Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

by Guest Sat Aug 02, 2014 2:53 pm

http://www.livemint.com/Leisure/Lo6qAmGyVgy62SVqzjdW2I/In-search-of-Yajnavalkyas-lunch.html

by confuzzled dude Sat Aug 02, 2014 3:03 pm

So you think Modiji & his chamchas next agenda, after Hindi push & name change, would be pink revolution?

by Guest Sat Aug 02, 2014 3:08 pm

confuzzled dude wrote:So you think Modiji & his chamchas next agenda, after Hindi push & name change, would be pink revolution?

The Hindutvas have a poor knowledge and understanding of Hinduism. They erroneously think the Vedic and Upanisadic hindus were vegetarians. And what is worse they would like everyone else to believe this falsehood.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Sat Aug 02, 2014 10:22 pm

Rubbish. Who cares what they ate? The cave man probably ate raw meat before inventing fire. Does that mean that BIMARUs should imitate them? I bet, primitive man hunted and ate wild boar. Does that mean that the pieceful should eat pigs and wrap themselves in pig skin?

Hinduism was not static like the 7the century monomaniacism. People are willing to adapt. Once they decided to make the cow a representation of something they respected, they worshiped her.

Try shoving some ham into the mouth of a Wahabi moron and let me know which of your bones are broken when he attacks you.

by Guest Sun Aug 03, 2014 7:37 am

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rubbish. Who cares what they ate? The cave man probably ate raw meat before inventing fire. Does that mean that BIMARUs should imitate them? I bet, primitive man hunted and ate wild boar. Does that mean that the pieceful should eat pigs and wrap themselves in pig skin?

Hinduism was not static like the 7the century monomaniacism. People are willing to adapt. Once they decided to make the cow a representation of something they respected, they worshiped her.

Try shoving some ham into the mouth of a Wahabi moron and let me know which of your bones are broken when he attacks you.

In the Ayurvedic text Charaka Samhita beef eating is recommended for people suffering from emaciation and also for people doing a lot of manual labor. Your comments?

by Guest Sun Aug 03, 2014 11:25 am

The Vedic 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 (RV, V.29.7ab; VI.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 (RV, VIII. 43.11; X. 91.14ab). The toothless Pusan, the guardian of the roads, ate mush as a Hobson’s choice. Soma was the name of a heady drink but, equally importantly, of a god and killing of animals including cattle for him (RV, X.91.14ab) was basic to most of the Rgvedic yajnas. The Maruts and the Asvins were also offered cows. The Vedas 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 Vedic sacrifices and dietetics and the general preference for the flesh of the cow is undeniable. The Taittiriya Brahmana (III.9. Cool

categorically tells us: “Verily the cow is food” (atho annam vai gauh) and the Satapatha Brahmana (III.1.2.21) refers to Yajnavalkya’s stubborn insistence on eating the tender (amsala) flesh of the cow.

According to the subsequent Brahmanical texts (e.g. Grhyasutras and Dharmasutras) the killing of animals and eating of beef was very much de rigeur. The ceremony of guest-reception (known as arghya in the Rgveda but generally as madhuparka 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 madhuparka --- an injunction more or less dittoed by several later legal texts (AsGS, I.24.33; KathaGS, 24,20; SankhGS, II.15.2; ParGS, I.3.29). A guest therefore came to be described by Panini 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 snataka to wear an upper garment of the cowhide (ParGS, 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 (AV, 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 Vedic and the post-Vedic texts also often mention the killing of animals including the kine in several other ritual contexts. The gavamayana, a sessional sacrifice performed by the brahmins was, for example, marked by animal slaughter culminating in an extravagant bacchanalian communal festival (mahavrata) in which cattle were slaughtered. There was, therefore, a relationship between the sacrifice and sustenance. But this need not necessarily mean that different meat types were eaten only if offered in a sacrifice. Thus in the grhamedha, which has been discussed in several Srautasutras, an unspecified number of cows were slain not in the strict ritual manner but in the crude and profane manner.[20]

Archaeological evidence also suggests non-ritual killing of cattle. This is indicative of the fact that beef and other animal flesh formed part of the dietary habits of the people and that the edible flesh was not always ritually consecrated, though some scholars have argued to the contrary.[21] Despite the overwhelming evidence of cattle killing, several scholars have obdurately held that the Vedic cow was sacred and inviolable on the basis of the occurrence of the word aghnya/aghnya in the Atharvaveda and the use of words for cow as epithet or in simile and metaphor with reference to entities of highest religious significance. But it has been convincingly proved that if the Vedic cow was at all inviolable, it was so only when it belonged to a brahmin who received cows as sacrificial fee (daksina).[22] But this cannot be taken to be an index of the animal’s inherent sanctity and inviolability in the Vedic period or even later.

http://www.indowindow.com/sad/article.php?child=17&article=11

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Sun Aug 03, 2014 1:36 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rubbish. Who cares what they ate? The cave man probably ate raw meat before inventing fire. Does that mean that BIMARUs should imitate them? I bet, primitive man hunted and ate wild boar. Does that mean that the pieceful should eat pigs and wrap themselves in pig skin?

Hinduism was not static like the 7the century monomaniacism. People are willing to adapt. Once they decided to make the cow a representation of something they respected, they worshiped her.

Try shoving some ham into the mouth of a Wahabi moron and let me know which of your bones are broken when he attacks you.

In the Ayurvedic text Charaka Samhita beef eating is recommended for people suffering from emaciation and also for people doing a lot of manual labor. Your comments?

Your fascination with Hindu beef, H-M synthesis, CONgames, anti-Modi rhetoric, Hindi for Tamils, etc., is a sign of a BIMARU mindset that needs proper treatment.

India is infested with self-deprecating fools who think that a tree will appreciate the beauty of the weeds in its neighborhood if it cuts off its own roots. Good luck to you!

by Guest Sun Aug 03, 2014 2:22 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rubbish. Who cares what they ate? The cave man probably ate raw meat before inventing fire. Does that mean that BIMARUs should imitate them? I bet, primitive man hunted and ate wild boar. Does that mean that the pieceful should eat pigs and wrap themselves in pig skin?

Hinduism was not static like the 7the century monomaniacism. People are willing to adapt. Once they decided to make the cow a representation of something they respected, they worshiped her.

Try shoving some ham into the mouth of a Wahabi moron and let me know which of your bones are broken when he attacks you.

In the Ayurvedic text Charaka Samhita beef eating is recommended for people suffering from emaciation and also for people doing a lot of manual labor. Your comments?
Your fascination with Hindu beef, H-M synthesis, CONgames, anti-Modi rhetoric, Hindi for Tamils, etc., is a sign of a BIMARU mindset that needs proper treatment.

India is infested with self-deprecating fools who think that a tree will appreciate the beauty of the weeds in its neighborhood if it cuts off its own roots. Good luck to you!

Do you think it is appropriate for Chaddiwalahs to give death threats to a historian who wants to write about beef in ancient India?
---
While one must respect the sentiments of those who worship cow and regard her as their mother, to take offence to the objective study of history just because the facts don't suit their political calculations is yet another sign of a society where liberal space is being strangulated by the practitioners of communal politics. [text Tag=blue-tint][/Text]PROF. D. N. JHA, a historian from Delhi University, had been experiencing the nightmares of `threats to life' from anonymous callers who were trying to prevail upon him not to go ahead with the publication of his well researched work, Holy Cow: Beef in Indian Dietary Traditions.

As per the reports it is a work of serious scholarship based on authentic sources in tune with methods of scientific research in history. The book demonstrates that contrary to the popular belief even today a large number of Indians, the indigenous people in particular and many other communities in general, consume beef unmindful of the dictates of the Hindutva forces.

It is too well known to recount that these Hindutva forces confer the status of mother to the cow. Currently 72 communities in Kerala - not all of them untouchables - prefer beef to the expensive mutton and the Hindutva forces are trying to prevail upon them to stop the same.

http://www.thehindu.com/2001/08/14/stories/13140833.htm

by Seva Lamberdar Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:50 am

Rashmun wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:So you think Modiji & his chamchas next agenda, after Hindi push & name change, would be pink revolution?

The Hindutvas have a poor knowledge and understanding of Hinduism. They erroneously think the Vedic and Upanisadic hindus were vegetarians. And what is worse they would like everyone else to believe this falsehood.

But using the name of Yajnavalka to promote the beef-eating agenda is quite wrong.

by Guest Tue Aug 05, 2014 8:54 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:So you think Modiji & his chamchas next agenda, after Hindi push & name change, would be pink revolution?

The Hindutvas have a poor knowledge and understanding of Hinduism. They erroneously think the Vedic and Upanisadic hindus were vegetarians. And what is worse they would like everyone else to believe this falsehood.

But using the name of Yajnavalka to promote the beef-eating agenda is quite wrong.

This is about preaching tolerance towards others. I myself don't eat beef.

by Seva Lamberdar Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:06 am

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:So you think Modiji & his chamchas next agenda, after Hindi push & name change, would be pink revolution?

The Hindutvas have a poor knowledge and understanding of Hinduism. They erroneously think the Vedic and Upanisadic hindus were vegetarians. And what is worse they would like everyone else to believe this falsehood.

But using the name of Yajnavalka to promote the beef-eating agenda is quite wrong.

This is about preaching tolerance towards others. I myself don't eat beef.

So why use Yajnavalka's name, including selling / advertising beef recipes in his name?

by Guest Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:09 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
confuzzled dude wrote:So you think Modiji & his chamchas next agenda, after Hindi push & name change, would be pink revolution?

The Hindutvas have a poor knowledge and understanding of Hinduism. They erroneously think the Vedic and Upanisadic hindus were vegetarians. And what is worse they would like everyone else to believe this falsehood.

But using the name of Yajnavalka to promote the beef-eating agenda is quite wrong.

This is about preaching tolerance towards others. I myself don't eat beef.

So why use Yajnavalka's name, including selling / advertising beef recipes in his name?

Read the article at the link given in the OP of this thread to get the answer to your question.

by Seva Lamberdar Tue Aug 05, 2014 9:27 am

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

The Hindutvas have a poor knowledge and understanding of Hinduism. They erroneously think the Vedic and Upanisadic hindus were vegetarians. And what is worse they would like everyone else to believe this falsehood.

But using the name of Yajnavalka to promote the beef-eating agenda is quite wrong.

This is about preaching tolerance towards others. I myself don't eat beef.

So why use Yajnavalka's name, including selling / advertising beef recipes in his name?

Read the article at the link given in the OP of this thread to get the answer to your question.

If someone writes a book with all kinds of unsubstantiated / baseless info. and releases it in the name of a long dead ancient personality, there is no reason to accept or use that text as a credible source of knowledge / info.

by Guest Tue Aug 05, 2014 10:54 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:

But using the name of Yajnavalka to promote the beef-eating agenda is quite wrong.

This is about preaching tolerance towards others. I myself don't eat beef.

So why use Yajnavalka's name, including selling / advertising beef recipes in his name?

Read the article at the link given in the OP of this thread to get the answer to your question.

If someone writes a book with all kinds of unsubstantiated / baseless info. and releases it in the name of a long dead ancient personality, there is no reason to accept or use that text as a credible source of knowledge / info.

Yajnavalkya's declaration that he eats beef is recorded in the Shatapatha Brahmana which is a part of the Vedas. Are you saying the Shatapatha Brahmana contains "all kinds of unsubstantiated/baseless info" which should not be considered 'a credible source of knowledge/info".

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:52 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

This is about preaching tolerance towards others. I myself don't eat beef.

So why use Yajnavalka's name, including selling / advertising beef recipes in his name?

Read the article at the link given in the OP of this thread to get the answer to your question.

If someone writes a book with all kinds of unsubstantiated / baseless info. and releases it in the name of a long dead ancient personality, there is no reason to accept or use that text as a credible source of knowledge / info.

Yajnavalkya's declaration that he eats beef is recorded in the Shatapatha Brahmana which is a part of the Vedas. Are you saying the Shatapatha Brahmana contains "all kinds of unsubstantiated/baseless info" which should not be considered 'a credible source of knowledge/info".

Rashmun,
Who is stopping you from eating beef, pork and McDonald's high fat food?

by Seva Lamberdar Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:57 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

This is about preaching tolerance towards others. I myself don't eat beef.

So why use Yajnavalka's name, including selling / advertising beef recipes in his name?

Read the article at the link given in the OP of this thread to get the answer to your question.

If someone writes a book with all kinds of unsubstantiated / baseless info. and releases it in the name of a long dead ancient personality, there is no reason to accept or use that text as a credible source of knowledge / info.

Yajnavalkya's declaration that he eats beef is recorded in the Shatapatha Brahmana which is a part of the Vedas. Are you saying the Shatapatha Brahmana contains "all kinds of unsubstantiated/baseless info" which should not be considered 'a credible source of knowledge/info".

Without starting another discussion on whether Shatapatha Brahmana represents the genuine Veda, there was really no reason for Yajnavalkya, one of the greatest Upanisadic thinker / philosopher, to make the above admission (he eats / ate beef). Like I said, someone used his famous name to plant personal agenda on eating beef, even using the text Shatapatha Brahmana.

by Vakavaka Pakapaka Tue Aug 05, 2014 1:59 pm

Rashmun,
Do you also believe in "Bhavishya purana" and the monomaniac Kalki avatara?

by Guest Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:07 pm

Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rashmun,
Do you also believe in "Bhavishya purana" and the monomaniac Kalki avatara?

i had never heard of the bhavishya purana. thanks for bringing it to my attention. the Kalki avataar is an interesting idea; i have nothing to say about it. i will say however that i do not believe the Budha was the 9th avataar of Vishnu which is what some of the Puranas claim (The idea was that by making this claim it would be easier to absorb the budhists within hinduism--the hindu intellectuals of those times were as crafty as you).

However, there is this text which i find most interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopanishad

there is a lot of nonsense about this text on the internet (like the claim that it was written so as to convert hindus) but i think Swami Vivekananda probably got it right when he said that the apparent objective was to bring hindus and muslims together. i am keen to read the original text to see what it actually says.

by Seva Lamberdar Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:43 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rashmun,
Do you also believe in "Bhavishya purana" and the monomaniac Kalki avatara?

i had never heard of the bhavishya purana. thanks for bringing it to my attention. the Kalki avataar is an interesting idea; i have nothing to say about it. i will say however that i do not believe the Budha was the 9th avataar of Vishnu which is what some of the Puranas claim (The idea was that by making this claim it would be easier to absorb the budhists within hinduism--the hindu intellectuals of those times were as crafty as you).

However, there is this text which i find most interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopanishad

there is a lot of nonsense about this text on the internet (like the claim that it was written so as to convert hindus) but i think Swami Vivekananda probably got it right when he said that the apparent objective was to bring hindus and muslims together. i am keen to read the original text to see what it actually says.

Pure nonsense, speculation and fabrication, as the name suggests ("Bhavishya purana" meaning "future history"; or as the history might unfold, according to the author of this particular Purana)

by Guest Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:45 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rashmun,
Do you also believe in "Bhavishya purana" and the monomaniac Kalki avatara?

i had never heard of the bhavishya purana. thanks for bringing it to my attention. the Kalki avataar is an interesting idea; i have nothing to say about it. i will say however that i do not believe the Budha was the 9th avataar of Vishnu which is what some of the Puranas claim (The idea was that by making this claim it would be easier to absorb the budhists within hinduism--the hindu intellectuals of those times were as crafty as you).

However, there is this text which i find most interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopanishad

there is a lot of nonsense about this text on the internet (like the claim that it was written so as to convert hindus) but i think Swami Vivekananda probably got it right when he said that the apparent objective was to bring hindus and muslims together. i am keen to read the original text to see what it actually says.

Pure nonsense, speculation and fabrication, as the name suggests ("Bhavishya purana" meaning "future history"; or as the history might unfold, according to the author of this particular Purana)

The words u have highlighted were with respect to the Allopanishad.

by Seva Lamberdar Tue Aug 05, 2014 2:47 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Vakavaka Pakapaka wrote:Rashmun,
Do you also believe in "Bhavishya purana" and the monomaniac Kalki avatara?

i had never heard of the bhavishya purana. thanks for bringing it to my attention. the Kalki avataar is an interesting idea; i have nothing to say about it. i will say however that i do not believe the Budha was the 9th avataar of Vishnu which is what some of the Puranas claim (The idea was that by making this claim it would be easier to absorb the budhists within hinduism--the hindu intellectuals of those times were as crafty as you).

However, there is this text which i find most interesting:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allopanishad

there is a lot of nonsense about this text on the internet (like the claim that it was written so as to convert hindus) but i think Swami Vivekananda probably got it right when he said that the apparent objective was to bring hindus and muslims together. i am keen to read the original text to see what it actually says.

Pure nonsense, speculation and fabrication, as the name suggests ("Bhavishya purana" meaning "future history"; or as the history might unfold, according to the author of this particular Purana)

The words u have highlighted were with respect to the Allopanishad.

My comment about the 'Bhavishya purana' still stands.

by Guest Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:16 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:

So why use Yajnavalka's name, including selling / advertising beef recipes in his name?

Read the article at the link given in the OP of this thread to get the answer to your question.

If someone writes a book with all kinds of unsubstantiated / baseless info. and releases it in the name of a long dead ancient personality, there is no reason to accept or use that text as a credible source of knowledge / info.

Yajnavalkya's declaration that he eats beef is recorded in the Shatapatha Brahmana which is a part of the Vedas. Are you saying the Shatapatha Brahmana contains "all kinds of unsubstantiated/baseless info" which should not be considered 'a credible source of knowledge/info".

Without starting another discussion on whether Shatapatha Brahmana represents the genuine Veda, there was really no reason for Yajnavalkya, one of the greatest Upanisadic thinker / philosopher, to make the above admission (he eats / ate beef). Like I said, someone used his famous name to plant personal agenda on eating beef, even using the text Shatapatha Brahmana.

A professional indologist has written the following on another forum:

Perhaps the most notorious instance of beef-eating in Vedic is
YAjJavalkya's at Zatapatha BrAhmaNa 3.1.2.21 [besides being referred to in
the "Vedic Index" of Macdonell & Keith [II.145], Renou cites the passage
with clear amusement and perhaps even a little awe ["Religions of Ancient
India", p.45; further discussion of the passage is surveyed by Alsdorf in
his "Beitraege zur Geschichte von Vegetarismus und Rinderverehrung in
Indien", pp.611f.]. In this ZB passage it is debated whether or not it is
permissible to eat the flesh of cows and oxen. It seems clear that the
author of the passage is reluctant to admit it, but he quotes Y. as saying
that, yes, he ate the flesh of these animals, "as long as it is tender."
It is the sort of passage that has given Y. the reputation of being a great
Vedic iconoclast [pace Alsdorf and Rau, who argue that Y. was no
iconoclast: beef-eating outside of the ritual sphere was in fact the norm
at the time].

by Seva Lamberdar Tue Aug 05, 2014 3:30 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

Read the article at the link given in the OP of this thread to get the answer to your question.

If someone writes a book with all kinds of unsubstantiated / baseless info. and releases it in the name of a long dead ancient personality, there is no reason to accept or use that text as a credible source of knowledge / info.

Yajnavalkya's declaration that he eats beef is recorded in the Shatapatha Brahmana which is a part of the Vedas. Are you saying the Shatapatha Brahmana contains "all kinds of unsubstantiated/baseless info" which should not be considered 'a credible source of knowledge/info".

Without starting another discussion on whether Shatapatha Brahmana represents the genuine Veda, there was really no reason for Yajnavalkya, one of the greatest Upanisadic thinker / philosopher, to make the above admission (he eats / ate beef). Like I said, someone used his famous name to plant personal agenda on eating beef, even using the text Shatapatha Brahmana.

A professional indologist has written the following on another forum:

Perhaps the most notorious instance of beef-eating in Vedic is
YAjJavalkya's at Zatapatha BrAhmaNa 3.1.2.21 [besides being referred to in
the "Vedic Index" of Macdonell & Keith [II.145], Renou cites the passage
with clear amusement and perhaps even a little awe ["Religions of Ancient
India", p.45; further discussion of the passage is surveyed by Alsdorf in
his "Beitraege zur Geschichte von Vegetarismus und Rinderverehrung in
Indien", pp.611f.]. In this ZB passage it is debated whether or not it is
permissible to eat the flesh of cows and oxen. It seems clear that the
author of the passage is reluctant to admit it, but he quotes Y. as saying
that, yes, he ate the flesh of these animals, "as long as it is tender."
It is the sort of passage that has given Y. the reputation of being a great
Vedic iconoclast [pace Alsdorf and Rau, who argue that Y. was no
iconoclast: beef-eating outside of the ritual sphere was in fact the norm
at the time].

I have read about a lot of questions posed to Yajnavalkaya by others (including Janaka et al.) in the Upanisads, but I never came across the question on his eating beef. It is just a case of someone else trying to link Yajnavalkya to beef-eating by mischievously planting the info. / question in some non-Upanisad text.

by Seva Lamberdar Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:25 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote: I have read about a lot of questions posed to Yajnavalkaya by others (including Janaka et al.) in the Upanisads, but I never came across the question on his eating beef. It is just a case of someone else trying to link Yajnavalkya to beef-eating by mischievously planting the info. / question in some non-Upanisad text.

Incidentally, even the so-called Yajnavalkya-smriti (the smriti bearing the name of the famous Upanisad sage / philosopher Yajnavalkya) is very likely a cook-up (fake creation) by others who simply used the ancient Yajnavalkya's name and credentials to advance their own spurious agenda, just like the exploitation of names of famous ancient Vedic sages Manu and Atharvan by others to advance their own agendas in the form of Manu Smriti (while using the name Manu) and Atharva Veda (while using the name Atharvan).

by Guest Wed Aug 06, 2014 8:59 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote: I have read about a lot of questions posed to Yajnavalkaya by others (including Janaka et al.) in the Upanisads, but I never came across the question on his eating beef. It is just a case of someone else trying to link Yajnavalkya to beef-eating by mischievously planting the info. / question in some non-Upanisad text.

Incidentally, even the so-called Yajnavalkya-smriti (the smriti bearing the name of the famous Upanisad sage / philosopher Yajnavalkya) is very likely a cook-up (fake creation) by others who simply used the ancient Yajnavalkya's name and credentials to advance their own spurious agenda, just like the exploitation of names of famous ancient Vedic sages Manu and Atharvan by others to advance their own agendas in the form of Manu Smriti (while using the name Manu) and Atharva Veda (while using the name Atharvan).

The other explanation is that the Yajnavalkya Smriti was written by some other Yajnavalkya ( perhaps along with other co-authors). Yajnavalkya of the Upanisads surely did not have a copyright in his name.

by Guest Wed Aug 06, 2014 9:57 am

There have been two Vachaspati Mishras in India who are particularly renowned. One wrote books on philosophy and the other on law. The philosopher lived around circa 9th century AD and the other a few centuries later.

by Guest Wed Aug 06, 2014 10:00 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:

If someone writes a book with all kinds of unsubstantiated / baseless info. and releases it in the name of a long dead ancient personality, there is no reason to accept or use that text as a credible source of knowledge / info.

Yajnavalkya's declaration that he eats beef is recorded in the Shatapatha Brahmana which is a part of the Vedas. Are you saying the Shatapatha Brahmana contains "all kinds of unsubstantiated/baseless info" which should not be considered 'a credible source of knowledge/info".

Without starting another discussion on whether Shatapatha Brahmana represents the genuine Veda, there was really no reason for Yajnavalkya, one of the greatest Upanisadic thinker / philosopher, to make the above admission (he eats / ate beef). Like I said, someone used his famous name to plant personal agenda on eating beef, even using the text Shatapatha Brahmana.

A professional indologist has written the following on another forum:

Perhaps the most notorious instance of beef-eating in Vedic is
YAjJavalkya's at Zatapatha BrAhmaNa 3.1.2.21 [besides being referred to in
the "Vedic Index" of Macdonell & Keith [II.145], Renou cites the passage
with clear amusement and perhaps even a little awe ["Religions of Ancient
India", p.45; further discussion of the passage is surveyed by Alsdorf in
his "Beitraege zur Geschichte von Vegetarismus und Rinderverehrung in
Indien", pp.611f.]. In this ZB passage it is debated whether or not it is
permissible to eat the flesh of cows and oxen. It seems clear that the
author of the passage is reluctant to admit it, but he quotes Y. as saying
that, yes, he ate the flesh of these animals, "as long as it is tender."
It is the sort of passage that has given Y. the reputation of being a great
Vedic iconoclast [pace Alsdorf and Rau, who argue that Y. was no
iconoclast: beef-eating outside of the ritual sphere was in fact the norm
at the time].

I have read about a lot of questions posed to Yajnavalkaya by others (including Janaka et al.) in the Upanisads, but I never came across the question on his eating beef. It is just a case of someone else trying to link Yajnavalkya to beef-eating by mischievously planting the info. / question in some non-Upanisad text.

The Brahmanas are not Upanisads but they are also a part of the Vedas. They have the same scriptural status as the Upanisads. But can u tell me why some hindus should find it necessary to give physical threats to someone who wants to write about beef consumption in India?:

http://www.outlookindia.com/article/A-Brahmins-Cow-Tales/213159

by Seva Lamberdar Wed Aug 06, 2014 11:42 am

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote: I have read about a lot of questions posed to Yajnavalkaya by others (including Janaka et al.) in the Upanisads, but I never came across the question on his eating beef. It is just a case of someone else trying to link Yajnavalkya to beef-eating by mischievously planting the info. / question in some non-Upanisad text.

Incidentally, even the so-called Yajnavalkya-smriti (the smriti bearing the name of the famous Upanisad sage / philosopher Yajnavalkya) is very likely a cook-up (fake creation) by others who simply used the ancient Yajnavalkya's name and credentials to advance their own spurious agenda, just like the exploitation of names of famous ancient Vedic sages Manu and Atharvan by others to advance their own agendas in the form of Manu Smriti (while using the name Manu) and Atharva Veda (while using the name Atharvan).

The other explanation is that the Yajnavalkya Smriti was written by some other Yajnavalkya ( perhaps along with other co-authors). Yajnavalkya of the Upanisads surely did not have a copyright in his name.

Copyright or no copyright to the name, the intention of the Yajnavalkaya-smriti's authors was to misuse the name of famous ancient Upanisad philosopher (sage) Yajnavalkaya to popularize their own spurious work as Yajnavalkaya-smriti, just like other authors misusing the names of famous ancient Vedic sages Manu and Atharvan to popularize their own spurious works as Manu-smriti and Atharva Veda, respectively.

by Guest Wed Aug 06, 2014 11:53 am

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote: I have read about a lot of questions posed to Yajnavalkaya by others (including Janaka et al.) in the Upanisads, but I never came across the question on his eating beef. It is just a case of someone else trying to link Yajnavalkya to beef-eating by mischievously planting the info. / question in some non-Upanisad text.

Incidentally, even the so-called Yajnavalkya-smriti (the smriti bearing the name of the famous Upanisad sage / philosopher Yajnavalkya) is very likely a cook-up (fake creation) by others who simply used the ancient Yajnavalkya's name and credentials to advance their own spurious agenda, just like the exploitation of names of famous ancient Vedic sages Manu and Atharvan by others to advance their own agendas in the form of Manu Smriti (while using the name Manu) and Atharva Veda (while using the name Atharvan).

The other explanation is that the Yajnavalkya Smriti was written by some other Yajnavalkya ( perhaps along with other co-authors). Yajnavalkya of the Upanisads surely did not have a copyright in his name.

Copyright or no copyright to the name, the intention of the Yajnavalkaya-smriti's authors was to misuse the name of famous ancient Upanisad philosopher (sage) Yajnavalkaya to popularize their own spurious work as Yajnavalkaya-smriti, just like other authors misusing the names of famous ancient Vedic sages Manu and Atharvan to popularize their own spurious works as Manu-smriti and Atharva Veda, respectively.

On what basis do u say that it is a spurious work? Traditional Hindu law consists of the Mitakshara which held sway in most of India and Dayabhag which held sway in Bengal and nort-east. Mitakshara is a commentary on the Yajnavalkya Smriti and Dayabhag is a commentary on various smritis including the Yajnavalkya Smriti. So the Yajnavalkya Smriti was not considered a spurious text by the hindus.

by Seva Lamberdar Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:00 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote: I have read about a lot of questions posed to Yajnavalkaya by others (including Janaka et al.) in the Upanisads, but I never came across the question on his eating beef. It is just a case of someone else trying to link Yajnavalkya to beef-eating by mischievously planting the info. / question in some non-Upanisad text.

Incidentally, even the so-called Yajnavalkya-smriti (the smriti bearing the name of the famous Upanisad sage / philosopher Yajnavalkya) is very likely a cook-up (fake creation) by others who simply used the ancient Yajnavalkya's name and credentials to advance their own spurious agenda, just like the exploitation of names of famous ancient Vedic sages Manu and Atharvan by others to advance their own agendas in the form of Manu Smriti (while using the name Manu) and Atharva Veda (while using the name Atharvan).

The other explanation is that the Yajnavalkya Smriti was written by some other Yajnavalkya ( perhaps along with other co-authors). Yajnavalkya of the Upanisads surely did not have a copyright in his name.

Copyright or no copyright to the name, the intention of the Yajnavalkaya-smriti's authors was to misuse the name of famous ancient Upanisad philosopher (sage) Yajnavalkaya to popularize their own spurious work as Yajnavalkaya-smriti, just like other authors misusing the names of famous ancient Vedic sages Manu and Atharvan to popularize their own spurious works as Manu-smriti and Atharva Veda, respectively.

On what basis do u say that it is a spurious work? Traditional Hindu law consists of the Mitakshara which held sway in most of India and Dayabhag which held sway in Bengal and nort-east. Mitakshara is a commentary on the Yajnavalkya Smriti and Dayabhag is a commentary on various smritis including the Yajnavalkya Smriti. So the Yajnavalkya Smriti was not considered a spurious text by the hindus.

Why else would these authors tie the name of Yajnavalkaya to their own work (as Yajnavalkaya-smriti) unless they must have thought that their work on its own or under their names would not have wide appeal to public?

by Guest Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:08 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Incidentally, even the so-called Yajnavalkya-smriti (the smriti bearing the name of the famous Upanisad sage / philosopher Yajnavalkya) is very likely a cook-up (fake creation) by others who simply used the ancient Yajnavalkya's name and credentials to advance their own spurious agenda, just like the exploitation of names of famous ancient Vedic sages Manu and Atharvan by others to advance their own agendas in the form of Manu Smriti (while using the name Manu) and Atharva Veda (while using the name Atharvan).

The other explanation is that the Yajnavalkya Smriti was written by some other Yajnavalkya ( perhaps along with other co-authors). Yajnavalkya of the Upanisads surely did not have a copyright in his name.

Copyright or no copyright to the name, the intention of the Yajnavalkaya-smriti's authors was to misuse the name of famous ancient Upanisad philosopher (sage) Yajnavalkaya to popularize their own spurious work as Yajnavalkaya-smriti, just like other authors misusing the names of famous ancient Vedic sages Manu and Atharvan to popularize their own spurious works as Manu-smriti and Atharva Veda, respectively.

On what basis do u say that it is a spurious work? Traditional Hindu law consists of the Mitakshara which held sway in most of India and Dayabhag which held sway in Bengal and nort-east. Mitakshara is a commentary on the Yajnavalkya Smriti and Dayabhag is a commentary on various smritis including the Yajnavalkya Smriti. So the Yajnavalkya Smriti was not considered a spurious text by the hindus.

Why else would these authors tie the name of Yajnavalkaya to their own work (as Yajnavalkaya-smriti) unless they must have thought that their work on its own or under their names would not have wide appeal to public?

Manu Smriti is even more prestigious than Yajnavalkya Smriti. Adi Sankara and others quote from Manu Smriti in their philosophical works but not from Yajnavalkya Smriti. And yet the Indian legal experts who created Mitakshara ( the Hindu law in place in all of India except Bengal and north-east) depend exclusively on Yajnavalkya Smriti and not on Manu Smriti or any other text. Let us go beyond the name of the text and focus on the content. Let us not be superficial in our analysis of these texts.

by Guest Wed Aug 06, 2014 12:21 pm

The reason why the Yajnavalkya smriti was preferred by the Indian legal experts over and above the more prestigious Manu Smriti is because the Yajnvalkya Smriti is more secular in its content. Religion and Morality are kept separate from law in this text while in Manu Smriti religion, law, morality, etc. is all jumbled up and not dealt with separately as is done in Yajnavalkya Smriti.

This indicates that the traditional Indian legal eagles were secular in their approach.

by Seva Lamberdar Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:12 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

The other explanation is that the Yajnavalkya Smriti was written by some other Yajnavalkya ( perhaps along with other co-authors). Yajnavalkya of the Upanisads surely did not have a copyright in his name.

Copyright or no copyright to the name, the intention of the Yajnavalkaya-smriti's authors was to misuse the name of famous ancient Upanisad philosopher (sage) Yajnavalkaya to popularize their own spurious work as Yajnavalkaya-smriti, just like other authors misusing the names of famous ancient Vedic sages Manu and Atharvan to popularize their own spurious works as Manu-smriti and Atharva Veda, respectively.

On what basis do u say that it is a spurious work? Traditional Hindu law consists of the Mitakshara which held sway in most of India and Dayabhag which held sway in Bengal and nort-east. Mitakshara is a commentary on the Yajnavalkya Smriti and Dayabhag is a commentary on various smritis including the Yajnavalkya Smriti. So the Yajnavalkya Smriti was not considered a spurious text by the hindus.

Why else would these authors tie the name of Yajnavalkaya to their own work (as Yajnavalkaya-smriti) unless they must have thought that their work on its own or under their names would not have wide appeal to public?

Manu Smriti is even more prestigious than Yajnavalkya Smriti. Adi Sankara and others quote from Manu Smriti in their philosophical works but not from Yajnavalkya Smriti. And yet the Indian legal experts who created Mitakshara ( the Hindu law in place in all of India except Bengal and north-east) depend exclusively on Yajnavalkya Smriti and not on Manu Smriti or any other text. Let us go beyond the name of the text and focus on the content. Let us not be superficial in our analysis of these texts.

The basic premise of these texts (Manu-smriti, Yajnavalkya-smriti and Atharva_veda) is to fool and mislead people into thinking that they are genuine and closely related to the famous ancient Vedic / Upanisadic sages (Manu, Yajnavalkya and Atharvan, respectively). Thus, notwithstanding any positive and useful content in them, they hardly can be treated as credible references.

by Guest Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:19 pm

Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:

Copyright or no copyright to the name, the intention of the Yajnavalkaya-smriti's authors was to misuse the name of famous ancient Upanisad philosopher (sage) Yajnavalkaya to popularize their own spurious work as Yajnavalkaya-smriti, just like other authors misusing the names of famous ancient Vedic sages Manu and Atharvan to popularize their own spurious works as Manu-smriti and Atharva Veda, respectively.

On what basis do u say that it is a spurious work? Traditional Hindu law consists of the Mitakshara which held sway in most of India and Dayabhag which held sway in Bengal and nort-east. Mitakshara is a commentary on the Yajnavalkya Smriti and Dayabhag is a commentary on various smritis including the Yajnavalkya Smriti. So the Yajnavalkya Smriti was not considered a spurious text by the hindus.

Why else would these authors tie the name of Yajnavalkaya to their own work (as Yajnavalkaya-smriti) unless they must have thought that their work on its own or under their names would not have wide appeal to public?

Manu Smriti is even more prestigious than Yajnavalkya Smriti. Adi Sankara and others quote from Manu Smriti in their philosophical works but not from Yajnavalkya Smriti. And yet the Indian legal experts who created Mitakshara ( the Hindu law in place in all of India except Bengal and north-east) depend exclusively on Yajnavalkya Smriti and not on Manu Smriti or any other text. Let us go beyond the name of the text and focus on the content. Let us not be superficial in our analysis of these texts.
The basic premise of these texts (Manu-smriti, Yajnavalkya-smriti and Atharva_veda) is to fool and mislead people into thinking that they are genuine and closely related to the famous ancient Vedic / Upanisadic sages (Manu, Yajnavalkya and Atharvan, respectively). Thus, notwithstanding any positive and useful content in them, they hardly can be treated as credible references.

In other words, in your opinion, the Hindu experts in the field of law were all fools since they accepted the views put in the Yajnavalkya Smriti? Moreover, Ayurvedic texts like Charaka Samhita pay obeisance to the Atharva Veda so they too must be fools. Similarly Adi Sankara frequently quotes from Manu Smriti and so he and many others like him must have all been fools.
You sound like an iconoclast. Are you?

by Seva Lamberdar Wed Aug 06, 2014 3:30 pm

Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:
Seva Lamberdar wrote:
Rashmun wrote:

On what basis do u say that it is a spurious work? Traditional Hindu law consists of the Mitakshara which held sway in most of India and Dayabhag which held sway in Bengal and nort-east. Mitakshara is a commentary on the Yajnavalkya Smriti and Dayabhag is a commentary on various smritis including the Yajnavalkya Smriti. So the Yajnavalkya Smriti was not considered a spurious text by the hindus.

Why else would these authors tie the name of Yajnavalkaya to their own work (as Yajnavalkaya-smriti) unless they must have thought that their work on its own or under their names would not have wide appeal to public?

Manu Smriti is even more prestigious than Yajnavalkya Smriti. Adi Sankara and others quote from Manu Smriti in their philosophical works but not from Yajnavalkya Smriti. And yet the Indian legal experts who created Mitakshara ( the Hindu law in place in all of India except Bengal and north-east) depend exclusively on Yajnavalkya Smriti and not on Manu Smriti or any other text. Let us go beyond the name of the text and focus on the content. Let us not be superficial in our analysis of these texts.
The basic premise of these texts (Manu-smriti, Yajnavalkya-smriti and Atharva_veda) is to fool and mislead people into thinking that they are genuine and closely related to the famous ancient Vedic / Upanisadic sages (Manu, Yajnavalkya and Atharvan, respectively). Thus, notwithstanding any positive and useful content in them, they hardly can be treated as credible references.

In other words, in your opinion, the Hindu experts in the field of law were all fools since they accepted the views put in the Yajnavalkya Smriti? Moreover, Ayurvedic texts like Charaka Samhita pay obeisance to the Atharva Veda so they too must be fools. Similarly Adi Sankara frequently quotes from Manu Smriti and so he and many others like him must have all been fools.
You sound like an iconoclast. Are you?

LOL.
What I am saying is that these three texts (Manu-smriti, Yajnavalkya-smriti and Atharva_veda) have nothing to do with the ancient sages / philosophers whose names they bear (Manu, Yajnavalkya and Atharvan, respectively). The rest is immaterial, including people etc. paying obeisance to them or quoting from them.

by Guest Tue May 30, 2017 9:21 pm

*bump*

by Sponsored content

Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch

Re: Beef eating in ancient India: in search of Yajnavalkya's lunch