• Welcome to Tamil Brahmins forums.

    You are currently viewing our boards as a guest which gives you limited access to view most discussions and access our other features. By joining our Free Brahmin Community you will have access to post topics, communicate privately with other members (PM), respond to polls, upload content and access many other special features. Registration is fast, simple and absolutely free so please, join our community today!

    If you have any problems with the registration process or your account login, please contact contact us.

Misconception- Meat Eating- Violence against Animals:

Misconception- Meat Eating- Violence against Animals:


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 a 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 http://vedicbooks.com


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 misinterpretations from translations of Sayana and Mahidhar who were born in around the 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 the nation better and has nothing to do with horses.


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 accusations 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 with Vedas saying that "Milk is good" will create confusion in the minds of the ignorant. Vedas not only suggest extracting the milk from Cow, but also suggest 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 a certain height and bees collect their honey inside it. As soon as level of honey reaches the height of the box, it starts flowing down through the outer wall of box and is collected. So only extra honey, which is 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, the human body is suitable for only vegetarian food.


THIS POST IS FOR SHARING KNOWLEDGE ONLY< NO INTENTION TO VIOLATE ANY COPYRIGHTS.
 
Misconception- Meat Eating- Violence against Animals:


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 a 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 http://vedicbooks.com


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 misinterpretations from translations of Sayana and Mahidhar who were born in around the 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 the nation better and has nothing to do with horses.


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 accusations 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 with Vedas saying that "Milk is good" will create confusion in the minds of the ignorant. Vedas not only suggest extracting the milk from Cow, but also suggest 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 a certain height and bees collect their honey inside it. As soon as level of honey reaches the height of the box, it starts flowing down through the outer wall of box and is collected. So only extra honey, which is 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, the human body is suitable for only vegetarian food.


THIS POST IS FOR SHARING KNOWLEDGE ONLY< NO INTENTION TO VIOLATE ANY COPYRIGHTS.
The above description is very nice indeed. Dr. R.L. Kashyap also provides similar explanations in his books on Yajurveda samhita etc. I have all these books and have read them.
 
IF YOU WANT TO FEED THE NON BELIEVERS OF SANADANA DHARMA< YOU FOLLOW THE THE LINK WHICH SAYS MEAT EATING WAS THERE DURING VEDA PERIOD. OTHER WISE SUPPORT SANADANA DHARMA.
That is a wrong definition of Santan Dharma.
What GNANA SUNYAMji is saying is true.
Both vegetarian and non-vegetarian can and do follow Sanatan Dharma.

You and I are vegetarian but a Non-vegetarian Swami Vivekananda was 1000 times better Sanatan Dharma follower than any of us.

You seem to have a very limited knowledge of Sanatan Dharma and the Human race itself.
 
Dear PJ Sir,
Consuming non veg isnt forbidden for Hindus.
Actually food is classified under sattva, rajas and tamas and not just veg and non veg.

Many vegetarians love to drink coffee but coffee falls under Rajas food and not Sattva.
Sattva food becomes Tamas if eaten after 4 hours of cooking.
Frozen food and reheated food is considered Tamas.
So a person might be vegetarian but his or her food might not strictly fall under the Sattva category.

The Gita doesnt strictly forbid non veg food but it just explains the modes of inclination of people and their prefered food.
 
I am a vegetarian myself but I would like to share that Ayurveda doesnt forbid meat if its needed for treatment.
Take a look at this site, the doctor has stated verses from Charaka Samhita.

 
In one scripture it is written someone regarded as Messiah multiplied 2 fish such that more than 5000 ate food and remaining were filled in 12 baskets.
That Messiah went on to sacrifice His life for entire mankind and rose again the 3rd day ascended to heaven.
Whoever is that Messiah, whatever is His identity is immaterial here.
The fact is He ate fish.
Is He of Deva guna or Rajas guna or Sattva guna?
Please clarify this nescient soul.
 
IF YOU WANT TO FEED THE NON BELIEVERS OF SANADANA DHARMA< YOU FOLLOW THE THE LINK WHICH SAYS MEAT EATING WAS THERE DURING VEDA PERIOD. OTHER WISE SUPPORT SANADANA DHARMA.
Dear Sir,
IMHO Sanatana Dharma means Universal Law.
When Hindus were queried about the name of their religion in Sanskrit if written in any text or scripture, responded saying that Hinduism is Sanatana in nature and hence does not require a name. Since then Hinduism is referred to as Sanatana Dharma.
Please note 'Hinduism' is a term coined by the Imperialist British, to collectively refer to the multitude of faith systems and belief systems prevalent in India during their rule.
When you ascribe the status or certify a system of faith as Sanatana Dharma, i.e. Universal Law, it should be applicable to all men, at all times, at all places.
Whether so-called-hinduism deserves such a laurel is a subject of debate irrelevant to this thread. Perhaps a separate thread shall be opened to debate on Sanatana Dharma.
Hence let us not drag Sanatana Dharma in this discussion.
 
A
In one scripture it is written someone regarded as Messiah multiplied 2 fish such that more than 5000 ate food and remaining were filled in 12 baskets.
That Messiah went on to sacrifice His life for entire mankind and rose again the 3rd day ascended to heaven.
Whoever is that Messiah, whatever is His identity is immaterial here.
The fact is He ate fish.
Is He of Deva guna or Rajas guna or Sattva guna?
Please clarify this nescient soul.
I read a story once that a realized soul, a Brahmin by birth( identity isnt important)
He was walking far with his shisyas and stopped at a place to eat.
The realized soul was offered meat and some veg food.
He forbade the shisyas to eat meat but he ate the meat.

The shisyas were not happy and grumbled to themselves.

The next day the Realized soul went to a black smith and got molten nails and ate it..he offered his shisyas the same but they were shocked!

So you see, if a messiah ate fish or a realized soul ate meat and molten nails, thats not for me to comment.

Messiahs, avatars, divine incarnations are Beyond Gunas and their leelas etc are beyond my comprehension.
 
Rama was a Kshatriya.
Krishna was a Yadava.
Valmiki was a Hunter-turned-saint.
Veda Vyasa was a poojari.
Any probability they were strict vegetarians?
 
Kannappa Nayanar offered meat to shiva and shiva accepted it. din't he?
Buddha was offered ham and he accepted it.
In the tamil film Raghavendrar, lead role played by rajanikant, Raghavendra was offered meat with a sinister motive by muslim ruler. But to the awe and surprise of all, when the cover was removed, it was all flowers.
 
One scripture forbids eating meat.
Another scripture permits eating meat.
Both are scriptures.
Is it not our choice?
Anything and everything is called a scripture by its followers.

Common sense guided by established knowkedge such as science and Gita is best followed. Such an approach is truly universal.

What Gita teaches as one of the values is ahimsa but it applies not just in eating food. It is not no violence or non violence. Rather it is minimizing violence in speech, thinking and in action.

A life form depends on other life forms. That is nature. Many plants are also living entities. An animal that resembles closer to humans suffers in factory farms.

So don’t pluck flowers in the name of religion. Developing such a sensitivity is the teaching. To preserve the body it is fine to kill animals in a forest if sole purpose is to eat it fully as much as possible all to just live

Milk is produced in an inhuman way. So better to be a vegan.

This is all to develop satvic mind set
 
Confusion about what is sanathana dharma is causing such posts
Every one of us is confused about something or the other sir.

Had it not been so, there would not be this Forum sir, for that matter there would not be so many Universities sir, there would not be so many religions, philosophy etc etc sir, for that matter there would not be this world at all sir, and we would not be human,.............. Sir.

The fact that you are a member of this forum is evident that you also are confused sir, as everyone of us is ... Sir.
 
Every one of us is confused about something or the other sir.

Had it not been so, there would not be this Forum sir, for that matter there would not be so many Universities sir, there would not be so many religions, philosophy etc etc sir, for that matter there would not be this world at all sir, and we would not be human,.............. Sir.

The fact that you are a member of this forum is evident that you also are confused sir, as everyone of us is ... Sir.
I really have nothing to say if one is confused about what is confusion. I am not a member of any group. I have login at this site. Does not make me a member.



Not knowing is not confusion. Knowing with clarity is not confusion and half assed knowledge is confusion.

Find out what eternal and universal dharma is with clarity. Hinduism principles are based on that but not practiced mostly

I have login into Amazon site but does not make me a member

Here annd elsewhere I interact with other human beings. Each one is unique and hence I have nothing in common with anyone else. So I am not a member of any class.
 
I really have nothing to say if one is confused about what is confusion. I am not a member of any group. I have login at this site. Does not make me a member.



Not knowing is not confusion. Knowing with clarity is not confusion and half assed knowledge is confusion.

Find out what eternal and universal dharma is with clarity. Hinduism principles are based on that but not practiced mostly

I have login into Amazon site but does not make me a member

Here annd elsewhere I interact with other human beings. Each one is unique and hence I have nothing in common with anyone else. So I am not a member of any class.
Many thanks Sir, for proving me right.
 

Latest posts

Latest ads

Back
Top