Page 1 of 3 123 LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 25

Thread: Am I reading this right?

  1. #1
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    mrityuloka
    Age
    52
    Posts
    3,729
    Rep Power
    337

    Am I reading this right?

    In the book "The Principal Upanishads" Translated and Edited by Swami Nikhilananda page 252:
    Brihadaranyaka Upanishad
    VI. iv. I8

    If a man wishes that a son should be born to him who will be a famous scholar, frequenting assemblies and speaking delightful words, a student of all the vedas, and an enjoyer of the full term of life, he should have rice cooked with the meat of a young bull or of one more advanced in years, and he and his wife should eat it with clarified butter. Then they should be able to beget such a son.

    bull meat???
    satay

  2. #2
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post Re: Am I reading this right?

    Namaste Satay,

    mAMsaudanaM stands for mAMsamishramodanaM ~ “enjoying commingled flesh” , and NOT “eating rice boiled with meat” !

    aukSeNa vArSabheNa vA refers to the ukSA (or soma) which is “sprinkled”, and to the virile impregnator (RSabha) ~ “by God’s grace and by the Father’s ability”, but certainly NOT “with veal or beef” !

  3. #3
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71

    Post Re: Am I reading this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga
    Namaste Satay,

    mAMsaudanaM stands for mAMsamishramodanaM ~ “enjoying commingled flesh” , and NOT “eating rice boiled with meat” !

    aukSeNa vArSabheNa vA refers to the ukSA (or soma) which is “sprinkled”, and to the virile impregnator (RSabha) ~ “by God’s grace and by the Father’s ability”, but certainly NOT “with veal or beef” !
    Namaste,

    However academic translation available to me speaks about beef. Moreover it is well known that cow meat was taken as food in Vedic times.
    There is nothing striking in beef consumption in those days. Prohibition was developed later.

  4. #4
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Sahasrarkadyutirmatha
    Posts
    1,802
    Rep Power
    191

    Post Re: Am I reading this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sarabhanga

    mAMsaudanaM stands for mAMsamishramodanaM ~ “enjoying commingled flesh” , and NOT “eating rice boiled with meat” !

    aukSeNa vArSabheNa vA refers to the ukSA (or soma) which is “sprinkled”, and to the virile impregnator (RSabha) ~ “by God’s grace and by the Father’s ability”, but certainly NOT “with veal or beef” !
    Following Shri Shankaracarya (rather than Max Müller or Robert Hume):

    mAMsamishramodanaM mAMsaudanam |
    tanmAMsaniyamArthamAha-auksheM vA mAMsena |
    ukshA secanasamarthaH puÑgavastadIyaM mAMsam |
    RSabhastato 'pyadhikavayAstadIyamArSabhaM mAMsam ||

  5. #5

    Re: Am I reading this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    Namaste,

    However academic translation available to me speaks about beef. Moreover it is well known that cow meat was taken as food in Vedic times.
    There is nothing striking in beef consumption in those days. Prohibition was developed later.
    Are you implying that it is then ok to kill cows and eat beef even though there is plenty of vegetarian food available that can actually feed more people? ~BYS~

  6. #6
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71

    Post Re: Am I reading this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Bhakti Yoga Seeker
    Are you implying that it is then ok to kill cows and eat beef even though there is plenty of vegetarian food available that can actually feed more people? ~BYS~
    Aryans were originally nomads who naturally ate horse meat. Then they settled and started breeding cows for milk and meat. Vedic times animals were supposed to be killed sacrificially or on hunting. An idea of "sinfulness" of meat consumption was a product of a later period.

  7. #7
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71

    Re: Am I reading this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by sarabhanga
    Following Shri Shankaracarya (rather than Max Müller or Robert Hume):
    Namaste,

    With all respect to Acharya Bhagavatpada, i deem his explanation to be artificial. Seeing that in Vedas we do have animal sacrifices there is nothing strange that Brihadaranyaka speaks of meat consumption. By the time of Acharya things changed, Vedic cult faded away. Thus new explanations which have little to do with original meaning.

  8. #8
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Govinda Lokam
    Age
    45
    Posts
    738
    Rep Power
    356

    Re: Am I reading this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    Aryans were originally nomads who naturally ate horse meat. Then they settled and started breeding cows for milk and meat. Vedic times animals were supposed to be killed sacrificially or on hunting. An idea of "sinfulness" of meat consumption was a product of a later period.
    If you are beleiving in the evolution of religion like this, isn't it logical to consider that the idea of stopping meat consumption was an evolution of human thought too? They must have discovered that abstinance from meat was a superior to consumption of it - and must have faciliated their practice. Animal killer will tend to more cruel than one who does not do it, and is more in tune with the principle of non violence. If you do not feel bad at the sight of splitting of an animal head, then your heart must possibly be made of stone, immune to the suffering of others.
    Guard your Dharma, Burn the Myth, Promote the Truth, Crush the superstition.

  9. #9
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Guru-mandala
    Age
    44
    Posts
    742
    Rep Power
    71

    Exclamation Re: Am I reading this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Sudarshan
    If you are beleiving in the evolution of religion like this, isn't it logical to consider that the idea of stopping meat consumption was an evolution of human thought too? They must have discovered that abstinance from meat was a superior to consumption of it - and must have faciliated their practice. Animal killer will tend to more cruel than one who does not do it, and is more in tune with the principle of non violence. If you do not feel bad at the sight of splitting of an animal head, then your heart must possibly be made of stone, immune to the suffering of others.
    Namaste,

    I was speaking about an evolution of society and not religion.
    Though verily religion also changes according to society and level of human consciousness, it doesn't mean that every later stage is ALWAYS a higher one (in such case Sikhism is the summit of Sanatana-dharma; nothing against Sikhism though).

    Vegetarianism is a special diet which has nothing to do with being spiritual or not. Whether it is really good for health is a matter of medical science and not religion.

    Religion only speaks of RITUAL consumption of meat and RITUAL killing animals in sacrifices. Apart from this one may keep veg diet, it's up to him. Many Kaula upasakas are vegetarians in normal life and take meat solely in rituals. However agan, diet is not a matter of religion, but of medical science.

    Why vegetarianism got spread so much — it was due to political reasons related to Buddhism and general increase of the role of sannyasins (as opposed to Vedic married priests). It was not an "evolution of human thought" but a successfull attempt of certain group to manipulate the society.
    I do not say it is bad, but such is the thing.

    Anyone is free to be a vegetarian and preach the same to others, but no need to falsify historical & textual facts as many people do. And no need to invent "spiritual" reasons for that as well.
    Certian trends in Hinduism DEMAND meat consumption as part of ritual worship. Such was a case of Vedic religion, whether one likes this or not.

    Regarding "feeling bad": too many "good Hindus" who feel bad at the sight of cutting a head of a cow do not feel bad when "enemies"-muslims are killed or when women suffer from awkward social rules mixed into religion. I see this as a hypocrisy.
    Moreover, if one feels he has no right to take life of an animal how can he take life of a plant? Isn't it also alive? Because one THINKS that plants are "less conscious"? And who said that?
    In fact a vegetarian is doing the same thing as non-vegetarian: HE HIMSELF DECIDES WHAT HE HAS A RIGHT TO KILL & EAT. Non-violence is usually a mask. The reason very frequently is subtle ego. "Oh, I AM the vegetarian. A spiritual person. So compassionate and pure." Rather having this wonderful idea in one's head it is better to be non-attached to food. Whatever food life brings to us we can eat if we naturally feel to. Why artificially reject some and select another?

  10. #10
    Join Date
    March 2006
    Location
    Govinda Lokam
    Age
    45
    Posts
    738
    Rep Power
    356

    Re: Am I reading this right?

    Quote Originally Posted by Arjuna
    Moreover, if one feels he has no right to take life of an animal how can he take life of a plant? Isn't it also alive? Because one THINKS that plants are "less conscious"? And who said that?
    Is there any reason apart from the fear of getting punished by law, that you dont eat human flesh? And animals are not "less conscious" than man by your same token.
    Guard your Dharma, Burn the Myth, Promote the Truth, Crush the superstition.

Thread Information

Users Browsing this Thread

There are currently 1 users browsing this thread. (0 members and 1 guests)

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •