History of meat-eating in India

[shvu]

 

An excerpt from Basham's, The wonder that was India. Hopefully, there are no copyright issues with reproducing the follwing lines.

 

When Fa-Hein visited India in the early 5th century he reported that no respectable person ate meat, the consumption of which was confined to low castes. Vegetarianism was of course linked with the doctrine of non-violence which was known in the days of the Upanishads and later elaborated by Buddhism and Jainism, which were largely responsible for the disapperance of Vedic sacrifices where large numbers of animals were sacrificed and eaten.

 

The reign of Ashoka is a landmark in the development of vegetarianism, for he encouraged it by his own example (1) and forbade the killing of many animals. But the ArthashAstra (2) accepts meat-eating as quite normal anbd lays down rules for the management of slaughterhouses and the maintenance of the purity of meat.

 

1 - Ashoka loved peacock meat and ate it daily until he turned into a Buddhist after which he was a vegetarian.

 

2 - ArthashAstra 2.26

 

Cheers

 

 

[Bhakta Don Muntean]

All Glories to Shrila Prabhupada

 

Dear Shvu:

 

So what are you saying?

 

You want a big old hunk of dead animal?

 

Your Servant,

 

Bhakta don

[shvu]

 

Dear Shvu:

 

So what are you saying?

Dear Don Muntean,

 

I am saying, meat eating was not considered respectable in India from as early as the 5th century, if not earlier.

 

Let me know, if you have more doubts about what I am saying.

 

Cheers

 

 

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

The Vedic injunction is "mahimsyat sarva bhutani", do not cause harm to any living entity. That includes those killed for meat.

 

[karthik_v]

Shvu:

 

What makes A L Basham an objective scholar, y the way? He accepted the Aryan invasion theory without basis. Now recent researches in astronomy, archeology and genetics have completely disproven any such invasion. A L Basham asserted that Harappa was a Dravidian civilisation and by no means Aryan. That, despite the fact that the script is undeciphered and nobody has a clue. He also accepted the ridiculously late dates for the composition of vedas. Astronomy has clearly shown that the vedas were composed latest by 6000 B.C.. I am not ridiculing A L Basham. He had 2 major handicaps:

 

One, during his time it would have been impossible for somebody (that too an Indian) to rise academically, if he didn't accept the myths of European missionaries and linguists. Boy, what on earth makes linguistic analysis an objective science!

 

Two, he wasn't trained in astronomy, archeology, genetics and biological anthropology. It is impossible to study ancient Indian history without knowledge of these areas. In truth, history itself is only an appendage to these objective studies when you are looking at ancient Indian life. So, A L Basham was in no position to know what life they would have lead. This was further complicated by the fact that he was no Sanskrit scholar and just went by the translations of the Europeans.

 

So, let us not make it sound as if A L Basham can provide a window to ancient Indian lifestyle. What is next Shvu, on your list? Romilla Thapar, D N Jha, Witzel?!

 

Coming to vegetarianism, there is no mention of meat-eating as a recommended practice in Valmiki Ramayana. In the vedas (I have only read Griffith's translations, not the original), there are a few mentions. But these are also recommended for special occasions. And that should again settle the issue. Meat-eating was not a standard practice in ancient India either before or after Siddhartha Gautama. Also, please note that there are many Buddhist schools (from the pre-Mahayana times) that believe that SG himself allowed meat-eating, provided the meat wasn't cooked especially for the bikshus. In fact, that was a major reason why the Jainas used to ridicule Buddhists for hypocrisy, in debates. So, vegetarianism in Buddhism was no less or no more stringent than that in ancient Hinduism.

[bhaktashab]

The highest virtue is to love God completely and utterly devoid of all selfish motivation. When we talk about good and bad the ultimate good one can do is to be totally surrendered to the will of the Lord, to be a perfect source of pleasure for God. Is there an example in history of such a person who practices this pure devotion to the Supreme ever eating meat?

 

------------------

shab.

[shvu]

 

What makes A L Basham an objective scholar, y the way? He accepted the Aryan invasion theory without basis.

 

The AIT was not an ad hoc concoction. There have been reasons [true or false] provided for how they arrived at such a theory. I presume you have read Basham about the Gods worshipped in Harappa, the animals, etc. Now if someone can conclusively prove Aryans never over threw Dravidians, that will finish AIT. Note however that although some people are making a lot of noise about it, nothing significant has come out of it yet. Not that I am attesting AIT, but I will take the anti-AIT team seriously when something concrete comes out of their work. Because, I know there are always a set of people who like to take history back to fantastic sounding dates. For example, although the Great Pyramid in Egypt is dated to almost 5000 years back, there are some people who feel it is 10000 years old and complain about bureaucracy. If the pyramids were dated to 10000 bc, they would have probably felt it was 20000 years old.

 

Similarly a set of Indians would have compained anyway, even if history had dated the Vedas to 50,000 bc. They would have said the Vedas are eternal, the Indologists cannot accept such things because they are 'biased westerners' and so on.

 

Now recent researches in astronomy, archeology and genetics have completely disproven any such invasion.

Obviously not, because history still talks about AIT and the anti-AIT team is complaining about bureaucracy, etc. That is the current position.

 

A L Basham asserted that Harappa was a Dravidian civilisation and by no means Aryan. That, despite the fact that the script is undeciphered and nobody has a clue.

Because it is part of AIT. He cannot accept part of AIT and leave out another part of it.

 

He also accepted the ridiculously late dates for the composition of vedas. Astronomy has clearly shown that the vedas were composed latest by 6000 B.C..

I don't understand how astronomy helped date the Rig-veda. I would like to know how, thanx

 

.. I am not ridiculing A L Basham.

That is fine...I understand totally. I am not a Basham supporter or something. But I prefer history vis-a-vis traditional stories. And yes, I understand history may be wrong at times too, but it has to be proved beyond doubt which has not happened in this case, yet.

 

Coming to vegetarianism...

Basham mentions the ArthashAstra to show meat-eating was practised in those days. What about the animal sacrifices of the Vedic times? What was done with the animals after they were sacrificed and what about Yajnavalkya in the Krishna Yajur?

 

It is believed Vedic style sacrifices disappeared in India due to criticizm by other scools like Buddhism and Jainism. Naturally that would have cut down meat consumption too. That is the idea.

 

Cheers

 

 

[krsnaraja]

most christians eat pork while muslims eat beef. catholics eat both pork and beef. there are those who don`t eat both, pork and beef, but only those that come from the sea and yet they think they are vegetarians. jesus christ is one but krsna is not. in other words, if krsna ate meat does that mean krsna is sinful? it would be unthinkable for those who profess to be vegetarians that krsna have never eaten meat from slaughtered animals. but what if he did?

would that mean anything to you who is a vegetarian and yet doesn`t believe there`s a God?

FOOD is precisely the cause why there`s WAR erupting every minute every hour on this planet. because people do not actually agree on what kind of food they should eat!

in other words, if man is starving to death, would it exempt him from eating meat just to live? even cannibals do that. but there are cases of people who got stranded on a mountain top filled with snow who ate meat from the dead bodies of their loved ones who perished when their plane crashed just to survive.

for the hungriest, any kind of food will do just to satiate an empty stomach so that he could survive and live. for these individuals they have committed no sin. but vegetarians do if they haven`t made up their minds to surrender unto the supreme lord, sRi

kRsna!

 

[This message has been edited by krsnaraja (edited 01-06-2002).]

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by Shvu:

The AIT was not an ad hoc concoction. There have been reasons [true or false] provided for how they arrived at such a theory.

Facts cannot be either true or false. They HAVE to be true. AIT was not based on fact, either archeological or literary. It was purely a concoction.

 

I presume you have read Basham about the Gods worshipped in Harappa, the animals, etc.

I have. That is why I discount Basham. The whole story of the Gods and animals worshipped in Harappa was based on 3 terracota seals that depict a man in seated position surrounded by animals, a man with a raised hand overlooking sonmeone bent and a 3 faced man. The inscription that goes with them is undeciphered, yet the likes of Basham had no qualms about weaving stories on these 'Gods' of Harappa.

 

Now if someone can conclusively prove Aryans never over threw Dravidians, that will finish AIT.

Hold on. Have you given logic a winter vacation? Before the 18th century European linguists, Aryan and Dravidian were never used in any racial sense in India. Not one literature, Sanskrit or Tamil, talks of an Aryan invasion. In other words, the AIT was introduced by the Europeans. So, it is they who need to provide evidence. All their "evidence" was just linguistic analysis. And linguistic analysis is not a science. They couldn't provide one bit of archeological evidence or even literary evidence.

 

Note however that although some people are making a lot of noise about it, nothing significant has come out of it yet. Not that I am attesting AIT, but I will take the anti-AIT team seriously when something concrete comes out of their work.

On the contrary, the anti-AIT team has demolished all the premises of AIT and presented evidences to the contrary. Let me give a few examples. One, the existence of Sarasvati before IVC has been conclusively proven. Two, biological anthropological studies by Kenneth Kennedy of Cornell have proven beyond doubt that there is no difference between the present population of Punjab, Sindh and Gujarat (which were part of IVC) and that which existed 2500 years ago. Jim Shaffer's archeological studies have clearly established that Harappa and Mohenjadaro weren't destroyed, but vacated instead as Sarasvati dried up. Horses, though few in number, have been found in the lowest strata of Harappa. Even more convincing is the fact that the horses discovered were an indigenous species with 34 ribs. And Rg veda talks of horses with 34 ribs. On the other hand, the middle-eastern and European horses have 36 ribs. These enter India only around 600 BC.

 

Because, I know there are always a set of people who like to take history back to fantastic sounding dates. For example, although the Great Pyramid in Egypt is dated to almost 5000 years back, there are some people who feel it is 10000 years old and complain about bureaucracy. If the pyramids were dated to 10000 bc, they would have probably felt it was 20000 years old.

The date of pyramids has not been determined on any scientific basis. It was based on certain assumptions and one of them was that they were burial places of the Pharaohs. But, the fact that not one mummy was discovered in the great Pyramids should make us suspect the fundamental assumptions. Neither is there any inscription to support such assumptions. Second, the date of the great Pyramids have been revised continuously over a few decades. Geologist Schoch of MIT showed that the erosion on their walls was not due to desert winds, but due to fresh water. That is how, the dates of the GP were pushed further backwards. There is nothing wrong in questioning the assigned dates, especially when the original assignment was done on conjecture and without any scientific basis and with racial prejudices.

 

Originally posted by Karthik:

Now recent researches in astronomy, archeology and genetics have completely disproven any such invasion.

Shvu responds:

Obviously not, because history still talks about AIT and the anti-AIT team is complaining about bureaucracy, etc. That is the current position.

I quoted the studies of Kennedy and Shafer above. You may also want to note that way back in 1790, John Playfair, a British Physicist and astronomer, rejected the absurd dates assigned to the vedas. He ascertained this after evaluating 17 parameters. He was supported by another French physicist. Both referred to the keys in Rg veda and other vedas and showed a few things:

 

One, these were composed no later than 4000 BC. Two, it is impossible to fake those observations by back-calculation, as doing so would require the knowledge of sine tables and the laws of gravitation. In fact, N S Rajaram shows that doing so would require the knowledge of Physics of this century.

 

Tilak and others also showed those references but they weren't heard by the European academics. Please note that none could refute the evidences given by Playfair or Tilak. Instead, they opposed those statements on the grounds that they contradicted what is stated in Genesis. So, popular European view gave way to scientific facts and that is how these absurd dates came into place. Subhash Kak has listed the whole list of keys and references to planetary positions and markers such as solstices and ecclipses to conclusively date the vedas.

 

I don't understand how astronomy helped date the Rig-veda. I would like to know how, thanx

I answered that in short above. I think you may want to read:

 

The Astronomical Code of the Rgveda

Author: Subhash Kak. (Available with MLBD)

 

There are a few more, but this one is very scientific and irrefutable and devoid of anything you may call Hindutva bias.

 

Basham mentions the ArthashAstra to show meat-eating was practised in those days. What about the animal sacrifices of the Vedic times? What was done with the animals after they were sacrificed and what about Yajnavalkya in the Krishna Yajur?

There are many recenssions of AS. ALB doesn't bother to mention this fact. Second, like his European masters, he is selectively quoting. The same AS also states that killing a cow is a sin and recommends punishment for that act. It also recommends the set of purificatory rites to be performed should a Brahmana ever consume meat. That should tell us that meat-eating was neither prevalent nor recommended. Even in vedas, I don't think that the meat was consumed after sacrifice. Often, verses are quoted from Rg veda to show that Agni and others consumed cow's meat. Often, the phrases are taken to mean "fat" and that is literally translated to mean that cow was eaten. Now let us see the verse from RV 7.95.2:

 

pra kSodasA dhAyasA sasra eSA sarasvatI dharuNamAyasI pUH

prabAbadhAnA rathyeva yAti vishvA apo mahinA sindhuranyAH

 

Griffith translates it as:

 

Pure in her course from mountains to the ocean, alone of streams Sarasvati hath listened.

Thinking of wealth and the great world of creatures, she poured for Nahusa her milk and fat.

 

Now to claim that Sarasvati was carrying beaf and that was consumed by the Brahmanas would be absurd. Vedas are written in a metaphorical language and you cannot translate them to give a literal meaning. I can give an anology. Let us say the world is destroyed today and just one newspaper headline about a soccer match survives. If someone were to read that a 1000 years from now and says that the headline "Romario hits the bull's eye in the finals against Italy" meant that in 2001, Brazilians and Italians played a game in which they kept a bull in a field and kept on cruelly hitting at its eye, how stupid would that be? So, figurative speech needs to be understood differently. None of the Europeans had the command of Sanskrit and the open mindset to do that. So, ALB's work which follows those guys in spirit, is no better.

 

Great scholars like Swami Dayananda Saraswati and Swami Vivekananda exposed the European translators for their stupidity. Sadly, those were the colonial days and the erudite Indians who exposed the Europeans weren't listened to.

 

It is believed Vedic style sacrifices disappeared in India due to criticizm by other scools like Buddhism and Jainism. Naturally that would have cut down meat consumption too.

What is the basis of this belief? Sure SG criticized sacrifices, and if SG had ever been popular, then it must lead to the reduction of sacrifices. But, how does that prove that vegetarianism wasn't there before? On the contrary, vedas and other books attest to the fact that vegetarianism was certainly there and the preferred way of life.

 

[Ananga]

There is plenty of archaeological and other evidence that supports the Aryan invasion theory (that they came on horses from central Asia and conquered the locals), whereas there has yet to be any hard evidence uncovered to refute it. That is a plain simple fact. The current movement in India and worldwide to promote the origins of the Aryan civilization within India is just extreme fanatacism and should be ignored by all reasonable and sensible people. Vaishnavas should not concern themselves with these types of controversies, and should focus on their personal bhajan instead.

 

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

There is plenty of archaeological and other evidence that supports the Aryan invasion theory (that they came on horses from central Asia and conquered the locals), whereas there has yet to be any hard evidence uncovered to refute it. That is a plain simple fact.

Its funny how after Karthik offers a variety of scientific evidence and proof to show that the aryan invasion theory is absolutely false, you post a message saying, "There is no proof at all..." without even trying to refute any of the evidences offered by Karthik. Why waste time with such posts. Either address his points above or keep quiet. You've done no more than post an opinion while claiming it to be undisputed truth.

[Jahnava Nitai Das]

The point that no one can explain is why there isn't a single description of this "Aryan invasion" in any ancient text of India? Can you find a single reference to this alleged invasion in any Sanskrit or Tamil text? That itself is evidence that it never occured. In fact, in the history this concept never existed until the British came to India.

 

They will claim that there was such a huge event in the history of India, but not a single poet, historian or saint mentioned it in their writings.

[laksri]

Originally posted by jndas:

The point that no one can explain is why there isn't a single description of this "Aryan invasion" in any ancient text of India?

The problem with this "Aryan" term is itself a misuse.

 

It has been used almost exclusively to mean,

"worthy of one"

"honourable",

"respectable",

"noble",

"of a good family",

"excellent",

"wise",

"suitable"

 

even in the rig veda. I humbly request anybody to give me any instances where it may have other meanings.

 

There is one derivative meaning, the country of pious. See the most benovalent and the foremost among men, whom every person, owes gratitude, the son of sUrya, Manu says,

 

"That (country) which (lies) between the Himavat and the Vindhya (mountains) to the east of Prayaga and to the west of Vinasana (the place where the river Sarasvati disappears) is called Madhyadesa (the central region).

 

But (the tract) between those two mountains (Himavat and the Vindhya ), which (extends) to the eastern and the western seas, the wise call Aryavarta (the country of the Aryans)."

 

When did the Himalyas and Vindhyas get shifted to central asia, racism can try.

 

This holy book quoted by all bhasyam writers in their brahma sutra is not respected by some, because of their person opinions.

 

So, how can you find an Aryan invasion of India, unless they invade themselves ?

 

[This message has been edited by laksri (edited 01-13-2002).]

[xvi000]

meat-eating

---------------

Don't attach to meat & no-meat. Vegetarianism works for your souls instead of your fleshes. Sb. said meat is poisonous. Now I tell your soul that you have gone into a wong way (notice that I never mention poisoned meat).

 

AIT

----

Don't attach to "invasion", racism & non-racism. There is only one genuine aborigine - Brahman. If Sone ask me, "Are you a racist?" I'll answer him, "For what do you say that, AIT?" I decide to stop here as you need time to change your minds.

 

[This message has been edited by xvi000 (edited 01-14-2002).]

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by Ananga:

There is plenty of archaeological and other evidence that supports the Aryan invasion theory (that they came on horses from central Asia and conquered the locals)

Here, let me give some more evidences to show that AIT is fatally flawed. One of the main stance of the propagandists of the AIT is that the Indo-Aryans came from central Asia into India. They used to claim that the Mittani culture was the fore-runner of the Indo-Aryans. Now, after the Mittani civilization has been analysed threadbare, a very interesting evidence surfaces. Most of their art consists of peacock motif and there has not been any other central Asian motif. You got it. That peacock clearly proves that the Mittani were indeed indigenous Aryans from India who migrated weswards. A German archaeologist, Brentjes, did most of the research in this area, so you can't even accuse the Hindutva brigade of having engineered this!

 

Also, the AIT propagandists used to claim that there were no horses in the IVC. Wrong. There have been many finds. Let me list a few:

 

In the Indus Valley, the horse (equus caballus Linn) was first reported in 1931 in Mohenjo-daro (Sewell and Guha). Mackay reported a clay model in the same site in 1938. Bhola Nath reported horse bones in 1963 from Harappa, Ropar and Lothal. Piggott reported a horse figurine from Periano Ghundai. Other reports include the Swat Valley (Stacul), Gumla (Sankalia), Pirac (Shaffer) Malvan (Sharma, A.K.) Kalibhangan (ibid), Kuntasi (Sharma, R.S.), Rangpur (Rao R.S.), Lothal (I don't know the finder), Rana Ghundai (Ross), Surkotada (Sharma, A.K).

 

The exact species of horse is the crucial issue here--equus caballus Linn is the Aryan steed. This is the breed with 34 ribs, unlike the Arabian or the Steppes horse which has 36 ribs. And all these finds were dated between 2000 to 3500 BC, much before the date the Aryans were supposed to have invaded India.

 

More interesting are the reports of horse findings near Allahabad dated from 2265-1480 BCE and from a Neolithic site in Karnataka--both well before the Aryans are supposed to have come in introducing the animal and much too far East and South.

 

Now you may want to ask the propagandists of the AIT if there was an increase in the find of horse remains in the IVC for the date 1500 BC to 1200 BC. After all, if the Aryans came in with their horses in 1500 BC, you should find a steep jump in the finds for this period, right? What does archeology reveal? The find is the same. It doesn't vary at all. Looks like the only thing to be buried is the AIT.

 

Another Indo-Aryan feature found in the IVC is the fire altars. These have been found in Kalibhangan and Lothal causing even Aryan Invasion supporters such as Allchin to allow that the Indo-Aryans must have at least coexisted in the IVC. Some of these altars are domestic, some public, on a raised platform and arrayed in a row of seven facing East (suggesting the 7 dhish.nya hearths where the sacrificer had to face East). Nearby were a well and the remains of bath pavements suggesting ceremonial bathing. These altars were found both in the early and later stages of occupation of the towns from at least 2200 BCE (Lal, B.B "Some Reflections on the Structural Remains at Kalibangan"). Does it not tell you that the IVC itself should have been belonging to the time of Yajur veda? And those who claim that the IVC was distinct from vedic are yet to produce one fragment of evidence.

[laksri]

Originally posted by xvi000:

meat-eating

---------------

Don't attach to meat & no-meat. Vegetarianism works for your souls instead of your fleshes. Sb. said meat is poisonous. Now I tell your soul that you have gone into a wong way (notice that I never mention poisoned meat).

 

AIT

----

Don't attach to "invasion", racism & non-racism. There is only one genuine aborigine - Brahman. If Sone ask me, "Are you a racist?" I'll answer him, "For what do you say that, AIT?" I decide to stop here as you need time to change your minds.

 

[This message has been edited by xvi000 (edited 01-14-2002).]

 

I am sorry if I have hurt anybody, the better word would have been, bias or prejudice.

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I am amazed by the ISKCON obsession with vegetariansim.Hindu scriptures allow non-vegetarianism for non-brahmin castes.Swami Vivekananda has said " There was a time in India , and you wont believe me when I say this , when you were'nt considered a hindu if you didnt eat beef".

 

Now ISKCONites will say , how can someone meat eating be considered spiritual ? Krishna says he will accept only fruit , flower , leaves and water.

 

But why do these guys think all Indians are spiritual beings that all Indians are saints ?

 

bahunam janmanaan ante .......sa mahatama sudurlabah says Krishna clearly in the BG.

 

Don't think the average Indian in 1000 B.C. was an Angel.

 

Plus Kshatriya dharma allows you eat meat.May be HKs are not aware of different rules for different varnas.

 

Plus Vedic sacrifices were created for people who cannot avoid non-vegetarianism , offer them to the gods and eat it.

 

Harish Kumar.