Vegetarian Discussion: 'DID VEDIC HINDUS REALLY EAT COW?' By Sandhya Jain

'DID VEDIC HINDUS REALLY EAT COW?' By Sandhya Jain
Posts: 9

Report Abuse

Use this form to report abuse or request takedown.
The requests are usually processed within 48 hours.

Page: 1   (First | Last)

Dr. Jai Maharaj
2005-12-09 04:58:43 EST
Did Vedic Hindus really eat cow?

By Sandhya Jain
Dainik Hindustan
December 12, 2001

Under the pretext of disseminating true knowledge about
the past to young, impressionable school children, a
perverse assault has been launched upon the religious
sensitivities of the Hindu community. Marxist historians
allege that ancient Hindus ate beef, that this is
recorded in their sacred scriptures, and that this should
be taught to school children. The Hindu prohibition on
cow slaughter, they say, is a more recent development and
Hindus are shying away from this truth because it is
intimately linked with their sense of identity.

A Marxist specialist on ancient India, ignorant in both
Vedic and Panini's Sanskrit, claims that the Shatapatha
Brahmana and Vashisttha Dharmasutra clearly state that
guests were honoured by serving beef. She also cites
archaeological evidence as reported by H. D. Sankalia and
B. B. Lal. While the lady thinks her evidence is
irrefutable, I have decided to pick up the gauntlet.

To begin with, the Shatapatha Brahmana is Yajnavalkya's
commentary on the Yajur Veda, and not a revealed text. As
for the Vashisttha Dharmasutra, the legendary
Sanskritist, late P. V. Kane, said, "beyond the name
Vashisttha there is hardly anything special in the
dharmasutra to connect it with the Rgveda." Kane also
added, "grave doubts have been entertained about the
authenticity of the whole of the text of the Vas.Dh.S. as
the mss. (manuscripts) contain varying numbers of
chapters from 6 to 30, and as the text is hopelessly
corrupt in several places... many verses...bear the
impress of a comparatively late age." Kane tentatively
places this text between 300-100 BCE, that is, long after
the end of the Vedic age.

According to archaeologists, the early Vedic age
tentatively falls between the fourteen century BCE to the
first millennium BCE. The later Vedic period lies between
1000 BCE to 600-700 BCE. But if we go by astronomical
dating of some of the hymns, we get a period of 7000 BCE
for a portion of the Vedas.

The honest question, however, is whether the Vedas offer
evidence about cow slaughter and beef-eating, and if not,
how the controversy arose in the first place. A few
clarifications are in order before we proceed. The word
'cow' (gau), for instance, is used throughout the Vedas
in diverse senses, and, depending on the context of the
verse, could mean the animal cow, waters, sun-rays,
learned persons, Vedic verses, or Prithvi (earth as
Divine Mother).

Then, Vedic society was heterogeneous, pluralistic, and
non-vegetarian. In theory, it is possible that the cow
was killed and eaten. The fact, however, is that
throughout the Vedas the cow is called a non-killable
animal, or "aghnya." According to "An Encyclopaedic
Dictionary of Sanskrit on Historical Principles" (Vol. I,
Deccan College, Poona), "aghnya" means "not to be killed
or violated" and is used for cows and for waters in the
presence of which oaths were taken.

The Rig and Sama Veda call the cow "aghnya" and "Aditi",
ie. not to be murdered (Rig 1-64-27; 5-83-8; 7-68-9; 1-
164-40; 8-69-2; 9-1-9; 9-93-3; 10-6-11; 10-87-16). They
extol the cow as un-killable, un-murderable, whose milk
purifies the mind and keeps it free from sin. Verse 10-
87-16 prescribes severe punishment for the person who
kills a cow. The Atharva Veda recommends beheading (8-3-
16) for such a crime; the Rig Veda advocates expulsion
from the kingdom (8-101-15).

Hence, it seems unlikely that the cow would be
slaughtered to entertain guests, as claimed by Marxist
historians. But before coming to any conclusion, the
archaeological evidence should also be examined.
Archaeologists have excavated bones of cattle in huge
quantity, "cattle" is a collective noun which includes
the cow, bull, buffalo, nilgai and all other bovine
animals. Nowhere in the world can experts differentiate
between the bones of cows and other cattle recovered from
excavations.

There are good reasons for this difficulty. Most of the
bones found are not whole carcasses, but large pieces of
limbs. Experts feel that these could be the remains of
animals that died naturally and were skinned for their
hide and bones. Ancient man used bones to make knives and
other tools; the splintered bones found could be part of
the tool-making exercise. In all honesty, therefore,
cattle bone finds do not prove cow slaughter or the
eating of cow meat, especially when all literary evidence
points in the opposite direction.

There has been talk about cut-marks on the bones. But
apart from tool-making, even if a tanner skins dead
cattle for the hide, he will inflict cut marks on the
carcass. Scientifically, it is not possible to say if the
marks on the bones are ante-mortem or post-mortem. This
can be determined only where the body is intact (animal
or human), by analyzing blood vessels, tissue, rigor
mortis and other factors.

Fortunately, there is now clinching evidence why the
Marxist claim on cow-flesh rests on false premises. As
already stated, the allegation rests mainly on literary
sources and their interpretation, and we are in a
position to trace the source of the mischief -- the
Vachaspatyam of Pandit Taranath and his British mentors.

Pandit Taranath, a professor of grammar at the Calcutta
Sanskrit College, compiled a six-volume Sanskrit-to-
Sanskrit dictionary, which is used by scholars to this
day. The Vachaspatyam is a valuable guide for scholars
because there are certain words in the samhita (mantra)
section of the Vedas that are not found later in the
Puranas.

What most Sanskrit scholars have failed to notice is that
Taranath artfully corrupted the meanings of a few crucial
words of the Vedic samhita to endorse the meaning given
by Max Muller in his translation of the Vedas. Swami
Prakashanand Saraswati has exposed this beautifully in
"The True History and the Religion of India, A Concise
Encyclopedia of Authentic Hinduism" (Motilal
Banarsidass).

The British idea was that Max Muller would translate the
Rig Veda "in such a scornful manner that Hindus
themselves should begin to reproach their own religion of
the Vedas," while a Hindu pandit would "compile an
elaborate Sanskrit dictionary that should exhibit
disgraceful meanings of certain words of the Vedic
mantras." As Hindus would not question a dictionary by a
Hindu pandit, the British would be able to claim that
whatever Max Muller wrote about the Vedas was according
to the dictionary of the Hindus.

Swami Prakashanand Saraswati focuses on two words \ufffd goghn
and ashvamedh. "Goghn" means a guest who receives a cow
as gift. Panini created a special sutra to establish the
rule that goghn will only mean the receiver of a cow (and
will not be used in any other sense). But Taranath
ignored Panini's injunction and wrote that "goghn" means
"the killer of a cow." He similarly converted the
ashvamedh yagna from 'ritual worship of the horse' to the
"killing of the horse."

The Swami proves the British hand in this mischief
through the patronage given to Taranath by the Government
of Bengal in 1866, when Lt. Governor Sir Cecil Beadon
sanctioned ten thousand rupees for two hundred copies of
his dictionary. This was a king's ransom in those days,
as even in the 1930s the headmaster of a vernacular
primary school received a salary of twenty rupees a
month. Today, ten thousand rupees is the equivalent of
two million rupees.

When the basic premise upon which all modern translations
rest is thus knocked off its pedestal, what beef is left
in the theory that Vedic Hindus enjoyed the flesh of the
cow? I rest my case.

End of Matter

More at:
http://sandhyajain.voiceofdharma.com/articles/20011212.htm

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.

Virendra
2005-12-09 09:07:38 EST
Great article!!!

Hindu culture and its literature is unparallel in the world. It is a
"scientific religion" which makes sense and gives a logical purpose to
life. I am really proud to be born as a Hindu. I wish to be born again
and again as a Hindu as long as the endless cycle of universe
transformation takes place.


Harmony
2005-12-09 15:44:34 EST
the bengali commies cause the hindus a lot waste of ink. we know alla undid
the terrorists in kashmir, it's about time karl marx's bhoot does something
to bengali commies.


"Dr. Jai Maharaj" <usenet@mantra.com> wrote in message
news:20051208seiJI9364EgEwa@VceO...
> Did Vedic Hindus really eat cow?
>
> By Sandhya Jain
> Dainik Hindustan
> December 12, 2001
>



Hawker
2005-12-09 21:37:18 EST
See my article entitled Hinduism is a Load of Bollocks for the truth about
Hinduism.
"Virendra" <virenbeena@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:1134137258.470184.55310@f14g2000cwb.googlegroups.com...
> Great article!!!
>
> Hindu culture and its literature is unparallel in the world. It is a
> "scientific religion" which makes sense and gives a logical purpose to
> life. I am really proud to be born as a Hindu. I wish to be born again
> and again as a Hindu as long as the endless cycle of universe
> transformation takes place.
>



Dr. Jai Maharaj
2005-12-10 00:00:39 EST
Marx's bhoot -- that's funny! One trusts that he won't miss the
mark on de-commifying the commies.

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

In article <uUlmf.77291$2k5.39269@dukeread09>,
"harmony" <aka@hotmail.com> posted:
> the bengali commies cause the hindus a lot waste of ink. we know alla undid
> the terrorists in kashmir, it's about time karl marx's bhoot does something
> to bengali commies.
>
>
> Dr. Jai Maharaj posted:
>
> > Did Vedic Hindus really eat cow?
> >
> > By Sandhya Jain
> > Dainik Hindustan
> > December 12, 2001
> >
>
>

2005-12-10 08:51:04 EST
Enlightening piece of article. Hindustan suffers mainly due to these
traitors going behind money leaving every thing behind.


Virendra
2005-12-10 09:50:08 EST
I don't have to see your shit. Keep it with you until it dries up
itself and becomes less smelly.


Dr. Jai Maharaj
2005-12-10 12:44:54 EST
In article <1134222664.296465.285980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"*i@gmail.com" <ojovathi@gmail.com> posted:
> Enlightening piece of article. Hindustan suffers mainly due to these
> traitors going behind money leaving every thing behind.

Your comments are appreciated. Here's the article again
(since it has been illegally removed on a few servers):

Did Vedic Hindus really eat cow?

By Sandhya Jain
Dainik Hindustan
December 12, 2001

Under the pretext of disseminating true knowledge about
the past to young, impressionable school children, a
perverse assault has been launched upon the religious
sensitivities of the Hindu community. Marxist historians
allege that ancient Hindus ate beef, that this is
recorded in their sacred scriptures, and that this should
be taught to school children. The Hindu prohibition on
cow slaughter, they say, is a more recent development and
Hindus are shying away from this truth because it is
intimately linked with their sense of identity.

A Marxist specialist on ancient India, ignorant in both
Vedic and Panini's Sanskrit, claims that the Shatapatha
Brahmana and Vashisttha Dharmasutra clearly state that
guests were honoured by serving beef. She also cites
archaeological evidence as reported by H. D. Sankalia and
B. B. Lal. While the lady thinks her evidence is
irrefutable, I have decided to pick up the gauntlet.

To begin with, the Shatapatha Brahmana is Yajnavalkya's
commentary on the Yajur Veda, and not a revealed text. As
for the Vashisttha Dharmasutra, the legendary
Sanskritist, late P. V. Kane, said, "beyond the name
Vashisttha there is hardly anything special in the
dharmasutra to connect it with the Rgveda." Kane also
added, "grave doubts have been entertained about the
authenticity of the whole of the text of the Vas.Dh.S. as
the mss. (manuscripts) contain varying numbers of
chapters from 6 to 30, and as the text is hopelessly
corrupt in several places... many verses...bear the
impress of a comparatively late age." Kane tentatively
places this text between 300-100 BCE, that is, long after
the end of the Vedic age.

According to archaeologists, the early Vedic age
tentatively falls between the fourteen century BCE to the
first millennium BCE. The later Vedic period lies between
1000 BCE to 600-700 BCE. But if we go by astronomical
dating of some of the hymns, we get a period of 7000 BCE
for a portion of the Vedas.

The honest question, however, is whether the Vedas offer
evidence about cow slaughter and beef-eating, and if not,
how the controversy arose in the first place. A few
clarifications are in order before we proceed. The word
'cow' (gau), for instance, is used throughout the Vedas
in diverse senses, and, depending on the context of the
verse, could mean the animal cow, waters, sun-rays,
learned persons, Vedic verses, or Prithvi (earth as
Divine Mother).

Then, Vedic society was heterogeneous, pluralistic, and
non-vegetarian. In theory, it is possible that the cow
was killed and eaten. The fact, however, is that
throughout the Vedas the cow is called a non-killable
animal, or "aghnya." According to "An Encyclopaedic
Dictionary of Sanskrit on Historical Principles" (Vol. I,
Deccan College, Poona), "aghnya" means "not to be killed
or violated" and is used for cows and for waters in the
presence of which oaths were taken.

The Rig and Sama Veda call the cow "aghnya" and "Aditi",
ie. not to be murdered (Rig 1-64-27; 5-83-8; 7-68-9; 1-
164-40; 8-69-2; 9-1-9; 9-93-3; 10-6-11; 10-87-16). They
extol the cow as un-killable, un-murderable, whose milk
purifies the mind and keeps it free from sin. Verse 10-
87-16 prescribes severe punishment for the person who
kills a cow. The Atharva Veda recommends beheading (8-3-
16) for such a crime; the Rig Veda advocates expulsion
from the kingdom (8-101-15).

Hence, it seems unlikely that the cow would be
slaughtered to entertain guests, as claimed by Marxist
historians. But before coming to any conclusion, the
archaeological evidence should also be examined.
Archaeologists have excavated bones of cattle in huge
quantity, "cattle" is a collective noun which includes
the cow, bull, buffalo, nilgai and all other bovine
animals. Nowhere in the world can experts differentiate
between the bones of cows and other cattle recovered from
excavations.

There are good reasons for this difficulty. Most of the
bones found are not whole carcasses, but large pieces of
limbs. Experts feel that these could be the remains of
animals that died naturally and were skinned for their
hide and bones. Ancient man used bones to make knives and
other tools; the splintered bones found could be part of
the tool-making exercise. In all honesty, therefore,
cattle bone finds do not prove cow slaughter or the
eating of cow meat, especially when all literary evidence
points in the opposite direction.

There has been talk about cut-marks on the bones. But
apart from tool-making, even if a tanner skins dead
cattle for the hide, he will inflict cut marks on the
carcass. Scientifically, it is not possible to say if the
marks on the bones are ante-mortem or post-mortem. This
can be determined only where the body is intact (animal
or human), by analyzing blood vessels, tissue, rigor
mortis and other factors.

Fortunately, there is now clinching evidence why the
Marxist claim on cow-flesh rests on false premises. As
already stated, the allegation rests mainly on literary
sources and their interpretation, and we are in a
position to trace the source of the mischief -- the
Vachaspatyam of Pandit Taranath and his British mentors.

Pandit Taranath, a professor of grammar at the Calcutta
Sanskrit College, compiled a six-volume Sanskrit-to-
Sanskrit dictionary, which is used by scholars to this
day. The Vachaspatyam is a valuable guide for scholars
because there are certain words in the samhita (mantra)
section of the Vedas that are not found later in the
Puranas.

What most Sanskrit scholars have failed to notice is that
Taranath artfully corrupted the meanings of a few crucial
words of the Vedic samhita to endorse the meaning given
by Max Muller in his translation of the Vedas. Swami
Prakashanand Saraswati has exposed this beautifully in
"The True History and the Religion of India, A Concise
Encyclopedia of Authentic Hinduism" (Motilal
Banarsidass).

The British idea was that Max Muller would translate the
Rig Veda "in such a scornful manner that Hindus
themselves should begin to reproach their own religion of
the Vedas," while a Hindu pandit would "compile an
elaborate Sanskrit dictionary that should exhibit
disgraceful meanings of certain words of the Vedic
mantras." As Hindus would not question a dictionary by a
Hindu pandit, the British would be able to claim that
whatever Max Muller wrote about the Vedas was according
to the dictionary of the Hindus.

Swami Prakashanand Saraswati focuses on two words \ufffd goghn
and ashvamedh. "Goghn" means a guest who receives a cow
as gift. Panini created a special sutra to establish the
rule that goghn will only mean the receiver of a cow (and
will not be used in any other sense). But Taranath
ignored Panini's injunction and wrote that "goghn" means
"the killer of a cow." He similarly converted the
ashvamedh yagna from 'ritual worship of the horse' to the
"killing of the horse."

The Swami proves the British hand in this mischief
through the patronage given to Taranath by the Government
of Bengal in 1866, when Lt. Governor Sir Cecil Beadon
sanctioned ten thousand rupees for two hundred copies of
his dictionary. This was a king's ransom in those days,
as even in the 1930s the headmaster of a vernacular
primary school received a salary of twenty rupees a
month. Today, ten thousand rupees is the equivalent of
two million rupees.

When the basic premise upon which all modern translations
rest is thus knocked off its pedestal, what beef is left
in the theory that Vedic Hindus enjoyed the flesh of the
cow? I rest my case.

End of Matter

More at:
http://sandhyajain.voiceofdharma.com/articles/20011212.htm

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.


Dr. Jai Maharaj
2005-12-11 12:37:30 EST
In article <1134222664.296465.285980@z14g2000cwz.googlegroups.com>,
"*i@gmail.com" <ojovathi@gmail.com> posted:
> Enlightening piece of article. Hindustan suffers mainly due to these
> traitors going behind money leaving every thing behind.

Your comments are appreciated. Here's the article again
(since it has been illegally removed on a few servers):

Did Vedic Hindus really eat cow?

By Sandhya Jain
Dainik Hindustan
December 12, 2001

Under the pretext of disseminating true knowledge about
the past to young, impressionable school children, a
perverse assault has been launched upon the religious
sensitivities of the Hindu community. Marxist historians
allege that ancient Hindus ate beef, that this is
recorded in their sacred scriptures, and that this should
be taught to school children. The Hindu prohibition on
cow slaughter, they say, is a more recent development and
Hindus are shying away from this truth because it is
intimately linked with their sense of identity.

A Marxist specialist on ancient India, ignorant in both
Vedic and Panini's Sanskrit, claims that the Shatapatha
Brahmana and Vashisttha Dharmasutra clearly state that
guests were honoured by serving beef. She also cites
archaeological evidence as reported by H. D. Sankalia and
B. B. Lal. While the lady thinks her evidence is
irrefutable, I have decided to pick up the gauntlet.

To begin with, the Shatapatha Brahmana is Yajnavalkya's
commentary on the Yajur Veda, and not a revealed text. As
for the Vashisttha Dharmasutra, the legendary
Sanskritist, late P. V. Kane, said, "beyond the name
Vashisttha there is hardly anything special in the
dharmasutra to connect it with the Rgveda." Kane also
added, "grave doubts have been entertained about the
authenticity of the whole of the text of the Vas.Dh.S. as
the mss. (manuscripts) contain varying numbers of
chapters from 6 to 30, and as the text is hopelessly
corrupt in several places... many verses...bear the
impress of a comparatively late age." Kane tentatively
places this text between 300-100 BCE, that is, long after
the end of the Vedic age.

According to archaeologists, the early Vedic age
tentatively falls between the fourteen century BCE to the
first millennium BCE. The later Vedic period lies between
1000 BCE to 600-700 BCE. But if we go by astronomical
dating of some of the hymns, we get a period of 7000 BCE
for a portion of the Vedas.

The honest question, however, is whether the Vedas offer
evidence about cow slaughter and beef-eating, and if not,
how the controversy arose in the first place. A few
clarifications are in order before we proceed. The word
'cow' (gau), for instance, is used throughout the Vedas
in diverse senses, and, depending on the context of the
verse, could mean the animal cow, waters, sun-rays,
learned persons, Vedic verses, or Prithvi (earth as
Divine Mother).

Then, Vedic society was heterogeneous, pluralistic, and
non-vegetarian. In theory, it is possible that the cow
was killed and eaten. The fact, however, is that
throughout the Vedas the cow is called a non-killable
animal, or "aghnya." According to "An Encyclopaedic
Dictionary of Sanskrit on Historical Principles" (Vol. I,
Deccan College, Poona), "aghnya" means "not to be killed
or violated" and is used for cows and for waters in the
presence of which oaths were taken.

The Rig and Sama Veda call the cow "aghnya" and "Aditi",
ie. not to be murdered (Rig 1-64-27; 5-83-8; 7-68-9; 1-
164-40; 8-69-2; 9-1-9; 9-93-3; 10-6-11; 10-87-16). They
extol the cow as un-killable, un-murderable, whose milk
purifies the mind and keeps it free from sin. Verse 10-
87-16 prescribes severe punishment for the person who
kills a cow. The Atharva Veda recommends beheading (8-3-
16) for such a crime; the Rig Veda advocates expulsion
from the kingdom (8-101-15).

Hence, it seems unlikely that the cow would be
slaughtered to entertain guests, as claimed by Marxist
historians. But before coming to any conclusion, the
archaeological evidence should also be examined.
Archaeologists have excavated bones of cattle in huge
quantity, "cattle" is a collective noun which includes
the cow, bull, buffalo, nilgai and all other bovine
animals. Nowhere in the world can experts differentiate
between the bones of cows and other cattle recovered from
excavations.

There are good reasons for this difficulty. Most of the
bones found are not whole carcasses, but large pieces of
limbs. Experts feel that these could be the remains of
animals that died naturally and were skinned for their
hide and bones. Ancient man used bones to make knives and
other tools; the splintered bones found could be part of
the tool-making exercise. In all honesty, therefore,
cattle bone finds do not prove cow slaughter or the
eating of cow meat, especially when all literary evidence
points in the opposite direction.

There has been talk about cut-marks on the bones. But
apart from tool-making, even if a tanner skins dead
cattle for the hide, he will inflict cut marks on the
carcass. Scientifically, it is not possible to say if the
marks on the bones are ante-mortem or post-mortem. This
can be determined only where the body is intact (animal
or human), by analyzing blood vessels, tissue, rigor
mortis and other factors.

Fortunately, there is now clinching evidence why the
Marxist claim on cow-flesh rests on false premises. As
already stated, the allegation rests mainly on literary
sources and their interpretation, and we are in a
position to trace the source of the mischief -- the
Vachaspatyam of Pandit Taranath and his British mentors.

Pandit Taranath, a professor of grammar at the Calcutta
Sanskrit College, compiled a six-volume Sanskrit-to-
Sanskrit dictionary, which is used by scholars to this
day. The Vachaspatyam is a valuable guide for scholars
because there are certain words in the samhita (mantra)
section of the Vedas that are not found later in the
Puranas.

What most Sanskrit scholars have failed to notice is that
Taranath artfully corrupted the meanings of a few crucial
words of the Vedic samhita to endorse the meaning given
by Max Muller in his translation of the Vedas. Swami
Prakashanand Saraswati has exposed this beautifully in
"The True History and the Religion of India, A Concise
Encyclopedia of Authentic Hinduism" (Motilal
Banarsidass).

The British idea was that Max Muller would translate the
Rig Veda "in such a scornful manner that Hindus
themselves should begin to reproach their own religion of
the Vedas," while a Hindu pandit would "compile an
elaborate Sanskrit dictionary that should exhibit
disgraceful meanings of certain words of the Vedic
mantras." As Hindus would not question a dictionary by a
Hindu pandit, the British would be able to claim that
whatever Max Muller wrote about the Vedas was according
to the dictionary of the Hindus.

Swami Prakashanand Saraswati focuses on two words \ufffd goghn
and ashvamedh. "Goghn" means a guest who receives a cow
as gift. Panini created a special sutra to establish the
rule that goghn will only mean the receiver of a cow (and
will not be used in any other sense). But Taranath
ignored Panini's injunction and wrote that "goghn" means
"the killer of a cow." He similarly converted the
ashvamedh yagna from 'ritual worship of the horse' to the
"killing of the horse."

The Swami proves the British hand in this mischief
through the patronage given to Taranath by the Government
of Bengal in 1866, when Lt. Governor Sir Cecil Beadon
sanctioned ten thousand rupees for two hundred copies of
his dictionary. This was a king's ransom in those days,
as even in the 1930s the headmaster of a vernacular
primary school received a salary of twenty rupees a
month. Today, ten thousand rupees is the equivalent of
two million rupees.

When the basic premise upon which all modern translations
rest is thus knocked off its pedestal, what beef is left
in the theory that Vedic Hindus enjoyed the flesh of the
cow? I rest my case.

End of Matter

More at:
http://sandhyajain.voiceofdharma.com/articles/20011212.htm

Jai Maharaj
http://www.mantra.com/jai
Om Shanti

Hindu Holocaust Museum
http://www.mantra.com/holocaust

Hindu life, principles, spirituality and philosophy
http://www.hindu.org
http://www.hindunet.org

The truth about Islam and Muslims
http://www.flex.com/~jai/satyamevajayate

The terrorist mission of Jesus stated in the Christian bible:

"Think not that I am come to send peace on earth: I came not so send
peace, but a sword.
"For I am come to set a man at variance against his father, and the
daughter against her mother, and the daughter in law against her mother in
law.
"And a man's foes shall be they of his own household.
- Matthew 10:34-36.

o Not for commercial use. Solely to be fairly used for the educational
purposes of research and open discussion. The contents of this post may not
have been authored by, and do not necessarily represent the opinion of the
poster. The contents are protected by copyright law and the exemption for
fair use of copyrighted works.
o If you send private e-mail to me, it will likely not be read,
considered or answered if it does not contain your full legal name, current
e-mail and postal addresses, and live-voice telephone number.
o Posted for information and discussion. Views expressed by others are
not necessarily those of the poster who may or may not have read the article.

FAIR USE NOTICE: This article may contain copyrighted material the use of
which may or may not have been specifically authorized by the copyright
owner. This material is being made available in efforts to advance the
understanding of environmental, political, human rights, economic,
democratic, scientific, social, and cultural, etc., issues. It is believed
that this constitutes a 'fair use' of any such copyrighted material as
provided for in section 107 of the US Copyright Law. In accordance with Title
17 U.S.C. Section 107, the material on this site is distributed without
profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving the included
information for research, comment, discussion and educational purposes by
subscribing to USENET newsgroups or visiting web sites. For more information
go to: http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/17/107.shtml
If you wish to use copyrighted material from this article for purposes of
your own that go beyond 'fair use', you must obtain permission from the
copyright owner.

Since newsgroup posts are being removed
by forgery by one or more net terrorists,
this post may be reposted several times.
Page: 1   (First | Last)


2020 - UsenetArchives.com | Contact Us | Privacy | Stats | Site Search
Become our Patron