Home
Publications
Search
Register
Log inA difference between Vedic and Upanisadic Hindus and contemporary Hindus
Page 1 of 1
A difference between Vedic and Upanisadic Hindus and contemporary Hindus
by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 12:51 am
Unlike most contemporary Hindus, Vedic and Upanisadic Hindus were voracious beef eaters.
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 Maruts and the Asvins were also offered cows. In the Vedas 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 Mahabharata there is a mention of a king named Rantideva who achieved great fame by distributing foodgrains and beef to Brahmins. Taittiriya Brahman categorically tells us: `Verily the cow is food' (atho annam via gauh) and Yajnavalkya's insistence on eating the tender (amsala) flesh of the cow is well known. Even later Brahminical texts provide the evidence for eating beef. Even Manusmriti did not prohibit the consumption of beef.
In therapeutic section of Charak Samhita (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.
http://www.thehindu.com/2001/08/14/stories/13140833.htm
----
Lean beef is a very good source of protein, providing 64.1% of the daily value of the nutrient, in just 4 ounces. It serves as a good source of vitamin B12 and vitamin B6, needed by the body to convert the potentially dangerous chemical homocysteine to benign molecules. Diets high in vitamin B12-rich foods, but low in fat are associated with a reduced risk of colon cancer. Organic beef is a good source of selenium and zinc. The selenium present in lean beef is needed for the proper function of glutathione peroxidase, an antioxidant that reduces the severity of inflammatory conditions like asthma and rheumatoid arthritis.
---
For greater health, vigor, and vitality, should all Hindus start eating cows and bulls once again (like their ancestors)?
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 Maruts and the Asvins were also offered cows. In the Vedas 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 Mahabharata there is a mention of a king named Rantideva who achieved great fame by distributing foodgrains and beef to Brahmins. Taittiriya Brahman categorically tells us: `Verily the cow is food' (atho annam via gauh) and Yajnavalkya's insistence on eating the tender (amsala) flesh of the cow is well known. Even later Brahminical texts provide the evidence for eating beef. Even Manusmriti did not prohibit the consumption of beef.
In therapeutic section of Charak Samhita (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.
http://www.thehindu.com/2001/08/14/stories/13140833.htm
----
Lean beef is a very good source of protein, providing 64.1% of the daily value of the nutrient, in just 4 ounces. It serves as a good source of vitamin B12 and vitamin B6, needed by the body to convert the potentially dangerous chemical homocysteine to benign molecules. Diets high in vitamin B12-rich foods, but low in fat are associated with a reduced risk of colon cancer. Organic beef is a good source of selenium and zinc. The selenium present in lean beef is needed for the proper function of glutathione peroxidase, an antioxidant that reduces the severity of inflammatory conditions like asthma and rheumatoid arthritis.
---
For greater health, vigor, and vitality, should all Hindus start eating cows and bulls once again (like their ancestors)?
Guest- Guest
Re: A difference between Vedic and Upanisadic Hindus and contemporary Hindus
by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 7:41 am
Lean beef is a very good source of protein, providing 64.1% of the daily value of the nutrient, in just 4 ounces. It serves as a good source of vitamin B12 and vitamin B6, needed by the body to convert the potentially dangerous chemical homocysteine to benign molecules. Diets high in vitamin B12-rich foods, but low in fat are associated with a reduced risk of colon cancer. Organic beef is a good source of selenium and zinc. The selenium present in lean beef is needed for the proper function of glutathione peroxidase, an antioxidant that reduces the severity of inflammatory conditions like asthma and rheumatoid arthritis.
----
Do contemporary Hindus have a higher incidence of asthma and rheumatoid arthritis? If yes, should all Hindus start eating beef again (for medical reasons) like their ancestors?
----
Do contemporary Hindus have a higher incidence of asthma and rheumatoid arthritis? If yes, should all Hindus start eating beef again (for medical reasons) like their ancestors?
Guest- Guest
Re: A difference between Vedic and Upanisadic Hindus and contemporary Hindus
by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 10:19 am
One of the most nutritious foods, beef has appetite-sating high-quality protein, which has all the essential amino acids needed (isoleucine, leucine, lysine, methionine, phenylalanine, threonine, tryptophan, valine and more)to build muscle and bone. Beef is a great source of B vitamins (vital for brain function), and the most absorbable form of iron (called haem iron), which builds red blood cells and gives you energy. Its rich store of zinc supports the immune system.
Beef contains both saturated and monounsaturated fat (thought to be protective against heart disease). Contrary to the prevalent dogma, it's emerging that there is no good evidence to support the notion that saturated fat is harmful. Beef from grass-fed cattle is a great source of omega 3 fatty acids, and conjugated linoleic acid, which some studies show reduces the risk of cancer, obesity, diabetes and some immune system disorders.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/dec/16/why-beef-is-good-for-you-grass-fed-grain-fed
----
Looks like the Vedic and Upanisadic Hindus were on to something when they made beef a part of their diet.
Beef contains both saturated and monounsaturated fat (thought to be protective against heart disease). Contrary to the prevalent dogma, it's emerging that there is no good evidence to support the notion that saturated fat is harmful. Beef from grass-fed cattle is a great source of omega 3 fatty acids, and conjugated linoleic acid, which some studies show reduces the risk of cancer, obesity, diabetes and some immune system disorders.
https://www.theguardian.com/lifeandstyle/2013/dec/16/why-beef-is-good-for-you-grass-fed-grain-fed
----
Looks like the Vedic and Upanisadic Hindus were on to something when they made beef a part of their diet.
Guest- Guest
Re: A difference between Vedic and Upanisadic Hindus and contemporary Hindus
by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 5:13 pm
Guest- Guest
Re: A difference between Vedic and Upanisadic Hindus and contemporary Hindus
by Guest Thu Feb 02, 2017 9:04 pm
“I, for one, eat it, provided it is tender.”
This declaration from one of ancient India’s greatest sages is something today’s Hindu nationalists would rather forget—if, indeed, they are even aware of it, a response from Yajnavalkya, one of Hinduism’s most revered minds, to the assertion: “Let him (the priest) not eat the flesh of the cow and the ox.”
The source of this exchange is a 1906 work called History of India: Volume 1—From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century B.C. by Romesh Chunder Dutt, an economist and historian in the service of the old Baroda state. But you can find references to Yajnavalkya’s insistence on eating beef in a number of historical works that examine the Shatapatha Brahmana, where the sage’s riposte is contained.
The Shatapatha Brahmana is one of the chief sources of information about the Vedic age, a period roughly between 1,500 and 500 years before Christ, a time that saw the composition of some of Hinduism’s oldest scriptures, the Vedas. It is an era that many Hindus believe to be their golden age, attributing to it a pureness of scripture and spirit (and unsullied, of course, by the coming of Islam).
Yajnavalkya, an argumentative man who clearly revelled in challenging established wisdom, evolved many of the personal laws that Hindus use today. His approach to beef-eating, at a time when it was receding, is symptomatic of the questioning attitude that created one of the world’s oldest religions. But history’s nuances are difficult to shoehorn into Hinduism’s modern dogmas.
http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/Lo6qAmGyVgy62SVqzjdW2I/In-search-of-Yajnavalkyas-lunch.html
This declaration from one of ancient India’s greatest sages is something today’s Hindu nationalists would rather forget—if, indeed, they are even aware of it, a response from Yajnavalkya, one of Hinduism’s most revered minds, to the assertion: “Let him (the priest) not eat the flesh of the cow and the ox.”
The source of this exchange is a 1906 work called History of India: Volume 1—From the Earliest Times to the Sixth Century B.C. by Romesh Chunder Dutt, an economist and historian in the service of the old Baroda state. But you can find references to Yajnavalkya’s insistence on eating beef in a number of historical works that examine the Shatapatha Brahmana, where the sage’s riposte is contained.
The Shatapatha Brahmana is one of the chief sources of information about the Vedic age, a period roughly between 1,500 and 500 years before Christ, a time that saw the composition of some of Hinduism’s oldest scriptures, the Vedas. It is an era that many Hindus believe to be their golden age, attributing to it a pureness of scripture and spirit (and unsullied, of course, by the coming of Islam).
Yajnavalkya, an argumentative man who clearly revelled in challenging established wisdom, evolved many of the personal laws that Hindus use today. His approach to beef-eating, at a time when it was receding, is symptomatic of the questioning attitude that created one of the world’s oldest religions. But history’s nuances are difficult to shoehorn into Hinduism’s modern dogmas.
http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/Lo6qAmGyVgy62SVqzjdW2I/In-search-of-Yajnavalkyas-lunch.html
Guest- Guest
Re: A difference between Vedic and Upanisadic Hindus and contemporary Hindus
by Guest Mon Feb 06, 2017 12:20 am
Guest- Guest
Sponsored content
Similar topics» How Mughals were superior to their contemporary Hindus
» Rig Vedic Hindus vs Mughals
» Rig Vedic Hindus vs Ancient Egyptians
» Did Rig Vedic Hindus have blonde hair and blue eyes?
» The metamorphosis of Hindu Ethics from the age of the Rig Veda to the Upanisadic and post-Upanisadic era
» Rig Vedic Hindus vs Mughals
» Rig Vedic Hindus vs Ancient Egyptians
» Did Rig Vedic Hindus have blonde hair and blue eyes?
» The metamorphosis of Hindu Ethics from the age of the Rig Veda to the Upanisadic and post-Upanisadic era
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum