| |
|
40-Meat Eating in Ved
(1) Meat eating was common during the Vaidik period and it was even a part
of the Madhu-park offered to an honored guest
(See Ashwalaayan Grihya Sootra- 1.24,25).
(2) Even sages like Yaagyavalkya is mentioned as consuming meat. (see-Shatapath
Braahman 3.1.2.21).
(3) Muni Agastya Jee ate
Vaataapi Raakshas - thus it was not only animal meat but was a man or
Raakshas' flesh. Otherwise also in those times Rishi used to eat meat,
that is how Ilval and Vaataapi could kill many Braahman by feeding them
meat. And then Agastya Jee had to come their help.
(4) Tulasee's Maanas
refers to a story of the King Peataap Bhaanu in which he feeds meat to Braahman
to get control on the whole Earth.
Animals used in sacrificial rtes were cooked and eaten (see- Aitareya Braahman - 6.8)
As Aaryans started cultivation of food crops, eating meat gradually reduced and
was looked down upon. Jainism and Buddhism also influenced this. Development of
the concept of Ahinsaa and the Bhaagvat cult contributed to the disappearance of
the habit. Protection of the cow (mentioned in the Rig Ved - see- Rig Ved, 1.164,
4.1.6, 8.69.21.) became a strong faith. Sasy Aahaar is considered more Saattvik
and hence more conducive to spiritual pursuits.
Let us see what Ved say on meat eating and animal killing: (quoted from other sources)
(1) May I be dear to all animals (Atharv Ved, 16.71.4)
(2) May you eat rice (Vrihi); may you eat barley (Yava), also black beans (whole
Urad) and sesame seeds (Til).
This is the share allotted to both of you for happy results, O you two teeth (Dantau),
may you not injure the father and mother. (Atharv Ved - 6.140.2)
(3) Do not kill any of the Creatures. (Yajur Ved, L 1)
(4) Do not kill the horse. (Yajur Ved, 13.42)
(5) Do not kill quadrupeds. (Yak. 13.44)
(6) Do not kill wool-giving animals. (Yak. 13.47)
(7) Not kill human beings (Yak. 16.3)
(8) May you be illumined by the mighty rags of knowledge and may you not kill the
cow, the Aditi (Yajur Ved, 13.43)
(9) Do not kill a cow but treat her as Mother. (Yajur Ved, 12.32)
----------------------------------------
To begin with, the historian
breaks the myth that Muslim rulers introduced beef eating in India. Much
before the advent of Islam in India beef had been associated with Indian
dietary practices. Also it is not at all tenable to hold that dietary
habits are a mark of community identity.
A survey of ancient Indian
scriptures, especially the Ved, shows that amongst the nomadic, pastoral
Aryans who settled here, animal sacrifice was a dominant feature till the
settled agriculture developed. Cattle were the major property during this
phase and they offered the same to propitiate the gods. Wealth was equated
with the ownership of the cattle.
Even many gods such as Indra
and Agni are described as having special preferences for different types
of flesh - Indra had weakness for bull's meat and Agni for bull's and cow's.
It is recorded that the Marut and the Ashwin were also offered cows. In the
Ved there is a mention of around 250 animals out of which at least 50 were
supposed to be fit for sacrifice and consumption. In the Mahaabhaarat, there
is a mention of a King named Rantidev who achieved great fame by distributing
food grains and beef to Braahman. Taittireeya Braahman categorically tells us -
"Verily the cow is food" (atho annam via gauh) and Yaagyavalkya's
insistence on eating the tender (ansala) flesh of the cow is well known. Even
later Braahminical texts provide the evidence for eating beef. Even Manu Smriti
did not prohibit the consumption of beef.
As a Medicine
In therapeutic section of Charak Sanhitaa (pages 86-87) the flesh of cow is
prescribed as a medicine for various diseases. It is also prescribed for making
soup. It is emphatically advised as a cure for irregular fever, consumption,
and emaciation. The fat of the cow is recommended for debility and rheumatism.
Buddha's Role
With the rise of agricultural economy and the massive transformation
occurring in society, changes were to be brought in in the practice of
animal sacrifice also. At that time there were ritualistic practices like
animal sacrifices, with which Braahman were identified. Buddha attacked
these practices. There were sacrifices, which involved 500 oxen, 500 male
calves, 500 female calves and 500 sheep to be tied to the sacrificial pole
for slaughter. Buddha pointed out that Ashwamedh Yagya, Purushmedh Yagya,
Baajpeya Yagya did not produce good results. According to a story in Deegh
Nikaay, when Buddha was touring Magadh kingdom, a Braahman called Kutadant
was preparing for a sacrifice with 700 bulls, 700 goats and 700 rams. Buddha
intervened and stopped him. His rejection of animal sacrifice and emphasis on
non-injury to animals assumed a new significance in the context of new
agriculture.
The emphasis on non-violence by
Buddha was not blind or rigid. He did taste beef and it is well known that
he died due to eating pork. Emperor Ashok after converting to Buddhism did
not turn to vegetarianism. He only restricted the number of animals to be
killed for the royal kitchen. So where did matters change and how did the
cow become a symbol of faith and reverence to the extent of assuming the
status of "motherhood"?
The threat posed by Buddhism to
the Braahman value system was too severe. In response to low castes slipping
away from the grip of Braahman, the battle was taken up at all the levels. At
philosophical level Shankar reasserted the supremacy of Braahman values; at
political level King Pushyamitra Shung ensured the physical attack on Buddhist
monks, at the level of symbols King Shashaank got the Bodhi tree destroyed. One
of the appeals to the spread of Buddhism was the protection of cattle wealth,
which was needed for the agricultural economy. In a way while Braahmanism
"succeeded" in banishing Buddhism from India, it had also to transform
itself from the animal sacrifice state to the one which could be in tune with the
times. It is here that this ideology took up the cow as a symbol of their ideological
march. But unlike Buddha whose pronouncements were based on reason, the counteraction
of Braahman ideology took the form of a blind faith based on assertion. So while
Buddha's non-violence was for the preservation of animal wealth for the social and
compassionate reasons the counter was based purely on symbolism. So while the followers
of Braahman ideology accuse Buddha of "weakening" India due to his doctrine
of non-violence, he was not a cow worshipper or vegetarian in the current Braahmanism
sense.
Yes for Eating Meat
Taken from
Paradox of the Indian Cow, written by DN Jha -
I found this article very informative and a review type article, that is
why it is presented here without references.
--The textual evidence of beef eating which, in fact, begins to be available from
the oldest Indian religious text Rig Ved, supposedly of divine origin.
--In the Agnadheya, which was a preparatory rite preceding all public sacrifices,
a cow was required to be killed
--In the Ashwamedh, the most important of public sacrifices, first mentioned in
the Rig Ved and discussed in the Braahman, more than 600 animals (including wild
ones like boars) and birds were killed and its finale was marked by the sacrifice
of 21 cows, which, according to the dominant opinion were sterile ones.
-- In the Go-sava, an important component of the public sacrifices like the Raajasooya
and Baajapeya, a sterile spotted cow was offered to Maruts and 17 ‘dwarf heifers under
three’ were done to death in the pancasaradiyasava. The killing of animals including
the cattle figures in several other Yagya including Chaatur-maasya, Sautramani and
independent animal sacrifice called Pashubandh or Nirudha Pashubandh. These and several
other major sacrifices involved killing of animals including the cattle, which
constituted the chief form of the wealth of the early Aryans. They, not surprisingly,
prayed for cattle and sacrificed them to propitiate their gods.
--The Vaidik gods, for whom the various sacrifices were performed, had no fixed menu
of food. milk, butter, barley, oxen, goats and sheep were offered to them and these
were their usual food, though some of them seem to have had their special preferences.
Indra had a special liking for bulls (Rig Ved, V.29.7ab; Verse I.17.11b; VIII.12.8ab,
X.27.2c; X. 28. 3c; X.86.14ab). Agni was not a tippler like Indra, but was fond
of animal food including the flesh of horses, bulls and cows (Rig Ved,, VIII. 43.11;
X. 91.14ab). The toothless Pushan, the guardian of the roads, ate mush as a Hobson’s
choice. Som (Som Ras) was the name of a heady drink but, equally importantly, of a
god and killing of animals including cattle for him (Rig Ved,, X.91.14ab) was basic
to most of the Rig Vaidik Yagya. The Marut and the Ashwin were also offered cows. The
Ved mention about 250 animals out of which at least 50 were deemed fit for sacrifice
and by implication for divine as well as human consumption. The animal food occupied
a place of importance in the Vaidik sacrifices and dietetics and the general preference
for the flesh of the cow is undeniable. The Taittireeya Braahman (III.9.8) categorically
tells us: “Verily the cow is food” (Atho annam vai gauh) and the Shatapath Braahman
(III.1.2.21) refers to Yaagyavalkya’s stubborn insistence on eating the tender (Ansala)
flesh of the cow.
--According to the subsequent Braahmanical texts (e.g. Grhya Sootra and
Dharm Shasutra) the killing of animals and eating of beef was very much de
rigeur. The ceremony of guest-reception (known as Arghya in the Rig Ved
but generally as Madhu-park in subsequent texts) consisted not only of a
meal of a mixture of curds and honey but also of the flesh of a cow or
bull. Early lawgivers go to the extent of making flesh food mandatory in
Madhu-park --- an injunction more or less dittoed by several later legal
texts (As Grihya Sootra, I.24.33; Katha Grihya Sootra, 24,20; Shankh Grihya
Sootra, II.15.2; Par Grihya Sootra, I.3.29. A guest therefore came to be
described by Paanini as a Goghna (one for whom the cow is slain). The sacred
thread ceremony was not all that sacred; for it was necessary for a Snaatak
to wear an upper garment of the cowhide (Par Grihya Sootra, II.5.17-20).
The
slaughter of animals formed an important component of the cult of the dead
in the Vedic texts as well as in later Dharmasastra works. The thick fat
of the cow was used to cover the dead body (RV, X.14-18) and a bull was
burnt along with the corpse to enable the departed to ride with in the
nether world. The funerary rites included feeding of the brahmins after
the prescribed period and quite often the flesh of the cow/ ox was offered
to the dead (Atharv Ved, XII.2, 48). The textual prescriptions indicate
the degree of satisfaction obtained by the Manes depending upon the animal
offered---- the cow’s flesh could keep them contented for at least a year!
The Vaidik and the post-Vaidik texts also often mention the killing of
animals including the kine in several other ritual contexts.
Thus in the grhamedha, which
has been discussed in several Shraut Sootra, an unspecified number of cows
were slain not in the strict ritual manner but in the crude and profane
manner. In fact,
neither Ashok’s list of animals exempted from slaughter nor the Arth Shaastra
of Kautilya specifically mentions cow as un-slayable. The cattle were killed
for food throughout the Mauryan period.
Meat Eating in Manu Smriti
The law book of Manu (200 BC - 200 AD), which is the most representative
of the legal texts and has much to say on the lawful and forbidden food,
contains several passages on flesh eating, which have much in common with
earlier and later Braahmanical juridical works. Like the earlier law
books, it also mentions the animals whose flesh could be eaten. Manu’s
list includes the porcupine, hedgehog, iguana, rhinoceros, tortoise and
the hare and all those domestic animals having teeth in one jaw only, the
only exception being the camel (V.18); and, it is significant that the cow
is not excluded from the list of edible animals. Eating meat on sacrificial
occasions, Manu tells us, is a divine rule (daivo vidhih smritah), but doing
so on other occasions is a demoniac practice (V.31). Accordingly one does not
do any wrong by eating meat while honoring the gods, the Manes and guests
(Madhu-park cha yagye cha Pitri Daivat Karmaani), irrespective of the way in
which the meat was procured (V.32, 41). Manu asserts that animals were created
for the sake of sacrifice, that killing on ritual occasions is non-killing
(V.39) and injury (Hinsaa) as enjoined by the Veda (Ved Vihit Ahinsaa) is known
to be non-injury (V.44).
In the section dealing with
rules for times of distress, Manu recalls the legendary examples of the
most virtuous brahmins of the days of yore who ate ox-meat and dog-meat to
escape death from starvation (X.105-9). Manu’s latitudinarian attitude is
clear from his recognition of the natural human tendency of eating meat,
drinking spirituous liquor and indulging in sexual intercourse, even if
abstention brings great rewards (V.56).
He further breaks loose the
constraints when he says: "The Lord of creatures (Prajaapati) created
this whole world to be the sustenance of the vital spirit; both the immovable
and the movable (Creation is) the food of the vital spirit. What is destitute
of motion is the food of those endowed with locomotion; (animals) without fangs
(are the food) of those with fangs, those without hands of those who possess
hands, and the timid of the bold. The eater who daily even devours those destined
to be his food, commits no sin; for the creator himself created both the eaters
and those who are to be eaten” (V.28-30). This injunction removes all restrictions
on flesh eating and gives an unlimited freedom to all desiring to eat animal flesh
and since Manu does not mention beef eating as taboo one can infer that he did not
treat cow as sacrosanct. Manu contradicts his own statements by extolling Ahinsaa
(X.63), but there is no doubt that he permitted meat eating at least on ritual
occasions (Madhupark, Shraaddh etc) when the killing of the cow and other cattle,
according to his commentator Medhaatithi (9th century), was in keeping with the
Vaidik and post- Vaidik practice (govyajamamsamaproksitambhaksyed…
madhuparkovyakhyatah tatra govadhovihitah).
Yaagyavalkya on Eating Meat
Yaagyavalkya (100 - 300 AD), like Manu, discusses the rules regarding lawful and
forbidden food. Although his treatment of the subject is less detailed, he does
not differ radically from him. Yaagyavalkya mentions the specific animals (deer,
sheep, goat, boar, rhinoceros etc) and birds (e.g. partridge) whose flesh could
satisfy the Manes (I.258-61). According to him a student, teacher, king, close
friend and son-in-law should be offered Arghya every year and a priest should be
offered Madhu-park on all ritual occasions (I.110). He further enjoins that a
learned Braahman (Shrotriya) should be welcomed with a big ox or goat (mahoksam
va mahajam va shrotriya yopakalpayet) delicious food and sweet words. This indicates
his endorsement of the earlier practice of killing cattle at the reception of
illustrious guests. Yaagyavalkya, like Manu, permits eating of meat when life is
in danger, or when it is offered in sacrifices and funerary rites (I.179). But
unconsecrated meat (vrit Maansam, anupakrit maansaani), according to him, is a
taboo (I.167, 171) and any one killing animals solely for his own food and not
in accordance with the Vaidik practice is doomed to go to hell for as many days
as the number of hair on the body of the victim (I.180).
Brihaspati on Eating Meat
Similarly Brihaspati (300 - 500 AD), like Manu, recommends abstention from liquor
(Madya), flesh (Maans) and sexual intercourse only if they are not lawfully ordained
which implies that whatever was lawful was permitted. The lawgivers generally accept
as lawful all those sacrifices, which, according to them, have Vaidik sanction. The
sacrificial slaughter of animals and domesticated bovines was a Vaidik practice and
therefore may have been fairly common among the Braahman circles during the early
Christian centuries and even well into the later half of the first millennium AD -
(500 - 1000 AD). It would be, however, unrealistic to assume that the Dhaarmik precept
of restricting animal slaughter to ritual occasions was always taken seriously either
by Braahman for whom the legal injunctions were meant or by other sections of society.
It is not surprising, therefore, that Brihaspati, while discussing the importance of
local customs, says that in Madhya Desh the artisans eat cows (Madhya Deshe karmakarah
silpinasch gavasinah).
Mahaabhaarat and Raamaayan on Eating Meat
The evidence from the epics is quite eloquent. Most of the characters in
the Mahaabhaarat are meat eaters and it makes a laudatory reference to the
king Rantidev in whose kitchen two thousand cows were butchered everyday,
their flesh, along with grains, being distributed among the Braahman (III.208.8-9).
Similarly Vaalmeeki Raamaayan also makes frequent reference to the killing
of animals including the cow for sacrifice as well as food. Raam was born
after his father Dasharath performed a big sacrifice involving the slaughter
of a large number of animals declared edible by the Dharm Shaastra, which,
as we have seen, sanction ritual killing of the kine. Seetaa, while crossing
the Yamunaa River, promises her that she would worship her with thousand cows
and a hundred jars of wine when Raam accomplishes his vow and they come back
to their kingdom all right. Her fondness for deer meat drives her husband
crazy enough to kill Maareech, a deer in disguise. Bharadwaaj welcomes Raam
by slaughtering a fatted calf in his honor.
By Doctors
The non-vegetarian dietary practices find an important place in the early
Indian medical treatises. Charak (1st - 2nd century), Sushrut (3rd –4th
century) and Vaagbhat (7th century) provide an impressive list of the
variety of fish and flesh and all three of them speak of the therapeutic
uses of beef. In the Gupt period, Kaalidaas alludes to the story of
Rantidev who killed numerous cows every day in his kitchen. More than two
centuries later, Bhavabhooti (700 AD) refers to two instances of guest
reception, which included the killing of a heifer. In the 10th century
Raajasekhar mentions the practice of killing an ox or a goat in honor of a
guest. In the 12th century Shree Harsh mentions a variety of non-vegetarian
delicacies served at a dazzling marriage feast and refers to two interesting
instances of cow killing, though, in the same century Someshwar shows clear
preference for pig flesh over other meat types and does not mention beef at
all.
Cow Slaughtering in Modern Period
While the above references, albeit limited in number, indicate that the
ancient practice of killing the kine for food continued till about the
12th century, there is considerable evidence in the commentaries on the
Kaavya literature and the earlier Dharm Shaastra texts to show that the
Braahmanical writers retained its memory till very late times. Among the
commentators on the secular literature, Chandoo Pandit (late 13th century)
from Gujaraat, Narahari (14th century) from Telengaanaa in Aandhra Pradesh,
and Malleenaath (14th-15th century), who is associated with the King Devaraaya
II of Vidyaa Nagar (Vijayanagara), clearly indicate that, in earlier times,
the cow was done to death for rituals and hence for food. As late as the 18th
century Ghanashyaam, a minister of a Tanjore ruler, states that the killing
of cow in honor of a guest was the ancient rule.
Similarly the authors of Dharm
Shaastra commentaries and religious digests from the 9th century onwards keep
alive the memory of the archaic practice of beef eating and some of them even
go so far as to permit eating beef in specific circumstances. For example,
Medhaatithi (9th century), probably a Kashmeerian Braahman, says that a bull
or ox was killed in honor of a ruler or any one deserving to be honored and
unambiguously allows eating the flesh of cow (Govyaj Maansam) on ritual occasions.
Several other writers of exegetical works seem to lend support to this view,
though some times indirectly. Vishwaroop (9th century), a Braahman from Maalavaa
and probably a pupil of Shankar, Vigyaaneshwar (11th century), who may
have lived not far from Kalyaan in modern Karnaatak, Haradatt (12th century),
also a Southerner (Dakshinatya), Lakshmeedhar (12th century), a minister of
the Gahadwal King, Hemaadri (late 13th century), a minister of the Yaadav of
Devagiri, Narasinh / Nrsimha (14th century), possibly from Southern India, and
Mitraa Misraa (17th century) from Gopachal (Gwaalior) support the practice of
killing a cow on occasions like guest-reception and Shraaddh in ancient times.
As recently as the early 20th century, Madan Upaadhyaaya from Mithilaa refers
to the ritual slaughter of milch cattle in the days of yore. Thus even when the
Dharm Shaastra commentators view cow killing with disfavor, they generally admit
that it was an ancient practice and that it was to be avoided in the Kali age.
Panchgavya
The cow and its products (milk, curds, clarified butter, dung and urine)
or their mixture called Panchgavya had been assuming a purificatory role
from much earlier times. The Vaidik texts attest to the ritual use of
cow’s milk and milk products, but the term Panchgavya word occurs for the
first time in the Baudhaayaan Dharm Sootra. The law books of Manu, Vishnu,
Vashishth, Yaagyavalkya and those of several later lawgivers like Atri,
Deval and Paraashar mention the use of the mixture of the five products of
the cow for both purification and expiation. The commentaries and religious
digests, most of which belong to the medieval period, abound in references
to the purificatory role of the Panchgavya. The underlying assumption in all
these cases is that the Panchgavya is pure. But several Dharm Shaastra texts
forbid its use by women and the lower castes. If a Shoodra drinks Panchgavya,
we are told, he goes to hell.
|