There is a difference between the opinions that you stated and facts. Majority of what you stated is baloney (smoked sausage)! First you assume that anyone who wants to progress spiritually should not eat beef. Really? Do you have any supporting data? Second, are you suggesting that someone who wants to progress spiritually is superior to someone who does not want to do so? What if I do not want to progress spiritually but want to progress in taking care of other people and defending their rights to eat what they want and what they can afford? Then you state that eating meat leads to aggressiveness!

Hinduism does not need any guru. Most of the gurus that I know of are phony and self serving.

Thank you for the comments. I am not sure if there is a correlation between eating meat and the ability to start a fire. A vast majority of living things that eat meat cannot create fire. So it is very conceivable in my opinion that human beings started eating meat before eating fruits and vegetables (obviously this issue is debatable). But what we know is that the intestinal tract of human beings are designed to process both meat and vegetables (this is rare in nature). This ability to survive on meat and/or vegetables gives us a critical edge over other living things.

I also do not see any difference between eating meat or vegetables from a “moral” stand point (vegetables and animals are living things and we are taking life every time we eat). People eat what is available where they happen to live.

A 2006 IBN-Hindu survey found the following:

60% of Indians are non-vegetarians (only 31% of Indians are vegetarians if you include egg).
45% of Brahmins are non-vegetarians.
21% Indian families are vegetarians (all members are vegetarians)
98% of the citizens of Kerala, 92% in Tamil Nadu, 96% in Andhra Pradesh, 97% in West Bengal and 92% of the people in Orissa are non-vegetarians. Even in a conservative state like Gujarat, 45% of the people are non-vegetarians!

So we can frame the argument in many different ways. The answer is the same.

The whole problem is with your first sentence: “No matter what you eat, you have to honor the religious sentiments of other people”. Who gets to define what the religious sentiments of a particular religion is, particularly a religion that is as diverse and varied like Hinduism? Vast majority of Indians are non-vegetarians and eat meat (including beef). Eating meat including beef is part of the Vedas which some Hindus consider to be one of our key scriptures. So eating beef is does not dishonor the sentiments of Hinduism. It is perfectly in tune.

Obviously equating bravery, the rise and fall of empires, or infighting between people to the type of food they eat is not a valid argument.

You say “Why does everybody avoids horses?” Have you read the Rig Veda? Kings and Brahmin priests during Vedic times spent entire fortunes in horse sacrifice and goat sacrifice and eating the meat (Ashvamedha). Horse sacrifice is also a fertility ritual and has sexual connotations. Goat sacrifice is still very common in India. So these traditions continue. Just Google “Vedic Horse Sacrifice” and start reading!

Some individuals avoid eating certain types of food (I know a person who does not eat onions). This is a “choice”. But preventing others from eating beef (which is perfectly legal in India) is forcing your opinion and views on others. This is discrimination!

You are trying to equate eating meat with cholesterol and somehow temper. Ill informed as these comments might be cholesterol is found in significant quantities in breast milk and cow milk in addition to cooking oil and things like chocolate. Of course the human body needs cholesterol for survival. Even when you reduce cholesterol intake the liver will increase the production of cholesterol automatically to keep the level constant. Balanced diet and exercise is the solution!

In spite of all the beef that Mughals ate, they could not stop the fall of their own empire. Going by that argument, is energy from beef the reason for all the infighting between different tribes in our neighbouring countries?

The Hindu revivalism carried on by many Hindu saints and philosophers such as Vivekananda was not hindered by eating habits.

Eat all the meat you want, make sure your cholesterol, as well as your tempers, is in control

Thank you for being the judge and the jury. Maybe this issue is not important to you but discrimination of all sorts is important to millions of other Indians like me. People like me care about how other Indians think of me and treat me as compared to how foreigners think of me or treat me!

You state that Hindi is “known” to 75% to 80% of Indian people. Do you have any evidence for it? What is “known” anyway? All states in India “know” English.

The Indian government over the past sixty years has manipulated census data and given the impression that there are more Hindi speakers in India than they really are. Independent entities like Ethnologue and Microsoft Encarta claim that there are only 180 – 200 million Hindi speakers in India (less than 22% of the Indian population). The Indian government arrives at a larger number for Hindi by adding people who speak Chhattisgarhi, Rajasthani, Magahi, Bhojpuri and Maithili. These language speakers are considered as “Hindi” speakers because these languages are not officially recognized by the government of India!

Then on top of this the government adds the 60 million Urdu speakers as Hindi speakers as well. If we add Hindi, Urdu, Chhattisgarhi, Rajasthani, Magahi, Bhojpuri and Maithili then is it ethically correct to call this group as “Hindi speakers”? Hindi and Urdu are languages that are derived from a local language spoken in Delhi around the 12th century called Sauraseni mixed with Persian and Arabic. This “Mughal and Delhi Sultanate inspired” language does not create any excitement for non-Hindi speakers.

Hello Sir, wake up & smell some coffee. The list from Indian Census Dept. u r talking of gives data of ppl with 1st language as Hindi. Hindi is known to nearly 75 to 80% of India. Take me for example… I’m from KAR & i very well know Hindi apart from my mother tongue Tulu, Kannada & Konkani. Hindi is spoken in almost all states except TN, Kerala & some parts of AP & North-East India. And from ur ignorance, it’s appears u r from either TN or Kerala… & no surprise whatsoever, for most of them the whole world starts at Chennai & ends at Kanyakumari.

You should consult a doctor. Guilt is the least of your problems :)

I am a kshatriya belonging to the Kamboj caste, I have been pretty much misguided through my 16 years of life that beef is forbidden in Hinduism, but since a year ago I have found different castes were and are entitled to doing different things, like my caste entitles me to eat beef because we are ‘mlecchas’ (barbarians) but I feel guilty if I ate beef, what should be the steps in getting rid of the guilt?

Regards

I understand your point. The cow can be programmed to help us human beings (against its will). But we should be careful before taking the leap from what is helpful and important in our day to day lives to something that is sacred. For people who live in hilly areas a goat is more important than a cow. Same holds true for people who live in arid regions were a donkey or a camel is very important. For people who live in backwaters and coastal areas a fish or a coconut tree is very important for sustaining their life style. So what is sacred and important to one section of the population is not that important or sacred to another. We should stop imposing one set of ideology on others.

Your point about the caste system is well taken.

Vedas is an ancient document written in Vedic Sanskrit which is a dead language. Vedas was supposedly transmitted orally before it was documented over hundreds of years by several authors. It has been translated numerous times from the original Vedic Sanskrit. Hinduism allows for examination and it is perfectly reasonable for people whether they are Indians or Westerners to ask pertinent questions.

You indicate that the “slander” has been heaped on the Vedas by Mahidhar, Uvat and Saayan during medieval times (about 800 years ago I guess) and the Vam-margis or the Tantra cult propagated this slander. You then indicate that the “Western” scholars spread the “falsehood” because they did not have a full grasp of Sanskrit.

How do we know that the group of individuals who documented the Vedas from the verbal form did not edit it or subject it to their own interpretations? There is almost a 1600 year gap between when the earliest Vedas were “supposedly” documented and the medieval times. Who is to say that the original written texts remained unedited for almost 1600 years before the Mahidhar, Uvat and Saayan attempted to put their spin on it?

You have cherry picked verses from the Vedas to prove your point. But others have used the very same Vedas to prove their point that meat eating is allowed. This is the problem that all scriptures face. They are self contradictory.

I have provided my comments on some statements from your own translation:

Manusmrithi 5:51: “Those who permit slaying of animals; those who bring animals for slaughter; those who slaughter; those who sell meat; those who purchase meat; those who prepare dish out of it; those who serve that
meat and those who eat are all murderers”. Note that according to these texts anyone who eats meat (not just beef) is a murderer. How many Indians take this verse seriously? If they did all Indians would be murderers. More than half the Hindus eat meat and the rest of them benefit from the tax money collected from this huge industry including you.

Atharvaveda 6.140.2: “O teeth! You eat rice, you eat barley, you gram and you eat sesame. These cereals are specifically meant for you. Do not kill those who are capable of being fathers and mothers”. I could interpret this verse differently than you do. Plants have male and female sex organs. Do not kill anything that is capable of reproducing to me includes plants and not just animals.

Mans da (the meat eaters): Your commentary “Meat eaters have always been looked down in Vedic literature. They have been known as Rakshasas, Pisacha and so on….All these words are synonyms of demons or devils that have been out-cast from the civilized human society”. I take this as an admission from the authors of the Veda that meat eating was taking place in India during Vedic times!!

Yajurveda 13.48: “Do not slaughter this one hoofed animal (horse) that neighs and who goes with a speed faster than most of the animals”. This is a clear admission that slaughtering of the horse was happening during Vedic times. This is not news to those who have studied the migration of people from Central Asia to India. Horse sacrifice was an ultimate form of sacrifice for these people and they were fixated by the Chariot. This verse seems to be expressing second thoughts about this practice (maybe due to the influence of Buddhism).

Nighantu: Your commentary: “These three names of cow signify that the animal ought not to be put to tortures. These words appear frequently throughout the Vedas in context of the cow”. A resonable interpretation would be that using the cow for transportation, using it in the field to cultivate, tying it with a rope, taking the milk that belongs to the calf and using it for human consumption or confining this animal to a limited space is torture and therefore prohibited by the Vedas.

Atharvaveda 3.30.1: “Love each other as the Aghnya – non-killable cow – loves its calf”. If the Aghnya is a “non-kill-able cow” then it is safe to assume that Vedas considered certain other cows as “kill-able”.

It is obvious from the above that the Vedas say a lot of things. Some we follow and others we do not. Why just target those who eat beef? Why not all meat eaters or those who “torture” the cows? Why not the vegetarians who benefit from torturing the cows in the fields?

The selective targeting of beef eaters while ignoring the other prohibitions mentioned in the Vedas is pure discrimination.

This is what happens when you drink too much of the “Soma” that is frequently mentioned in the Rig Veda. Individuals like you claim knowledge of the Vedas and other Holy scriptures but never learnt the key messages that are found in almost all religions and scripture. One of these messages is “to treat others the way you wish to be treated”.

Intolerant and hateful individuals like you do not represent nor speak for Hinduism.