Is Non -Vegetarian Food Permitted Or 
Prohibited For A Human Being?  

[ << Previous Page | Next Page >> ]

(i) RELIGIOUS  

1. Majority Of The Vegetarians choose to be vegetarians due to Religion beliefs and    

  (a)  Most of the human beings, if not throughout the world then at least in India choose their food habit based on their religion.

 (b)     At the outset I want to make it amply clear, that while I will prove undoubtedly that Non-Vegetarian food is permitted for a human being, I have no intention of hurting any person's religious sentiment. While I go about logically and scientifically proving that Non-Vegetarian food is permitted for a human being, if someone’s sentiments are hurt because he is an ideological vegetarian₉ I sincerely apologize for the same.  

2  FIRST OF ALL I WANT TO MAKE IT CLEAR WHAT ISLAAM SAY ON THIS ISSUE?

 (a) Eating Non-Veg is not Compulsory In Islam

It is not compulsory in Islam for a Muslim to have non-vegetarian diet. A person can be a very good Muslim by being a pure vegetarian, but when Almighty God in the Glorious Qur’ân gives permission for human beings to have non-vegetarian food, then why should he not have'?  

(b) All Major Religions permit Non-Vegetarian food:

Most of the major religions of the world permit human beings to have non-vegetarian food.  

       HINDU SCRIPTURES ALLOW NON-VEGETARIAN FOOD

Some Hindus think that it is against their religion to have non-vegetarian food But the fact is that the Hindu scriptures permit a person to have meat The scripture mentions sages and saints having meat. Hindu scriptures clearly mention that there is nothing wrong in having meat.

It is mentioned in Manu Smruti, the law book of Hindus! In chapter 5 verse 30 “The eater who eats the flesh of those to be eaten does nothing bad! even if he does it day after day; for God himself created some to be eaten and some to be eater”

Again next verse of Manu Smruti that is; chapter 5 verse 31 says “Eating meat is right for the sacrifice, this is traditionally known as a rule of the gods”

Further in Manu Smruti chapter 5 verse 39 and 40 says

  “God himself created sacrificial animals for sacrifice… therefore killing in a sacrifice is not killing.”

Manu Smruti even narrates the supremacy of killing animals in sacrifice it is mentioned in chapter 5 verse 42  

“A twice born (a Brahmin) who knows the true meaning of Vedas and injures sacrificial animals for CORRECT PURPOSES cause both himself and the animal to go to the highest level of existence". 

Among the Hindu scriptures Vedas are considered as most ancient and most sacred. We find mentioning of non-vegetarian food in Vedas too it is mentioned in Rig-Veda book 10 Hymn 27 verse 2

“Then will I, when I lead my friends to battle against the radiant persons of godless, prepare for thee at home a vigorous bullock, and pour for thee the fifteen fold strong juices"  

Hindi translation of this verse is very interesting it says
 

Again in Rig-Veda book 10 Hymn 28 verse 3 it says

"0 Indra, Bulls they dress for thee, and of these (meat) thou eatest when Maghavan, with food thou art invited".  

In Rig-Veda Book 10 Hymn 86 verse 13 says

“indra will eat thy bulls, thy dear oblation that effecteth much. Supreme is Indra over all"

These verses indicates that Indra, a god of Vedic age, used to eat meat.Also another god of Vedic age, Agni, is referred to as "flesh-eater' in Vedas. For example, in Rig-Veda bock 10 Hymn 16 verse 10 it is said

"I choose as god for Father-worship Agni, FLESH Eater, who hath past within your dwellings".

In Rig-Veda Vivah sukta book 10 Hymn 85 verse 13, it mentions that during marriage ceremony the guests were fed with the meat. it says  

“in Magha days are oxen slain, in Arjunis they wed the bride"

Atherva-Veda book 9 Hymn 4 verses 37-38-39 gives expression that cow's milk and cow's meat are most tasty among all other foods. It says

"The man should not eat before the guest who is Brahmin versed in holy lore When the guest hath eaten he should eat. Now the sweetest portion, the produce of cow, milk or flesh, that verily he should not eat (before the guest)"

If you read Mahabharata Shanti Parva chapter 29, a story of greatness of a king called Rantideva is described It is said that he was very rich and generous, and used to feed thousands of guests. The paragraph reads as follows

“All the vessels and the plates, in Rantideva's palace, for holding food and other articles, all the jugs and other pots, the pan and plates and cups, were of gold. On those nights during which the guests used to live in Rantideva's abode, twenty thousand and one hundred kine {cows} had to be slaughtered. Yet even on such occasions, the cooks, decked in ear-rings, used to proclaim (amongst those that sat for supper) “There is abundant of soup, take as much as you wish, but of flesh we have not as much today as on former occasions"

This shows that even after slaughtering 20,100 cows, meat used to fall short on some occasions.

Many more quotations can be given where non-vegetarian food is given preference compared to vegetarian food. For example,

Mahabharata Anushashan Parva chapter 88 narrates the discussion between

Dharmaraj Yudhishthira and Pitamah Bhishma about what food one should offer to Piths (ancestors) during the Shraddha (ceremony of dead) to keep them satisfied Paragraph reads as follows  

"Yudhishthirn said, "0 thou of great puissance, tell me what that object is which, if dedicated to the pitris (dead ancestors), become inexhaustible! What Havi, again, (if offered) lasts for all time? What, indeed, is that which (if presented) becomes eternal?”

"Bhisma said, Listen to me, 0 Yudhishthira, what those Havis are which persons conversant with the rituals of the Shraddha (the ceremony of dead) regard as suitable in view of Shraddha and what the fruits are that attach to each. With sesame seeds and rice and barley and Masha and water and roots and fruits, if given at Shraddhas, the pitris, 0 king, remain gratified for the period of a month. With fishes offered at Shraddha, the pitris remain gratified for a period of two months. With the muflon they remain gratified for three months and with the hare for four months, with the flesh of the goat for five months, with the bacon (meat of pig) 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 form the Ruru for nine months, and with the meat of Gavaya for ten months. With the meat of the buffalo their gratification lasts for eleven months. With beef presented at the Shraddha, their gratification, it is said, lasts for a full year. Payesa mixed with ghee is as much acceptable to the pitris as beef. With the meat of Vadhrinasa (a large bull) the gratification of pitris lasts for twelve years. The flesh of rhinoceros, offered to the pitris on anniversaries of the lunar days on which they died, becomes inexhaustible. The potherb called Kalaska, the petals of Kanchana flower, and meat of (red) goat also, thus offered, prove inexhaustible

So but natural if you want to keep your ancestors satisfied forever, you should serve them the meat of red goat.

Same message is repeated in Manu Smruti Chapter 3 verses 266 to 272.

In Shraddha (ceremony of dead) even Brahmjn priests are expected to eat meat. Manu Smruti instructs Hindus to serve non-vegetarian food to priests i.e. Brahmins. It says in Chapter 3 verses 226 and 227

“Purified and with a concentrated mind, he should put down on the ground before (those priests) seasoned foods like soups and vegetables and also milk, yogurt_, clarified butter, honey and various foods that are eaten and enjoyed, roots and fruits, tasty meats, and fragrant water

Hindu scriptures not only allow non-vegetarian food but at few places it makes it compulsory for Hindus to eat non-vegetarian food. If anyone refuses non vegetarian food, he will have to face consequences according Hindu Scriptures,

In Vishnu Dharmottar Puran book 1 chapter 140 verses 49 & 50 says

"Those who do not eat meat served in the ceremony of dead (Shraddha), will go to hell (narak)".

And Manu Smruti mentions still stronger punishment. In Manu Smruti Chapter 5 verse 35 it says

“But 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"

“The Cow in Hinduism: Myth and Reality”

With the supporting illustrations Extracted from various Hindu scriptures. In that article we tried our best to bring out what the Hindu scriptures ordain about beef eating. Relying on the facts we reached the conclusion that the Hindu religious books permitted the beef eating. Not only this, the beef was, if we believe in the Hindu scriptures, an inseparable part of Hindu religious rites from the birth to the death and even of the 'Shraddha karma'.

If we go, back to the fifty years of India's independence we come to know that there has been a long chain of agitations against cow slaughtering. A number of resolutions were passed against the slaughtering of cows and all-round efforts are being made to prove that in India the cow has always been venerable and not to be slaughtered. Therefore. Cow slaughtering is a heinous crime

But like facts are juxtaposite. There are a number of illustrations in ancient Sanskrit literature which prove that the cow was not only scarified in the yagyas but its beef was also served to the guests and Vedic scholars as a mark of their respect. Possibly this was why, the greatest propagator of Hinduism Swami Vivekanand said thus:

 "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, page 536)

On page 174 of the above-mentioned book the Swami says, "There was a time In India when a Brahmin could not be a Brahmin if he did not eat beef."

There are a number of illustrations in the ancient Sanskrit literature, which suggest that the cow used to be scarified in the yagyas and its beef served to important guests and the Vedic scholars. In the Vedas, there is a detailed description of 'Gomedh Yagya', in which cow was scarified. Describing this yagya, an ancient and famous Sanskrit encyclopedia “shabdakalpdrum” says thus:

"Yaj visheshah atra estrigopashuh mantreshu  estrilingpathet tasya lakshanam - satpashlatwa - nay shafatwa- bhag shringatwa - kanatwa - chhinnkarntwa- didashrahityam. Tasya prayogah sarvo apee chhagpashuawat. Yajmamsya swargah falam goscha goloko praptee."

"This is the special yagya. In this yagya, the cow is sacrificed. In this 'mantra' the word 'go' is used for cow, and not for ox or calf because the verse suggests the feminine gender the cow, worthy for sacrifice in this yagya, should have seven or nine hoofs. Its horns must be intact. It should be neither one-eyed, nor ear-cropt It should be treated like a goat. The performer of 'Gomedh Yagya' attains heaven and the cow scarified in this yagya goes to “Golok."

This description of 'Gomedh Yagya' in 'shabdakalpdrum' leaves no room for the opposition of cow-slaughtering I want to remind the people behind the movement against cow-slaughtering that 'shabdakalpdrum' Sanskrit encyclopedia is published by Lal Bahadur Shastri Sanskrit Vidyapith, New Delhi and National Sanskrit Research Centre, New Delhi with the co­operation of Human Resources & Development Ministry, Government of India. Therefore, I request the people, who have called my article as confusing to go into the details of the facts and then decide the truthfulness of my contention on the issue. In the life of the followers of a religion, religious injunctions play very important role. If the Vedas and other Hindu religious books sanctify the beef eating. Where is the room for its opposition? Does the opposition of beef eating not show clumsiness? They must accept the truth they should go into the depth why the cow was made to be esteemed as mother, while the Vedas and other Hindu scriptures sanctify its sacrifice and beef eating. In fact, they must oppose that conspiracy, which made the Cow venerable. But unfortunately, it did not happen,

How the cow, horse, Goat and other animals should he sacrificed in a yagya is described in detail in the Eteriya Brahmin:

“Udeechina asya pado nidhttat surya chakshurgamyatatt watam prammanv vasrijtat antrikshamasam dishah shrotram prithivim sharirmityeshwaiwain talookeshwaddhati.

Ekdhaasya twachamachchh yattatam puranabhya apishasomu wapamutikhadata dantrevoshmanam warydhaditi pashushvev tat prananam dadhoti.

 Shayenmasya vakshah krinutaat prasansha bahushala Doshni Kashyewansachichhdre shroni kawshorustekparunadashthiwna ksharvinshatirusyawadd Krayafu anusthyo chayawyatad Gaatram gaatramasya nune krinutadetyamgaanyewatya tad gaatrani preenaati... Uwadhyagohan parthiwam khantad... asna raksha samsrijatadityah” -Eteriya Brahmin  2/6/6-

“That is, ''Turn its feet towards north. Offer its eyes to the sun, its breath to the air, its life (pran) to the space, its hearing power to the directions and its body to the earth. In this way, the priest enjoins the animal to the 'parlok' (heaven)”

"Flay its whole hide in one piece. Pierce the rnembrane of its intestines before cutting its navel. In this way, the priest infuses breath into the animals”

"Now cut a piece from its chest in the shape of an eagle, two pieces from its arms in the shape of an axe, two pieces from its legs in the shape of paddy-ears, the intact part of its back, two pieces from its thighs in the shape of a shield, two pieces from its two knees in the shape of leaves and its 26 ribs. Its every part should be kept safe. Dig a pit to hide its dung. Offer its blood to the ghosts."

The Eteriya Brahmin further describes the procedure of distribution or its parts. Thus says the Eteriya Brahmin:  

"Now emerges the question of distribution of various parts of the sacrificed animal it should be distributed in the following way. Both the bones of its jaw should be given to the 'Prastota’ priest. The eagle shaped piece of its chest should be given to Udgata', its throat and palate to 'Pratiharta', the right part of its back to 'Hotri', the left part to 'Brahma', its right thigh to 'Maitravirun' and its left thigh to 'Brahmanachchhansi', the adjoining part of its right shoulder to 'Adhvaryu' and the adjol fling part of its left shoulder should be given to the co-pronouncers (upgata) of the 'mantras'. Its left shoulder should be given to 'Pratiprasthata'. The lower part of its right arm should be given to 'Neshta' and the lower part of its left arm should be given to 'Pota^’. 

"Similarly, the upper part of its right thigh should be given to 'Achchhavak' and the upper part of its left thigh to 'Agnidhar'. The upper part of its right arm should he given to a member and its back-bone and womb should he given to the performer of the yagya. Its right leg should be given to the ‘Grihpati' (the head or the family) and its left leg to the wife of that 'Grihpati'. The upper lip should be given equally to the 'Grihpati' and his wife. They give the tail of the animal to the wife of the Grihpati', while it should be given to a Brahmin.

"In the same way, its peck should be given to 'Gravastut' and the half part of its fleshy back should be given to 'Unneta'. The half part of its fleshy neck and some part of its left ear should he given to its slaughterer If the slaughterer of the animal is not a brahmin, he should give it to a brahmin. Its head should be given to 'Subrahmanyam'.

"The parts of the sacrificed animal total thirty-six. Every piece symbolises a foot of the verses pronounced in the yagya. Thus, the performer of the yagya, dividing the sacrificed animal into 36 pieces, enjoys the pleasures of this world and goes to the heaven.

"The people, who distribute the sacrificed animal in the above-mentioned manner, go to the heaven. But those, who do not follow this procedure, earn sins"

Thus, the above-quoted illustration suggests that for a Hindu, desiring for the heaven, sacrifice of an animal was a part of his religious rites. And a due procedure was also laid down for such sacrifices. Only the people, who used to follow he above-mentioned procedure of sacrifice could think of attaining the heaven. Thus, it is quite clear that the sacrifice of animals was a part of religious rites of the Hindus Now if a Hindu rejects it, he repudiates his own religious scriptures.

The Rigveda also sanctifies the sacrifice of he cow. Thus says the Rigveda:

Ukshno hi me Panchdash sakom pachanti winshatim,

Uttahmadim peev edubha kukshee prinnanti me vishwasmadindra uttar -The Rigveda 10/86/14

That is, "Inspired by Indrani (the wife of Indra), the performers of the yagyas sacrifice 15 or 20 oxen and cook their meat for me. Eating these animals I am getting fat.  

According to Hindu mythology, Indra is known as the king of gods. And the reason of his fatness is beef eating, as described by Indra himself. If the beef-eating was justified for Indra, how can it be unjustified for his followers?  

Similarly, a mantra of the Rigveda clarifies that in ancient India cow-slaughtering was a common phenomenon. The Rigveda describes it in a simile:  

Mitrokruwoo yachchhsen no gawah prithivya aprigmuya shayanti      -The Rigveda 10/89/14

'That is, "0 Indra! May all the demons cut by your weapon on the earth as the cows are cut at the place of slaughtering."  

Analysing the 'Vivah Sukta' (10/85) of the Rigveda, Dr. V.M. Apte writes on page 387 of 'The Vedic Age', a book published under the aegis of Bharatiya Yidya Bhawan: "According to the ancient tradition of marriage the groom, along with the marriage party, used to go to the house of the bride (10/17/1), where the bride used to eat food with the marriage party. On that occasion the guests were served with the beef of the cows, slaughtered for the purpose (Rigveda 10/85/13)."  

Vedic Index, Vol.2, page 145 says, "On the occasion of marriage ceremony the cows were slaughtered for feast." This fact is also accepted in the 'Vedic Dictionary' (page-374) of Banaras Hindu University and the Rigveda [1O/85/13]  

As a part of religious rites, beef was also used at the time of funeral of human body. The Rigveda clearly supports this fact; 

Agnervarmar parin gobhirvyayswa Sam pronushwa peewsa medsa cha       -The Rigveda, 10/16/7

'That is," 0 dead, have the shield of fire-flame with 'godharma'. May you be covered with meat"

In this context thus says the 'Vedic Dictionary' of Banaras Hindu University; "Possibly, the cow-slaughtering was necessary at the funeral (Dah Sanskar) of humans. Here is the description of covering the dead body with beef."  

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 'Yedi' (alter). Possibly, the hide of that ox was used for the occasion, which was slaughtered for feeding. Similarly, at the time of coronation, the king was used to sit on the hide of a red ox."

The cooked meat of an ox was offered to Indra to make him pleased, so that he could bless the offerer with grains. Thus says the Rigveda:  

Adreenate manden Indra tuyantsunwanti soman peevsitwamesham, pachanti te vashbhan atsi tesham preekshen yandhwan huya manah. -The Rigveda 10/28/3

That is, "0 Indra! The people, wishing for grains, perform 'havan' for you. At that time they prepare juice of 'soma' that you drink. They also cook meat of ox, that you eat." 

The Rigveda (7/19/8) mentions a king, named 'Divodas'. An attributive 'Atithigva' is used with his name. The meaning of this attributive is 'slaughterer of cow for the guests” (Vedic Dictionary, Page 374).

There is also a description in the Yajurveda, which says that the fat of cows was offered by the people to satisfy their dead ancestors and in return their wishes were fulfilled. Thus says the Yajurveda:

Wah vapam jattvedah pitrithyo ytrainanvetathnihitanparake Medasah kilya upp tanstrawantu satya eshamashishah sannaintan swaha  -Yajurved6 35/20

That is, "0 Jatdeva, take this particular hide of cow. You know the ancestors May the rivers of fat of that particular hide flow towards the ancestors and the desires of those, who donate for their ancestors, be fulfilled.

The shatpath Brahmin (3/4/1/2) mentions that a big ox (Mahoksh) should be killed for the guest The Taitiriya Brahmin (2/7/11/1) describes about a performer of yagya, named Agasta, who sacrificed one hundred oxen. This fact is also mentioned in the Panchvinsh Brahmin (21/14/5) To settle the dispute among the priests, as mentioned in the Shatpath Brahmin (3/1/2/21), over whose meat should be eaten  of cow or ox, Yagyavalkya clarifies thus:

Ashnmuyew aham ansalam chedda bhawtiti.       -Yagyavalkya Smiriti [3/1/2/21]

That is, "Eat the meat which is more soft."

However, some people differ on the meaning of the word 'Gomedh'. They say that its meaning is not ^‘the slaughtering of cows', but on the contrary, it means 'breeding of cows'. But their argument holds no water because there is a detailed description of cutting the parts of the cow and its distribution among the priests. And this description is made in the Brahmins, the highly authentic religious books of Hinduism. In support of their arguments these people quote the 'mantras' of the Vedas where the COW is mentioned with the adjective 'Aghanya' (not to be slaughtered) But their opinion cannot be accepted because in the 'mantras' of the Vedas, quoted by these people, only a particular kind of cow is prohibited to be killed, not all kinds of cows. As for example;

Duhaimimishibhyam pago aghny£yam sa wardhanta mahte saubhagam. -The Rigveda III 64/27

That is, "This cow gives milk for both the Ashwinikumars. May this cow enhance our fortune. Thus, this is not to be slaughtered." Here the word 'Imam' indicates a particular kind of cow. The 'Vedic Dictionary' of Banaras Hindu University says that the cows were killed, no matter they were called 'Aghanya'. A renowned scholar of scriptures, Dr. Pandurang Vaman Kane says, "That was not the case. Vajsaneyi Samhita sanctifles the beef-eating because of its purity." (Dharmashastra Vichar Marathi, page 180).

The beef-eating was common in the Vedic age. That is why Swami Vivekanand called It the 'Golden Era' of Indian history.

Swami Nikhilanand the biographer of Swami Vivekanand, writes thus: "Swami Vivekanand told the conservative Brahmins very enthusiastically that in the Vedic period beef-eating was in common use. On being asked about the 'golden era' of Indian history, the Swami named the Vedic period when only five Brahmins were suffice to eat a cow." (For reference see 'Vivekanand: A Biography', page 96.)

Not only this, the Upanishads too mention the beef-eating. Thus says the Brihdaranyakopanishad (6/4/18):

Atha ya echchhateputro me pandito vegeetah samtingam shushrushitam vacham bhashita jayeti. Sarvanvedannubabreet sarvamayuriyaditi mansaudanam pachyeetwa sarpeeshmant amshaniyyatumishawaro janyeetwa ankshen warshven Wa. -     Brihdarnyakopanishad [6/4/18]

That is, "A man, who wishes his son, yet to born, to be a great orator, a great scholar of the Vedas and of 100 years of age. should eat along with his wife the meat of an ox or bull mixed with ghee and 'bhat' (rice)."

Some people tried to change the meaning of the word 'Auksha' and 'Aarshabh', used for ox or bull. Some scholars attribute these words to medicinal herbs. In fact, their efforts are not only against the opinions of ancient commentators, but are also a laughing stock.  

Adi Shankaracharya, the greatest propagator of Hinduism, says thus in his commentary Of Brihdaranyakopanishad:

Mansmishriomodanam mansaUodnam. TanmamsanIyam -arthmahaukshen Wa mansen Uksha sewAnsamartha pungwastdIyam mansam. RishbhastetatoapyadhIkvyasT -deey ma sha bham Mansam.  -Adi Sankracharya's coMMENtry on BriHdaranyakopanishad[6/4/18]

That is, '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. Therefore, I suggest the Hindu brothers, who want to know truth about beef-eating as against the true spirit of Hinduism, to study the commentary of Adi Sankracharya on BriHdaranyakopanishad

The Apastamb Grihsutra (13/5/15-17) says, "When a Brahmin scholar of Vedas, a student or a teacher visits the house of a man, the latter should welcome him with 'Madhupark' He should offer a cow to him, if he permits, he should kill it with pronouncing mantras and give it to the guest."  

Some Indian scholars opine that in the 'Madhupark' honey. curd, etc. are offered, not the beef. But their argument is against the Grihsutras. In this context the Manav Grihsutra (1/9/21) clarifies, “Madhupark cannot be without meat. This is being said by the Vedas."    

THERE IS a description in the 'Uttar Ram Charitam' of renowned Sanskrit scholar and ancient writer Bhavbhuti, which runs thus. When Vashishtha visited the ashram of Valmiki, he was served with the meat of she-calf On this 'Saudhatin', a disciple of Valmiki, became very angry. he said to his fellow disciple Bhandayan that Vashishtha' is as if a tiger or a wolf for he had eaten the poor she-calf. Hearing this, thus answered Bhandayan:  

Samanso madhuparka etyamanayam bahumanya manah shrotriyabhyagataya watsarin mahoksham mahajam Wa nirwapanti grihmedhin, tam hi dharmsutrakarah samamnanti

-Uttar Ram Charitam; Part IV, Chapter vishakambhak

 That is, "Madhupark should comprise meat Honouring the Vedic instructions, the householders offer a she-calf or a big ox or a big goat to the guests."

There has been an effort for many years to change the meaning of 'Mahoksham’ and 'Mahajam', used in the smritis, to medicinal herbs. To some extent, they succeeded in their endeavour. But they could not change the meaning of above-mentioned words in all the books of Sanskrit literature. That is why, in the Uttar Ram Charitarn of Bhavbhuti the words Vatsari', 'Mahoksha' and 'Mahaj' are not used for medicinal herbs, but for she-calf, big ox and big goat respectively.

The beef was also served on the occasion of 'Shraddha Karma'. Thus says the Apastanib Dharmsutra;

Santasaram gavyen preeti, bhuyamsamtto mahishen etten gramyarkhyanam pashunam mansam medhyam vyakhyattam. Khargopastren khargamansenantyam kalam. Tatha shertbalerm  artsyasyes mansen waghreensasya cha -Apastarrib Dharntasutra  [2/7/16/25, 2/7/17/3]

That is, "The ancestors are appeased for one year If the beef is served in their 'Shraddha', and they are appeased for more years if the meat of the buffalo is served in their 'Shraddha.' The same is applicable to the meat of hare, goat. etc. If the Brahmins, seated on the hide of rhino, are served with the meat of rhino, the ancestors are appeased for ever The same thing is applicable to the meat of the fish, named 'Shatbali'."

The Mahabharat too accepts the opinion of Apastamb Dharm­sutra. Thus says Anushasan Parva of the Mahabharat:

Gavayen dattarn shradhe tu sanwatasarmihochchayatte. 
-Mahabharat, Anushasan Parva 88/5  

That is, 'The ancestors are appeased for one year on being served with beef on the occasion of their 'Shraddha'." 

The Puranas and the Smritis describe a man 'Rikgaman', if he refuses to eat the meat served in the 'Shraddha'. The meaning of the word 'Rikgaman' is to become animal for 21 births. Thus is accepted by Manu:  

Niyuktastu yathanyayam yo mansam natti manwah. Sa pretya pashutam yati sambhawanekveenshatem. -Manusmriti 5/35  

That is, "One, who does not eat meat served in the 'shraddha and 'Madhupark' becomes animal after his death for consecutive 21 births."  

Further says Manu in the Manusmriti:  

Kratau shradhe neyokto Wa anshanan pajirah dweez -Manasmriti 5/55  

That is, "A Brahmin, who does not eat meat served in the 'Shraddha' and a 'yagya' denigrates from his position. "  

­The similar opinion is expressed by the Kurma puran (2/17/40).

The Vishnu Dharmotlar Puran (1/140/49-50) says that a man, who does not eat the meat served in the 'shraddha', goes to hell. The same is also mentioned in the History of Dharmashastra (Vol-3, page-1244).

According to the Mahabharat any empire could be destroyed by the yagya performed with beef. There. is a tale in the Mahabharat which runs thus:

Yadrichchhaya mrita dristwa, gaastada nrisattam. Ettan pushun nay kshipram Brarnhbandho yadichchhsi. Sa tutkritya mritanam vat, mansani rnunisattam. Juhay dhrirastrasya rastram narpateb pura Awakeerne sarswattyastirthe prajalya pawkam Bako dalbhayo Maharaj, niyam param esthirah. Sa tairav juhawasya rastram mansaimarhalappa Tansmistu vidhiwat satre, sampravrite sudarune. Akshuyut tato rastram. Dhritrastrasya parlheev. -Mahabharat,shalya Parva [41/8/14]   

That is, "Take these dead cows, if you like," said King Dhritrashtra to Dalmya. Dalmya performed a yagya at 'Avakirn', a place on the bank or river Saraswati. In the 'havan' he offered the beef of those dead cows. After completion of that yagya in the prescribed manner, the empire of Dhritrashtra began to get destabilized."

At another place. the Mahahharat mentions thus.

Chhinnasthunam vrisham dristwa, velapam cha gwambhrisham. Gograhe yazawatasya. prekshmanah so partheevah.Swasti gobhyoastu loke tato nirvachanam kritam-Mahabharat Shanti Parva [265/1-3]

That is, "King Vicharakshu became very upset having seen the condition of cows, who were wailing over the killing of oxen for the yagya. Showing sympathy the king said, 'May the cows live long," 

King Rantidev, if we believe the Mahabharat, achieved fame because he used to give beef in charity. Thus says the Mahabharat.

Rajo   mahanase purve Rantideosay vai dweejah.Dwai sahastre tu vadhayate pashunamanvaham tada.Ahanyahni vadhayate dwe sahastre gawam tadha,Somansam dadro hyanannam rantidewasya nityashah.Nripasya dweejosattam. -Mahabharat Van Parva 208/209/8-10

That is, "For the kitchen of king Rantidev two thousand animals were slaughtered. Two thousand cows were slaughtered daily" As he used to give grains along with meat in charity, he achieved unparallel fame. After the study of this illustration even a layman can understand that even the Mahabharat sanctifies the charity of beef Thus, the eating of beef, according to the Mahabharat, is a praiseworthy deed, and not condemnable as is being done today.

As regards the above-quoted illustration of the Mahabharat, some people have fallen prey to misconception. They go round to say that the illustration in question is a part or later additions to the Mahabharat. But to dispel their misconception, I would like to remind them that the above-verse is found in the 208th chapter of Chitrashala edition and also in the 199th chapter of Bhandarkar Oriental Research institute edition. The authenticity of this verse is also accepted in "The History and Culture of the Indian People', published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhawan, Bombay. And it is noteworthy that the editor of this book is the renowned historian R.C. Majumdar Thus says in the book (Vol.2, page 578): "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."

There is also a description of King Rantidev at another place in the Mahabharat, which says thus.

Mahanadi charmarasherutakaledat sansrije yattah. Tatashcharmanvaliteetyevam vekhyata sa mahanadi, -Mahahharat, Shanti Parva 29/123  

That is. "A river of blood began to flow out of the hides peeled off the cows, which were killed by King Rantidev. That river came to be known as 'Charmanvati' (Chambal)."  

This illustration of King Rantidev was also accepted by the great poet. Kalidas. In his 'Meghdutam' he says thus:

 vyalamhethah surbhitnya alambhjam manyishayan Shrotomrityam bhoovee parinttram Rantideosya krileem.        -Meghdutam 45,48, 49  

That is, "0 Megh (cloud), salute the fame of King Rantidev, flowing in the form of a river of blood of the cows which were killed by him."  

Thus. we see that the slaughtering of cows commanded social as well as religious acceptance Also, it was esteemed as a status symbol in the society. Mallinath, the 14th century commentator on Meghdutam, also validates the episode of King Rantidev. He says thus.  

Pura Kilrajo Rantideosya gawalambhe shwektra sambhrittad rakatnishyandachcharmarasheh kachchinandi sasyandi sa CHARAMANVATITYAKHYAT ETTI. Mallinath's commentary on Meghdoottam­

That is, "In ancient time King Rantidev slaughtered the cows as a result, the blood began to flow like a river Because of its origin from the hides, that river came to be known as 'Charmanvati."

At one place the Mahabharat clarifies this episode as follows: Sankrite Rantideosya yam ratrimavssan grihe.

Alabhyate shatam gawam sahasirani cha vinshatih. -Mahabharat; Shanti Parva 29/179  

That is, "One day a large number of guests came to the palace of King Rantidev Therefore, he let twenty thousand and one hundred cows slaughtered"

In the light of above-mentioned episode of cow slaughtering by King Rantidev, it is clear now that the cows were slaughtered to feast the guests. In this context, this is also noteworthy to mention that in those days’ only two kinds of guests used to visit the king. They were either the Brahmins or the kshatriyas. Therefore, there is no room to doubt the religious and social sanctity accorded to beef eating. Before we discussed how the Brahmins had inclination to beef eating and in order to get the beef easily they made a number of provisions. But the circumstances began to change. The beef became the favourite food of the kshatriyas too. As a result, the kshatriyas broke the monopoly of the Brahmins over beef eating. Thereafter the right of Beef-eating was accorded only to the two caste the Brahmins and the kshatriyas.  

This suggests that the guests of Rantidev, for whom he let twenty thousand and one hundred cows killed were either the Brahmins or the kshatriyas. In the light of such luminous facts I find it ridiculous to see a movement against cow slaughtering run by the very Brahmins who tried their best to reserve the right of Beef-eating only for themselves.  

As the Beef-eating was prevalent among the Hindus, so was it the part of Buddhist life. The Buddhist literature bears the witness of this fact.  

There is a tale in the Titir jatak (page 438), which runs thus; 'A jain became the Buddhist monk. He was pursuing his studies in an 'Ashram' along with five hundred students. That monk killed a cow, her calf and a 'Goh' and ate them. The cow and her calf lived in the same 'Ashram' and so did the 'Goh' in a burrow near the 'Ashram."  

There is also a tale in the Nadjuttha jatak (page-144), which runs thus: "There was a Brahmin, who was the great scholar of the Vedas. He made a hut in a forest. He resolved to establish 'Agni' (fire) there and offer the meat of an ox in 'Ahuti'. There came some hunters. In the absence of the Brahmin, who had gone to a village to bring the salt, they killed his ox and ate. The poor fellow, as the Brahmin was, his wish was not fulfilled. The offering of the meat of an ox to the Agni was not a new thing. In the society, where meat was cheaper than grains and fruits and the majority of people used to eat it, there was no value of the lives of the ox, the cow or the boar."

The Buddhist literature also suggests that only a Brahmin did the slaughtering of cows and oxen. A writer of ‘Indian Culture During the jatak Era also accepts this fact.' He says thus (Page 216); "In the jatak tales only the Brahmin is described as the slaughterer of cows or oxen No kshatriyas used to kill the cow or ox for the purpose of worship or food Neither the Vaishyas nor the Shudras used to kill cows Only the brahmin was the slaughterer of cows during the era of Jataks."

Now this is quite clear that all the above-mentioned illustrations have been extracted from the Hindu scriptures - the Vedas, the Brahmins, Upanishads, Grihsutras, Dharmashastras, etc. and all of them Support the fact that in Hinduism beef-eating commands the religious sanctity. Now emerges a pertinent question if he Hindu scriptures sanctify the beef eating, On what ground are some people stirring an agitation against cow-slaughtering and beef-eating? On the one hand, these agitators accept the importance of ancient Hindu scriptures on the other hand; they are rejecting the directions or these very scriptures regarding the beef eating. This proves that they have no respect for their religious books. They make the analysis of their scriptures only keeping in mind (their self-interests.

As regards the beef eating, they are explaining there holy books among the Hindus on the lines very much suited to their self-interests. This analysis is not presenting the true spirit of the religious books amongst the Hindus. As a result, the Hindus are falling prey to the misconceptions about their religious dogmas. And the movement against cow slaughtering is the result of such misconceptions. Before stirring an agitation against cow slaughtering, the so-called religious leaders should study their scriptures, which clearly sanctify the beef eating. I fail to understand on what ground they claim that there is not provision of beef eating in the Hindu religious books.

Now a days 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. The so-called protectors of Hinduism are going round to say that the slaughtering of cow is a sin. But these followers of Manu's principle forget that the cow slaughtering does not find place in the list of sins described by Manu in the 54th verse of Manu smriti's 11th chapter. This means Manu did not consider cow slaughtering as a sin. A question again Hounds me if Manu did not recognise cow slaughtering as a sin, on what ground do his followers claim it as a sin? This is the question the Hindus should ask their so-called religious leaders.

Also in the religious books, which were written after the Manusmriti, the beef eating is accorded with religious sanctity. The Vishnu Puran, which is the work of post-Manusmriti era, also clarifies that beef commanded an important place in the performance of religious rites Thus says the Vishnu Puran:  

Haveeshyamatsyamansaiastu shashasya nakulasya cha. Saukarchchhaglaineya roragurayen cha Bhagravaishcha tatha mansvridhya' pitamaha. Prayante triptim mansaiastu nityam yadhinsamishaih. -vishnu Puran [3/16/1-2.]

That is, “Havi and the meat of fish, hare, mongoose, boar, goat, deer (Kasturiya Mrig), antelope and cow satisfy the dead ancestors one month more respectively The meat of rhino makes them satisfied eternally." 

Thus is said in the Bramhavaivart Puran: Panchkoti gawam mansam sapupam swannmev cha. Etesham cha nadi rashi bhunjayate bramhinanmune. -Branhavaivart Puran [1/61/98-99]

 That is, "The Brahmins had eaten the beef of five crores of cows and 'Malpua' (a kind of sweet puns)." In this khand, there is also the description of a king named Suyagya. The king used to serve the Brahmins daily with the well-cooked meat,  

Snpakwani cha mansani bramhinebhashcha parvati. -Branthavaivart Puran [1/50/12]  

Further says this Puran: Gawam laksham chhodanam cha harinaanan dwelaksham. Chaturlakshnam sashanam cha kurmanam cha tatha kuru. Dashlaksham chhagalanam bhetane tachchturgunam. Etsham pakwam mansant bhojnarth cha karya -Bramhavaivart Puran [1/105/61-63]  

That is, “cook the meat or one lakh cows, two lakh deers, four lakh hares, four lakh tortoises, ten lakh goats and sheeps four times the number of goats”. Rukmi gave this order; the brother of Rukmi, on the occasion of the latter's marriage.

The Bramhavaivart Puran also describes the 'yagya' performed by Adi Mann: Bramhnaanam irjkottnshcha hhojyamas netyasha. Pan chgawam mansat spukwaidhrtl sanskritai: chavatshchoshot  lenhyapeyaimishtdravai sudurlabhe,  
Bramhavaivart  Puran 1/54/48 

That is, “Manu used to feast three crores of Brahmins in the yagya'. They (Brahmins) were served with the beef of five lakh cows, which was cooked in the Ghee...."  

Thus, the above-quoted illustrations are suffice to prove that the beef was a lovely food in ancient India But to my great surprise, today an effort is being made to reject these facts. Every movement has its background and a sound logic. The movement, which is started on false notions, commands neither the respect nor the support.  

But the Hindus are easily enjoined to any religious movement, notwithstanding any logic behind it, And the reason thereof is not far to seek. Actually, this is the permanent feature of Hinduism to have such false notions, rites and superstitions. The movement against cow slaughtering is also the outcome of one of such false notions, but the people associated with this movement use to say that all these Illustrations are untrue. Now I ask these so-called Hindu religious leaders whether the Vedas are untrue, are the Smritis bogus? Are the Purans and the Mahabbarat sets of false illustrations? If yes, will they like to tell which is their religious book? If they do not falsify their religious scriptures, mentioned above, then why are they ridiculing their own religious books? I want to seek the answer of this question from the so-called protectors of Hinduism. Will they?  

 (c)The Glorious Qur’ân Permits Eating of Non-Vegetarian food. According to the Glorious Qur’ân:

1.    Surah Ma’idah Chapter 5 Verse 1(5: 1) "0 you who believe! Fulfill (all) obligations. Lawful unto you (for food) are all four-footed animals with the exceptions named: but animals of the chase are forbidden while you are in the sacred precincts or in pilgrim grab: for Allah does command according to His Will and Plan."  

2.   Surah Nahl Chapter 16 Verse 5 (16:5)  "And cattle He has created for you (men): from them you derive warmth, and numerous benefits, and of their (meat) you eat."  

3.   Surah Mu’minoon Chapter 23 verse 21(23:21) "And in cattle (too) you have an instructive example: from within their bodies we produce (milk) for you to drink; there are, in them, (besides), numerous (other) benefits for you; and of their (meat) you eat;"

The above Qur’ânic verses make it crystal clear that Muslims may have non-vegetarian food.

(d) Qur’ânic Verses Misinterpreted 

Some ideological vegetarians try to prove from the Qur’ân that eating non-vegetarian food is prohibited and they quote:

 Surah Hajj chapter 22 verse 37(22:37) "It is not their meat nor their blood that reaches Allââh ,it is your piety that reaches him: He has thus made them subject to you, that you may glorify Allââh for his guidance to you: and proclaim the good news to all who do right" 

This verse of the Glorious Qur’ân clearly states that unlike some other religions who believe that Almighty God requires meat and blood, in Islam when we sacrifice an animal neither the blood nor the meat reaches God but it is our piety, intentions, and righteousness while sacrificing that is taken into consideration.  

That is the reason when a sacrifice of an animal is made during Eedul-Duha (Bakri-Eed) 1/3^rd portion of the animal has to be given in charity to the poor people1/3^rd has to be distributed amongst relatives and friends. A maximum of 1/3^rd portion may be kept for the personal household consumption.  

No portion of the animal's flesh or blood is kept separately for Almighty God, because he does not require it.

Allah says in Surah A’naam Chapter 6 Verse 14 "Say: 'shall I take for my protector any other than AIlah₁ the Maker of the heavens and the earth? And He it is that feeds but is not fed'. Say: 'Not But I am commanded to be the first of those who bow to Allah (In Islam) and be not of the company of those who join gods with Allah'.      

      "And He it is that feeds and not fed."  

ii. Another Verse quoted from the Glorious Qur’ân to misguide that slaughtering animals even for food is prohibited in IslaAm is:

Surah AI-Baqarah Chapter 2 Verse 205 (2:205). “When he turns his back, His aim everywhere is to spread mischief through the earth and destroy crops and cattle. But Allah loves not mischief."

The Arabic word in this verse is "NasI" which has been translated by some translators as cattle. 'Nasl' actually means progeny. But irrespective of whether the translation chosen is cattle or progeny, if you read the verse in context with the previous verse it speaks about men whose main aim is to spread mischief in the world and such men do it by destroying crops and cattle or progeny and Allah loves not those who do mischief. This verse clearly indicate that if you destroy crops, cattle or progeny with an intention of spreading mischief in the land then Allah does not like it. It does not mention or mean that if you slaughter cattle for food Allah does not like an act.

I have quoted several verses of the Glorious Qur’ân that state that we can have all lawful animals for food.  

[ << Previous Page | Next Page >> ]