Beef Eating in Hinduism

[RKO]

Atleast one religious thread every day!!!!! Why....God???? Why???

 

[RISING SUN]

As I believe the status if of the cow came from its relative throughput to the ancient Indian society. From large quantities of milk compared to its intake along with its faeces(which is also useful) the animal would have held importance in ancient Indian society of the time and hence slaughtering or eating it(compared to other animals) would have been prohibited for the benefit of society. Is the same true today? that is a different question.

I do believe that beef eating is not religiously banned but traditionally yes it is. Because of its multiple uses and benefits we started giving importance to cow very much which in long run may have formed what is today in our belief.

Thank you.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Why not!!! Atheism is an accepted stream of Hindu philosophy. Great ancient philosophers like Sankhya, Panini was atheist and nastik. Charbaks were complete atheist. They believed that there is nothing beyond this life so complete all the unfinished wishes in this life only as there is nothing beyond it. They were also Hindus.

"The central point of Hinduism is the belief in the existence of Bhagwan (God) who is manifested in various forms"-----this is a very myopic view of Hinduism. You have to study more and look beyond rituals before coming to such conclusion.

How can atheism be an accepted stream of Hinduism when Hinduism in itself makes the worship of the Supreme as its central focus. With respect, I believe that you aren't referring to ancient Hindu (Sanathan Dharma) philosophers but to ancient Indian philosophers. It is not the rituals which I refer to but to the sacred Hindu texts which outline the history of Hinduism and the criteria for Hindus

 

[Desertfalcon]

Interesting thread. In America, virtually every restaurant advertising itself as "Indian" serves meat, (chicken, lamb & beef) and I have often wondered how authentic that was given Hindu religious values. I always assumed that many of the Indian immigrants who opened restaurants here were Muslim-Indians or Pakistani and simply called their restaurants "Indian" because that is what most Americans are familiar with.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

Lately there is a high interest in meat debates on Pakistan defence and less on Military

I know defence stuff is low these days , so people need time pass but suprised at low quantity of reasonable debates

Yes, but notice the quality of the debates. We don't go around calling those who eat meat "unbelievers or kuffars" and neither do we declare those who do not follow our view as heretics. Almost unheard of in the Abrahamic religions

Interesting thread. In America, virtually every restaurant advertising itself as "Indian" serves meat, (chicken, lamb & beef) and I have often wondered how authentic that was given Hindu religious values. I always assumed that many of the Indian immigrants who opened restaurants here were Muslim-Indians or Pakistani and simply called their restaurants "Indian" because that is what most Americans are familiar with.

In a nutshell, Hindus are like sponges who absorb the teachings of any other religions without referring to their sacred texts for directions. Many Hindus refrain from eating beef and pork but eat all other types of meat. Pork, simply because of the Islamic influence.

 

[The Unnamed]

Atleast one religious thread every day!!!!! Why....God???? Why???

It's a sign.. god is asking you to troll them.

 

[RISING SUN]

How can atheism be an accepted stream of Hinduism when Hinduism in itself makes the worship of the Supreme as its central focus. With respect, I believe that you aren't referring to ancient Hindu (Sanathan Dharma) philosophers but to ancient Indian philosophers. It is not the rituals which I refer to but to the sacred Hindu texts which outline the history of Hinduism and the criteria for Hindus

A Hindu can be athiest as per my belief. Hinduism is a loosely knit set of traditional values and acts. It's not a consolidated religion itself, its only way of life. There are no fixed religious bindings in Hinduism. I don't know where you can put me. I respect all religious gods, one GOD and goddesses but I don't believe in them. I follow my family and society traditions only. I don't reject GOD but I also don't accept GOD. Monothiesm, polythiesm and whatever sort of religious system, they all do exist within Hinduism. We believe in only one thing and that is Jio and Jine do. Thank you.

 

[PlanetWarrior]

A Hindu can be athiest as per my belief. Hinduism is a loosely knit set of traditional values and acts. It's not a consolidated religion itself, its only way of life. There are no fixed religious bindings in Hinduism. I don't know where you can put me. I respect all religious gods, one GOD and goddesses but I don't believe in them. I follow my family and society traditions only. I don't reject GOD but I also don't accept GOD. Monothiesm, polythiesm and whatever sort of religious system, they all do exist within Hinduism. We believe in only one thing and that is Jio and Jine do. Thank you.

You are then neither a Hindu nor an atheist. You are simply confused

 

[RISING SUN]

Interesting thread. In America, virtually every restaurant advertising itself as "Indian" serves meat, (chicken, lamb & beef) and I have often wondered how authentic that was given Hindu religious values. I always assumed that many of the Indian immigrants who opened restaurants here were Muslim-Indians or Pakistani and simply called their restaurants "Indian" because that is what most Americans are familiar with.

I don't know what is the situation there in US but here in India if you are Hindu, you can eat or practice anything you want. only condition is that it shouldn't be offensive to other person when in public. in personal time you can do anything you want. Thank you.

You are then neither a Hindu nor an atheist. You are simply confused

I am not an athiest but I am a Hindu as per Hindu religious order. I am sure. Thank you.

 

[SirHatesALot]

While eating Tandoori Chicken,Lord Raam came to me and asked Boiler hai ya Gawthi, and i was

 

[Desertfalcon]

I don't know what is the situation there in US but here in India if you are Hindu, you can eat or practice anything you want. only condition is that it shouldn't be offensive to other person when in public. in personal time you can do anything you want. Thank you.

Very good. I worked for an Indian family here in America and they were devout Hindus. There was even a Hindu shrine they built where I worked. They were vegetarian and did not drink alcohol or have any vices. I understand that is not necessarily the case among most Hindus in India.

 

[Star Wars]

ManuSmriti is a post Buddhism and post Jainism scripture. "It is attributed to the legendary first man and lawgiver, Manu. In its present form, it dates from the 1st century BCE." ( Reference http://www.britannica.com/EBchecked/topic/363055/Manu-smriti). Buddha born in between 4th to 6th century BCE

" 52. There is no greater sinner than that (man) who, though not worshipping the gods or the manes, seeks to increase (the bulk of) his own flesh by the flesh of other (beings)." -- If this is true then-

a. Lord Rama is a Sinner. He ate animal meats in many place
b. Lord Kirishna is also a Sinner for same reason.
c. "Ashamedha" act is also a Sin act

"The Ashvamedha, the highest expression of royal authority, is a soma sacrifice and incorporates other important sacrifices. The Ashvamedha is intended to secure prosperity for the kingdom and its subjects. It is a bloody sacrifice in which the domestic animals are killed and non-domestic animals are set free. It ends with a further sacrifice of twenty one cows. Gifts are then given to the officers, culminating in the gift to the priests of the four wives of the king or their attendants." It is directed in the slokas that which part of that sacrificed horse should be eaten by which queen.
Please show me a Hindu scripture written before Buddhism/Jainism came into existence eg Vedas, Ramayana, Mahabharata, Gita etc where vegetarianism was considered as a holy act.

So you prefer to look at Scripture which suits your personal opinions while conveniently ignoring the scripture which asks you not to eat animals . You can't be selective about what you believe and what you choose to see either see everything or see nothing don't selectively look at things which suits your personal opinions ..

Its interesting people are arguing for the consumption of the flesh of a conscious being just to suit ones taste buds . One cannot get more fanatical than that..

MISCONCEPTION 3:- Violence against animals; meet eating, etc - VedicGranth.Org


MISCONCEPTION in Hinduism Violence against animals; meet eating,

A) Rigveda (10/85/13) declares, “On the occasion of a girl’s marriage oxen and cows are slaughtered.”

Fact: The mantra states that in winter, the rays of sun get weakened and then get strong again in spring. The word used for sun-rays in ‘Go’ which also means cow and hence the mantra can also be translated by making ‘cow’ and not ‘sun-rays’ as the subject. The word used for ‘weakened’ is ‘Hanyate’ which can also mean killing. But if that be so, why would the mantra go further and state in next line (which is deliberately not translated) that in spring, they start regaining their original form. How can a cow killed in winter regain its health in spring? This amply proves how ignorant and biased communists malign Vedas.

B) Rigveda (6/17/1) states that “Indra used to eat the meat of cow, calf, horse and buffalo.” (translation by Avatar Gill and group)

Fact: The mantra states that brilliant scholars enlighten the world in the manner that wood enhances the fire of Yajna. We fail to understand from where did Avtar Gill and his friends discover Indra, cow, calf, horse and buffalo in this mantra! Also, there is a word "Gavyam", which are five in numbers according to Aayurved-cow's milk, curd, butter, Mutra and Apashisht. Where does the flesh come into the picture? Mantra clearly says that the king should be well built through Saatvik bhojan like Ghrit, so that he can defend his country and kill the monsters.

C) Manusmriti contains violence against animals

Fact:- Unfortunately, most of the vedic texts in the last 1000 years have been adulterated. Though much work has been done in cleansing these texts in the last 100 years, still the adulterated ones remain in circulation. These adulterated texts are great source of misconceptions. Purana and Bhaagvat (not bhagvad geeta) is perhaps the most adulterated (we doubt even its basic writing as many portions of it are Avedic), which is beyond repair. Any reference to such cannot be taken as proof of Vedic Granth containing barbarism.

Example, you would come accross some reference from adulterated Manusmriti, containing Violence against animals like:-

Manusmriti (Chapter 5 / Verse 30) says, “It is not sinful to eat meat of eatable animals, for Brahma has created both the eaters and the eatables.”

Manusmriti (5 / 35) states: When a man who is properly engaged in a ritual does not eat meat, after his death he will become a sacrificial animal during twenty-one rebirths.

These are additional shlokas are either from adulterated Manu Smriti or misinterpreted by twisting of words. We recommend them to read Manu Smriti by Dr Surendra Kumar which is available from

Vedic Books - Books on India, Its Culture and Heritage.

D) Ramayan contains Violence in Ashwamedha

Fact:- The Ramayan we get today is a much interpolated text. Many verses have been added later on and that can be checked with a close scrutiny. The Uttar Ramayan, which contains the reference to Ashwamedha, can be proved to be a later addition by even a layman. No mantra in Vedas refer to any form of animal sacrifice. All those mantras which are alleged to have animal sacrifice, can be easily proved to mean something else, if we look at context and root meanings of the words, as used in ancient texts of grammar and vocabulary. Many of these come from misinterpretation from translations of Sayana and Mahidhar who were born in around 15th century. These translations were then publicized by western indologists. But if you look at ancient translations, and references in other books like Shatpath, Nirukta, Nighantu etc, one can easily understand the truth. Infact, Ashwamedha means efforts to make nation better and has nothing to do with horse.

E) Some Hindu Philosophers have told that Hinduism permit meat eating

Fact:- Many people quote those, who may be good though one subject (like Yoga) but may not have credible understanding of the Vedas. These quotations are widely used to prove that Vedas prescribe barbaric things like Violence against animals and women, etc but the users of these quotations are unable to provide real proofs (directly from the Vedas and Vedic Granth).

Also, we are not sure that these people have really made such comments or not:-

• Swami Vivekanand said: “You will be surprised to know that according to ancient Hindu rites and rituals, a man cannot be a good Hindu who does not eat beef”. (The Complete Works of Swami Vivekanand, vol.3, p. 536).

• Mukandilal writes in his book ‘Cow Slaughter – Horns of a Dilemma’, page 18: “In ancient India, cow-slaughter was considered auspicious on the occasions of some ceremonies. Bride and groom used to sit on the hide of a red ox in front of the ‘Vedi’ (alter).”

• A scholar of scriptures Dr. Pandurang Vaman Kane says, “Bajsancyi Samhita sanctifies beef-eating because of its purity”. (Dharmashastra Vichar Marathi, page 180)

• Adi Shankaracharya’ commentary on Brihdaranyakopanishad 6/4/18 says : ‘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.

• The book ‘The History and Culture of the Indian People’, published by Bhartiya Vidya Bhawan, Bombay and edited by renowned historian R.C.Majumdar (Vol.2, page 578) says: “this is said in the Mahabharat that King Rantidev used to kill two thousand other animals in addition to two thousand cows daily in order to give their meat in charity”.

Some translators have fallen prey to wrong interpretation of the language. A typical example of foul play by some hell-bent on justifying their obsession with beef in ancient texts, is to translate Mansa as ‘meat’. In reality, ‘Mansa’ is a generic word used to denote pulp. Meat is called ‘Mansa’ because it is pulpy. So mere presence of ‘Mansa’ does not mean it refers to meat.

Now, lets see, how a pure mind would read the following lines from Shatpath Brahmin

(3/1/2/21) by Maharishi Yagyavalkya:- “I eat Mansa because it is very soft and delicious.” Infact, reading the whole passage containing this verse, one would know that the passage is factually opposing meat eating.

Similar injustice can be found, after reading with a pure mind and correct reference, on the following misconceptions:-

Apastamb Grihsutram (1/3/10) says, “The cow should be slaughtered on the arrival of a guest, on the occasion of ‘Shraddha’ of ancestors and on the occasion of a marriage.”

Vashistha Dharmasutra (11/34) writes, “If a Brahmin refuses to eat the meat offered to him on the occasion of ‘Shraddha’ or worship, he goes to hell.”

F) Ashwa Medha, Gomedha Yajna and Naramedha Yajna are example of violence

Fact:- One of 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)

Swami Dayananda Saraswati wrote in his Light of Truth:A Yajna dedicated to the glory, wellbeing and prosperity of the Rashtra the nation or empire is known as the Ashwamedh yajna. “To keep the food pure or to keep the senses under control, or to make the food pure or to make a good use of the rays of Sun or keep the earth free from impurities[clean] is called Gomedha Yajna”. “The word Gau also means the Earth and the yajna dedicated to keep the Earth the environment clean is called Gomedha Yajna”. “The cremation of the body of a dead person in accordance with the principles laid down in the Vedas is called Naramedha Yajna”.

G) Honey and Milk are animal products, so why not meat?

Another type of misconception has aroused because of change in the technique of doing things. For example, it is common to see violence on Cows (injection, etc) whilst extracting milk. This experience read with Vedas saying that "Milk is good" will create confusion in the minds of the ignorant. Vedas not only suggests on extracting the milk from Cow, but also suggests to do so with love and care. Another example would be honey. Extracting honey is like snatching away bees' food. But that's not the intent. Honey can be extracted without harming the bees [For large scale production, honey is collected in a smart way. There are wooden boxes of certain height and bees collect their honey inside it. As soon as level of honey reaches the height of box, it starts flowing down through the outer wall of box and is collected. So only extra honey, which was not essential for bees is collected and thus it can be consumed.]

Meat on the other hand cannot be obtained by love and care from living animals. Moreover, according to the ayurveda, human body is suitable for only vegetarian food.

 

[halupridol]

ahem,,,the heart burn thread

No ur Just a AThiest and not a Hindu ....

Dont invoke our religion with ur name ... Mlecchans better claim some other religion...

If a Hindu eats Cow... then he is no more a Hindu ... even just the thought of eating her makes u a Non-Hindu Mlechhan ...

yes he is a blasphemer
fatwaaaaaaa!!!!!

Interesting thread. In America, virtually every restaurant advertising itself as "Indian" serves meat, (chicken, lamb & beef) and I have often wondered how authentic that was given Hindu religious values. I always assumed that many of the Indian immigrants who opened restaurants here were Muslim-Indians or Pakistani and simply called their restaurants "Indian" because that is what most Americans are familiar with.

they call it Indian because ppl want Indian cuisine not Pakistani,,,,now dont say Americans dont know Pakistan

 

[Biplab Bijay]

ahem,,,the heart burn thread


yes he is a blasphemer
fatwaaaaaaa!!!!!

No guts to say this to a muslim ? herooooooooooooooooooooooo

 

[halupridol]

No guts to say this to a muslim ? herooooooooooooooooooooooo

how do u know,,,i didn't..