veil from Truth
Thanking You May God reward you for your Service in both the world
...
written by vivek, April 07, 2012
I was astonished to find such a cogent article on the web. I could add many more relevant quotes. This is not to say that I wish to
accuse anyone of hypocrisy or deliberately covering things up. The truth is that some of our Hindu saints followed a practise of
using grammatical ingenuity to give different meanings to metaphysical texts. This was part and parcel of the literary tradition of
'Silver Age sanskrit'. It enabled a commentator to show a little originality and wit though discussing a stale subject. This enlivened
the dull scholastic round. Sanskrit poetics at that period was similarly preoccupied with puns and metonymy and other such
artificiality. In Literature we call this sort of thing 'Mannerism'. So, as far as Metaphysics goes, this was actually quite harmless
because Metaphysics is a sort of idiocy involving 'distinctions without a difference' whereby statements like 'All is Nothingness'
and 'Nothing is not the All' have the same truth value and to argue about them, or shed blood over such doctrinal disputes is
sheer stupidity.
The danger arose when this philological chicanery was imported into sectarian polemics which gained ground in the late
eighteenth and early nineteenth century. Something similar also happened with Sunni Islam between 1780 and 1824- to this day
there is a ridiculous debate about imkan-e-kizb with partisans uttering curses on each other as if any Muslim in the world today
actually holds the doctrine that God has told a falsehood or that He will ever do so.
As the author of this article points out, the genuine scholars of all traditions- including the Hare Krishna and even Arya Samaj
admit that meat was eaten, though some stick with the notion that the sacrifice was something exceptional and had the purpose
of getting the animal admitted to Heaven and was not at all for the purpose of relishing its flesh.
In this context, I would draw your attention to the Vyadha Gita, (Butcher's Gita) in the Mahabharata. It is more important than the
Bhagvad Gita because it is directed to curing the 'Vishada' (depression) of the main Principal- the Just King, yuddhishtra. What
the Vyadha Gita shows is that an ordinary man, who has grown rich through the meat business, is living a life of great comfort
and luxury. He worships his parents as his Gods and does not bother with Priests or Kings. They are arrogant people who think
they are special and the result is that they bring trouble down on themselves. The Vyadha (butcher) enjoys life on earth and, being
in possession of the true Spiritual doctrine, needs fear no 're-incarnation' after death. Death is part of life and prelude to fuller
Union.
Only Priests and Kings, who are arrogating to themselves an intermediary function, stand in danger of destroying themselves by
their own hubris.
In the Bhagvad Gita, both Arjuna and Krishna are agents, not principals. Both are involved in a difficulty because they are not free
agents. No question, it is a sublime poem but people systematically misunderstand it.
Now, let me address the question as to whether Hindus who say beef eating is forbidden in Vedas are fraudsters simply and
knaves rather than fools.
1) the anti-cow slaughter agitation under the British was a covert way to reduce the conqueror's power because they were the
largest slaughter's of beef for the consumption of their troops. Like 'khaddar' and 'Khilafat' and other such nonsense, cow-
slaughter somehow got tangled up with the Freedom Struggle. The Japanese, on the other hand, ended the ban on eating 4
legged animals including cows (this comes from Buddhism) so as to make their people stronger and as part of their 'Escape
Asia, Join Europe' drive.
2) Many Hindus belonging to mercantile castes have only superficial knowledge of Sanskrit and, more importantly, don't know
how to reason. Gandhi, poor fellow, was of such a background. They become very upset when convicted of a logical error and
resort to ad hominem attacks when exposed. They say 'cow is mother because you drink her milk. Will you kill your mother?' The
answer is cow is not my mother because cow did not give birth to me. Rather she was reared and fed and looked after so that a
marketable commodity, viz. milk, might bring profit to her owner. This was not the case with my mother. She fed me with her
breast-milk herself. When the dairy-man tried to milk her, she got angry and complained to my father. The cow did no such thing.
Of course, it may be that in Bania families the opposite is the case. The cow comes up to the baby's crib and takes the child
tenderly in her hoofs and sings a nice song while giving her udder to the lips of the little one. Meanwhile, the mother is eating
grass and mooing while the milk-man pulls upon her nipples till they squirt out milk.
3) Filial piety- i.e. love of one's parents and ancestors- is a good thing condoned in all Religions. However, to invent reasons for
things told to one as a child is not filial piety. Incidentally, this is the one big cause of communal strife in India. In the old days,
mothers would frighten their children saying 'if you don't behave that person from that other caste or community will come and
take you away. Don't you know they eat babies? That is why they always smile and offer sweets when they see you. They plan to
gobble you up if you misbehave.'
4) 'Hindutva' has nothing to do with Hinduism. It is a power philosophy based on chauvinistic nationalism. If it can transmute itself
into a proper Right Wing party- well and good. We do need a vibrant private sector, but that can't be established so long as there
are riots and curfews and politically instrumentalized disorder.
...
written by satyakijai, May 17, 2012
@The article is on meat eating in Veda or in some other scripture. Hey human whether you lost your intellect at all that you are not
able to decide it is day or night when Sun is shining clear in sky and throwing unbearable heat. In this situation no one can help
you. Killing of animals can not be considered humanistic act but it is beastly act. Its proven human can survive without
killing/eating meat of animals. There are millions of people who are living without causing pain to any animal intentionally. We
should try at our best to refrain ourselves from any kind of violence. Killing of animals for food is act of a beast not of human.
...
written by Murali, August 13, 2012
Bhagvad Gita clearly states what you can eat or not eat
BG 17.8: Foods dear to those in the mode of goodness increase the duration of life, purify one's existence and give strength,
health, happiness and satisfaction. Such foods are juicy, fatty, wholesome, and pleasing to the heart.
Modern health professionals agree that eating meat is not beneficial to health, especially heart.
BG 17.9: Foods that are too b itter, too sour, salty, hot, pungent, dry and b urning are dear to those in the mode of passion. Such
foods cause distress, misery and disease.
BG 17.10: Food prepared more than three hours b efore b eing eaten, food that is tasteless, decomposed and putrid, and food
consisting of remnants and untouchab le things is dear to those in the mode of darkness.
As per BG the above clearly disqualifies meat as type of food that humans should eat .
...
Also it is not about who eat what during Vedic period. It is more about what you should eat to live a particular way of life. There
were meat eaters then as they are now, but if you want to live a austere life meat should be out of your diet. This is an established
medical fact.
...
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?--
The very fact that His Holiness - Adi Shankaracharya has such a commentary on this implies that meat eating is considered
unholy and hence is not common even during his times though the Vedic scriptures may have mentioned it (I need to verify that
until then.. it is "may"). This doesn't mean that people were not eating meat, but, to live a life in the light of his divine grace meat
was something that you should abstain from. Lord Krishna clearly says that people who eat meat live a life of darkness.
...
written by Stranger, August 15, 2012
@ Murali
There is nothing in your post to disprove anything in the article.
...
written by Anonymous , August 16, 2012
@Murali
Above you quoted none of them are against the beef eating.even Indra eats meat
Rig Veda 10.86.13 Indra will eat thy bulls…
The objective of this article was not to induce the meat eating but unveil the mask of blatant lies from centuries.
and what about the tons of reference in Vedas allowed to eat beef and animal sacrifice stuff to various gods.
Write comment
You must be logged in to a comment. Please register if you do not have an account yet.
< Prev Next >

Beef Eating in Vedas and Other Hindu Texts

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Beef Eating in Vedas and Other Hindu Texts

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

10/7/12 Beef eating in Vedas and other Hindu texts

Beef eating in Vedas and other Hindu texts

Like 1,187 people like this. Tw eet 1 3 Share

(Social Sciences Textb ook for Class VI, Pg 89.).

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

In the same volume on page 174 he says,

Yajna and animal sacrifices

7. Present the evil spirits with the blood."

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

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

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

[Mimamsa Shabharbhasyam, adhyaya 3, Page 1014]

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

Commenting on it the Shab arb hashya says,

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

Pandit Yudhisthira Mimamsak also confirms this 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,

Refuting the modern Hindu polemic of 'No violence in Yajna'

Hindu Argument (quoted from a Hindu apologetics website)

devānha vai yajñena yajamānāṃtsapatnā

[Bhagavad Gita As It Is 18/3]

Again Manu Smriti Chapter 5, verse 44 says

Animal sacrifices in Vedas, including cow sacrifice

Rigveda 10/28/3 mentions this as

This is interpreted by Sayana Acharya as follows:

The Ashwamedha Yajna

The dictionary further goes on to say

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

Rigveda 1/162/3 says,

Simultaneous Hindi Translation and Commentary: http://vedamu.org/VedaImages/192708.GIF

Next verse 1/162/4 says,

Simultaneous Hindi Translation and Commentary: http://vedamu.org/VedaImages/192709.GIF

यद व य वषो म काश यद वा सवरौ सव धतौ र तमि त |

Simultaneous Hindi Translation and Commentary: http://vedamu.org/VedaImages/192711.GIF

Simultaneous Hindi Translation and Commentary: http://vedamu.org/VedaImages/192713.GIF

Simultaneous Hindi Translation and Commentary: http://vedamu.org/VedaImages/192713.GIF

Simultaneous Hindi Translation and Commentary: http://vedamu.org/VedaImages/192714.GIF

verse 21, addressing the horse says,

Simultaneous Hindi Translation and Commentary: http://vedamu.org/VedaImages/192719.GIF

Simultaneous Hindi Translation and Commentary: http://vedamu.org/VedaImages/192720.GIF

Refuting Hindu polemics concerning Ashwamedha

Hindu Argument (quoted from a Hindu apologetics website)

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

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

Raashtram vaa ashwamedhah

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

उपािज द यथा यायं

Meat Eating in Vedas including Cow meat

Atharvaveda 18/4/20 mentions the following.

verse 42 of the same hymn reads.

Goghna- the guest for whom a cow is killed

Refuting the Hindu polemic of cow being called 'Aghnya'

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

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

हङक वती वसु

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

Thus, this argument also is not valid.

Other evidences of beef eating

Buddhism and Jainism. Commenting on this verse he writes,

Animal Sacrifices in Mahabharata

Manu Smriti 5/35 mentions,