EVERY THING IS WITHIN THE TIME FRAME: BLUNDERS OF INDOLOGICAL

॥ बहदारयकमा ृ सौदन ं थ ु िवचारः  ॥
BLUNDERS OF INDOLOGICAL
RESEARCH SCHOLARS
by
Pandit Anandtirtha Sharma
It has been seen that for the last 100years, foreigners
as well as some scholars of our own country are trying to
prove from the scriptures of Sanātana Dharma that during
the Vedic period not only ordinary meat, but beef was taken.
Beef eating was not only customary, but it was essential
item. Let us consider the background of such investigations
and their propagation.
During the British period, when it was discovered that
beef tallow was being applied in cartridges, munity broke
out in the army during the year 1857. Since then, the
Britishers were anxious to remove the feeling of reverence
for the cow from the minds of the Hindus. With this object
in view, they provided that European scholars become
proﬁcient in Sanskrit and ultimately mis-interpret the
Scriptures of Sanātana Dharma, and the results of these so
called ﬁndings were propagated with ulterior motives. In
support of this, please read the article entitled ‘Westren
Indologist - A Study in Motives’ appended to this book.
Our countrymen were also utilized to ﬁnd out such
instances from the Scriptures of Sanātana Dharma as would
wipe out from the Hindu mind the feeling of reverence for 2
the cow and also the feeling that it is unkillable. It appears
that the ﬁrst Indian victim to this stratagem was Raja
Rajendra Lala Mitra. He was born in 1822. It is said that he
belonged to a Vaiṣṇava family of Bengal. His essay ‘Beef in
Ancient India’ was ﬁrst published in the year 1872, i.e,
ﬁfteen years after the munity, in the Journal of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal. Raja Rajendra Lala Mitra had to study a
number of Vedic texts for preparing this essay and he has
also commented on several of them. About four years after
the publication of ‘Beef in Ancient India’, when no protest
was made from any quarter, the Calcutta University conferred
the degree of Doctor of Laws (LL.D.) on Raja Rajendra Lala
Mitra in the year 1876. Raja Rajendra Lala Mitra’s voluminous
work was published in two volumes under the title ‘IndoAryan’ by W. Newman & Co., Calcutta, in 1881 and the
article ‘Beef in Ancient India’ was incorporated as Chapter VI
of its ﬁrst volume.
This particular essay was published in the form of a
booklet for the ﬁrst time in the year 1926 from Calcutta by
one Swami Bhoomanand. This was done just after Mahatma
Gandhi had taken up the work of cow protection which is
clear from his presidential adress on 25th June 1925 at
Belgaon at the Go-rakśā Parishad and his subsequent
activities. In the Preface to the booklet, on pages i & ii from
the line 17th onwards, the publisher Swami Bhoomanand
has written with great pride :
‘‘In my long residence in the Punjab, and in my
travels from Alwar to Peshwar, I came in contact with
many educated Hindu gentlemen, but I was sorry to
find that most of them did not study their own
scriptures, and being ignorant of the manners and 3
customs of their ancestors, were necessarily very narrow
in their outlook, .... I myself do not pretend to be a
Sanskrit scholar, but my studies of our ancient books,
mostly in English and Vernacular tran- slations, have
opened my eyes to this fact, that the Hindu society was
not always just like the present one. For instance, we
find in the Vedic literature, the ultimate authority and
the fountain of knowledge, clear evidence of inter-caste
marriage, widow marriage, elaborate yajnas, animal
sacrifices, drinking of soma juice and the eating of food
which is at present prohibited in the Hindu society’.
The above extract from the Preface of the booklet brings
out clearly the purpose behind its publication and propagation.
How the people, ignorant of Sanskrit, are misled by such
misinterpreted articles would be clearly evident from the
various articles published in this book.
Hereafter, the cow protection movement gained momentum
in 1967. A fresh reprint of the booklet ‘Beef in Ancient India’
was published in June 1967 by Manisha Granthalaya Private
Ltd., Calcutta. Several copies were distributed free. Whether
they were distributed by the publishers or somebodyelse could
not be traced.
After Raja Rajendra Lala Mitra came Shri Pandurang Vaman
Kane, M.A., LL.B. Advocate, Bombay High Court. He wrote a
‘History of Dharmaśāstra’ in several volumes and parts, which
has been published by the Bhandarkar Oriental Research
Institute, Poona. He has also tried to justify meat and beef
eating by quoting from several religious texts.
They did not rest content at all this. Besides the publication 4
of the article ‘Beef in Ancient India’ by Raja Rajendra Lala
Mitra, ‘Beef-eating Clubs’ were formed to propagate beef eating
on an extensive scale. The following extract is self-evident :
There are those among the intellectuals in touch with the
British who were dazzled by the new ideas. The new light in
their eyes was so bright that they though the light within
themselves was darkness.
They took, so to speak, Macaulay at his word, and set out
to Westrenize themselves in thought, mind and spirit. They
formed beef-eating clubs and gloried in the defiance of caste
superstition.
The advocates of acceptance rather than the mutineers
were the real revolutionaries of the nineteenth century India
INDIA, PAKISTAN AND THE EAST
by, Percival Spear, published by Oxford
University Press, 1949 Edn. page 182, lines 9 to 13
and 28 to 30.
Lord Macaulay’s famous words are quoted below –
‘‘English education would train up a class of persons-
Indian in blood and colour, but English in tastes, in opinions,
in morals and in intellect’’.
The prime objective of these people has been to conceal
such provisions of the scriptures as prohibit meat or beef
eating, and instead place before them in a prominent manner,
words of scriptures misinterpreted to mean meat-eating. Such
people got recognition not only from the British Government,
but also from the British Government, but also from the present
Government of India, and they were also honoured by the so-
called modern anglophilic society. People hankering after such 5
honour, though having little or no knowledge of Sanskrit and
religious literature, also write from time to time articles in
English in favour of beef-eating referring to misinterpreted
passasges from scriptures. They get them published in
newspapers and magazines and thus mislead simple people.
Any article giving correct and logical interpretation does not
ﬁnd place in these newspapers and /or magazines as it goes
contrary to such anglophilic views. The common man is misled
to think that articles of highly placed and learned people which
get so much publicity must be authentic, especially when they
are citing the scriptures. Thus they get astray that Sanatana
Dharma scriptures do not prohibit, but on the other hand,
prescribe meat as well as beef-eating. How deceptive and
incorrect are such notions, will be clear beyond doubt
from articles published in this book.
The Vedas prohibit not only cow-slaughter, but the slaying
of all kinds of herbivorous animals (see the heading ‘Were cow-
slaughter, Meat-sacriﬁce and Meat-eating Prevalent in the Vedic
age?’) Scriptures of our and other faiths propound the creed of
non-violence (ahiṁsā) (For details see ‘Non-violence is Supreme
in Religious Scriptures’). Inspite of this, one may ﬁnd references
to act of slaughter and meat-eating here and there in the
Scriptures. These passages should be understood in their
appropriate contextual setting as to whether such indications
are enjoined as ‘obligatory duties’, or whether they are a way
out for preventing evil tendencies of meat-eating. Among
sentient beings we ﬁnd various kinds of evil propensities which
are ingenerate, such as adultery born of passionate
sensuousness, alcoholism, etc., etc. To prevent the tendency of
indiscriminate cohabitation of man and woman it has been 6
enjoined that a person should delimit his relations to one
woman after entering into matrimonial sacraments with her
and he should thus be considered on par with a brahmacāri. In
a similar manner, to check the ﬂesh-eating tendencies of meat-
eaters, wherever there are references to meat-eating, though
the ulterior and real objective is prevention of meat-eating and
forbidding of violence (hiṁsā) and vegetarian food and ahiṁsā
have been promulgated as the prime dharma - when such
passages are considered duly well and pondered over, it will be
found the meat-eating and acts of violence have not been
enjoined as ‘obligatory duties’. So wherever there are sentences
which seem to support violence (hiṁsā), or meat-eating, or
enjoin rituals entailing meat, they should be deliberated with
due consideration as to whether they are inhibitions to prevent
evil tendencies, or they are ‘obligatory duties’. If such sentences
are in the form of ‘obligatory duties’, then they are invalid and
they should be treated as interpolations (see the proof cited
under the heading ‘‘what to do if there is contradiction between
Śruti and Smṛti).
It is stated in the Śāntiparva of the Mahābhārata –
िवै पर  ैन नािक ् ैः सविततम ।्
वदवादानिवाय े साभासिमवानतमृ ॥् (२६३.६)
Oh! Brahmana! atheists pursuing efforts to amass wealth
and covetous, having not understood the injunctions of vedas
have spread falsities which have a semblance of truth.
सराु मा मधुमासमासव ं ंकृसरौदनम ।्
धतूःवितत ंते तदै ्वदेषे ुकितम ॥् शािपव(२६५.६)
Liqours, ﬁsh, mead, meat, spirits, rice cooked with sesa- 7
mum (til) seeds – all these have been inserted into yajña by
the wicked people. Vedas have not prescribed their use in
yajña.
In the Mahābhārata, it is very clearly speciﬁed that in the
yajñas, there is no place for violence to animals. Śāntiparva,
Chapter 337, Verses 4 & 5 provide that according to Vedic Śruti
seeds should be offered in oblation in a yajña.
बीजयै षे ुयिमित वैविदकी ै ितः ु ।
अजसािन बीजािन ागंनो हमहु थ ।
नषै धमः सतांदवा े य वते वैपशःु ॥ -(शाि ३३७.४-५)
The seeds are named as aja. As such it is not justiﬁed to
kill a goat. Wherever animals are sacriﬁced in yajña, it is not
the norm of the Virtuous.
In the ‘Syādvādamañjari’ of Jains, aja in a yajña is to be
interpreted as seeds :
तथा िह िकल वदे ' े अजयैम  ' ्इािदवाषे ुिमाशौऽजशं
पशवाचक ु ं ाचते। सशुजाायोय  ं िवािषक ं यवीािद,
पवािषक ं ितलमसरािद ू , सवािषक ं कसषपािद  धापयायतया 
पयवसाययि  ।
(Interpretation of verse no 23, published by Bombay
Sanskrit Prakrit Series 1933, first edn. page 140, lines 40-54)
It means In Vedic injunctions like ‘yajña should be
performed with aja’, the ignorant interpret aja as an animal
(goat). Those who are not to be reborn in the world, such wise
persons interpret it as three-year old barley and rice, ﬁve year
old Sesamum indicum(til) and masura lentil, seven-year old
panic seed (kangu) and mustard, etc.,8
In the third chapter (tantra) Kākolukīya of the Pañcatantra
by Viṣṇuśarma, it is provided-
एतऽिप े येयािका यकमिण पशनू ्ापादयि तेमखा ू्  परमाथ
तुने जानि । त िकल एतम "्अजयैम  " ्। अजा ीहयावत ्
सवािषकाः  केन पनःु पशिवशु षाः े ।
Meaning thereby - Those who kill animals in yajñas are
fools, because they do not know the correct interpretations of
Śruti. Śruti provides for aja to be used for yajña. Aja means
seven-year old rice and not an animal. There the following
verse is quoted in support -
वान ृ िछा ् पशनू हा ् कृा िधरकदमाम  ।्
यवेंगतेगनरकं केन गत ? े ॥
Meaning thereby -- If, by cutting of green trees, by killing
animals and playing with their blood, one can attain heaven,
then by which action is one likely to go to hell ?
Pandit Dharmadev Vidyā-vācaspati writes in his Hindi book
‘Vedon kā yathartha svarūp’ (The reality of Vedas) published by
Gurukul Kangri, Hardwar, Vikaram Samvat.2014, pages 251-252
--
’It is now crystal clear that killing of animals in yajña is an
imagination of wicked persons. Such provisions in the Śrautasūtras, Gṛhyasūtras, Brāhmaṇas, Smṛtis and other scriptures
are unacceptable due to their being against the provision of the
Vedas and thus being later interpolations’.
Such interpolations have been widely prevalent in ancient
scriptures. This has been pointed out by the famous Dvaita
teacher Madhvācārya alias Ānandtīrtha in his exegesis on the 9
Mahābhārata, in the following words --
िचद ्ान िपि ् िचदिरतानिप ।
कुयःुिच ासंमादात िचदथा ् ।
अना ु अिप ाः ाकुला इित सवशः  ॥
(Mahābhārata tātparya nirṇaya, chap 2, Sarvamula
Kumbhaghonam edn. p.907)
Meaning thereby -- Wicked persons interpolate some
scriptures, they omit sentences, and they introduce perversions
due to inadvertence and sometimes otherwise. Thus the
scriptures, though not completely destroyed, are wholly spoiled
in this manner.
Besides the provision of Vedas, we may look through the
provision made in Śrimad Bhāgavata --
न दादािमषंाेन चााद ्धमतिवत  ।्
म ु ःैारा ीितयथा  न पशिहु ंसया ॥ (७.१५.७)
One who knows the essence of piety should not offer meat
(to the manes) in a Śrāddha ceremony nor should he eat it
(himself). The type of supreme gratiﬁcation caused (to the
manes as well as to the Lord Himself) through cereals ﬁt for
(the consumption of) anchorites (because involving no
destruction of life) is never brought about through (meat etc.,
obtained by) the killing of animals.
नताशः ै परो धम नणा ृ ंसमिमताम  ।्
ासो दड भतूषे ुमनोवाायज यः ॥ (७.१५.८)
For men seeking true piety there is now other such virtue
as abstinence from violence to living beings, perpetrated
through mind, speech and body.10
ययैमाण  ंा भतािन ू िबित ।
एष माकणो हादतो सतुबृ ् वमु ॥् (७.१५.१०)
Seeing one proceeding to propitiate the Lord through
sacriﬁces conducted with material substances, animals grow
apprehensive lest the merciless fellow, who is ignorant of the
truth of the Spirit and is (therefore) given to the (mere)
gratiﬁcation of his self, will surely kill them.
ताद ्दवोपप ै ने म ु नािप े धमिवत ।्
सोऽहरहः ु कुयािन  िमिकीः ै ियाः ॥ (७.१५.११)
Therefore, (remaining ever) contented, he who knows what
is right should perform from day to day (his) obligatory and
ocassional duties even with the cereals ﬁt for (the consumption
of) hermits and obtained by force of destiny (rather than
undertake big sacriﬁces involving destruction of life)
It is not clear as for whom Manusmṛti verses involving
meat are meant. A verse is found in Chapter 11, of the
Manusmṛti which is numbered as 95 in some editions and 96
in others. It reads as follows -
यरःिपशाचांमंमासं ंसरासवम ु ।्
तद-्ाणने नांदवानामता े हिवः ॥ (मनु ितृ ११.६५)
Meaning thereby -- Wine, meat, liquor, spirit etc., are the
food of Yakṣas, Rākṣasas and Piśāchas hence these are not ﬁt
for Brahmaṇas, who take havi offered to the Gods.
This clearly proves that meat and wine preperations are
meant only for Yakṣas, Rākṣasas and Piśāchas and not for the
human species. In the Vedas also, it is mentioned that this
type of food is meant only for Rākṣasas and those humans 11
who consume them deserve capital punishment or death.
यः पौषयेने िवषा समेयो अने पशना ु यातधानः ु ।
यो अाया भरित ीरमेतषा े ंशीषािण हरसािप वृ ॥
(ऋवदे १०.८७.१६)
Meaning thereby -- Those who are addicted to meat and
take meat of horse or other animals and by killing cows,
deprive others from their milk, cannot be corrected by any
other means, then Oh Ruler! sever their heads by means of
your shining weapon, this is the last punishment, which can be
accorded to them.
Dr. Umesh Chandra Pandeya, Hindi commentator of the
Gautama Dharmaśāstra with its Mitākṣarā vṛtti (published by
the Chowkhamba Sanskrit Series, Varanasi, Samvat 2023, p. 13
of Introduction) Writes --
There was great scope for interpolation in ancient literature.
It is practically impossible to decide the correct and original
text of any scripture.
It appears that during the Muslim period under threat and
during British period under temptation, interpolations have
been effected in several scriptures. To arrive at the correct
original text of such scriptures is, no doubt, a very difﬁcult
task, but it is not impossible. Those passages of such scriptures
as contravene the provisions of Śruti, can be taken for granted
as interpolations and thus those scriptures can be corrected to
their original readings. This is a task beset with great difﬁculties.
Only those persons can accomplish it who are capable of
interpreting the Vedas in a correct manner. It is worth
undertaking. Even now a days there are scholars learned in the 12
scriptures and endowed with noble character. Day by day such
persons are getting scarce due to neglect of Sanskrit language.
If this difﬁcult task is not undertaken at this stage, then it
would become impossible in the future for want of scholars
who are learned and also of noble character.
It is not easy to interpret the Vedas. Their language cannot
be properly understood without the study of Nirukta. Gods
appreciate indirect (cryptic) expressions and not the direct.
परोिया इव िह दवा े भवि दिविषः (गोपथाण १.१.१)
Even in the simple language of the Mahābhārata, there are
several passages which are difﬁcult to interpret and understand.
In the Mahābhārata itself it is stated --
अौ ोकसहािण अौ ोकशतािन च ।
अहंविे शो ु विे सयो विे वा न वा ॥ (अािदपव१.८१)
Meaning thereby -- 8,800 verses are such, which are fully
understood by Śri Vyāsa and Śri Śukadeva. Even Sañjaya might
or might not understand them fully.
Srimad Bhāgavata Mahāpurāṇa also states that gods like
indirect expression --
यरोियो दवो े भगवान िवभावनः ् ॥(४.२८.६५)
परोवादो वदोऽय े ंबालानामनशासनम ु ॥् (११.३.४४)
Just as darkness cannot exist in light, similarly it is not
possible that in Vedas which are knowledge incarnate, there
would exist any such provision which would not help human
beings to uplift themselves on all planes from the material to
the spiritual. Just as, under light one sees the blackness of its
own shadow, similarly if one is bent upon seeing blackness of 13
his own mind in the Vedas, he is free to do so, but actually it is
not there in the Vedas.
Ṛshis, used to visualise the Veda Mantras and their
interpretation during their samādhi, therefore they were named
as ‘Seers’. Likewise they came to know about the creation of
the universe. The Creator made some living beings to subsist
on grass and leaves, while others were made to sustain
themselves on living beings. Human beings were created to
live on vegetation, which amply clear from the physiology of
the human body. Modern physiologists and diet experts also
support it. A few extracts selected from the voluminous writing
of Earnest Crosby and James Oldﬁeld, M.A., D.C.L. M.R.C.S. are
quoted below in support of these biological facts --
WETHER MEAT IS NATURAL FOOD FOR HUMAN BEINGS
(Selected paragraphs from Enlightened and Voluminous
writings by Ernest Crosby)
THE MEAT FETISH
That butchery is cruel is so self-evident that it is hardly
necessary to dwell upon the fact, and cruelty usually aƩends
the life of the vicƟm from the begining.
Finally, at the abaƩoir, the caƩle are received by men who
have been drilled into machines, who must kill so many
creatures to the minute and begin the process of skinning
before life is exƟnct. In some cases death must be prolonged
to make the meat white.
The animal comes to the place of execuƟon, as a rule, in a
state of frenzy, and to overcome its resistance the eye must be 14
gouged or the tail twisted Ɵll the gristle cracks. It is fuƟle to
preach humanity to men engaged in such a trade. You or I,
enlisted in such a profession, would act the same way.
The essenƟal idea of butchery for food is cruel, and you
cannot be cruel humanely. ‘How could you select such a
business?’ Asked a horriﬁed oﬃcer of a ‘Society for the
PrevenƟon of Cruelty to Animals’ upon his ﬁrst visit to the
stockyards of Chicago. ‘‘We’re only doing your dirty work, sir’’
was the true and silencing reply. It is brutalizing work as well
as cruel work and those who create the demand for it are
responsible for it.
And with strange perversity we pick out the most
inoﬀensive animals for slaughter. There might be an element
of jusƟce in preying upon beasts for prey, but we prefer to
slay the harmless deer and cow and sheep. Is carnivorous
ﬂesh oﬀensive? Then, why to(do?) we make our own ﬂesh
oﬀensive by being carnivorous?
In addiƟon to the uncleanliness and unwholesomeness of
meat, it is easy to show that it is also an unnatural food for
man. If it were a natural food, would you not be willing to go
into the ﬁrst butcher’s shop, cut a slice from a carcass, and
put it into your mouth? You would not not hesitate to do so
any fruit or vegetable. If meat is a natural food, would you
feel any repugnance at eaƟng dog ﬂesh or cat ﬂesh merely
because you are not accustomed to it? You would rather like
to taste a new fruit. Dogs are raised for food in Korea, and
there is no diﬀerence between their ﬂesh and other meat in
principle. Put a kiƩen and a chick in the same room and the
former will show - what its natural food is - by pouncing upon 15
the laƩer and devouring it. Put a baby, in the place of a kiƩen,
and it will not aƩempt to eat the chick; but it will try to eat
an apple, which it its natural food. .... All of which goes to
show that meat is not man’s natural food.
The structure of his body conﬁrms this belief. He has the
long intesƟne of the graminivorous animals, and not the short
intesƟnes of the carnivora. His jaws are hung so that they can
grind upon each other, like those of the horse, cow and camel,
and are not ﬁxed verƟcally like the dog’s. He has no
carnivorous teeth, those to which that name is oŌen given -
the eye teeth being much more pronounced in the noncarnivorus anthropoid ape.
Richard Owen, the great anatomist and natural historian,
said long ago that ’the anthropoids and all the quadrumana
derive their ailmentaƟon from fruits, grains, and other
succulent vegetal substances, and the strict analogy between
the structure of these animals and that of man clearly
demonstrates his frugivorous nature’’ and this truth is more
ﬁrmly established today than it was when he wrote. It is not
natural to eat meat.
(Selected paragraphs from writing of James Olefield, M.A.
D.C.L., M.R.C.S. Earnshaw-Cooper Lecturer on Dietetics, The
Lady Margaret Fruitarian Hospital)
The earliest medicine-man began to put two and two
together, and rightly concluded that the waste maƩer from
any animal was a cause of disease to that animal if not quickly
and completely removed.
He also noted that it was the excreta of animals, that ate
ﬂesh, that was by and far the most dangerous of all. He 16
might store his domesƟcated animals in the far end of his
cave, and no one was much the worse, but any cave in which
dogs or cats or wolves have been conﬁned or imprisoned,
must be shunned for years aŌer. He also made a mental note
for future use that caƩle droppings were leŌ scaƩered all over
the surface of the land, and were rapidly uƟlized as the food
by all vegitaƟve growths from grasses upwards, whereas
carnivorous animals were compelled, by an age-born insƟnct,
to scratch holes and bury their excreta as soon as it leŌ their
body.
Let us consider for a moment the wonderful machinery
which nature has installed in the human body for the purpose
of geƫng rid of this waste maƩer from our system. In the ﬁrst
place, we must get clearly ﬁxed in our mind that all human
waste maƩer is poisonously dangerous to the individual that
produces it, and that, therefore, if he wants to escape the
aƩack of any of the ever present disease, he must regularly
and promptly get rid of this waste maƩer. In the second place
we must ever set before ourselves that all forms of ﬂesh food
produce the most dangerous of these waste products. It is not
an error that the ﬁrst duty of a nurse is to give to a meateaƟng paƟent admiƩed to a hospital, either an enema or a
purgaƟve, or an emeƟc, or all three.
The ordinary diet of a man or woman who gets seriously
ill, is, in England, a very unnatural and a very unwise one.
Most people have been taught by parents, who know no
beƩer, that the food for health and strength is meat. It used
to be ‘beer and beef’; now however, the beer fallacy has been
exploded while the beef fallacy is rapidly loosing its hold upon 17
the intellectual and cultured classes of the world. It is,
however, the middle and the lower classes that are carried oﬀ
to hospital when they get ill, and these are the classes that
eat the most meat.
When I am called to a meat-eaƟng paƟent, I always carry
out the same ritual. It is the ﬁrst step towards seƫng the
body free from its burden of overwork and of self-poisoning.
When, on the otherhand, I am dealing with clean eaƟng
paƟents, I am quite saƟsﬁed if even 48hours have elapsed
since the last clearance, because in this case, the faeces-like
those of a horse or a cow- are not on the verge of sepƟc
putrefacƟon. When we have grasped these points clearly, we
can greatly appreciate how wonderful the mechanism
provided by nature, of keeping our bodies free from internal
poisoning.
The mechanism is almost foolproof, but just as there are a
great many people who will spoil every car the drive, and
those for whom no watch will keep good Ɵme for long, so to,
there is a high percentage of people who are not to be trusted
with the delicate machinery of their own digesƟve organs,
and certainly not with that of children.
All vertebrates are build on the principle of a long, hollow
tube, around which the muscular, nerve and circulatory organs
are built up. Food is put in at one end of this tube and slowly
passing along, leaves it at the other end. As it passes along,
the digesƟve juices chemically act upon it. They physically
absorb from it the various elements of nutriƟon that it
contains, and pass on the residue. Broken down sweepings of
the body cells also are thrown into this part of hollow tube, 18
which has now become a ‘sewage tube’. LiƩle by liƩle the
contents are pushed on right to the end and then eliminated.
So simple in theory, so excellent in pracƟce, the machinery is
built to work for about 100years, but fools get it out of gear
long before it is normally worn out.
For proper working of the machinery, a man must put into
it --
1. The food suitable to the parƟcular human structures;
2. In a condiƟon suitable to be dealt with by the
machinery;
3. In a quanƟty in harmony with the requirements of the
body;
4. At intervals suﬃciently long to allow Ɵme for rest and
repair of the various parts of the machinery.
Give up the use of ﬂesh-foods. Flesh-foods cause retardations of intestinal rhythm. Flesh-foods leave, as waste matter,
substances which decompose and produce an inhibitory toxic
effect upon the colonic muscles. The waste matter of ﬂesh-
foods is so liable to set up a constitutional toxic effect that
Nature has shortened the large intenstine of her carnivorous
animals so that the decomposing matter shall not remain in the
animal's body a moment longer than necessary. She has also
emphasized its danger to the living creatures around by
teaching the carnivorous animals to scratch a hole in the
ground, defaecate in to the hole, and cover it up again; it is
too dangerous a substance to be allowed to lie about.
WESTREN INDOLOGISTS : A STUDY IN MOTIVES19
by Pandit. Bhagawad Dutt (with minor additions)
INTEREST OF EUROPEANS IN BHĀRATAVARṢA AND ITS
ANCIENT LITERATURE : The battle of Plassey, fought in Samvat
1814, sealed the fate of India. Bengal came under the
dominance of the British. In Samvat 1840, William Jones was
appointed Chief Justice in the British Settlement of Fort William.
He translated into English the celebrated play Śakuntalā of the
renowned poet Kālidāsa (Circa 4th Cen. B.V.) in Samvat 1846,
and the Code of Manu in Samvat 1851, the year in which he
died. After him, his younger associate, Sir Henry Thomas
Colebrooke, wrote an article ‘On the Vedas’ in Samvat 1862.
In the Vikram year 1875, August Wilhelm von Schlegal was
appointed the ﬁrst professor of Sanskrit in the Bonn University
of Germany. Friedritch Schlegel was his brother. He wrote in
1865 V. a work entitled ‘Upon the Languages and Wisdom of
the Hindus‘
(1)
. Both the brothers evinced great love for Sanskrit.
Another Sanskritist Hern Wilhelm von Humboldt became the
collaborator of August Schlegel whose edition of the Bhagavad-
Gītā directed his attention to its study. In samvat 1884 he
wrote to a friend saying ‘‘It is perhaps the deepest and loﬁest
thing the world has to show’’. At that very time Arthur
Scholpenhauer (1845-1917 V), a great German philosopher,
happened to read the Latin translation of the Upaniṣads (1858-
1859.V) done by a French writer Anguqetil du Perron (1788-
1862 V), from the Persian translation of prince Dara Shikoh
(1722.V), named as Sirre-Akbar- the great secret. He was so
(1). In this book he ‘derives the Indo-Germanic family from
India’. See ‘A Literary History of India’ by R.W. Frazer,
London. p.5 note 2. third impression 1915.20
impressed by their philosophy that he called them ‘the
production of the highest human wisdom(1)
and considered
them to contain almost superhuman conceptions’
(2)
. The study
of the Upaniṣads was a source of great inspiration and means
of comfort to his soul, and writing about it he says, ‘‘It is the
most satisfying and elevating reading (with the exception of
the original text) which is possible in the world; it has been the
solace of my life and will be the solace of my death’’
(3)
. It is
well- known that the book ‘Oupnekhat’ (Upaniṣad) always lay
open on his table and he invariably studied it before retiring to
rest. He called the opening of Sanskrit Literature ‘the greatest
gift of our country’, and predicted that philosophy and
knowledge of Upaniṣads would become the cherished faith of
the West.
RESULTS OF THAT INTEREST : Such writings attracted the
German scholars more and more to the study of Sanskrit, and
many of them began to hold Bhāratīya culture in great esteem.
Prof. Winternitz has described their reverence and enthusiasm
in the following words -
‘‘When Indian literature became ﬁrst known in the West,
people were inclined to ascribe a hoary age to every literary
work hailing from India. They used to look upon India as
(1). Quoted in ‘A history of Indian Literature’ by M. Winternitz, English translation, Vol I p.20 (1927A.D.)
(2). Ibid. p.266.
(3). Ibid. p.267, Also see ‘New Antiquary’ vol.I. No.1 April
1938. p.59, article of Heinrich Zimmer. The translation is, ‘the
consolation of his old age’. The original of this quotation is in
‘Parerga et Paralipomena’ Vol.II. p.427. 185121
something like the cradle of mankind, or at least of human
civilizaƟon’’
(1)
.
The impression was natural and spontaneous. It was based
on truth and had no element of bias. The historical facts that
were handed down by the sages of Bhāratavarṣa were based
on true and unbroken traditions. Their philosophical doctrines
delved deep into the source and mysteries of life and
propounded principles of eternal value. When the people of the
West came to know of them for the ﬁrst time, many unbigoted
scholars were highly impressed by their marvellous accuracy
and profound wisdom and being uninﬂuenced by any
considerations of colour or creed they were generous in their
acclamations. This enthusiastic applause of the honest people
of Christian lands created a ﬂutter in the dovecotes of Jewry
and Christian missionaries, who were as ignorant of the real
import of their own Scriptures and traditions as those of
Bhāratavarṣa and followed only the dictates of dogmatic Pauline
Christianity which had made them intolerant of all other
faiths
(2)
.
(1). Lectures in Calcutta university, August 1923, printed in
1925 at as ’Some problems of Indian Literature’ p.3
(2). Intolerance was inherent in all the Semitic faiths and was
responsible for the crusades, jehads and the institution of the
Inquisition. A century before the time of Schopenhauer,
Voltaire also fell a victim to the wrath of the clergy. He wrote
an Essay on the Morais and the Spirits of the Nations, which
offended everybody because it told the truth. It spoke highly
of the ancient cultures of India, China and Persia and
relegated Judea and Christendom to a relatively inferior
position. How could then he be forgiven for so unpatriotic a
revelation? He was exiled for a second time by the French 22
The correctness of our conclusion can be judged from the
following observation of Heinrich Zimmer -
‘‘He (Schopenhauer) was the ﬁrst among the Westren
people to speak of this in an incomparable manner - in that
great cloudburst of European-chrisƟan atmosphere’’
(1)
.
How revengeful are dogmatic Christians and Jews on those,
who do not hold opinions similar to their own, is amply
illustrated by the fate of Robertson Smith (1846-94 A.D.) the
author of ‘The Religion of the Semites’ and a professor of
Hebrew in the Free Church College, Aberdeen. The punishment
he got for the frank and fearless expression of his scientiﬁc
researches is well recorded by Lewis Spence in the following
words.
‘‘The heterodox character of an encyclopaedia arƟcle on
the Bible led to his prosecuƟon for heresy, of which charge,
however, he was acquiƩed. But a further arƟcle upon, ‘Hebrew
Language and Literature’ in the Encyclopaedia Britannica
(1880) led to his removal from the professoriate of the
College’’
(2)
.
PRIMARY REASON
JEWISH AND CHRISTIAN BIAS : The ancient Jews were
descendants of the Āryas. Their beliefs were the same as those
of the Āryas. The Primeval man, whom they called Adam, was
Government. (Vide. ‘The Story of Philosophy’ by Will Durant,
p.241).
(1). New Indian Antiquary, April 1938, p.67
(2). ‘An introduction to Mythology’ Newyork (date of
publication no indicated in the book).23
Brahma, the originator of mankind. The Hebrew name is
derived from ‘Ātma-bhu’, one of the epithets of Brahma. In the
begining of creation ‘Brahma gave names to all objects and
beings
(1)
, and so did Adam according to Jewish tradition: ‘and
whatsoever Adam called every living creature that was the
name thereof‘
(2)
. In later times the Jews forgot their ancient
history and ancestry and became narrow in their outlook. They
considered themselves to be the oldest of all races
(3)
. But in
1654 A.D. Archbishop Usher of Ireland ﬁrmly announced that
his study of scripture had proved that creation took place in
the year 4004 B.C. So, from the end of the seventeenth
century, this chronology was accepted by the Europeans and
they came to believe that Adam was created 4004 years before
Christ
(4)
.
Hence a majority of the modern Jews and the dogmatic
Christians and especially many professors of sanskrit found it
(1). Manu smṛti I.21
(2). Genesis, II.10
(3). ‘‘....... that the Jewish race is by far the oldest of all these’’
Fragments of Megasthenes p.103.
(4). ‘Archbishop Usher’s famed chronology which so long
dominated the ideas of man.....’ Historian’s History of World,
Vol I, p.626. 1908.
Duncan Macnaughton in his ‘A Scheme of Egyptian
Chronology‘, London, 1932 writes :
‘‘It is strange to see that Wilkinson place Menes (or Manu
the ﬁrst King of Egypt) as low as 2320, but it is to be
remembered that in 1836 English-speaking scholars were sƟll
under the hypnoƟc inﬂuence of Usher’s Biblical Chronology. The
dates printed in the Bible were regarded as sacred, and it was
posiƟvely wicked to disregard them’’. (p.6).24 blunders of indological scholars
hard to reconcile themselves to the view that any race or
civilization could be older than the date of Adam accepted by
them. They resented the hoary antiquity ascribed by their
broad-minded brother scholars to the literature and civilization
of Bhāratavarṣa and much more to the origin of man. Referring
to this deep-rooted prejudice, A.S. Sayce writes --
‘‘But as far as man was concerned, his history was sƟll
limited by the dates in the margin of our Bibles. Even today
the old idea of his recent appearance sƟll prevails in quarters
where we should least except to ﬁnd it and so-called criƟcal
historians sƟll occupy themselves in endeavouring to reduce
the dates of his earlier history...... To a generaƟon which had
been brought up to believe that in 4004 B.C. or thereabout
the world was being created, the idea man himself went back
to 100,000 years ago was both incredible and inconceivable.’’
(1)
Ample evidence can be adduced to prove the existence of
this inverterate prejudice but the above quotation from a great
antropologist would sufﬁce for our purpose.
The studies of Sanskrit continued and ﬂourished in Europe
and very rapidly the opinions and judgements of scholars also
became warped by the inﬂuence of the inherent prejudice
fanned by the clergy. From the Vikram year 1858 to 1897
Eugene Burnouf occupied the chair of Professor of Sanskrit in
France. He had two German pupils Rudolph Roth and Max
Muller, who later on made a name in European Sanskrit
scholarship.
(1). ‘AnƟquity of Civilised man’ Journal of the Royal Anthro-
pological Institute of Great Britain and Ireland, Vol.60. July-
December 1930.by Anandatirtha sharma 25
THE PURPOSE OF BODEN CHAIR OF SANSKRIT IN OXFORD
UNIVERSITY : In Samvat 1890 Horace Hayman Wilson became
the Boden Professor of Sanskrit in the Oxford University. His
successor Prof. M. Monier-Williams has drawn the attention of
scholars to the object of the establishment of that chair in the
following words --
‘‘I must draw aƩenƟon to the fact that I am only the
second occupant of the Boden Chair, and that its Founder,
Colonel Boden, stated most explicitly in his will (dated August
15, 1811 A.D.) that the special object of his muniﬁcient
bequest was to promote the translaƟon of Scriptures into
Sanskrit; so as to enable his countrymen to proceed in the
conversion of the naƟves of India to the ChrisƟan Religion’’
(1)
.
Pejudiced Sanskrit Professors
I. Prof. Wilson was a man of very noble disposition, but he
had his obligations towards the motives of the founder of the
Chair he occupied. He, therefore, wrote a book on ‘The
religious and Philosophical System of the Hindus’ and
explaining the reason for writing it he says : ‘‘These lectures
were written to help candidates for a prize of $200 given by
John Muir, a well-known old Haileybury man and great Sanskrit
scholar, for the best refutation of the Hindu Religious System’
(2)
.
From this quotation the learned readers can conclude to
what extent the aim of European scholarship could be called
scientiﬁc, how far the theories propounded by them could be
(1). ‘‘Sanskrit - English Dictionary’’ by Sir M. Monier-Williams
Preface p.IX 1899.
(2). ‘‘Eminent Orientalists‘‘ Madras, p.7226 blunders of indological scholars
free from partisanship and called reliable, and how true would
be the picture of Bhāratīya civilisation and culture drawn by
them.
II. In the same spirit of prejudice the aforesaid scholar
Rudolph Roth wrote is thesis ‘‘Zur Literatur und Geschichte des
Veda’’
(1)
a dissertation on the Vedic literature and history. In
1909 V. was published his edition of the Nirukta of Yāska
(2)
. He
was too proud of his own learning and of the German genius.
He asserted that by means of the German ‘science’ of philology
Vedic mantras could be interpreted much better than with the
help of Nirukta
(3)
.
III. The same pedantry is exhibited in the writings of
W.D.Whitney who asserts : The principles of the ‘German
School’ are the only ones which can ever guide us to a true
understanding of the Veda
(4)
.
IV. MAX MULLER : Max Muller was a fellow-student of Roth.
Besides his teacher’s stamp on him, Max Muller’s interview with
Lord Macaulay on the 28th December, 1855 A.D. also played a
great part in his anti-Indian views. Max Muller had to sit silent
for an hour while the historian poured out his diametrically
opposite views and then dismissed his visitor who tried in vain
(1). English translation published in the Journal of the Asiatic
Society of Bengal. 1847.
(2). A treatise on etymology and semantics.
(3). It would be interesting here to point out that in the intro-
duction of his edition of Nirukta Roth has given a wrong
interpretation of a passage of Aitareya Brāhmaṇa which has
invited a derisive comment from Goldstrucker (cf. Pāṇini.
p.198).
(4). American Or; Soc. Proc., Oct., 1867.by Anandatirtha sharma 27
to utter a simple word : ‘I went back to Oxford’, writes Max
Muller ‘a sadder man and a wise man’
(1)
.
Max Muller’s name became widely known to the people of
Bhāratavarṣa for two reasons. Firstly, he was a voluminous
writer and secondly his views were severely criticised by the
great scholar and savant Svāmi Dayānand Sarasvati (1881-
1940 V.) in his public speeches and writings. The value of Max-
Muller’s opinions, may be estimated from his following
statements: --
(1) ‘‘History seems to teach that the whole human race
required a gradual educaƟon before, in the fullness of Ɵme, it
could be admiƩed to the truths of ChrisƟanity. All the fallacies
of human reason had to be exhausted, before the light of a
higher truth could meet with ready acceptance. The ancient
religions of the world were but the milk of nature, which was
in due Ɵme to be suceeded by the bread of life...... The religion
of Buddha has spread far beyond the limits of Aryan world,
and to our limited vision, it may seem to have retarded the
advent of ChrisƟanity among a large porƟon of the human
race. But in the sight of Him with whom a thousand years are
but as one day, that religion, like the ancient religions of the
world, may have but served to prepare the way of Christ, by
helping through its very errors to strengthen and to deepen
the ineradicable yearning of the human heart aŌer the truth
of God.
(2)
’’
(2) ‘‘Large number of Vedic hymns are childish in the
(1). Life and Letters of Max Muller, Vol. I. Ch.IX, p.171
(2). History of Ancient Sanskrit Literature, p.32. 186028 blunders of indological scholars
extreme: tedious, low, commonplace’’.
(1)
(3) ‘‘Nay, they (the Vedas) contain, by the side of simple,
natural, childish thoughts, many ideas which to us sound
modern, or secondary and teriary.’’
(2)
Such blasphemous reviling of the most ancient and highly
scientiﬁc scripture of the world can come only from the mouth
of a bigoted (not an honest) Christian, a low pagan or an
impious atheist. Barring Christianity, Max Muller was bitterly
antagonistic to every other religion which he regarded as
heathen. His religious intolerance is borrowed from his bitter
criticism of the view of the German scholar, Dr. Speigel, that
the Biblical theory of the creation of the world is borrowed
from the ancient religion of the Persians or Iranians. Stung by
this statement Max Muller writes - ‘ A writer like Dr. Spiegel
should know that he can expect no mercy; nay, he should
himself wish for no mercy, but invite the heaviest arƟllery
against the ﬂoaƟng baƩery which he has launched in the
troubled waters of Biblical criƟcism’’
(3)
.
At another place the same devotee of the Westren
‘scientiﬁc’ scholarship says : ‘‘If in spite of all this, many
people, most expectant to judge, lokk forward with conﬁdence
to the conversion of the Parsis, it is because, in the most
essenƟal points, they have already, though unconsciously,
approached as near as possible to the pure doctrine of
ChrisƟanity. Let them but read Zend-Avesta, in which they
(1). ‘Chips from a German Workshop’ second edn. 1866 p.27
(2). ‘India, What can it teach us’’ Lecture IV, p.118, 1882
(3). ‘Chips from a German Workshop’, Genesis and the Zend
Avesta. p.147.by Anandatirtha sharma 29
profess to believe, and they will ﬁnd that their faith is no
longer the faith of the Yasna, the Vendidad and the Vispered.
As historical relics, these works, if criƟcally interpreted, will
always retain a pre-eminent place in the great library of the
ancient world. As oracles of religious faith, they are defunct
and a mere anachronism in the age in which we live.’’
(4)
Even a superﬁcial reader can see the strain of Christian
fanaticism running through these lines. If Bhāratīya culture
could exact ocassional praise from the pen of a bigoted man
like Max Muller, it was only due to its unrivalled greatness and
superiority.
MAX MULLER AND JACOLLIOT : The French scholar Louis
Jacolliot, Chief Judge in Chandranagar, wrote a book called ‘‘La
Bible dans l’Inde’’ in Samvat 1926. Next year an English
translation of it was also published. In that book the learned
author has laid down the thesis that all the main currents of
thought in the world have been derived from the ancient Āryan
thought. He has called Bhāratavarṣa ‘the cradle of Humanity’.
(5)
(4). Ibid. The Modern Parsis p.180. To write about an
unconscious approach of an anterior religion to the doctrines
of a posterior faith can only become a person of ‘scientific’
mind like that of Max Muller. How repugnant to a biased
Christian mind is the idea of Christianity borrowing anything
from another ancient religion even when the similarity is so
striking! And these very so-called unbiased pedagogues have
not hesitated to attribute to Bhāratīya literature a Greek
borrowing on the flimsiest excuse, i.e., where the similarity is
not at all obvious but is strained.
(5). Cf quotation from Winternitz after 3rd para from the
begining of this chapter. Probably Winternitz refers to
Jacolliot.30 blunders of indological scholars
‘‘Land of ancient India! Cradle of Humanity, hail! Hail
revered motherland whom centuries of brutal invasions have
not yet buried under the dust of oblivion. Hail, Fatherland of
faith, of love, of poetry and of science, may we hail a revival
of they past in our Westren future’’.
This book cut Max Muller to the quick and he said while
reviewing it that ‘the author seems to have been taken in by
the Brahmins in India’.
MAX MULLER’S LETTERS : Personal letters give a true
picture of the writer’s inner mind. A person expresses his
inmost feelings in the letters which he writes to his intimate
relations and friends. Such letters are very helpful in estimating
his real nature and character. Fortunately, a collection called
the ‘Life and Letters of Frederick Max Muller’ has been published
in two volumes. A few extracts from those letters would sufﬁce
to expose the mind of the man who is held in great esteem in
the West for his Sanskrit learning and impartial judgement.
(a) In a letter 1866 A.D. (V.Sam.1923) he writes to his
wife:
‘‘This ediƟon of mine and the translaƟon of the Veda will
hereaŌer tell to a great extent on the fate of India... It is the
root of their religion and to show them what the root is, I feel
sure, is the only way of uprooƟng all that has sprung from it
during the last three thousand years’’ (Vol.I, Ch.XV. p.346)
(b) In another letter he writes to his son:
‘‘Would you say that any one sacred book is superior to
all others in the world? ..... I say the New Testament, aŌer by Anandatirtha sharma 31
that, I should place the Koran
(1)
, which in its moral teachings,
is hardly more than a later ediƟon of the New Testament.
Then would follow according to my opinion the Old Testament,
the Southern Buddhist Tripitaka, the Tao-te-king of Laotze, the
Kings of Confucius, the Veda and the Avesta’’. (Vol. II, Ch.
XXXII, p.339).
(c) On 16th December 1868 A.D. (Sam.1925) he writes to
Duke of Argyl, the Minister of India:
‘‘The ancient religion of India is doomed and if ChrisƟanity
does not step in, whose fault will it be?’’ (Vol.I. Ch.XVI, p.378)
(d) On 29th January 1882(Samvat 1939) he wrote to Sri
Bairamji Malabari:
‘‘I wanted to tell ...... what the true historical value of this
ancient religion is, as looked upon, not from an exclusively
European or ChrisƟan, but from a historical point of view. But
discover in it ‘Steam engines and electricity and European
philosophy and morality, and you deprive it of its true
character’’ (Vol.II. Ch. XXV p.115-116)
(e) Max Muller grew so insolent and audacious that he
started to challenge Indians in a different foolhardy manner. It
is clear from a letter written by him to N.K. Majumdar:
‘‘Tell me some of your chief diﬃculƟes that prevent you
(1). A clear indication of Anglo-Muslim alliance worked out
by the English bureaucrats and later evident in a work like
the Cambridge History of India and a hoard of other works.
It is also evident in the works of the French author Garcin
de Tassy, Les Anteurs Hindoustanis et leurs ouvrages 2nd.,
Paris 1868 and Histoire de la literature Hindoustainic; 3 vol.
2nd Edn. Paris 1870-71.32 blunders of indological scholars
and your countrymen from openly following Christ, and when
I write to you I shall do my best to explain how I and many
who agree with me have met them and solved them...... From
my point of view, India, at least the best part of it, is already
converted to ChrisƟanity. Then make up your mind to work for
yourself. Unite your ﬂock - to hold them together and to
prevent from straying. The bridge has been built for you by
those who came before you. STEP BOLDLY FROWARD; it will
break under you, and you will ﬁnd many friends to welcome
you on the other shore and among them none more delighted
than your old friend and fellow labourer F. Max Muller’’ (Vol.
II. Ch.XXXIV p.415-416).
Herein Max Muller claims to know ‘the true historical value’
of Vedic religion, but our history is going to expose the
hollowness of learning and scholarship which he and his
colleagues boast of processing.
V. WEBER‘S BIAS : At the time when Max Muller was busy
besmirching the glory of Bhāratīya literature and religion in
England, Albert Weber was devoting himself to the same
ignominious task in Germany. We have already referred to the
unstinted praise of the Bhagvad-Gītā by HUmboldt. Weber
could not tolerate this. He had the temerity to postulate that
the Mahābhārata and Gītā were inﬂuenced by Christian thought.
Mark what he writes --
‘‘The peculiar colouring of the Kṛṣṇa Sect, which prevades
the whole book, is noteworthy; ChrisƟan legendary maƩer
and other Westren inﬂuences are unmistakably present.....’’
(1)
.
(1). ‘‘The History of Sanskrit Literature‘‘ popular ed. 1914,
p.189, footnote; of also p.300 footnote.by Anandatirtha sharma 33
The view of Weber was strongly supported by two other
Westren scholars, Lorinser
(1)
and E. Washburn Hopkins
(2)
. Yet
the view was so blatantly absurd that most of the professors of
European universities did not accept it inspite of their Christian
leanings. But the propagation of this wrong view played its
mischief and was mainly responsible for the hesitation of the
Westren scholars (including the antagonists) to assign to the
Mahābhārata a date, earlier than the Christian era.
WEBER AND BANKIM CHANDRA: I am not alone in holding
this view.
This is what Bankim Chandra Chattopadhyaya, the well
known Bengali scholar, has to say about Weber in his Krishna-
Charita, 4th Chapter --
‘‘The celebrated Weber was no doubt a scholar but I am
inclined to think that it was an unfortunate moment for India
when he began the study of Sanskrit. The descendants of the
German savages of yesterday could not reconcile themselves
to the ancient glory of India. It was therefore, their earnest
eﬀort to prove that the civilizaƟon of India was comparaƟvley
of recent origin. They could not persuade themselves to
believe that the Mahābhārata was composed centuries before
Christ was born’’
(3)
.
WEBER AND GOLDSTRUCKER : Weber and Boehtlingk
prepared a dictionary of the Sanskrit language called the
‘Sanskrit Worterbuch‘. Prof. Kuhn was also one of their
(1). He wrote an article ‘Die Bhagavadgītā‘ in samvat 1926.
(2). ‘India, Old and New’ Newyork, 1902. p.146. Also cf. his
Religions of India, p.429, Boston, 1895.
(3). An English translation from the Bengali version.34 blunders of indological scholars
assistants. Being mainly based on the wrong and imaginary
principles of philosophy, the work is full of wrong meanings in
many places and is, therefore, unreliable and misleading. it is a
pity that so much labour was wasted on account of sheer
prejudice. The dictionary waws a subject of severe criticism by
Prof. Goldstucker which annoyed the two editors. Weber was
so much upset that he stooped to use abusive language of the
coarsest kind
(1)
against Prof. Goldstucker. He said that the views
of Prof. Goldstucker about the Worterbuch showed ‘a perfect
derangement of his mental faculities
(2)
’, since he did not reject
the authority of the greatest Hindu scholars freely and easily.
Replying to their undigniﬁed attacks Prof. Goldstucker exposed
the conspiracy of Professors Roth, Boehtlingk, Weber and Kuhn
which they had formed to undermine the greatness of ancient
Bhāratavarṣa. He wrote --
‘‘It will, of course, be my duty to show, at the earliest
oppurtunity, that Dr. Boehtlingk is incapable of understanding
even easy rules of Pāṇini, much less those of Kātyāyana and
sƟll less is he capable of making use of them in the
understanding of Classical texts. The errors in his department
of the DicƟonary are so numerous .... that it will ﬁll every
serious SanskriƟst with dismay, when he calculates the
mischievous inﬂuence which they must excercise on the study
of Sanskrit philology
(3)
’’.
He further remarks: ‘‘that quesƟons which ought to have
been decided with the very utmost circumspecƟon and which
(1). ‘Paninian His place in Sanskrit literature’ Allahabad edn.
p.200. 1914.
(2). Ibid. p.200
(3). Ibid. p.195by Anandatirtha sharma 35
could not be decided without very laborious research have
been triﬂed with in the Worterbuch in the most unwarranted
manner’’
(1)
.
Goldstucker was called upon by one of Boehtlingk’s men
not only to have respect for ‘the editor of Pāṇini..‘ (i.e.
Boehtlingk) but even for the hidden reasons for foisting on the
public his blunders of everykind
(2)
.
We know that there were no other ‘hidden reasons‘ than
their Christian and Jewish bias which impelled them to suppress
the correct information of the Hindu grammarians and
underrate and vilify Āryan civilization and culture, and at the
same time to serve as tools of the British government towards
the same end.
Prof. Kuhn, who ‘gave his opinion on the Worterbuch’ was
‘an individual whose sole connection with Sanskrit studies
consisted in handling sanskrit books to those who could read
them, a literary naught, wholly unknown, but assuming the airs
of a quantity, because it had ﬁgures before it that prompted it
on, a personage who, according to his own friends, was
perfectly ignorant of Sanskrit
(3)
’.
Provoked by the unwarranted ﬂouting of the authentic
Hindu tradition, Prof. Goldstucker was compelled to raise his
‘feeble but solitary voice’ against the coterie of mischievous
propagandists masquerading under the grab of ‘scientiﬁc’
scholars. He concludes his laborious work with the following
signiﬁcant remarks :
(1). Ibid.p.197
(2). Ibid. p.203
(3). Ibid p.20336 blunders of indological scholars
‘‘When I see that the most disƟnguished and the most
learned Hindu scholars and divines - the most valuable and
someƟmes the only source of all our knowledge of ancient
India- are scorned in theory, muƟlated in print, and as
consequence, set aside in interpretaƟon of Vaidik texts ....
when a clique of SanskriƟsts of this descripƟon vapours about
giving us the sense of the Veda as it existed at the
commencement of Hindu anƟquity; when I consider that the
method of studying Sanskrit philology is pursued by those
whose words apparently derive weight and inﬂuence from the
professional posiƟon they hold; ........ then I told that it would
be a want of courage and derelicƟon of duty, if I did not make
a stand against these Saturnalia of Sanskrit Philology’’
(1)
.
VI. MONIER-WILLIAMS, who revealed the real object of the
purpose of the establishment of the Boden chair, thus delivers
himself --
‘‘Brahmanism, therefore, must die out. In point of fact,
false ideas on the most ordinary scienƟﬁc subjects are so
mixed up with its doctrines that the commonest educaƟon -
the simplest lessons in geography - without the aid of
ChrisƟanity must inevitably in the end sap its foundaƟons’’
(2)
.
‘‘When the walls of the mighty fortress of Brahmanism
are encircled, undermined, and ﬁnally stormed by the soldiers
of the cross, the victory of ChrisƟanity must be signal and
complete’’
(3)
.
(1). Ibid p.204-205
(2). Modern India and the Indians, by M. Williams, 3rd Edn.
1879, p.261.
(3). Ibid p.262.by Anandatirtha sharma 37
Therefore, we are justiﬁed in drawing the conclusion that
his book ‘The Study of Sanskrit in Relation to Missionary work
in India’ (1861.A.D. London) was written with the sole object
of promoting Christianity and ousting Hinduism. Inspite of this
some of our Indian Sanskrit scholars call these European
scholars, unbiased students of Sanskrit literature, whose sole
aim has been to acquire knowledge for its own sake.
Again, expressing his deep rooted venerations for the Bible,
Monier-Williams writes - ‘‘the Bible, though a true revelation’’
(1)
.
VII. RUDOLF HOERNLE : Rudolf Hoernle was the Principal
of Queen’s college, Banaras, in Samvat 1926. At that time
Svāmi Dayānanda Sarasvatī, who later on founded the Ārya
Samāja, happened to reach Banaras for the ﬁrst time for the
propagation of his mission. Dr. Hoernle met Svāmi Dayānanda
on several ocassions. He wrote an article
(2)
on Svāmijī from
which the following extract is noteworthy, because it reveals
the real intention of many European scholars who take to the
study of Sanskrit and ancient scriptures of Bhāratavarṣa.
Hoernle says --
‘‘ ...........he (Dāyānanda) may possibly convince the
Hindus that their modern Hinduism is altogether in opposiƟon
to the Vedas ...... If once they became thoroughly convinced of
this radical error, they will no doubt abandon Hinduism at
once .... They cannot go back to the Vedic state; that is dead
and gone, and will never revive; something more or less new
must follow. We hope it may be ChrisƟanity ....
(3)
’’.
(1). Indian Wisdom, p.143.
(2). The Christian Intelligencer, Calcutta, March 1870, p.79
(3). A.F.R.H. quoted in ‘The Arya Samaj’ by Lajpat Rai, 1932. 38 blunders of indological scholars
VII. RICHARD GARBE : was a German Sanskritist, who
edited many Sanskrit works. Besides these, in 1914 he wrote a
book for the missionaries, entitled ‘‘Indien und das, Christentum’’. His religious bias is quite evident in this book.
IX. WINTERNITZ : The pride of the superiority of their own
philosophy and religion and of the infallibity of their own
conclusions has become so ingrained in the above-mentioned
type of Westren Sanskrit scholars that they feel no hesitation in
giving expression to it brazen-facedly before the public.
Reverent admiration of the philosophy of the Upanishads by
Schopenhauer, often quoted by Bhāratīya writers, rankled in
the heart of the Europeans, and as late as A.D.1925 Prof.
Winternitz though it incumbent on him to denounce the sincere
and heartfelt views of Schopenhauer in the following words --
‘‘Yet I believe, it is a wild exaggeraƟon when Schopenhauer
says that the teaching of the Upaniśads represents ‘the fruit
of the highest human knowledge and wisdom’ and contains
almost superhuman concepƟons the originators of which can
hardly be regarded as mere mortals .....
(1)
’’
Not content with his invective against the Upaniśads he
had the audacity to deprecate even the greatness of the Vedas
by saying --
‘‘It is true, the authors of these hymns rise but extremely
seldom to the exalted ﬂights and the deep fervor of, say,
religious poetry of the Hebrews’’
(2)
.
p.42.
(1). Some problems of Indian Literature, Calcutta 1925, p.61
(2). History of Indian Literature, p.79, 1927by Anandatirtha sharma 39
This viliﬁcation did not remain conﬁned to Sanskrit scholars
alone, but through them it percolated into the ﬁeld of science.
Not knowing a word of the exact and multifarious scientiﬁc
knowledge of the ancient Hindus, Sir William Cecil Dampier
writes :
‘‘Perhaps the paucity of Indian contribuƟon to other
sciences (than Philosophy and Medicine) may in part be due
to the Hindu religion’’
(1)
.
The climax of hatred against Hinduism is seen in the highly
mischievous and provoking remarks like the following even in
popular literature --
(a) ‘‘The curse of India is the Hindoo religion. More than
two hundred million people believe a monkey mixture of
mythology that is strangling the nation’’. ‘‘He who yearns for
God in India soon loses his head as well as his heart
(2)
’’.
(b) Pro. McKenzie, of Bombay ﬁnds the ethics of India
defective, illogical and anti-social, lacking any philosophical
foundation, nulliﬁed by abhorrent ideas of asceticism and ritual
and altogether inferior to the ‘higher spirituality’ of Europe. He
devotes most of his book ‘Hindu Ethics’ to upholding this thesis
and comes to the triumphant conclusions that Hindu
philosophical ideas, ‘When logically applied leaves no room for
ethics’; and that they prevent the devlopment of a strenuous
moral life
(3)
.
(1). History of Science, 4th Edn, p.8, Cambridge University
Press. 1948.
(2). Ripley’s ‘Believe it or not’. part I p.14, 26th Edn. Pocket-
books Inc, Newyork.
(3). Vide ‘Ethics of India’ by E.W. Hopkins, preface p.x and xi 40 blunders of indological scholars
It is a matter of serious mistake on the part of a
Government which is anxious to win the friendship and
sympathy of Bhārata to allow such heinous type of literature as
Ripley’s to be published. And again, it is a matter of regret that
such books, whether published in India or abroad, are not
taken notice of by our policiticians and have not been banned
by our National Government. Not only is our Government
indifferent to the interdiction of such slanderous literature, but
even our Universities not only prescribe but recommend for
higher study books on Bhāratīya history and culture written by
foreign authors who lose no oppurtunity of maligning our
civilization openly or in a very subtle way.
Remarks like those of McKenzie on the ethics of a country
from whose Brahmanas the whole world learnt its morality and
rules of conduct
(1)
, are nothing short of blasphemy and national
insult. The irony of the situation is that, instead of being
condemned such persons receive recognition and honour from
our educationalists and political leaders.
MOST BHĀRATĪYA SCHOLARS AND POLITICIANS UN-
AWARE OF THIS BIAS : We have sufﬁciently exposed the
mentality of this type of Westren scholars. They received
enormous ﬁnancial aid from their Governments and also from
the British Government in India, which they freely used in
writing articles, pamphlets and books propagating their
reactionary views in a very subtle and disguised manner. It was
their careful endeavour not to give themselves away and to
mislead the world and the people of Bhāratavarṣa under the
New haven, 1924.
(1). Manu II 20by Anandatirtha sharma 41
cloak of scholarship and impartiality. They might have pretty
well succeeded in their work had not their apple-cart been
upset by Svāmi Dayānanda Sarasvatī, who ruthlessly exposed
their nefarious designs. Svāmiji was a man of unique
personality, indomitable courage, keen intellect and far-reaching
vision and imagination. He had come in contact with many
European scholars of his time. He had met George Buhler,
Monier Williams
(1)
, Rudolf Hoernle, Thibaut and others who had
worked with Christian zeal in the ﬁeld of Sanskrit research. He
was the ﬁrst man whose penetrating eye could not fail to see
through the ulterior motives of their research work, although
the common run of people in Bhāratavarṣa and even most of
the leaned men in the employ of the Government here had
permitted themselves to be deluded by their so-called profound
scholarship, strict impartiality, scientiﬁc and liberal outlook. He
gave a timely warning to the people of his country and to a
great extent succeeded in saving them from the clutches of
(1). Monier Williams himself writes of his meeting -- ‘‘Dayanand Sarasvati ... I made his acquaintance at Bombay in 1876.
and was much struck by his fine countenance and figure.
There I heard him preach an eloquent discourse on the
religious development of the Aryan race. He began by
repeating a hymn to Varuṇa (IV.16) preceded by the syllable
Om - prolating the vowel in deep sonorous tones.’’.
Brahmanism and Hinduism - M. Williams, 4th Ed. 1891, p.529
‘‘In one of my interviews with him, I asked him for his
definition of religion. He replied in Sanskrit - Religion (धम) is 
a true and just views () and the abandonment of all pejudice
and partially () that is to say, it is an impartial inquiry into
the truth by means of the senses and two other instruments
of knowledge (), reason and revelation’’. Ibid. p.530.42 blunders of indological scholars
these pseudo-scholars and clandestine missionaries.
We have studied almost the entire literature produced by
generations of Westren scholars and have thoroughly examined
it with an open mind. We have arrived at the conclusion that
there is a deﬁnite tinge of Christian prejudice in the writings of
most of these scholars, which is responsible for discrediting all
that is great in Bhāratavarṣa. The ultimate aim of the writers
seems to be the proselytization of the people of this land to
Christianity by instilling into their head in a subtle manner the
inferiority of their indegenious religion and culture.
But truth can never remain hidden for long. Now some
modern scholars of Bhāratavarṣa have also begun to see to
some extent, though not thoroughly, through the thin veneer
of European scholarship, e.g. --
I. Prof V. Rangacharya writes --
‘‘Incalculable mischief has been done by almost all the
English and American scholars in assuming arbitrarily the
earliest dates for Egypt or Mesopotamia-dates going back to
B.C.5000 atleast and the latest possible dates of Ancient India
on the ground that India borrowed from them(1)
’’.
II. Sri Nīlakanṭa Śāstri, the Head of History Department of
Madras University, although a supporter of many untenable
Westren theories, had to write --
‘‘What is this but a criƟque of Indian society and Indian
history in the light of the nineteenth century prepossessions of
(1). History of Pre-Musalman India, Vol II, Vedic India, part I.
1937.A.D. p.145.by Anandatirtha sharma 43
Europe? This criƟcism was started by the English
administraƟon and European missionaries and has been
nearly focussed by the vast erudiƟon of Lassen; the unfulﬁlled
aspiraƟons of Germany in the early nineteenth century,
doubtless had their share in shaping the line of Lassen’s
thought
(1)
’’.
III. Sri C.R. Krishnamacharlu, Ex-Epiraphist to the
Government of India, having realised the ulterior motives of
European writers, has expressed his views more strongly. He
writes --
‘‘These authors, coming as they do from naƟons of recent
growth, and wriƟng this history with moƟves other than
cultural, which in some cases are apparently racial and
prejudicial to the correct elucidaƟon of the past history of
India, cannot acquire tesƟmony for historic veracity of cultural
sympathy’’
(2)
.
IV. Prof. R. Subba Rao, M.A., L.T. in his Presidential Adress,
(Sectional), Sixteenth Session of Indian History Congress,
Waltair, (29th December, 1953), writes --
‘‘Unfortunately, the historicity of Purāṇas and their
tesƟmony has been perverted by certain Westren scholars
who stated rather dogmaƟcally that the historical age cannot
go back beyond 2000 B.C. and that there is no need for ﬁxing
the Mahābhārata war ealier than 1400 B.C. They accused the
Brahmins of having raised their anƟquity and quesƟoned the
(1). All India Oriental Conference, December 1941, Part II,
p.64, printed in 1946.
(2). ‘The Cradle of Indian History’ p.3, Adyar Library, Madras
1947.44 blunders of indological scholars
authenƟcity of the Hindu astronomical works.’’
(1)
Conclusion :
In short, the foregoing pages make it clear that it was this
Christian and Judaic prejudice which :
(a) did not allow the real dates of ancient Bhāratīya history
to be accepted by the occidental scholars, who were always
reluctant to give to the Vedas a higher antiquity than the
earliest portion of the Old Testament and to place them beyond
2500 B.C
(2)
.
Even the school of Paul Deussen, A.W. Ryder and H.
Zimmer, which followed Schopenhauer in the appreciation of
ancient Indian intellect, but which did not work directly on
chronology, could not throw off the burden of these extremely
unscientiﬁc, ﬁctitious dates.
(b) gave rise to the two interrelated diseases of Westren
Indologists; ﬁrstly the disease of myth, mythical and mythology,
according to which Brahmā, Indra, Viṣṇu, Parvata, Nārada,
Kāśyapa Purūravās, Vasiṣṭa and a host of other ancient sages
have been declared as mythical. Nobody ever tried to
understand their true historical character apprehending that
the dates of Bhāratīya history would go to very ancient periods;
and secondly, as a corollary to the above, the disease of
‘attribution’ and ‘ascription’ under which the works of these and
other sages have been declared to be written by some very
(1). J.A.H.R.S., Vol. XX. p.187.
(2). cf. A.L. Basham --
‘‘Few European scholars would agree with professor
Altekar (p.19) that the Ṛgveda dates from 2500 B.C.’’ (J.R.A.S.
1950.A.D. parts3-4, p.202.by Anandatirtha sharma 45
late anonymous persons who are said to have ascribed or
attributed them to those ‘mythical’ sages.
(c) brought to the fore-front, the most fanciful and
groundless theory of the migration of the Aryans into India,
according to which the very existence of Manu, the ﬁrst
Crowned King of Bharata Chakravarti, the glorious son of
Śakuntalā; Bhagīratha, who changed the course of the Ganga;
Kuru, after whom the sacred sacriﬁcial land is called Kurukṣetra,
Rāma, the son of Daśaratha and a number of other kings is
being totally denied.
(d) was responsible for the altogether wrong translations of
Vaidika works, and misrepresentation of Vaidika culture.
(e) did not allow the acceptance of Sanskrit, as being the
mother language of atleast the Indo-European group; as at
ﬁrst very ably propounded by Franz Bopp, and often mentioned
by ancient Indian authors.
We are not sorry for all this, for, nothing better could be
expected from such biased foreign pioneers of Sanskrit studies.
With these brief remarks we earnestly pray that the light of
truth may dawn on every thinking and learned man of Bhārata-
varṣa, so that in these days of political and individual freedom
he may shake off the yoke of intellectual slavery of the west.
* * * * *
NON-VIOLENCE IS SUPREME IN RELIGIOUS SCRIPTURES
Non-violence has been accorded a very high position in the
scriptures of the Hindus as well as those of other faiths. It is
evident from the citations given below :46 blunders of indological scholars
१. मा िहंात ्सवभ तािन ू
Do not kill any living being.
२. तािहंसा सवथा  सवदा  सवभ तानामनिभोहः ू (पा.यो. २.३०)
Having no ill feeling for any living being in all manners
possible and for all times is called Ahıṁsā. (Pātañjala Yoga)
३. अिहंसया च भतानामम ू ताय ृ कत (े मनु ितृ ६.६०)
By not killing any living being, one becomes ﬁt for salvation.
अिहंसया तदम (्मनु ितृ ६.७५)
By non-violence, one attains the supreme state, the
paramapada.
Manu in 10.63 in his prescription of duties for all human
beings has given priority to Ahimsa even over truth etc.
अिहंसा समये ंशौचिमियिनहः (मनु ितृ १०.६३)
४. धमाणा  ंच यथािहंसाभयदानंवरयकम े (्आिदपराणु १.१६)
Just as ahimsa is highest among all religions, similarly
granting of fearlessness (Abhyadāna) is the highest of all the
gifts (dāna).
५. िवशि यथा नः सममु जृ वगाः ु ।
सवऽधमा   िहंसायांिवशि तथा ढम ॥्
-(पपराणु .उर.२४३.६)
Just as rivers following straight or crooked path enter the
ocean, like wise all sins (adharma) surely converge into voilence
(himsa), that is, himsa is the greatest sin.by Anandatirtha sharma 47
६. संन संख य िहंसा (दवीभागवत े ३.११.३६)
The truth which involves violence is no a truth.
७. यतू ेििवधंशौचंयिःैपयपािसतम ु ।्
बांिनलपिनगमनाः  शौचमिहंसनम ॥्
अिः शिु गाािण बिा ु न ने शित ु ।
अिहंसया च भताा ू मनने शित ु ॥
-(बौधायनधमस ू- ३.१०.२३-२४)
Puriﬁcation is of two kinds. Outer puriﬁcation is effected by
the removal of adherences and inner purity is effected by
ahimsa. The physical body is puriﬁed by water; intellect is
puriﬁed by knowledge; the spirit (ātmā) is puriﬁed by ahimsa
and the mind is puriﬁed by truth.
८. The Baudhāyana Dharmasūtra (3.10.14) accords a
premier position to Ahimsa in the various kinds of taps.
अिहंसा समनैऽसवन ं षेदकोपश ू न ंगशु ुषा ू ।
चयमधःशयनम  कवऽनाशकम े इित् तपािसं ॥
९. In the Pātañjala Yogasūtra ahimsa is the ﬁrst of the
ﬁve yamas.
अिहंसासायचया े पिरहा  यमाः (साधनपाद ६०)
१०. Even Bhagavan Śrīkṛṣṇa while replying to the querries
of Uddhava has given priority to Ahimsa harmlessness or nonviolence, while describing yama-niyma in Śrīmadbhāgavata-
(11.19.33-35)
Bhagavan Kapiladeva also has given priority to ahimsa over
truth etc., while preaching ‘yoga’ to his revered mother 48 blunders of indological scholars
Devahūti in Śrīmadbhāgavata (3.28.4).
Enumerating His glorious manifestations, Lord Kṛṣṇa said
to Uddhava in Śrīmadbhāgavata (11.26.23) - ‘‘Of all sacred
vows I am (the vow of) harmlessness ahimsa - तानामिविहंसनम ्
११. अिहंसा समोधः (गीता १६.२)
Among daivi-sampad qualities, ahimsa gets priority over
truth.
१२. परमधम ितिविदत ु अिहंसा । (रामचिरतमानस)
Ahimsa is known to be the highest religion in Śruti.
१३. In the Pancha-tantra by Viṣṇu Śarma, where practical
knowledge is illustrated by way of stories, ahimsa is described
and praised as the prime religion. In the third section Kākoulilīya
it is said --
िहंसकािप भतािन ू यो िहंसित स िनघणः ृ ।
स याित नरकं घोरं िकं पनयु ः शभािन ु च ॥
Meaning thereby, that he who kills even ferocious animals
without any reason or justiﬁcation, is a cruel person and he
goes to infernal hell; what to speak of one who kills innocent
living beings.
Stress has been laid on ‘Ahimsa’ (non-violence) at several
places in the Mahābhārata. Some extracts are quoted below.
The references to chapter and verse are from the Gita press
edn. followed by Bhandarkar Research Institute edn.
वनपव -- 
अिहंसािनरतः गगिदित े मितमम । १८१.२; १७८.२by Anandatirtha sharma 49
अिहंसाथसमाय  ु ैः कारणःैगम तुे। १८१.१०; १७८.१०
अिहंसा धमिनता  । १८१.४२; १७८.४३
अिहंसा चवै जषुु। १८९.२२; १८७.२१
अिहंसा परमो धमः । २०७.७४; १९८.६९
अिहंसा सवचनम,्
भतानामन ू ककाः ु ,
सो लोकसािणः (लोकसृताः), २०७.९१-९२-९३, १९८.८७-८८
Discourse on ‘Ahimsa’ versus ‘himsa’ by Dharmavyādha.
The whole chapter deals with the subject. 208; 199
अिहंा समता शािः ... ियो िस सदा मम ३१४.८; २९८.८
उोगपवः --
अिहंसका ै सखावहा ु । ३३.५२; ३३.४८
ोणपवः --
अिहंसा सवभ तूषे ुधम ायरं िवः १९२.३८; १६५.२९
शािपव --  राजधमअनशासन ु पवः --
अिहंसा मकोऽजो मत ु ेसविकिष  ःै। ३५.३७; ३५.३३
अिहंसा समोध म ा े धमलणम  ।् ३६.१०; ३७.७
अिहंसा समोधो विदायान ृ पालनम ु ।् ६५.२०; ६५.२०
यान े शृ सं ंसंचािहंसा तप आजवम ।् ८०.४
अिहंसको ानतःृ स ासनमहित । ७९.६; ८०.६
अिहंसा सवचनमानशृ सं ंदमो घणा ृ ।50 blunders of indological scholars
एतत ्तपो िवधरा न शरीर शोषणम ॥् ७९.१८; ८०.१७
अिहंः सवभ तूषे ुसवाक्सढतः ु । १११.६; ११२.६
शािपवः आपमः --
अिहंसा सवचनंदानिमियिनहः ।
एतो े िह महाराज तयो नानशनात ्परम ॥् १६१.८; १५५.८
अिहंसा चवै राजे साकारयोदश । १६२.९; १५६.९
शािपवः मोधम
अिहंः सवभ ताना ू ंमायणगतर ै ते ्। १८९.१२; १८२.१२
अिहंसा समोधः सवामगत  ंतपः । १९१.१५; १८४.१५
अिहंसा सवचनंसवभ तूषे ुचाजवम ।्
मा चवामाद ै यतैेस सखी ु भवते ्॥ २१५.६; १०८.६
अिहंसकः समः सो धितमान ृ िनयत ् ियः े ।
शरयः सवभ ताना ू ंगितमाोनमाम ु ॥् २४५.२०; २३७.२०
अनवता ु मह ेवमिह ृ ंाणांमहानाम ।् २६१.१९; २५४.२०
अिहंसािदकृतंकमइह चवै पर च । २६४.६; २५६.६
अिहंसा सवभ तूो े धमो  ायसी मता । २६५.६; २५७.६
आनशृ ं ंमा शािरिहंसा समाजवम ।्
पानो णते ेएतःैाोित यरम ॥्
२७०.३९-४०; २६२.३७-३८
अिहंसा सकलो धम िहंसाधमथािहतः  । २७२.२०; २६४.१९
अानात ्तुकृतांिहंसामिहंसा पकषित ।
तथा कामकृतंना िविहंसवानै कषु ित ॥ २९१.१२-१३; २८०.१२-१३by Anandatirtha sharma 51
अिहंसा चानशृ सं ंच िविधवत ्पिरपालय । ३२१.५; ३०९.४
अिहंसा धमस यं ाः ु चरये ःुसरोमाः ु ।
स वो दशः े सिवतो े मा वोऽधमः पदा शृ ने ॥३४० ् .८९;३२७.७८
अिहंसाधमय ुेन ीयतेहिररीरः । ३४८.५६; ३३६.५२
अिहंसया परेग। ३५४.१२; ३४३.१२
अनशासनपव ु ः दानपव -- 
अिहंसा समोध आनशृ ं ंदमथा ।
आजव ंचवै राजे िनितंधमलणम  ॥् २२.१९; २३.१९
अिहंादोष स राजन क्ेतनमः । २३.२८; २४.२९
अिहंसािनरता येच ... तान नमािम ् केशव । ३१.१९; ३२.१९
अिहंसा दम आजवम .. ् तांमानमहित । ३७.८-९; ३७.८-९
अिहंसायाः फलं पंदीाया ज वैकुले। ५७.११; ५७.११
अिहंसा सवभ तूः े ... संभववभथाय ृ ते।६०.१८-१९; ५९.१८
अिहंसािनरतो िनंजानो ु जातवदसम े ।्
षिरवे स वष ुिसतेना सशयः ं ॥ १०७.७; ११०.६-७
अिहंसा सवभ तानाम ू ।् १०८.४; १११.४
अिहंसा सवचन ... ं गाहो  धमउमः । १४१.२५; १२२.५८
उपवासतदा ै ा  िहंाः सवािदनः ।
सिसाः ं े गवःसह मोदनामयाः ॥ १४२.३८; १३०.३८
अिहंसा समोधो दानमतत े यम ु ।् १६२.२३; १४७.२२
अिहंसया च दीघाय िरित ु ामनीिषणः  । १६३.१२; १४९.११52 blunders of indological scholars
अमधपव े ः --
अिहंसा सवधमा  णािमित  वान ृ शासनम ु ।् २८.१६; २८.१६
अिहंसिते ितये ंयिद वातः परम ।् २८.१८; २८.१७
अिहंसा सवभ ताना ू ंिनमासुरोचते। २८.१८; २८.१८
अिहंसा परमो धम िहंसा चाधमलणा  । ४३.२१; ४३.१९
अिहंसा चयच समाजवम वे च । ४६.२९; ४६.३५
अिहंसा सवभ तानाम ू तते ्क(?)तमंमतम ्। ५०.२; ४९.२
CHRISTIANITY ON NON-VIOLENCE
1. For meat destroy not the work of God (Romans 14.20)
2. It is good neither to eat flesh, nor to drink wine, nor
anything whereby thy brother stumbleth, or is offended, or
is made weak. (Romans 14.21)
3. Sacrifice and offering thou didst not desire, mine ears
hast thou opened; burnt offering and sin offering has thou
not require. (Psalms 40.6)
4. I will take no bullock out of thy house, nor he goats out
of thy folds. (Psalms 50.9)
5. For every beast of the forest is mine, and the cattle
upon a thousand hills. (Psalms 50.10)
6. I know all the fowls of the mountains, and the wild
beasts of the fields are mine. (Psalms 50.11)
7. If I were hungry, I would not tell thee : for the world is
mine, and the fulness thereof. (Psalms 50.12)
8. Will I eat the flesh of bulls; or drink the blood of goats?by Anandatirtha sharma 53
(Psalms 50.13)
9. I will have mercy and not sacrifice. (Mathews 9.13)
10. He that killeth an ox
(1)
is as if he slew a man, he that
sacrificeth a lamb, as if he cut off a dog’s neck. (Issiah
66/3)
How strange that inspite of the provisions in their scriptures
that killing of the bovine species is like human murder, the
Christians are the biggest cow-killers and beef-eaters and even
persuade others to do so for their selﬁsh ends.
ZARATHUSTRA RELIGION
The Parsi Zarathustra religion has also attached great
importance to ahimsa and it considers meat as very impure.
Mr. Dastur Khurshedji, the High Priest of the Wadia Temple,
Bombay has written in his letter dated 7-2-1969 --
1. Our religion has the attribute - ‘Not advocating
compulsion and violence’ (Naida-Snaithishem)
2. Any cruelty to anmials is prohibited and protection or
kindness is advocated.
3. It is pointed out that at the ﬁnal ‘judgement’
(ressurection) man’s food should consist of vegetarian products;
and none would kill living creatures of food.
4. The sacred hymns of Zarathustra emphasise our
homage (nemo) to the animal kingdom. All life is sacred.
5. Animal sacriﬁces are forbidden and none of our rituals
(1). According to dictionary ox represents both male and
female of Cow progeny.54 blunders of indological scholars
ever offer meat. Nay, it has to be far away from sacred
precincts.
Athough many parsi friends take meat against their religion,
their priest Shri Dastur Khurshedji is completely vegetarian.
* * * *by Anandatirtha sharma 55
WHAT TO DO IF THERE IS CONTRADICTION
BETWEEN ŚRUTI and SMṚTI
िवरोधेनपेे ंादसित नमानम ु ।्
- (जिमनीप ै वूमीमा  सादश ं न १.३.३)
In case Smṛti provision is against the provision of Śruti,
Smṛti provisions become inoperative. If the Śruti is not against,
then it has to be presumed that in Śruti also there must have
been provisions similar to Smṛti but by the passing of time, the
same is lost and is not traceable.
अथकाम  साना े ंधमान  ंिवधीयते।
धमिजासमानानांमाणंपरमंितः ु ॥ -(मनु ितृ २.१३)
These are the duties prescribed for those who are not
addicted to artha and kāma. For those who are anxious to
know dharma, śruti is the best proof.
या वदबााः े तयो ृ या का कुयः ।
सवाा  िनलाः याः े तमोिना िह ताः ताः ृ ॥
- मनु ितृ १२.६५
Those (याः) Smṛtis (तयः ृ ) and those (या का)
despicable systems (कुयः) which are not based on
the Vedas (वदबााः े ) are all (सवााः  ) futile (िनलाः) for
(िह) they (ताः) are declared (ताः ृ ) to be founded on
dark ignorance (तमोिनाः).
ितु ितिवरोध ृ ेतुितर ु वे गरीयसी ।
अिवरोधेसदा कायातविदकवदा ै ॥ (जाबाल)
In case of contradiction between śruti and smṛti, the former
is to be given more weight. Where there is no contradiction, 56 blunders of indological scholars
good people should perform actions ordained by smṛti as if
they were prescribed by śruti.
ा ु सह िवरोधने बातेिवषयंिवना । (भिवपराणु )
In case of contradiction with śruti, smṛti becomes
inoperative and ineffective.
Śrī Madhvāchārya alias Swami Ānandtīrtha has quoted
passages from Vedic texts and Purāṇas at certain places in his
commentary on the Brahmasūtra and he has clearly speciﬁed -
पराणोपजी ु वदे एव न चापरः ।
तिरोधेकथंमानंत न भिवित ॥
The basis of Purāṇas is Veda and nothingelse. As such,
how can they be taken as authentic against Vedic provisions?
IS BEEF EATING PRESCRIBED IN THE BRIHDARNYAKA
UPNISHAD?
Notorious importance has been attached to Raja
Rajendralala Mitra’s ‘Beef in Ancient India’, published as a
booklet by Manisha Granthalaya (Private) Ltd., Calcutta. On
pages ii & iii of its ‘Preface’ a passage from the Bṛhadāraṇyaka
Upaniṣad (6th Chapter, 4th Brāhmaṇa, 18th Khaṇḍa), has been
cited and interpreted as the ‘eating of a beef-preperation by a
couple desirous of begetting a son learned in all the Vedas’.
This verse in invariably quoted by almost all who support beefeating beef-eating in the Vedas. Sri Panduranga Vaman Kane,
M.A., LL.M., Advocate, High Court, Bombay, has also reffered to
it in Chapter XXII ‘Bhojana - ﬂesh-eating’ of his ‘History of
Dharmaśāstra‘, Vol II, Part II, published by the Bhandarkar
Oriental Research Institute, Poona. Later scholars like Dr.R.C. by Anandatirtha sharma 57
Majumdar, Honorary Head of the Department of History,
Bhāratīya Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, in the chapter ‘Food and
Drink’ (History and Culture of the Indian People, chapter XXI,
page 577) have relied on Kane’s History of Dharmaśāstra for
supporting the contention of beef-eating. Sri A.B. Shah,
Professor of Mathematics and Statistics at at the Universities of
Poona and Bombay for about 20 years, now Director of
Programme in India for the Congress for Cultural Freedom,
author of ‘Scientiﬁc Method and Planning for Democracy’ and
other essays, in the ‘Introduction’ to his book ‘Cow Slaughter -
Horns of a Dilemma’ has emphatically supported beef-eating on
the basis of the same controversial verse of the Bṛhadārṇyaka
Upaniṣad. This article intends to discuss this oft-cited verse. It
reads as follows :
अथ य इते ्पो ु मेपिडतो िवगीतः सिमितयः शु िषता ू ंवाचं
भािषता जायते सवान व् दानन े ुवीतु सवमाय  िरयािदित ु मासौदन ं ंपाचिया
सिपमीयातामीरौ  जनियतवा अौणे वाषभ णे वा ॥
-(बहदारयक ृ उपिनषद ्६.४.१८)
In the ‘Preface’ of the ‘Beef in Ancient India’, this verse has
been translated into English as follows -
‘And if a man wishes that a learned son should be born to
him, famous, a public man, a popular speaker, that he should
know all the Vedas and that he should live to his full age, then
aŌer having prepared boiled rice with meat and buƩer, he and his
wife should both eat, being ﬁt to have oﬀspring. The meat should
be of a fullgrown or of an old bull’’.
Mr. Robert Earnest Hume, Ph.D., D.Theol., Professor of the
History of Religions at the Union Theological Seminary, New
York, has translated this verse in different words but the idea is 58 blunders of indological scholars
the same, except that in place of ‘full grown or old bull’ he has
interpreted the meat as ‘either veal or beef’.
The controversial words are interpreted by the two authors
as follows -
Rajendralala Mitra Robert Earnest Hume
Māṁsaudanam boiled rice and meat boiled rice and meat
Aukṣeṇa meat of a fullgrown bull veal
Ārṣabheṇa meat of an old bull beef
In English usage ‘veal’ is the ﬂesh of a calf and beef that
of a grown-up animal.
If it be accpted that rice with veal, meat of a full-grown or
an old bull, cooked in butter, would beget a son, blessed with
the learning of all the Vedas, then the Westren people, who
are almost all beef-eaters, should have all acquired this
learning. Let us examine the interpretation of this verse in its
appropriate context. The four verses immediately preceding the
said controversial verse in the Bṛhdāraṇyaka Upaniṣad read as
follows -
स य इते ्पो ु मेशो ु जायते वदमन े ुवीतु सवमाय  िरयािदित ु
ीरौदनंपाचिया सिपमीयातामीरौ  जनियतवै॥१४॥
अथ य इते ्पो ु मेकिपलः िपलो जायते ौ वदावन े ुवीतु
सवमाय  िरयािदित ु दोदनंपाचिया सिपमीयातामीरौ  जनियतवै
॥१५॥
अथ य इते ्पो ु मेयामो लोिहताो जायते ीन ्वदानन े ुवीतु
सवमाय  िरयािद ु दौदन ु ं पािचया सिपमीयातामीरौ  जनियतवै
॥१६॥by Anandatirtha sharma 59
अथ य इदे ्िहता मेपिडता जायते सवमाय  िरयािदित ु ितलौदनं
पाचिया सिपमीयातामीरौ  जनियतवै॥१७॥
These four verses, according to all the translators, give
dietary prescriptions for begetting progeny which is well versed
in one or more Vedas as follows --
for a son, proﬁcient in one Veda, diet of rice cooked in
milk, and mixed with ghee;
for a son, proﬁcient in two Vedas, diet of rice cooked with
curd, mixed with ghee;
for a son, proﬁcient in three Vedas, diet of rice cooked in
water, mixed with ghee; and
for a learned daughter, diet of rice cooked in til (sesamum),
mixed with ghee.
According to Westren scholars, the chronological order of
the four Vedas is as follows -
(1) Ṛgveda; (ii) Yajur-veda; (iii) Sāma-veda; and (iv)
Atharva veda.
If the sequence of the Vedas in the above-quoted verses of
the Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad is taken to correspond to the
order in which the respective Vedas have appeared, then the
diet prescribed for a couple to acquire a son well versed in one
or more of the Vedas will be as follows -
(1) For Ṛgveda- diet of rice and milk, mixed with Ghee;
(2) For Ṛgveda and Yajur-veda - diet of rice and curd,
mixed with ghee;
(3) For Ṛgveda, Yajur and Sāma vedas - diet of rice and 60 blunders of indological scholars
water, mixed with ghee;
(iv) For Ṛg, Yajur, Sāma and Atharva Vedas - diet of rice
and beef, mixed with ghee
If the above interpretation is accepted, beef diet has been
enjoined for the acquisition of the knowledge of the Atharvaveda only.
The above verses do not indicate a diet of the meat of
smaller animals like goat, sheep or others for acquiring a child
proﬁcient in one or two or three of the Vedas. Then how can it
be justiﬁed that beef diet has been prescribed for begetting a
son learned in the four Vedas, particularly for the Atharva Veda.
Let us consider the question further and in greater details.
Just as the English word ‘ﬂesh’, besides meaning ‘muscular
tissues of an animal’, also means ‘soft pulpy part of fruits and
vegetables’ and ‘meat’, besides meaning ‘ﬂesh of an animal’,
also means ‘anything eaten as food for nourishment’, the
sanskrit word Maṁsa also means ‘soft pulpy part of fruits and
vegetables, etc.,’. The readers can consult any Sanskrit
dictionary. Similarly, the peel of a fruit is called skin; its hard
part is called bone and ﬁbres are called ligament or nerves etc.
‘PRASTHAM KUMĀRIKĀ-MAṀSAM ĀNAYA’ in Sanskrit could
mean ‘bring a seer of a girl’s ﬂesh’, but it means only ‘bring a
seer of the ﬂesh pith of the medicinal plant called kumāri
(Hindi- ghikvār).
There are several words in Sanskit which mean a particular
animal or which refer to parts of their body, but primarily they
are the names of medicinal plants.
Go-danƤ - cows-teeth; a kind of medicinal plant; yellow by Anandatirtha sharma 61
orpiment (Monier-Williams); a white mineral substance (Monier
- Williams)
Go-kṣura - cow’s hoof; a medicine called gokharu; Tibilus
languinosus, sivśruta (Monier-Williams).
Go-jihvā - cow’s tongue; Ayurvedic medicine called gajwan
or gojwan (its leave is rough like cow’s tongue); name of a
plant Phlomis or Premna esculenta (Monier-Williams).
Ajā-karṇa - goat’s ear; asana arjuna (असन अजनु) tree
whose parts are used in the preperation of medicine; the tree
Terminalia Alata Tomentosa (Monier-Williams).
Ajā - she-goat; plant whose bulb resembles the udder of a
goat (Monier Williams).
It would be blasphemy if one interprets these words only
as part of the body of a cow or goat or the animal itself.
The chapter VI-4 of Brihadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad deals with
the subject of begetting learned progeny according to one‘s
own desire. The very ﬁrst verse of this chapter is --
एषां वैभताना ू ं पिथवी ृ रसः, पिथा ृ आपोऽपामोषधय, अौषधीनां
पािण ु , पाणा ु ंफलािन, फलानांपषः ु , पषु रतः े ॥१॥
Which means -
‘‘Verily, of all the created things here, earth is the essence;
of earth, water is the essence;
of water, medicinal plants are the essence;
of medicinal plants, ﬂowers are the essence;
of ﬂowers, fruits are the essence;
of fruits, man is the essence;
of man, semen is the essence.62 blunders of indological scholars
In this chain from earth to semen (seed of the human
species), no mention has been made of anything connected
with animal ﬂesh. The speciﬁcation of the plant kingdom clearly
indicates that high class semen needed to beget high class
progeny, can be produced by fruits of medicinal plants only
and not from any kind of animal ﬂesh.
The word aukṣeṇa is from Ukṣa. It will be relevent here to
quote the various meanings of this word from the famous
Sanskrit English Dictionary compiled by Monier-Williams. They
are as follows --
(i) a bull (as impregnating the ﬂock);
(ii) name of ‘soma’ (as sprinkling or scattering small drops)
(iii) one of the eight chief medicaments (ṛṣbha).
The word ārṣbheṇa is derived from the word ṛṣbha. The
said Dictionary renders this word as follows --
(i) a bull (as impregnating the ﬂock).
(ii) a kind of medicinal plant (Suśruta, Bhāva-prakāśā)
(iii) carpopogan Prunriens (charaka).
The well known Sanskrit-German Dictionary under the title
Sanskrit-Wœrterbuch published by the Imperial Academy of
Sciences, St-Petersburg in 1855, explains the word ‘ukṣā’ as
dripping or trickling soma. The Dictionary has cited the word
from the various mantras 1.135.9, 9.83.2, 9.85.10, 9.86.43,
9.89.2, 9.95.4 of Ṛgveda.
A few more meanings are ascribed to these words, but
they are not relevant here.by Anandatirtha sharma 63
SOMA in Monier-William’s Sanskrit-English Dictionary is
‘Juice of Soma plant’ where soma plant itself is said to be a
climbing plant Sarcostema Viminalis or Asclepias Acida; a drug of
supposed magical property. ‘Soma’ is interpreted as nectar as
well. Almost similar interpretations of the soma plant are given
in other indeginious dictionaries also.
The concluding words of the above verse are aukṣeṇa vā
ṛṣbheṇa vā, which stands for ‘either ukṣa or ṛṣbha’. As such ukṣa
ṛṣbha must be two different things and or not one and the
same thing. According to dictionaries, ukṣā doesnot mean ‘govatsa’ or calf, while both words ukṣa and ṛṣbha, if interpreted
as an animal of bovine species, will mean bull (as impregnating
the ﬂock) i.e. one and the same thing. Hence the word ukṣā
and ṛṣabha, with the conjunctions ‘either’ and ‘or’, cannot mean
one and the same thing i.e., bull (as impregnating the ﬂock).
By adding the conjunctions ‘either ... or’ to ’ukṣā’ and ‘ṛṣabha’
the seer of the verse must have intended to represent two
different things. In the ﬁeld of medicine ‘ukṣā’ may also mean
‘ṛṣabha’, but with the words ‘either’ and ‘or’, added with the
words ‘ukṣā’ and ‘ṛṣabha’, ‘ukṣā’ cannot mean ‘ṛṣabha’. As such
ukṣā stands for ‘Soma’ (as sprinkling or scattering small drops)
and ‘ṛṣabha’ signiﬁes a medicinal plant as described in the
Charakasamhitā, Śuśruta samhitā and Bhāvaprakāśa.
In Charaka-samhitā, Vol I, Chapter IV.13, the ﬁrst
mahākaṣāya consisting of ten medicines, among which ṛṣabhaka
is one, are termed as ‘jīvanīya’ or energy-increasing. The text
is as follows --64 blunders of indological scholars
१ २ ३ ४ ५ ६ ७-८
जीवकषभकौ  मदा े महामदा े काकोलो ीरकाकोली ममाषपय ु
९ १०
जीवी मधकिमित ु दशमािन े जीवनीयािन भवि ।
In the 38th Chapter of Sūtra-sthāna of the Śuśruta-
samhitā, which is named as dravya-sañgrahāṇīya, ṛṣabhaka is
one of several items.
In Bhāva-prakāśa, Pūrṇakhaṇd ṛṣabhaka is one of the eight
medicaments. The text is as follows --
१ २ ३-४ ५-६ ७-८
जीवकषभकौ  मदे े काकोौ ऋिविकृ े॥१२०॥
Among the various qualities of aṣta-varga or the eight
medicaments, the most important are : bṛhaṇa aphrodisiac;
śukra-janaka semen-producing, and bala-bardhaka tonic.
It is further mentioned there that the ‘ṛṣabha’ medicine is
found on Himalayan peaks. It is shaped like the horn of a bull.
From the several references quoted above as well from
verses 1, 14, 15, 16 and 17 of the same chapter of
Bṛhadāranyaka upaniṣad, it is amply clear that ‘ukṣā’ and
‘ṛṣabha’ in verse 18 can mean only two different medicinal
plants referred to in Ayurvedic texts and not the meat of a calf
or an ox (whether full-grown or old) in any case.
commentary of Jagdguru Ādi-Śankarācharya
Jagadguru Ādi-Śankarācharya’s Sanskrit commentary on
controversial kaṇdikā 6.4.18 of Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad, is
often cited in favour of the prescription of beef. Some contend by Anandatirtha sharma 65
that it is evident from this commentary that even Ādi-
Śankarācharya has accepted the prescription of partaking of
rice cooked with beef for a couple desirous of begetting
progeny well-versed in the four Vedas. The wording of the
commentary is as follows --
िविवधंगीतो िवगीतः ात इथः । सिमितमः सभां गतीित
ग इथः । पािड पथहणात ृ ्। शु िषता ू ं ोतिमा ु ं
रमणीयांवाचंभािषता सं ृताया अथवा  वाचो भािषतथ े ः ।
मासिममोदन ं ं मासौदनम ं ्। तासिनयमाथ ं माह  -- अौणे वा
मासं ने । उा सचनसमथ े ः पवदीय ु ंमासमं ।् ऋषभतोऽिधकवया-
दीयमाषभ ंमासमं ॥्
There is no difference of opinion about the translation of
the ﬁrst part of the commentary which is as follows -
‘‘One whose importance is sung in varied ways is called
vigīta. Vigīta i.e., renowned. SamiƟñgamaḥ i.e., a fearless
or undaunted person who attends the assembly of the
learned. As learned has been speciﬁed seperately in the
text, the word SamiƟñgamaḥ has not been taken in the
sense of a scholar or learned person. Śuśrūṣitā is affable in
speech, speaker of charming expression, i.e., a coherent
speaker endowed with saṁskāras’’.
The meaning of the latter part is as follows :
‘‘Cooked rice mixed with māṁsa is māṁsoudana. The
mamsa is further specified as : that of ukṣā, ukṣā is a
puñgava potent in impregnation; or that of a ṛṣabha of
vayas exceeding that of ukṣā’’.
This is the literal meaning. Jagadguru Ādi-Śankarācharya 66 blunders of indological scholars
has not clariﬁed whether it is the meat of an animal or whether
it is mamsa i.e., ﬂeshy part of medicinal fruits. In such situation
it has to be considered in the light of its context, whether the
meat of an animal is appropriate here or the ﬂeshy part of
medicinal fruits. This will be clear by considering the
signiﬁcation of sechanasamarthaḥ pungavaḥ and of ‘a ṛṣabha
exceeding in vayas than that of ukṣā’. There is no difference of
opinion about the meaning of sechanasamarthaḥ which is
potent in impregnation. The meanings of the words ukṣā,
pungava, ṛṣbha and vayas will have to be considered.
The meaning of ukṣā has been discussed earlier in this
chapter.
The meanings of the word pungava are given by Monier
Williams in his Sanskrit-English Dictionary p.630, column 3
(lines 8-11 from bottom) as follows :
‘a bull, a hero, eminent person, chief of, a kind of drug’
On their basis, the meaning of sechanasamarthaḥ
pungavaḥ can be :
i) a stud-bull potent in impregnation.
ii) a hero potent in impregnation.
iii) an eminent person potent in impregnation.
iv) a chief potent in impregnation.
v) a kind of drug potent in impregnation.
The herb potent in impregnation has been termed as
vājikaraṇ or asphrodisiac in Āyurveda. Soma is also an
asphrodisiac herb (a drug of supposed magical property) which
is the favourite of gods. According to Hindu scriptures one by Anandatirtha sharma 67
attains birth among the gods for enjoying the fruits of one’s
meritorious deeds. These include all enjoyments according to
one’s inclination or longings. The Purāṇas recount a number of
legends of armours of the gods enjoying the fruits of their
meritorious deeds. Therefore, it is not surprising that the herbal
juice of soma which is potent in impregnation, should have
been such a favourite of the gods enjoying the fruits of their
meritorious deeds. Now, the readers should themselves
consider as to which of the ﬁve meanings mentioned above will
be more appropriate and in accordance with the context of
‘ukṣā sechana-samarthaḥ’. Taking the contextual propriety into
consideration, the meaning ‘a herb (ukṣā, i.e., Soma juice)
potent in impregnation’ will be the most appropriate and
relevant.
The meaning of ‘tataḥ api adhika-vayāḥ’ is ‘one exceeding
the vayas than that’. The base of vayāḥ is vayas. The meanings
of word vayas are given as under in Monier-William’s Sanskrit
English Dictionary, p.920, columns 2,3
i) enjoyment, food, meal, oblation;
ii) energy (both bodily and mental), strength, health,
vigour, power, might;
iii) vigorous age, youth, prime of life, any period of life,
age.
Accordingly, tataḥ api adhika-vayāḥ will mean -
i) more enjoyable than that;
ii) more energetic than that;
iii) more invigorating than that.68 blunders of indological scholars
The meanings of ṛṣabha as given by Monier-Williams
Sanskrit-English Dictionary have been cited already. In the
section on plants and herbs in the Amarakośa 2.116 it is
rendered as śṛñgī tu ṛṣabno bṛṣaḥ. The plant. śṛñgī is also
called ṛṣabha and vṛṣa. This plant śṛñgī is an aphrodisiac.
If we take it as the ﬂesh of the bovine ṛṣabha (bull) here,
then the meaning of ṛṣabha tataḥ api adhika-vayāḥ will be
‘the bovine ṛṣabha who is older in age than the ukṣā capable
of impregnating the bovine species’. But the reality of the
situation is that the vigorous age for impregnation is growing
youth and not the advancing age (declining youth). So this
meaning does not ﬁt in the context.
Taking the context into account ṛṣabhaḥ tataḥ api adhika-
vayāḥ will mean ‘a medicine of aṣṭavarga called ṛṣabha which
is more invigorating even than soma juice’. this medicine is
often prescribed by Āyurvedic practitioners for frequent use by
the rich to keep their sexual powers undiminished. The
medicine of the aṣṭavarga is an aphrodisiac which increases
semen.
The prescription of beef is impossible, particularly because
the bovine species is declared as inviolable in Vedas. There is
no mention of meat in this section from its very ﬁrst kaṇdikā
among the items which ultimately result in the best, purest
sātvika semen. And only the purest sātvika semen is required
for begetting progeny proﬁcient in the Vedas. Therefore, in the
present passage ukṣā and ṛṣabha can never signify the meat of
animals, but they can only mean the ﬂeshy part of pulp of pure
medicinal fruits.
In none of the dictionaries do we ﬁnd that the word ukṣāby Anandatirtha sharma 69
means ‘a stud-bull of younger age, potent in impregnation’ or
that the word ṛṣabha means ‘an older stud-bull potent in
impregnation’. If we take that according to Jagadguru Ādi-
Śankarachārya, both the words ukṣā and ṛṣabha mean stud
bulls potent in impregnation, and one of them be younger
while the other be older, then the words ukṣā and ṛṣabha taken
collectively, will mean, a bull of any age potent in impregnation.
If, in the mamsaudana, the meat of a bull of any age,
potent in impregnation had been intended then in the original
Upanishad the wording would have been govaṁśa aukṣeṇa
(bovine ukṣā) or govaṁśa ārṣbheṇa (bovine ṛṣabha) and Jagd-
guru Ādi-Śankarācharya, to make it clear beyond doubt that
the meat of the stud-bull is intended, would also have written,
‘sechanasamarthaḥ govaṁśapungavaḥ tadīyam māmsam’.
Stud-bulls potent in impregnation are of a very high breed
and also very rare. Their slaughter will never be desirable.
Moreover, the original words in the text are aukṣeṇa vā
ārṣabheṇa vā, that is, either of an ukṣā or of a ṛṣabha. The
use of the conjunctions ‘vā ....... vā’ i.e., ‘either ......... or’ itself
indicates that ukṣā and ṛṣabha are not the same, but distinctly
different. Therefore, it is impossible that a highly learned
personality like the Jagadguru Ādi-Śankarācharya would
interpret as a tautology the words ukṣā and ṛṣabha signifying
‘a stud-bull as long as it is potent in impregnation’, when the
contradistinctive conjunction ‘vā .......... vā’ i.e., ‘either ..........
or’ is used to contrast the words ukṣā and ṛṣabha. It is certain
that ‘ukṣā secana-samarthaḥ pungavaḥ’ as used in the
commentary of Jagadguru Ādi-Śankarācārya means an
aphrodisiac drug, i.e., soma juice, and ‘tataḥ api adhika-vayāḥ’70 blunders of indological scholars
means ‘the drug ṛṣabha of the aṣṭavarga, which is supposed to
be more invigorating even than ukṣā i.e, soma juice.
* * * * *
WERE COWS SLAUGHTERED AT KING RANTIDEVA’S PLACE?
In the booklet ‘Beef in Ancient India’ by Raja Rajendralala
Mitra, it is stated on page iii of the ‘Preface’ that according to
the Mahābhārata, 2000 cows used to be slaughtered everyday
at King Rantideva’s place to entertain guests. In support of this
assertion the following verse has been quoted from Vanaparva, Chapter 207. Actually this verse is not found in Chapter
207, but occurs in Chapter 208 of the Chitrashala edition and
in Chapter 199 of the Bhandarkar Oriental Institute edition -
राो महानसेपवूरिदवे वैिज ।
ेसहेतुवते ेपशनामह ू ंतदा ।
अहहिन वते ेेसहेगवांतथा ।
In this verse, interpreting the word vadhyete as ‘used to be
slaughtered’, it is being propagated that 2000 cows and 2000
animals used to be slaughtered every day in the kitchen of
King Rantideva. According to Pāṇini’s Sanskrit grammer, this
cannot be the correct interpretation, which we will discuss later.
Bharatiya vidya Bhavan, Bombay, in their renowned
publication ‘The History and Culture of the Indian People’
whose General Editor is Shri R.C. Majumdar, M.A., Ph.D.,
F.R.A.S.B. has also stated in Vol II, page 579 as follows : --
‘‘According to Mahābhārata, a king called Rantideva killed
everyday two thousand cattle and two thousand kine in order
to dole out meat to the people’’.by Anandatirtha sharma 71
They have neither quoted nor given a reference to the
Mahābhārata in this respect. It appears that their ideas are
also based on the above quoted verse. They must have also
done so following in the foot-steps of other persons without
caring to study the full context, which is most unfair on the
part of an institution like the Bhāratīya Vidya Bhavan, whose
publications carry weight with the general public.
This verse, along with a few more, is not available in all
the editions of Mahabharata. Wherever this verse exists it is
followed by another verse. The lines of this further verse read
as follows --
समासं ंददतो ंरिदवे िनशः ।
अतला ु कीितरभव  पृ िजसम ॥
It means ‘‘Oh superior among Dvijas! King Rantideva
earned unparalleled glory by serving guests with such meat’’.
Let us now consider the propriety of this verse.
Incompatability of RanƟdeva’s Glory by Animal-Slaughter
while propagaƟng Ahimsa
At this place in the Vana-parva of Mahabharata, a Dharmavyādha, while giving discourse to a Kauśika Brāhmaṇa,
discusses the merits of non-violence vis-a-vis violence. In the
previous chapter he has preached non-violence as the greatest
virtue in verse no. 74 of the Gita Press and Chitrashala editions,
and verse no 69 of the Bhandarkar Institute edition. He has
not quoted any historical incident as an example.
Taking into consideration the previous context of the
subject, no sane person will admit that after preaching non- 72 blunders of indological scholars
violence and decrying violence in the chapter under discussion,
any historical example of attainment of fame by any king by
practising violence by way of killing of 2000 innocent animals
and 2000 innocent cows every day, could be quoted by the
Dharma-vyādha. As such it is more than certain that these
verses being repugnant to the subject cannot form part of that
chapter and in whichever edition of the Mahabharata they
appear, they are not genuine but interpolated. Examples can
be quoted from the Mahabharata itself to show that the above
quoted verses relied upon in the ‘Preface’ of ‘Beef in Ancient
India’ by Raja Rajendralala Mitra are not genuine. They are as
follows --
(1) In Mahabharata, Anuśāsanika parva, Chapter
115, in verse 63-67 of the Gita Press edition and verses
72-76 in the Chitrashala edition, names of various kings of
ancient times are quoted, who were never addicted to any
sort of meat-eating. Among them, the name of King
Rantideva is also mentioned. These verses appear in
Chapter 116 and are numbered 67 to 70 in the Bhandarkar
Institute edition.
If Brāhmaṇas would have been served beef and/or
ordinary meat at King Rantideva’s place, then the king
himself would have taken beef and/ or meat as prasadam,
in which case his name would not have found place among
kings who never took meat.
(2) Even if one insists that the text smāmsam
dadato hyannam is correct, then too, considering the
special virtues of King Rantideva, which will be described
later, mamsam cannot mean the meat of an animal body. by Anandatirtha sharma 73
In the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 11.7.1.3 the word mamsa is
equivalent to and carries the same meaning as paramānnam
एत ह वैपरममां यासमं -् and paramānnam according
to Sanskrit lexicon Amarakośa 2.7.24 is pāyasam prepared
with the admixture of milk, rice and sugar - परमां तु
पायसम ्। Thus it would mean that King Rantideva earned
fame by entertaining Brāhmaṇas with pāyasam and not
with animal meat.
(3) If 2000 cows are killed everyday, then 7,20,000
cows would have been killed in a year. If this had continued
year after year, then the cow progeny would gradually
vanished from earth. As such, from practical point of view
also, this does not appear to be justiﬁed.
(4) Again in the Mahabharata (Gita press and
Chitrashala editions) Droṇaparva, Chapter 67, Nārada is
describing to king Śṛnjaya, the greatness of King Rantideva,
wherein he has said that Rantideva made gifts to
Brāhmaṇas out of his honest and just income in which
thousands of ‘niṣka’ used to be given daily. There, a ‘niṣka’
is deﬁned as equal to ‘1000 golden bulls and 100 cows as
well as 108 gold coins with each bull’.
(5) In the Mahabharata, Śāntiparva, Chapter 262,
verse 47 in the Gita Press and Chitrashala editions and
Chapter 254, verse 45 in the Bhandarkar Institute edition,
it is stated --
अा इित गवांनाम क एता हमहु ित ।
महकाराकुशलंवषृ ंगांवाऽऽलभते त् ुयः ॥
meaning thereby that in Śruti the cow is referred to as 74 blunders of indological scholars
aghnyā ‘not to be killed’; as such who can even think of
killing a cow? He who kills a cow and/ or a bull, commits a
great sin.
Let the readers consider, whether it is consistent or possible
for such a pious king to get 2000 innocent animals and 2000
innocent cows slaughtered in his kitchen for the entertainment
of guests.
With the foregoing observations about the revered cow and
King Rantideva in the Mahabharata, how can it be believed that
the verse quoted in the Preface of ‘Beef in Ancient India’ by
Raja Rajendralala Mitra can be genuine and correct?
Many persons, either being themselves ignorant of the
Sanskrit language or not willing to take pains to consult the
quoted passage in its context in the originals books, take it for
granted that a passage quoated by a famous person and
announced publicly and published in the press, must be correct
beyond doubt. But the facts are not so.
Misleading views expressed by Shri Mukandi lal, formerly
Deputy Speaker of the LegislaƟve Assembly of United
provinces, and by Rahul Sankrityayan
Recently, tendencious book ‘Cow Slaughter - Horns of a
Dilemma’ has been published by Lalwani Publishing House,
which is edited by one Shri. A.B. Shah, who has been Professor
of Mathematics and Statistics for about 20 years at the
Universities of Poona and Bombay and who is at present the
Director of Programmes in India for the Congress of Cultural
Freedom. It contains similar irrelevant material. In this book,
an article ‘Cow-cult in India’ has been published, which is by Anandatirtha sharma 75
written by one Shri Mukandi Lal, an Oxford Graduate and a
Barrister-at-law, who was Deputy Speaker of the U.P. Legislative
Assembly during the British period in the years 1927-30. The
shallowness of personal knowledge of Shri Mukandi lal is clear
from his statement on p.31, wherein he has stated that the
great Vaiṣṇava saint Vallabhācārya translated the Bhāgavata
purāṇa in Hindi. Shri Vallabhācārya has written a commentary
on the Bhāgavata purāṇa in Sanskrit, which is entitled
‘Subodhini’. In this eassay propagating cow-slaughter in the
ancient period, Shri Mukandi lal has quoted freely from Shri
Rahul Sankrityayan’s Hindi book Volgā se Gangā. He himself
has not taken pains to consult the texts in the original. Let us
discuss these quotations and also consider what Shri Rahul
Sanskrityayan has alleged.
In a foot-note to p.228 of his book, Rahul Sankrityayan has
quoted three lines of two verses from the Droṇa-parva, Ch.67.
The ﬁrst śloka and the ﬁrst half of the second śloka read as
follows --
साितंरिदवेंच मतृ ंसयृ शुमु ।
य िशतसाहा आसन स् दा ू महानः ।
गहानागतान ृ िवानिथतीन ् पिरव ् षकाः े ॥
These lines have been interpreted by Shri Rahul
Sankrityayan and have been accepted as correct by Shri
Mukandi Lal, that two thousand cooks were employed in the
kitchen of King Rantideva to cook beef. The number of cooks
in the Sanskrit text is 200 thousands (dvi-śata-sahasra) and
not two thousand. From these interpretations one can fathom
the knowledge of Shri Rahul Sankrityayan and Mukandi Lal as
regards Sanskrit. ‘To cook beef’ is not mentioned in these lines 76 blunders of indological scholars
anywhere. Rahul Sankrityayan has cleverly omitted the latter
half of the second śloka reading --
पापं िदवारांवराममतोपमम ृ ।्
All the four lines of the two verses quoted above are
interpreted in Gita Press Edition as follows --
Nārada, explaining to King Śṛnjaya who was miserable due
to the death of his young son, said -
’Oh Śṛnjaya, it is said that Sānkṛti’s son Rantideva also
could not live for ever, though that great king used to employ
two lakh cooks in his kitchen, who prepared nectar-like meals
both unfried (consisting of dal, rice, etc) and fried (poori,
kachori, sweets, vegetables, etc.) for Brāhmaṇa guests and
used to serve them day and night‘.
Later, two other lines of the same chapter reading as
follows --
त  सदाः ू ोशि समुमिणक ृ ुडलाः ।
सपूंभियमी ू ंना मासंयथा पराु ॥
Shri Rahul Sankrityayan has changed the word māsam
meaning ‘month‘ to mamsam meaning ‘meat’ and interpreted
these as follows --
‘‘The number of guests used to increase to such an extent
that due to shortage of meat, the cooks had to request them
to accept more quantity of soup’’.
The paraphrasing according to the correct text and its
interpretation as given in the Gita Press edition are as follows :
Sudāḥ (the cooks) sumṛṣṭa-maṇikuṇdalāḥ (wearing by Anandatirtha sharma 77
glittering and jewel-studded pendants) kroṣanƟ sma (used to
speak) tatra (there) (that) aśnīdhvam (you all eat) bhūyiṣṭam
(as much as possible) sūpam (liquid preperations like dal, cury,
etc.,) yathā (a kind of which) nādya (has not been prepared)
māsam purā (since the last one month).
In the second line of the above quoted verse of the
Mahabharata, Droṇa-parva 67.2, the phrase varānnam
amṛutopamam means that the food served to the Brāhmaṇas
was high class, and tasted like nectar. The word varānnam
literally meaning supreme food is equivalent to the word
paramānnam. The Sanskrit dictionary Amarkośa 2.7.74 says
paramānnam tu pāyasam (a preparation made by boiling rice
in milk and then mixing sugar with it). It has been discussed
already. As such, the cows at King Rantideva’s kitchen could be
present only for the supply of milk for making pāyasam and
not to be slaughtered for beef. A slaughter-house, which is
always so dirty, is never situated near a habitation and in no
case near the kitchen or inside the kitchen. As such it is clear
that in King Rantideva’s kitchen, neither cows nor other animals
used to be slaughtered for serving beef or meat to the guests.
The above episode in the Droṇaparva is narrated by Vyāsa-
deva to console King Yudhiṣṭira, when he was in grief after the
death of his nephew Abhimanyu. This episode is said to have
been narrated by Devarṣi Nārada to King Sṛñjaya long long
ago, when the latter was very miserable due to the death of
his son. The Bhandarkar Oriental Research Institute, Poona,
considers this episode to be an interpolation
(1)
and it has not
(1). With the stanza commences the story of the sixteen Great
Kings; which is found duplicate in the Droṇaparva. The 78 blunders of indological scholars
included this in its critical edition of the Mahabharata.
This episode is said to have been narrated brieﬂy in the
Śāntiparva by Bhagavān Śri Kṛṣna to King Yudiṣṭira, when he
was in grief due to the destruction of practically his entire
family. At this place (Śāntiparva, Ch.29) verse 128 in both the
Gita Press and Chitrashala editions, has a text identical with
that of the above quoted verse ‘‘त  सदाः ू ......... मासं यथा
पराु’’ with the difference that the word māsam in the last portion
of the verse is māmsam in the Chitrashala edition while in the
Gita Press edition it is bhojyam. The text of this verse with the
word bhojyam is admitted by Rahul Sankrityayan as well (see
his Hindi book Volga se Gangā, P.228, last line of footnote).
The same verse appears in the edition of the Bhandarkar
Oriental Research Institute in the Śāntiparva, Ch.29, verse 120
and there also the reading is mamsam, but it is stated that in
manuscript no.198 of the Bombay Government Collection 1891-
95, the reading of this word in the Kashmirean recension is
bhojyam. In the last part of the verse tatra sma sūdā ... the
ocassion in Droṇaparva, the death of Abhimanyu, would lead
one to suppose that these sixteen stories must have been first
told in the Droṇaparva and subsequently repeated in the
Śāntiparva. But the fact seems to have been otherwise. There
are also some variations in the names of the kings and in the
sequence of the stories, as can be seen at a glance.....’
‘As far as Droṇaparva list is considered, since the Kashmir
version omits the chapter altogether, it is obvious that there is
a duplication from the Śāntiparva original, probably by one
interested in glorifying the Bhṛgus’ -
-(Mahabharata, ediƟon of Bhandarkar Oriental Research
InsƟtute, Poona, Vol 13. ŚānƟparva, Rājadharma, p.649 of the
criƟcal notes on Chapter 29)by Anandatirtha sharma 79
text mamsam is not relevant according to the principle of
ahimsā parmo dharmaḥ. As such, the reading of this word
either as māsam or bhojyam is the only correct text. So the
fame of King Rantideva can never rest on the daily slaughter of
2000 innocent animals and 2000 innocent cows, but this can
be by rearing them and giving them away in gifts.
True facts of King RanƟdeva’s glory as narrated in the
Mahabharata
In the Śāntiparva, the fame of King Rantideva is further
sung in verse 7 of Chapter 292 in the Gita Press and Chitrashala
editions and chapter 281 of the Bhandarkar Institute edition.
There too, it is due to entertaining Ṛṣis with fruits and tubers
and not with meat. The text is as follows --
रिदवेने लोकेा िसिः ाा महाना ।
फलपरथो ै मलू मैनीनिच ु तवा  ं सः ॥
In the Mahabharata Śāntiparva (Rājadharma) ch. 29,
Bhagavān Śri Kṛṣṇa narrates an episode to King Yudhiṣṭira,
grieved by the destruction of practically his entire family. Once
upon a time this episode was narrated by Sage Nārada to King
Śṛnjaya who was in grief due to his son’s death. Herein a
number of ancient kings have been mentioned, who were
highly endowed with Dharma, knowledge (jñāna), renunciation
(vairāgya) and afﬂuence (aiśvarya) and who by their noble
deeds had earned a good name but they too could not live for
ever. Among those noble deeds which earned them a good
name, there is no mention of the killing of animals or cows,
but on the other hand, gift of cows has been clearly speciﬁed.
King Rantideva’s name is also quoted there. Instances of the 80 blunders of indological scholars
gift of cows are as follows (the verse numbers indicated below
are of the Gita Press and Chitrashala editions, followed by
those of B.O.R.I. edn.)
शतंशतसहािण वषाणा ृ ंहममािलनाम े ।्
गवांसहानचर ु ंदिणामकालयत ॥् (३४,३५-३०)
This verse mentions the gift of a crore of cows and bulls
with gold chains around their necks accompanied by thousands
of servicemen by King Bṛhadratha of the Anga country.
तावतीः ददौ गाः स िशिबरौशीनराऽरे। (४२; ३७)
Gift of lakhs of cows by King Śibi in his yajna if pascribed
in the above verse.
शतंगवांसहािण शतमतरािण च । (११५; १०८)
तावतीरवे गाः दादामतूरयसो  गयः ॥ (११८; १११)
ाणो े ददौ िनान सदिस ् ततेनपःृ ।
तु ंिनं तु ंिनिमित ोशि वैिजाः ॥
सहंतिम ु ा ु ाणान सपत ् े।
अाहायपकरणंोपकरणंच यत ॥्
घटाः पाः कटाहािन ा िपठरािण च ।
नासीत िकिदसौवण ् रिदवे धीमतः ॥
सातेरिदवे यांरािमवसन ग् हृ े।
आल शतंगावः सहािण च िवशितः ं ॥
-(१२४-१२७; ११७-११९)
The above verses describe gifts by King Rantideva
amounting to thousands of Niṣkas and thousands of cows. The by Anandatirtha sharma 81
word ālabhyanta in the above verses does not mean violence,
but means touching for the purpose of giving away.
In the whole of this chapter, several kings including King
Rantideva are named, who earned fame and good name, but
nowhere it is said that they did so by killing animals and/ cows.
Throughout the world, at places where violence (killing of
animals) is not considered a sinful practice, there is not a single
instance, where one could have earned fame and good name
by killing living beings. Fame and good names is earned by
bravery in battle, which may include killing of opponents, or by
killing of undesirable characters which becomes necessary for
the protection of innocent persons from their clutches. No
other type of killing of living beings can earn fame and good
name. In the episode of King Rantideva, neither instance of
bravery in war nor protection of helpless from undesirables is
narrated as such. Killing of 2000 innocent cows cannot be the
cause of his fame and good name, but this is possible by giving
away cows as gifts, which is more logical.
At several places in the Mahabharata ‘Ahimsa’ is praised
and hims is denounced (see quotations from the Mahabharata
under caption ‘Non-violence is supreme in Religious scriptures).
In Anuśāsanaparva, Chapters 114,115 and 116 of Gita press
edition and 115,116 and 117 of B.O.R.I. edition are full of
superiority of Ahimsa. Some verses therfrom are quoted below.
The reference numbers of Chapters and verses from Gita press
edition are followed by B.O.R.I. institute edition-
एवंनागपदऽािन े पदािन पदगािमनाम ।्
सवाय वािपधीय े ेपदजातािन कौरे॥११४.६-११५.७82 blunders of indological scholars
एवंलोकेिहंसा तुिनिदा  धमतः पराु । ११४.७; ११५.६
As the footprints of all other moving living-beings are
engulfed in those of the elephant, even so all other religions
are to be comprehended in ahimsa.
अिहंसा परमो धमथािह  ंसा परंतपः ।
अिहंसा परमंसंयतो धमः वतत े॥ ११५.२३; ११६.२५
Abstention from injury (ahimsa) is the highest religion; it is
again the highest penance; it is also the highest truths from
which all duties proceed.
अिहंसा परमो धमथािह  ंसा परो दमः ।
अिहंसा परमंदानमिहंसा परमंतपः ॥ ११६.२८; ११७.३७
अिहंसा परमो यथािहंसा परंफलम ।्
अिहंसा परमंिममिहंसा परमंसखमु ॥् ११६.२९; ११७.३८
Abstention from cruelty (ahimsa) is the highest religion.
Abstention from cruelty is the highest self-control.
Abstention from cruelty is the highest gift.
Abstention from cruelty is the highest penance.
Abstention from cruelty is the highest yajna.
Abstention from cruelty is the highest puissance.
Abstention from cruelty is the highest friend.
Abstention from cruelty is the highest happiness.
सवय षे ुवा दानंसवतीथ षुवाऽऽतमु ।्
सवदानफल  ंवािप नतै मिह ु ंसया ॥ ११६.३०; ११७.३९
Gifts made in all yajnas, ablutions performed in all sacred
water, and the merits that one acquires from making all kinds
of gifts mentioned in scriptures - all these do not come up to by Anandatirtha sharma 83
abstention from cruelty (in point of the merit that attaches to
it).
In the Mahabharata, where ahimsa is so much praised, it
would not have been possible to praise the glory of King
Rantideva therein, had there been killing of cows or other
animals at his place.
Possible Reasons of Naming the River as CharmanvaƟ
On p.277 of his Hindi book Volga se Gangā, Rahul
Sanskrityayan has stated that from the undried raw hide of
2000 cows, which used to be killed every day in the kitchen of
King Rantideva and stored there, liquids oozed out, which
became a river which was named ‘Carmaṇvati’ due to its water
being accumulated from the carma(hide) of the cows. In
support he has quoted the following verse in the foot-note - -
महानदी चमराश े ेदात स् सं जृ ेयतः ।
ततमवती  वेंिवाता सा महानदी ॥
The verse is from chapter 29 of the Śāntiparva of the
Mahabharata, but the serial number of the verses differ in the
editions of the Gita press, Chitrashala and B.O.R.I. We will
discuss this verse and others appearing along with it. The
whole context is quoted below. The serial numbers quoted
against these verses are those given in the Gita Press edition
--
उपाित पशवः यंतंसिशततम ं ।्
ाारया महाानंरिदवेंयशिनम ॥१२२॥ ्
Animals from villages and forests used to come themselves
for the yajna of famous and magnanimous king Rantideva, who 84 blunders of indological scholars
used to observe very strict vows.
महानदी चमराश े ेदात स् सं जृ ेयतः ।
ततमवती  वेंिवाता सा महानदी ॥१२३॥
The water ﬂowing from the wet carma took the shape of a
big river, which became famous as Carmaṇatī (Chambal).
ाणो े ददौ िनान सदिस ् ततेनपःृ ।
तु ंिनं तु ंिनिमित ोशि वैिजाः ॥१२४॥
सहंतिम ु ा ु ाणान सपत ् े।
The king used to offer gold Niṣka to the Brāhmaṇas in
yajna. The Dvijas used to exclaim - Oh Brāhmaṇa! these Niṣkas
are for you, but no one used to come forward to accept them.
When they offered a 1000 niṣkas, then they could ﬁnd people
to accept them.
अाहायपकरणंोपकरणंच यत ॥१२५॥ ्
घटाः पाः कटाहािन ा िपठरािण च ।
नासीत िकिदसौवण ् रिदवे धीमतः ॥१२६॥
For the yajna of wise king Rantideva, the utensils for
offering oblation or for collection of materials - pots, plates,
cauldrons, pans, vessels were all made of gold.
सातेरिदवे यांरािमवसन ग् हृ े।
आल शतंगावः सहािण च िवशितः ं ॥१२७॥
When a crowd of guests spent a night at the place of King
Rantideva, the son of Sānkṛti, then 20,100 cows used to be
gifted to them by touch.
त  सदाः ू ोशि समुमिणक ृ ुडलाः ।by Anandatirtha sharma 85
सपूंभियमी ू ंना मासंयथा पराु ॥१२८॥
The cooks, wearing polished and bright jewelled pendants,
used to announce that all of you please eat liquid preperations
(like dal, curry etc.). The food prepared today is of very high
order, the type of which has never been prepared before.
From these verses, it is amply clear that there was no
animal killing at Rantideva’s place. If there would have been
killing, then the animals would have never gone of their own
according to the yajna of King Rantideva.
In the Ram-charit-mans of Gosvami Tulsidas also it is
stated --
मिनगन ु िनकट िवहग मतृ जाही । बाधक बिधक िवलोिक पराही ॥
(ayodhyā-kāṇḍa, between dohā 263 and 264)
Meaning that birds and animals go to the Sages, while they
run away on seeing a hunter who entices and kills them(1)
. The
(1). On page 56, lines 19-23 of Urdu book Abbar ul itkya
(containing life histories of Muslim saints) which is translated
from the Persian book 'Tazakirat-ul-aulia' an incident is
narrated therein as follows --
‘Hazrat Rabia Basri once went to a hill. Many animals
gathered round her and started glancing at her with
affection. At that time Hazrat Hassan Basri reached there.
On seeing him all the animals ran away. Hazrat Hassan
Basri enquired the reason of their flying away on seeing
him and why they kept on staying near her. Hazrat Rabia
questioned as to what diet had been taken by him. Reply
came ‘I took meat diet’. She explained that when he had
taken meat diet, it was natural for those animals to get 86 blunders of indological scholars
idea of animals coming by themselves was only because of
affection, that is to love and to be loved. The cattle might have
been going to the yajna to serve with their milk or for rendering
similar other services. Then, gift by King Rantideva is also
described. From this, it appears that King Rantideva used to
donate them at the yajna. Before giving away as a gift, these
animals must have been washed and bathed to make them
clean, and they were beautiﬁed by decoration. The water used
for washing their skin (carma) used to ﬂow in quite a big
quantity, which might have taken the shape of a river, which
became famous as Carmaṇvati (Chambal).
The description as given by Rahul Sanskrityayan indicates
that cows used to be slaughtered in the kitchen, their beef
cooked, the hides (carma) used to be stored there and the
liquid dripping from these hides (carma) became a river. The
ﬁrst arguement is that even beef eaters do not slaughter cows
in the kitchen, neither do they store hide (carma) in the
kitchen. Secondly, liquid dropping from the hides cannot be of
such a huge quantity, which can take the shape of a river. As
such, the impossible imagination of Rahul Sankrityayan cannot
be accepted. Considering the context of the entire description,
the only possibility is that the animals coming of their free will,
scared on seeing him and to run away’’.
This incident is also narrated on page 16 of the Hindi
book Suﬁ-Sant-Charit 1961, published by Sasta Sahitya Mandal,
New Delhi.
Such incidents clearly prove that the animals coming to
the yajna of King Rantideva were doing so not for being
slaughtered but for getting affection and for rendering
services voluntarily.by Anandatirtha sharma 87
therefore being gifted away, might have been washed and
bathed and water ﬂowing from washing the skin (carma) of
living animals must have been taken the shape of a river, which
might have been called ‘Carmaṇvati’. This is more in keeping
with the context.
Shri Sudhir Kumar Gupta has edited the Meghaduta of the
great poet Kalidasa, along with the commentary of Mallinatha
and he has given a literal Hindi translation with detailed
annotations. In his notes on the 49th stanza of Purva-megha,
which relates to the fame of King Rantideva, he writes as
follows which is translated below into English : --
In the Tāṇḍya Brāhmaṇa 19.13.1 गोसवः तःु is
explained as अथषै गोसवः ारा ो यः. The word ‘Rantideva’
means रिः रमणं दवाना े ं यिन ्सः or ‘one in whom the
learned rejoice’, that is one who pleases scholars and hence
is honoured by them. The word ranti occurs in this very
sense in Yajur-Veda 22.19, (see Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa
13.1.6.2). Thus the surbhitanayālambha yajna, of the
mighty king Rantideva who is honoured by the gods, is
nothing else but the defence of his dominions. The river
Carmaṇvati symbolises his glory. Its very banks have
evidenced the King’s muniﬁence, love of learning, heorism,
and devotion to the welfare of people. The word carmaṇvati
is formed as carmaṇ+vat+ī. According to the Uṇādikośa
4.115. (Rishi Dayanand’s commentary, Ajmer, Vikrama era
1989) the word carman means चरित गित यने तत ्चम
‘whereby one moves unto or attains glory that is carma’.
So, being denotative of the glory of Rantideva it is termed
Carmaṇvati. 88 blunders of indological scholars
It can be interpreted in another way also. In the
Taittiriya Brāhmaṇa 3.9 7.5 (ाणा वैसरभयः ु ) surbhayaḥ
(सरभयः ु ) is interpreted as prāṇāḥ. So सरिभतनयाः ु (वीरपषाः ु ,
योधाः इित यावत) ् तषामे ्आलः (ािः, ीकारः, हणम) ्
तात ्जाता that is, ‘that which retains in immense army of
heroes’, or ‘one who is the vanquisher of powerful warriors’.
This interpretation denotes the mighty valour of the great
king Rantideva - which is not at all impossible.
Mr. Sadhuram has suggested another interpretations :
the ālambha yajna of agriculture, the daughter (तनया) of
the earth (सरिभु ). Affording due facilities and protection for
the crops of different seasons is verily ’the gomedha yajna
or the agricultural culture of the land’. This is also a
plausible suggestion. It is possible that the great king
Rantideva has rendered the Chambal region into a highly
fertile area lush with greenery, during his rule replete with
yajnas’’.
In all the passages where King Rantideva is mentioned in
literature, there is no contextual relevance of cow-slaughter.
Those who have alleged it to cow-slaughter, that is due either
to their misunderstanding or to some ulterior motive.
In Monier-William’s Sanskrit - English Dictionary, two
meanings of Carmaṇvati are given as follows : --
(1) Name of a river ﬂowing through Bundelkhand and
merging in Ganga; modern name is Chambal.
(2) musā Sapientum. This is the techical term for banana
or plantain tree in Botany. Musa is a synonym of Arabic mauzah by Anandatirtha sharma 89
and Sanskrit mocha.
The track of land through which Chambal ﬂows may have
been covered with Musa Sapientum (banana trees) in ancient
times and hence the river was named ‘Charmanvati’. It is
possible that the cows meant for donation by King Rantideva
used to graze in that tract of land and hence the name of the
river ‘Carmaṇvati’ came to associated with King Rantideva’s
glory earned by donating cows. Be it as it may, this much is
certain that the theory that the dripping of liquid from the
hides of cows collected in King Rantideva’s kitchen caused a
stream to ﬂow from their carma(hide) which came to be known
as Carmaṇvati - is baseless, and neither liquid dripping from a
collected heap of hides can form a stream which could make a
river like Chambal. As such, association of the name of the
river Carmaṇvati with the glory of King Rantideva cannot prove
that cows used to be slaughtered in King Rantideva’s kitchen
and their hides used to be stored there and the liquid dripping
from these hides caused a stream, which came to be known as
‘Carmaṇvati’.
If the whole episode is carefully studied from begining to
end, it will be found that there is no relevance of slaughter of
cows, but of course there certainly is a propriety in giving them
away in gift.
RanƟdeva in the Bhāgavata Mahāpuraṇa
In the Bhāgavata Mahāpuraṇa 9.21, the legend of King
Rantideva is narrated. Its resume follows --
King Rantideva was so generous that without caring for his
own self and for his family, he used to offer every day to others 90 blunders of indological scholars
whatever he had or used to get. Once it so happened that
after remaining hungry for 48days, he got some pāyasa (milk
rice preperation), pudding, etc. As soon as they sat for their
meals, a Brāhmaṇa guest arrived, who appeared to King
Rantideva as God incarnate. The King entertained him with due
respect. When the Brāhmaṇa went away and the king and his
family sat down at meals with the remaining food, a Śūdra
guest arrived. The king gave part of the food to that guest.
When the Śūdra guest went away, then another guest
accompanied by a few dogs arrived and demanded food for his
hungry dogs, and King Rantideva respectfully offered all the
remaining food and honoured them as so many manifestations
of God. Now only water was left with them which too would
sufﬁce only for one person. They were just on the verge of
drinking that water after sharing it amongst themselves, when
a thirsty cāṇḍāla arrived and beseeched for water. The king felt
pity on him and offered the whole water to him and prayed to
the Creator as follows : --
न कामयऽहे ंगितिमरात परामि ् य ामप ु नभु व ंवा ।
आितपऽिखलद े हभाजामःितो े यने भवःखा ॥
- (ीम.भा. ६.२१.१२)
I do not seek from the Lord the highest position attended
with eightfold Yogic power (Aṇimā and so on) or even ﬁnal
beatitude (cessation of rebirth). Dwelling in their hearts (as the
sufferer) I would (rather) undergo the suffering of all the
embodied souls, so that (through such vicarious sufferings of
mine) they may be relieved of misery.
A person, who does not seek the kingdom of heaven, the
highest position attended with the eightfold yogic power or by Anandatirtha sharma 91
even beatitude and who prays for vicariously suffering himself
to relieve others of misery - how can such a person think of
even causing harm to any living being, let alone the question
of slaughtering innocent animals.
As pointed out earlier, Mahabharata, Vanaparva Ch 208
deals with the subject of non-violence versus violence, and
non-violence is established as a super virtue, and when no
other historical example is quoted therein, it is incomprehensible
how the episode of King Rantideva has been inserted there in
a manner, which does not support the principle enunciated
therein, but goes against it. In other words the principle
established there is that non-violence is a super virtue and
should be practiced by all, violence is condemned as not worth
to be practiced. Hence the example of King Rantideva attaining
high fame by slaughtering 2000 innocent animals and 2000
innocent cows every day in his kitchen for the entertainment of
guests goes clearly against the context. As such it is more than
certain that the verses referred to in the begining of the article
can never be authentic, and they are deﬁnitely interpolated.
Some beef-eaters must have done so to misguide simple
people. Śāntiparva Ch. 265 verse 9 supports this --
सराु मा मधुमासमासव ं ंकृसरौदनम ।्
धतूःवितत ंते तदै ्वदेषे ुकितम ॥्
‘Liquors, ﬁsh, mead, meat, spirits, rice cooked with
sesamum (til) seeds - all these have been inserted into yajna
by the wicked people. Vedas have not prescribed their use in
yajna’.
Correct meaning of ‘vadyete’ according to Grammer92 blunders of indological scholars
Even if the opponents insist that the verses pertaining to
King Rantideva and the cows in Ch. 208 of the Vanaparva of
the Mahabharata, not found in some of the editions, are not
interpolated, then the context preceding and succeeding in the
same chapter as well as elsewhere in the Mahabharata makes
it clear that they never intended to convey the slaughter of
two thousand innocent animals and two thousand innocent
cows. In both the verses relevent to it, the word vadhyete is
used, which has been mistranslated as ‘were killed’ or ‘used to
be killed’ by the protagonists of cow-slaughter. In Sanskrit
grammer, vadh (वध) is not an independent root in the meaning ्
of ‘to kill’; to convey this, the root han (हन)् is used. This is
further corroborated by the Uddyota commentary on
Mahabhashya (2.4.42.-43) and by Śabdenduśekhara (3.1.133)
ṇvul tṛcau (वु चौ ृ ). The root han is substituted by vadh in
certain cases. The rule according to Pāṇini 2.4.42-43 reads
hano vadha lińi luńi ca (हनो वध िलिङ िङ च). It means that
the root han is substituted by vadha in the Benedictive (liń)
(िलङ) ् and also in the Aorist luń (ङ). ् These are two types of
liń the Potential Mood (vidhi-liń िविधिलङ)् and the Benedictive
Mood (āśīr-liń आशीिलङ ). ् The root han is not substituted by
vadha in both types of liń (), but only in the Benedictive, which
is used for benediction or blessing. In Pāṇini’s grammar, the
aphorism substituting vadha is preceded by the aphorism
ārdhadhatuke (आधधात  कुे). This order of precedence in the
Pāṇinian technique means that vadha will be substituted for
the root han only in ārdhadhātuka (अधधात  कु ) which is a
technical term for the perfect and benedictive. The substitution
is not applicable to sārvadhātuka (सवधात  कु ) or the entire verbal by Anandatirtha sharma 93
base. Thus, except these two, the Benedictive Mood and the
Perfect Tense, nowhere is the root han replaced by vadha. The
form vadhyete used in Mahabharata pertains to neither of
these two paradigms. In them the conjugated forms will be
avadhīt(अवधीत) and vadhy ् āt (वात). ् By no stretch of
imagination can there be the form vadhyete in these two
because vadhyete is a form of the Present Tense. In this tense
han is never replaced by vadha. The forms of the Present run
hanyate (हत) े hanyete (हते)े etc., as in na hanyate
hanyamāne śarīre (न हतेहमानेशरीरेBhagavd gita 2.20);
here the root han is used to convey the idea of killing. If vadha
were substituted in the Present Tense, then the passage would
have read : na vadhyate vadhyamāne śarīre (न वतेवमाने
शरीर)े. But it is known to everyone that it is not so. So the
word vadhyete, occuring in the two verses of the Rantideva
episode of the Mahābhārata, cannot be considered to be an
instance of the root han ‘to kill’, it is from the root badha
bandhane (बध बन) meaning ‘to tie, to bind’. In Sanskrit े
phonetics, b (बकार) and v(वकार); r(रकार) and d (डकार), r (रकार)
and l (लकार) are undifferentiated. That is b(ब) can be used
instead of v (व), v (व) for b (ब), r (र) for ḍ (ड) ḍ (ड) for r (र),
r (र) for l (ल) l (ल) for r (र). The interchange of these letters is
a common phenomenon. In tune with the considerations of
Sanskrit grammar and also keeping in view the context, the
correct meaning of vadhyete can only be ‘are tied’.
RanƟdeva in the Meghaduta of the great poet Kalidasa
The great poet Kālidāsa has also mentioned King
Rantideva’s glory in the prior part (Pūrva-megha) in a stanza, 94 blunders of indological scholars
which is numbered as 45 in some editions and 48 and 49 in
others. The text with the resolution of sandhi and English
translation base on Shri M.R. Kale is quoted below --
2 3 5 4 1
आरा एनम शरवणभवम ् द्वमे उिताा ्
7 9 8 6
िसःैजलकणभयात वीिणिभः ् ममाग ु ः
10 16 15 11
ालथाः े सरिभतनया ु आलजाम मानियन ् ्
18 17 14 13 12
ोतोमा ू भिवु पिरणताम रिद ् वे कीितम ॥्
(१. उिताा) When you have gone over some distance,
(२.आरा) after having waited on, (३.एनम ्४.दवमे ) ्the God,
(५.शरवणभवम) ्born of Śara reeds, (६.ममाग ु ः) your path being
left, (७.िसःै) by the pairs of Siddhas, (८.वीिणिभः) bearing
lutes (in their hands), (९.जलकणभयात) ्from fear of the drops
of water, (१०.ालयाः े ) you do hang down (and stop there),
(११.मानियन) ् to do honour, (१२.कीितम )् to the glory, (१३.
रिदवे ) of Rantideva, (१४.पिरणताम) ्sprung, (१५.आलजाम) ्
from ĀLAMBHA, (१६.सरिभतनया ु ) of cows (daughter of Surabhi)
and, (१७.भिवु ) appearing on earth, (१८.ोतोमा ू ) in the form of
river.
Mallinātha in his ‘Samjīvani’ commentary on Meghadūta
has interpreted the portion 'सरिभतनया ु आलजाम ्पिरणताम ्भिवु
ोतोमा ू ' as follows --
पराु िकल राो रिदवे गवाले के सता ृ -by Anandatirtha sharma 95
िनामराश ःे कािचदी से। सा चमवतीाायत 
इित ।
meaning therby that : -
(पराु) In ancient times, (िकल) verily, (कािचत) ् a certain,
(नदी) river, () े streamed out, (रिनात)् of blood
trickling down, (चमराश ःे) from the heaps of hide, (सताद ृ ) ्
collected together, (एक) in one place, (गवालषे)ु in the
ālambha of cows, (राो रिदवे ) by King Rantideva. (सा) It,
(ायत) े became famous, (चमवतीित  ) as Carmaṇvatī.
The same portion has been commented upon by Madhava
Shastri on p.18 of ‘Kāvyasāra-sangraha’ published by Sunderlal
Jain, Punjab Sanskrit Pustakalaya, Lahore, 1929 as follows :
सरिभतनया ु - गावः, तासाम आलन ् - ं ोण, ं ततो जाता - ं सता ू , ं
भिवु , च ोतोमा ू -  वाहपणे , पिरणता - ं पारंगताम ।्
सरिभतनया ु - गावः cows; तासाम ्their, आलन - ं ोणं
sprinkling or spraying with water, ततो therefrom, जाता - ं सता ू ं
delivering, भिवु on earth, च and, ोतोमा ू -  वाहपणे in the
form of a stream, पिरणता - ं पारं गताम ्having been
transformed.
The running translation of the above would be as follows :
Sprinkling or spraying of cows with water delivered on
earth and which has been transformed in the form of a stream.
Madhava Shastri has interpreted ālambha to mean
prokṣaṇa that is sanctifying by means of water, which resulted
in stream. Sanctifying by sprinkling of water cannot result in a 96 blunders of indological scholars
stream. The stream can only be possible in vast numbers of
animals are sanctiﬁed by water spray bath. After such sactifying
he has also indicated killing of cows, which cannot be correct
according to descriptions at several places in the Mahabharata
and also according to their larger context, but so far the word
ālambha is concerned, he has not directly interpreted it to
mean violence (see the caption ‘‘Meaning of Ālabhyanta,
Ālambha etc.’’ in this chapter). Any sane person considering
the episode without any prejudice would arrive at the only
conclusion that according to the description of King Rantideva
at several places in the Mahabharata and their respective
contexts, violence by King Rantideva is not proved but gift of
cows alone is proved which resulted in spreading his glory.
(See caption : True facts of King Rantideva’s Glory as narrated
in the Mahabharata).
Killing of cow progeny is prohibited by Hindus as well as
Christian scriptures. Muslim religion also prohibits beef eating.
(See the caption Cow-slaughter - Hineous crime in Manusmṛti;
Cow-slaughter Hineous crime in Christianity; and Prohibition
of beef-eating in Islami under ‘were Cow slaughter, Meat-
sacrifice and Meat-eating Prevalent in the Vedic Age?).
Therefore, no sane person will agree that henious acts like
cow-killing can be the cause of earning glory for King Rantideva.
As such, the words ālabhyanta in the Mahabharata and
Ālambha in the Meghadūta of the great poet Kalidasa cannot
mean violence.
It is also worth noting that according to Mallinātha’s
commentary, trickling of blood drops from the heap of hides
resulted in a ﬂow of a river which is famous by the name
Carmaṇatī. The basis of this appears to be a verse of the 29th by Anandatirtha sharma 97
Chapter of the Śāntiparva of the Mahabharata, which has been
discussed earlier (see caption ‘‘Possible Reasons of the Naming
of River as Carmaṇatī’’).
The readers may see that neither is there any mention of
blood in the original text of the great poet Kalidasa and nor is
there any justiﬁable basis in support of this. Such views of
Mallinatha about the formation of the Carmaṇvatī river cannot
be acceptable to any reasonable person.
Meanings of Ālabhyanta, Ālambha etc.
In the Dhatupata of Panini’s grammar, ḍulabhaṣ prāptau
(डुलभष ाौ ् ) occurs as root number 975 in the ﬁrst conjugation
called ‘bhvādi-gaṇa’. Its cojugated form in the present tense
third person singular is labhate (लभत). P े āṇini’s grammar stands
out pre-eminent amongst all treatises in the depth of its insight;
it supersedes all in importance and authoritativeness. According
to this authentic work, the meaning of labhate (लभत) is none े
except the sense of ‘obtaining’ (ा करना). The science of
grammar is vast - अनपारं िकल शशा. As such, to ं ﬁnd out
whether there is any other meaning of the root ‘labh’, we
looked into other references and found that ‘labh’ also means
रणा े that is urging, inciting, direction, command etc. This has
been accepted by the Maitrāyaṇi-samhitā, Sāyaṇa-bhāśya,
Cāndra-Vyākaraṇa, Jainendra-Vyākaraṇa, Kāśakṛtsna-Vyākaraṇa,
Kātantra-Vyākaraṇa, Śākaṭāyana-Vyākaraṇa and Hemachandra
Vyākaraṇa also. The Varanaseya Sanskrit University of Varanasi,
which is considered the seat of Sanskrit learning in India, has
published a ‘Dhātupāṭa-samīkṣā’. There too, we do not ﬁnd the
root ‘labh’ in the meaning of violence himsa by any stretch.98 blunders of indological scholars
A sanskrit scholar has stated :
‘‘Some time before Pāṇini, the root lambh has ceased to be
used in its conjugated forms. Hence grammarians did not
incorporate this root lambh in the Dhatupata lists. The words
derived from the lambh were correlated to the root labh, and
hence both the words ālabha and ālambha came to mean the
same. In fact, the meanings of both the roots labh and lambh,
as well as of their derivatives, are different. The root labh has
two meanings : (1) obtaining, and (2) touching. Likewise, the
root lambh also has two meanings. (1) killing and (2) touching.
The word ālabha from the root labh and ālambha from the root
lambh are synonymic in the sense of ‘touching’. So much is
certain that ālabha does not signify killing anywhere, and
ālambha does not mean ‘obtaining’.
The scholar does not cite a scriptural or historical proof in
support of the above.
No dictionary gives the meaning of killing for lambh. In
modern times no one has put in so much hard effort as
European savants in Sanskrit studies and in researches into the
semantics of Sanskrit words. Had any word carried the sense
of killing, then it could have escaped their researches, because
an objective of European scholars was to bring out and
propagate that Hindu scriptures enjoin killing (himsa).
Even according to all the meanings of the preﬁx ā found in
the different dictionaries, the roots labh or lambh with this
preﬁx, that is ālabha or ālambha, cannot signify ‘killing’.
Inspite, lexicographers have also given the meaning of Killing
both for ālabha and ālambha, which can be possible only in a
conventional meaning. These lexicons also give for both the by Anandatirtha sharma 99
words the following meanings : -
‘to obtain, touch, take hold of, etc.,’
which have nothing to do with killing. By virtue of their
etymology ālabha and ālambha do not carry any meaning of
killing, and as lexicons have still accepted ‘killing’ as their
meaning, and as in some passages we come across the
meaning of ‘killing’, in such a situation wherever these words
occur, they should be rendered in a ‘killing’ or ‘non-killing’
meaning only after due consideration of the context.
In Yajurveda 30.5, the word ‘ālabh’ means ‘to obtain or
receive’, such as :
१. णेाणम ्आलभत ... े For knowledge he obtains a
knower (a wise man).
२. ाय राजम आलभत ् ... े For heorism he obtains a hero.
३. नाय ृ सतमू आलभत ् ... े For dance he obtains a sūta.
४. धमाय समाचरम ्आलभत .. े For dharma he receives a
member of a religious congregation.
In the Smṛtis, Gṛhyasūtras and allied texts ālambhana and
ālabhate mean ‘touching’; for example :
(i) In the Subodhini commentary on ‘Mimamsa-darsana’
2.3.17 it is stated : आलः श भवित, that is ālambha is
sparśa ‘touching’.
(ii) In the duties of a Brahmacāri -
वजय ते ्ीणांच णालम े ्
‘the brahmacari should avoid looking at a woman or 100 blunders of indological scholars
touching her. (manu 2.179)
(iii) In the Upanayana cermony -
अथा (चािरणः) दिणासम अिधदयम ् आलभत ् े
‘the teacher touches the heart of the brahmacari’ (Pāraskara
gṛhyasūtra 2.2.16).
(iv) In marriage ceremony --
वरो वा दिणासमं अिधदयम ् आलभत ् े
‘The bridegroom touches the heart of the bride with his
hand over her right shoulder’ (Pāraskara gṛhyasūtra 1.8.8) etc.,
etc.
(v) The Bhāgavata-Mahāpurāṇa 11.5.13 also clearly testiﬁes
that in yajna, paśu-ālambhana does not convey the meaning of
‘killing’ -
यद ्ाणभो िविहतः सरायाथा ु पशोरालभनंन िहंसा ।
- (ीमागवत ११.५.१३)
‘In yajna, the smelling of wine is prescribed, not its
drinking. In yajūa, the touching of an animal is enjoined not its
killing’.
(vi) The word शthat is ‘touching’ is used for दान gift as
well. The great poet Kālidāsa has गाः कोिटशः शयता  घटोीः in
Raghuvamśa 2.49 where sparśayatā शयता  means dānam दानं
- gift.
It is customary even now a days that a donor has to touch
the items of gift and then those items are passed on to the
persons accepting those gifts. If the items or varieties of gifts by Anandatirtha sharma 101
are so many that it is not possible to touch them physically,
then they are glanced over and thus touched by mere eye-
sight,
Chapter 29 of the Śāntiparva (Rājadharma) of the
Mahabharata enumerates the names of kings who became
famous by giving away cows in donation; hence the context of
the word ālabhyanta in आल शतंगावः of verse 127 of Gita
press and Chitrashala editions and verse 119 of the edition of
B.O.R.I., Poona, can mean only ‘obtaining’ (ाि) or ‘touching’
शin relation to the donation of cows. Similarly the meaning
of the word ālambha in सरिभतनया ु आलजांरिदवे कीितम of ्
Pūrvamegha in the Meghadūta of the great poet Kālidāsa also
relates to the donation of cows and not their killing.
* * * * * *102 blunders of indological scholars
IS BEEF POSSIBLE IN MADHUPARKA
Raja Rajendra Lala Mitra in his book ‘Beef in Ancient India’
and Pandurang Vaman Kane in his book ‘History of Dharma-
śāstra‘ Vol II. part I, Ch.10 (Madhuparka and other Usages);
and Vol II part II Ch.12 (Bhojana- Flesh-eating) have tried to
prove that madhuparka contained meat and that too beef.
Besides foreigners, a number of other Indian writers too have
at times described and referred to it in their articles. Let us
consider it.
MADHUPARKA IN VEDAS
The famous Vedic scholar of modern times, the Late Pandit
Shripad Damodar Satavalekar writes in his Go-jnāna-kośa,
Ancient Period, Vedic section part I :-
‘Several people say that the rite of Madhuparka is
Vedic and meat is its essential ingradient. But the word
madhuparka itself is not found in the Ṛgveda, Yajurveda
and Sāmaveda; it is also not found in the Brāhmaṇas and
Upaniṣads. It occurs only once in the Atharvaveda Samhitā.
This mantra is : यथा यशः सोमपीथेमधपकु यथा यशः (Atharvaveda
10.3.21) ‘May I be blessed by the glory that dwells in the
draught of soma and in madhuparka’.
This is all that is found about madhuparka in all the four
Samhitas of the Vedas. Therefore it is not possible to ascertain
as to what should be the ingradients of madhuparka, and what
not. But this is a fact that whosoever claim that meat is a
necessary ingradient of madhuparka, their view point cannot
be proved by the Vedic mantras. Beyond this, even in the
Brāhmaṇas and Upaniṣads, no text has any mention of
madhuparka. Therefore it is impossible to prove by Vedic by Anandatirtha sharma 103
testimony that meat is necessary in the Vedic Madhuparka.
Although the word madhuparka is not found in the Vedas
anywhere else, yet the word madhupeya (मधपुये) occurs. This
too can be taken as its synonym. This is a good, delicious i.e.,
sweet drink, as it appears from the following mantra of Ṛgveda
6.44.21 : --
वषाऽिस ृ दवो े वषभः ृ पिथा ृ वषा ृ िसना ू ंवषभियानाम ृ ।्
वृ ेत इवषभृ पीपाय ाट ्रसो मधपुयो े वराय ॥
- (ॠवदे ६.४४.२१)
In the last quarter of this mantra we ﬁnd the words ाट ्
रसो मधपुयो े . They mean ‘sweet drink madhupeya’. But this is
not any independent drink, it is the soma juice itself, to indicate
which, the word indu is there in this mantra. Vṛṣa Vṛṣabhaḥ in
this mantra signify an ‘ox’.
Seeing these words, many seem to have conjectured the
meat of an ox as an ingradient of madhupeya. But this mantra
is in praise of god Indra and it means : ‘Oh God Indra! thou art
the giver of strength to earth, heavens, rivers, moveables and
immoveables, so come here at the time of drinking madhu‘.
Though Mr. Griffith has translated it into English as : ‘‘Though
art the bull of earth, the bull of heaven’’; the meaning here is
not ‘the bull’ but ‘the giver of strength’ - this need not be
explained to those who comprehend the meanings inherent in
English words. If anyone insists that as the two words vṛṣa and
madhupeya occur in this mantra, therefore meat of a bull is
required in madhuparka, then his contention will not be credible
because to thrust on the mantra a sense which is not therein -
is not a learned person’s work.104 blunders of indological scholars
Following are the meanings of vṛṣa वषृ vṛṣabha वषभृ and
vṛṣakarmā वषकमा ृ found in the Sanskrit-English Dictionary of
Monier-Williams : -
vṛṣa वषृ - (i) A strong or a potent man; (ii) The chief of the
class or anything the most excellent or prominent or best of its
kind.
vṛṣabha वषभृ - Bull (in Veda, epithet of various gods, as of
Indra).
vṛṣakarmā वषकमा ृ -  Doing manly deeds as Indra (Ṛgveda).
Thus it is proved that there is no mention of madhuparka
in the Vedas except in one passage in the Atharvaveda.
Madhupeya is mentioned in the Ṛgveda. The ingradients of
madhuparka are not specified anywhere in the Vedas. The
name only indicates that it is something sweet. Therefore it
cannot be proved from the Vedas that there is any possibility
of any type of meat in madhuparka according to the Vedas.
Let us now consider as to what are the ingradients of
madhuparka according to the other texts.
INGRADIENTS OF MADHUPARKA
Madhuparka has been prescribed for special honoured
guests who have come from far-off places. Wherever the
ingradients of madhuparka have been described in the
scriptures, nowhere has meat been included in them. Curd,
ghee, milk, honey and candy sugar are the main constituents
of madhuparka. Some have not taken all of them but mentioned
only a few of them. In some sources, parched barley powder
(sattu) has also been mentioned as one of the ingradients of by Anandatirtha sharma 105
madhuparka.
Now let us see what are the ingradients of madhuparka in
various texts : -
1. TANTRASĀRA (Chowkhambā sanskrit series, Varānasi,
November 1938, Chapter I, p.53)
आ ंदिधमधिमु ंमधपकु िवबधाः ु ।
‘‘Wise men prescribe the mixture of ghee, curd and honey
in madhuparka’’.
The same has been quoted in Śabda-kalpadruma
(Chowkambha Sanskrit Series, Varanasi, 1961, part III, p.599,
column 2) while explaining the word madhuparka.
2. At the same place Śabdakalpadruma in the meanings of
madhuparka, the following has been quoted from the KĀLIKĀ-
PUṚAṆA, Ch. 7 --
दिध सिपज ल ंौंिसततािभ ै ुपिभः ।
ोतेमधपकु ुसवद वोपत े यु े॥
‘‘Curd, ghee, milk, honey and candy-sugar all these ﬁve
constitute madhuparka which satisﬁes all the gods’’.
3. YĀJNAVALKYA SAMHITĀ -- by Brahma (Smṛti-sandarbha,
ﬁrst edition, part 4, p.2430, published by Mansukh Rai Mor, 5
Clive Row, Calcutta) Ch.8, stanza 202
कापा ं ेसमायुं दिधमधघुतृ यैतमु ।्
मधपकु ः स िवया े िम ा तीणी ॥
‘‘The preperation with curd, honey and ghee in a bronze
vessel is called madhuparka’’.106 blunders of indological scholars
4. ĀŚVALĀYANA - GṚHYA-SŪTRA -1.24.5,6 :
दधिन मानीय, सिपवा  मलाभे।
‘‘One should mix curd and honey, and ghee if honey is not
available’’.
5. PĀRASKARA-GṚHYASŪTRA. Chapter on marriage, 1.3.5:
आहरि िवरंपांपादाथम दकमध ु माचमनीय  ं
मधपकु  दिधमधघुतमिपिहत ृ ंकां ेकां ने ॥
After describing other items in the ﬁrst line, the ingradients
of madhuparka have been detailed in the second line :
‘‘Madhuparka is made of curd, honey and ghee in a bronze
vessel covered with a bronze lid’’.
6. VĀRĀHA-GṚHYASŪTRA 12.4 :
कां ेचमसेवा सदि मािस,
वषयसा िपधायाचमनीय थमःैितपे।
‘‘The celebrant should come for worship with mixture of
honey and curd in a bronze vessel or in a camasa vessel
shaped like the praṇīta covered with a big lid, along with the
sipping water.’’
7. ĀPASTAMBĪYA DHARMA SŪTRA 2.4.8.8.9 :
दिधमधसुसं ृ ंमधपकु ः पयो वा मधसुसं मृ ।् अभावेउदकम ।्
‘‘Madhuparka should be prepared by mixing curd and honey
or by mixing milk and honey, and if they are not available,
water should be mixed with honey.’’
8. BAUDHĀYANA - GṚHYASŪTRA 1.2.10-13by Anandatirtha sharma 107
In sutra 9, bringing of madhu has been described. In sutras
10 to 13 the ingradients to be mixed with honey have been
described as follows :
दिध पयो वा ितीयंस िवतृ ।्
If curd or milk is mixed with honey, it is called dvivṛt (िवतृ )्
घतृ ंततीय ृ ंवा िवतृ ।्
If the third ingradient ghee is added, it is called trivṛt
(िवतृ ).्
यद ्ितीयंततथुस चतवुतृ ्
by mixing the second ingradient, i.e. if ﬁrstly milk has
been mixed then curd and if ﬁrstly curd has been mixed then
by mixing milk, it is called caturvṛt (चतवुतृ ).्
आपः पमी पाः ।
by mixing the ﬁfth ingradient, i.e., water, it is called
pāńkta(पाः).
9. JAIMINĪYA GṚHYASŪTRA 1.19 : -
तयोदिध मधुसििहतेभवतो, दा चदे ्
दिधमोऽिदे ्उदमः, पयसा चते पयः ् ।
Curd and honey are mixed in it. With curd it is called
dadhimantha (दिधम); with water it is termed udamanth
(उदम) and with milk it is designated as payasya (पय)
10. HIRAṆYAKEŚI - GṚHYASŪTRA 1.12.10
The text of Hiraṇyakeśi gṛhyasūtra was neither available
with any book-seller nor in any library. But its evidence was 108 blunders of indological scholars
found in the German book ‘Ritual Literatur Vedische Opfer und
Zauber’ by Alfred Hillebrandt, published by Verlag von Karl. J.
Trubner, Strassburg, in 1897. It is cited below in the original
German, with an interhnear English word-for-word translation.
Hierauf folgt dic Darbietung des Spulwassers und des
Madhuparka.
Hereafter follows the offering of rinsing water and of
Madhuparka.
Dieser bestechi nach Hiṛaṇyakeśi 1.12.10 aus drei
These comprise according to Hiranyakeshi 1.12.10 of three
oder funf Bestqandteilen, namelich dadhi, madhu, ghṛta
or ﬁve components, namely curd, honey, ghee which can
be
wazu noch āpaḥ und saktu‘s treten konnen
mixed with water and saktus (ﬂour of barley, parched in
hot sand).
According to Hiraṇyakeśi 1.12.10 - ﬁrstly water should be
offered for washing and then madhuparka which contains three
or ﬁve ingradients - curd, honey and ghee; to which water and
groats of barley meal (saktu) can be added.
11. Meanings of madhuparka in Monier- William’s Sanskrit-
English Dictionary, page 780 -
(i) A mixture of honey;
(ii) An offering of honey and milk;
(iii) A respectful offering to a guest, or to the bridegroom
on his arrival at the door of the father of the bride, sometimes by Anandatirtha sharma 109
consisting of equal parts of curd, honey and clariﬁed butter.
At other places too wherever the ingredients of madhuparka
have been detailed, what to talk of beef, there is not even the
slightest indication of meat, When meat has nowhere been
included in the ingradients of madhuparka, then how is it
alleged that meat is essential in madhuparka or that there can
be no madhuparka without meat. The most essential ingredient
of madhuparka is honey, without which there can be no
madhuparka. Only the Āśvalāyana-gṛhyasūtra prescribes that
ghee can be taken if honey is not available, nowhere else such
a prescription has been made; though other ingradients in
place of milk, curd or ghee have been prescribed. Āpastambīya
dharma-sūtra has even prescribed that if neither milk nor curd
is available, then madhuparka can be prepared by mixing
honey in water. It is not understandable as to how the
Āśvalāyana gṛhya sūtra has accepted madhuparka without
honey when the name madhuparka itself indicates the
essentiality of honey in it. There appears to be some
transgression. It is probably due to a pressing ocassion when
some followers of Āśvalāyana must have ruled in a hurry that
ghee could be mixed in place of honey when it is not available,
to avoid inconvinience of waiting to the guest. From that very
time onwards the followers of Āśvalāyana would have
recognised the convention of mixing ghee in place of honey
when it was not available. Whatever it be, meat is not
mentioned anywhere in the ingredients of madhuparka, inspite
of ransacking searches.
The descriptions of the ingradients of madhuparka in the
various scriptures prove that there is not even an inkling of 110 blunders of indological scholars
meat in madhuparka. So it is ﬁrmly proved that madhuparka
contains no meat. Whichever passagaes are referred to as
prescribing meat in madhuparka, such as :
1. नामासो ं मधपक ु भवित - (Āśvalāyana gṛhyasūtra 1.24.26)
2. न वामा े सोऽघ ं ः ात ।् (Pāraskara gṛhyasūtra 1.3.29)
3. मधपकु च येच िपतदृ वतकम ै िण ।
अवै पशवो िहंा नावीन े ःु॥(Manu 5.41)
will be discussed later on.
IMPRACTICABILITY OF BEEF IN THE RECEPTION OF A
GUEST WITH MADHUPARKA
The rites of receiving an honourable guest with madhuparka
have been detailed in the Āśvalāyana gṛhyasūtra 1.24 and
Pāraskara gṛhyasūtra 1.3. Only on the basis of these two
gṛhyasūtras, people opine that meat (beef) is essential in
madhuparka. Let us now consider the possibility of meat in
madhuparka according to the rites described in them.
The sequence of rites given in these gṛhyasūtras as follows:
1. Offering of a seat and its acceptance;
2. Offering of water for washing the feet;
3. Offering of arghya and its acceptance;
4. Offering of sipping water (ācamanī) and its acceptance;
5. Accepting madhuparka, mixing it with the thumb and
third ﬁnger, sprinkling madhuparka in the four directions by
these very ﬁngers, taking madhuparka thrice from its middle by
these very ﬁngers and leaving the residue;by Anandatirtha sharma 111
6. Cleaning the mouth by sipping water.
The rites upto here are alsmost identical in the Āśvalāyana
and Pāraskara gṛhyasūtras. Till this place there is no point for
difference of opinion. Hereafter interpretations differe, which
will be discussed seperately according to both the gṛhya-sūtras
in the forthcoming sections. Here it will sufﬁce to point out that
there is no mention of meat in the ingredients of madhuparka,
nor is meat mentioned till the completion of the rite by
cleansing the mouth with sipping water. When a guest arrives,
all the rites in the chain of his honoured reception by
madhuparka are performed one after the other in a regular
sequence and without interrruption. There is no waiting for any
length of time. Therefore, it does not seem possible that a cow
could be slaughtered instantaneously, her meat taken out, be
cooked, be mixed with madhuparka and then it could be served
to the guest. It takes a long time to slaughter a cow, to extract
her meat and then to cook it. It does not seem possible that
an honoured guest was required to wait for such a long time.
The followers of Āśvalāyana do not let an honourable guest
wait even for honey and hence accept ghee in its place.
Moreover, a guest cannot consume the entire meat of a
cow. The quantity of madhuparka for the ocassion can permit
a fraction of an ounce of meat in it. How can it be desirable to
slaughter a cow for such a little quantity of meat? Therefore,
when a cow is brought after the guest has partaken of
madhuparka and has cleansed his mouth by sipping water, her
bringing in can be either for gifting her to the guest, or for
offering instantaneously drawn milk to the guest for which he
will not have to wait.112 blunders of indological scholars
GIFT OF A COW IN MADHUPARKA
Some scriptures speciﬁcally prescribe that a cow should be
gifted in madhuparka.
1. Aruṇa-smṛti, chap 1 (published by Mansukhrai Mor, 5,
Clive Row, Calcutta) :
यकमिण या धनेया ु धनेधुम कम िण ॥११६॥
ायििनिमेवा होमाथबलाय  वा ।
मधपकु च या धनेःुया धनेःुकमिसय  े॥११७॥
एताः सवािजो िवान ितग ् ृ यततः ।
न स पापने िलते पपिमवासा ॥११८॥
‘‘As there is no effect of water on lotus leaf, similarly sin
does not effect a learned dwija who accepts a cow gifted at
the time of a yajna, in a religious performance, on performing
expiation rites, for offerings (homa), for regaining his lost
health, in the rites of madhuparka, and on fulﬁlment of desire
(karma-siddhi).’’
2. Manu-smṛti 3.3 :
तंतीतंधमण दायहरंिपतःु।
िवणंत आसीनमहय थम े ंगवा ॥
‘‘Being justly applauded for his strict performance of his
duty, and having received from his natural or spiritual father
the sacred gift of the Vedas, let him on an elegant bed, decked
with a garland of ﬂowers, and let his father honour him before
his nuptials with the present of a cow according to the
madhuparka rite’’ (translated by Raja Rajendra Lala Mitra in
‘Beef in Ancient India’).by Anandatirtha sharma 113
Manu-smṛti 3.119, 120 prescribes that ordained person
who has ﬁnished his studies should be honoured by madhuparka
and Manu-smṛti 3.3 prescribes that a cow should be gifted to
such an ordained one; and in the succeeding stanzas he has
been permitted to marry an auspicious girl. It is clear from this
that an ordained brahmacāri should ﬁrst be honoured with
madhuparka along with an offer of a cow. Probably its reason
is that one who has been physically weakened by the hard
labours of studies and by performing strict duties of a
brahmacāri should increase his vigour and regain his health by
drinking cow’s milk before marriage so that he may be able to
carry on with married life without adverse effect.
3. The following sūtras of Āpastmbha-dharma-sūtra 2.4.8
are also indicative of the offering of gifting of a cow :
(१) गोमधपका ु ह  वदाायः े
‘‘One who studies the Vedas is eligible to a cow and
madhuparka’’. (5)
(२) आचायायि ज े शरायु रा इित पिरसवरापितो ं
गौमधपकु  --
‘‘A teacher, priest, father-in-law, king - if they come once a
year they should be offered a cow and madhuparka’’.
Immediately after these sūtras follows the enumeration of
the ingredients of madhuparka :
दिध मधसुसं ृ ंमधपकु ः पयो वा मधसुसं मृ ।् आभावेउदकम ।्
If the sense of a ‘cow’ would have been its beef, then it
would have surely been included in the enumeration of
ingredients. Evidently therefore, only the gifting of a cow is 114 blunders of indological scholars
desired in these sūtras.
ĀŚVALĀYANA GṚHYASŪTRA
Pāṇdurang Vaman Kane in his book ‘History of
Dharmaśāstra’ Vol. II. Part I, Chapter 10 p.543 lines 22-23 says
- ‘the procedure of madhuparka is set out in the Āśvalāyana
gṛhyasūtra 1.24 which is correct. In the ingredients of
madhuparka it prescribes a mixture of curd and honey and if
honey is not available then ghee can be mixed. This has been
described before. There is no difference of opinion regarding
the subsequent rites described and in their interpretation. After
partaking of madhuparka and rinsing the mouth with sipping
water, the subsequent rites are described by Pāṇduranga
Vāman Kāne as follows on p.545 lines3-8 :-
‘‘When he has sipped water, they announce to him the
cow. Having muttered the words ‘destroyed is my sin, my sin
is destroyed’, he says ‘Om, do it’, if he desired to have the cow
killed; if he is desirous of letting her go, he mutters the verse
(Ṛg. VIII 101, 15) the mother of Rudras and daughter of Vasus
and says ‘let her go’ ’’.
The original sūtras are :
आचोदकाय गो वदये े॥२३॥
हतो मेपाा मेहत इित जिप कुतिते कारियन ॥२४॥ ्
Its simple, straight- forward and word-to-word meaning is :
आचोदकाय (When the mouth has been rinsed with
sipping water) गां वदये े(a cow is gifted) मे(my) पाा (sin)
हतः (is destroyed) इित (thus) जिपा (uttering) ॐ (pronouncing
Om) इित (thus he says) कुत (do it) कारियन ्(if he wants to by Anandatirtha sharma 115
get it done).
In the contents of Āsvalāyana gṛhyasūtra with the
commentary of Garga Nārāyaṇa published in 1893 by Jīvanand
Vidyāsāgar, No.2, Ramanath Mazumdar Street, Calcutta, the
heading of this 23rd sūtra has been given as आचाोदकाय
गोदानम ्which means ‘gift of cow after rinsing mouth with
sipping water’, which has been interpreted by Panduranga
Vaman Kane as ‘they announce to him the cow’,
The meaning of the word kuruta कुत in the 24th sūtra has
been taken by Pandurang Vaman Kane as ‘do it’ that is ‘perform
the duty that should be done’ but it is not understandable
wherefrom he has inserted later on ‘if he desires to have it
killed’. When the madhuparka has been taken, the mouth has
been purified with sipping water, and the cow has been
announced for gift, then the reply comes : ‘I accept it’ preceded
by Om, the rite of gift be performed, and if it is not acceptable
then the following sūtra prescribes that the mantra of Ṛgveda
8.101.15 should be pronounced :
माता ाणांिहता वसनामू - ् इित जिपोमु जतृ े न ु ्
॥२५॥
‘‘He mutters : ‘The mother of Rudras and the daughter of
Vasus’ and says : ‘Let her go’ (to her place as I will not take
her along). This mantra is also not suited to this context. We
shall discuss it later. The sense ‘if he desires to have the cow
killed’ is nowhere in the original sūtra. It is understandable that
the cow was gifted
(1)
after all the rites of welcome were
(1). See the prescriptions of Scriptures regarding it under the
heading ‘Gift of A Cow in Madhuparka’.116 blunders of indological scholars
effected i.e., offering of water for washing the feet, offering
scented water for cleaning hands, offering and acceptance of
madhuparka, and the puriﬁcation of mouth with sipping water
but it is hard even to imagine her slaughter.
After it, Pandurang Vaman Kane writes on p.545, lines 8-9
: ‘Let the madhuparka not be without ﬂesh’, which seems to be
the meaning of the last sūtra of Āśvalāyana-gṛhyasūtra 1.24 :
नामासो ं मधपक ु भवित भवित ॥26
In the present day printed texts, this sūtra is found which
is interpreted by the supporters of meat-eaters as ‘madhuparka
is not devoid of ﬂesh’. The Sandhi can be resolved in two ways,
giving two interpretations : (1) Madhuparka is never devoid of
ﬂesh; and (2) Madhuparka is never with ﬂesh, which will be
discussed in details later on. ‘Madhuparka is never devoid of
ﬂesh’ is not relevant.
In the madhuparka rite, curd and honey or curd and ghee
have been prescribed as its ingredients and there is not even
an inkling of ﬂesh. After the rite of madhuparka has been
completed, which means that after the mouth has been rinsed
with sipping water taking madhuparka and if then the guest
mutters Om and says ‘kill it’ and ‘the madhuparka is not without
ﬂesh’ - these things can neither be reconciled because of the
sequence of their occurence and, nor are they correct as a
matter of principle. If ﬂesh would have been essential in
madhuparka, then it would have been mentioned among the
ingredients of madhuparka, then it would have been mentioned
among the ingredients of madhuparka and the announcement
of the offering of the cow would have been before the offering
and acceptance of madhuparka and if the guest would have by Anandatirtha sharma 117
had a longing for madhuparka and if the guest would have had
a longing for madhuparka with ﬂesh, he would have muttered
Om and said ‘do (kill) it’ before accepting madhuparka. Then
madhuparka would have been prepared, offered, accepted and
the mouth rinsed with sipping water. Therefore, it is certain
that the announcement of the offering of cow is only for gift
and if the guest does not like to take along the cow, he can
say ‘let her go to her place, I will not take her’. It is impossible
to fancy the presence of ﬂesh in madhuparka, because when a
guest who has already arrived at one’s door has to be
honoured, there is not so much scope of time that a cow be
slaughtered, her ﬂesh extracted and then it be cooked.
Therefore, the fancy that ‘madhuparka’ is entirely unjustiﬁed
and improper. It cannot be conceded that such a point would
not have occured to a jurist of the stature of Pandurang Vaman
Kane (M.A., LL.M., Advocate). It is a different thing that he
should knowingly close his eyes to it with some other end in
view and that he should try to conceal it even from other
people for the attainment of his objective.
Let us now consider Āśvalāyana-gṛhyasūtra 1.24.25 which
is incongruent and which we had promised to discussed later
on :
माता ाणांिहता वसनामू - ् इित जिपोमु जतृ े न ु ्
॥२५॥
It means that the leaving or taking away of the cow may
be permitted by uttering the mantra ‘mātā rudraṇām ...’. This is
the Ṛgvedic mantra 8.101.15 and its full text if as follows :
माता ाणांिहता वसना ू ंसािदानाममतृ नािभः ।118 blunders of indological scholars
 नुवोचंिविचतषुेजनाय मा गामनागाम अिदित ् ंविध ॥
Its word to word meaning is :
ाणां माता (mother of the brave maruts who make the
enemies wail), वसना ू ं िहता (the daughter of Vaus), आिदानां
सा (sister of the sons of Aditi), अमतृ नािभः (the focal point
of ambrosia is the cow, therefore), िचिकतषुेजनाय (to the wise
man), वोचं नु(I announce), मा विध (do not kill) अनागाम ्
अिदितं गा (the innocent and inviolable cow). Here aditi has ं
double meaning - one which has been given above and the
other अदनात ्अिदितः i.e, one who produces consumables like
milk, curd, butter ghee etc. Both the meanings are appropriate
and acceptable. मांगांविध (do not kill the cow - this is injuction
of the Veda contained in this mantra). (See Go-jnāna-kośa,
Ancient Section, Vedic age, Part I, page 3 edited by Pt. Sripad
Damodar Satavalekar).
How impossible a conjecture it is and in total contradiction
to the injuction of the above Vedic mantra that after the
completion of the rites of madhuparka, the guest by muttering
the sacred Om should say: do it (kill it) if he (the honoured
guest, who has been offered madhuparka and who has
completed the madhuparka ceremony), desires to have the
cow killed. Then imagine how improbable it is to mention that
नामासो ं मधपक ु भवित (the madhuparka is never without meat)
when the madhuparka rites have been completed without
meat.
Besides the above reasons, another point deserves
consideration i.e., when the madhuparka rites have been by Anandatirtha sharma 119
completed, is it desirable to feed uncooked meat of an
instantaneously slaughtered cow to the guest? Even if it is
accepted that the cow is killed then and there and that
uncooked ﬂesh is served, then has it to be enquired from an
honoured guest whether he will eat a certain thing or not?
Whatever is the best, is put before an honoured guest and it is
up to him to accept it if he so desires or to leave it if he
doesnot relish it.
Furthermore, even at present, people who take meat,
never like the henious act of slaughtering an animal in their
presence. Slaughtering is done only where they cannot witness
it and thence meat comes for the consumption of these meat
- eating people belonging to a civilised society. Then how can
one imagine something contradictory to this generality and that
too about the great saints and sages dwelling in the forests?
Therefore, if the meaning of Āśvalāyana-gṛhyasūtra 1.24.26
नामासो ं मधपक ु भवित be taken as ‘there is no madhuparka
without animal ﬂesh’, then it will be contrary to the context and
because of its being unsuitable, it can never be relevant to the
sense. Therefore, it will have to be accepted as an interpolation.
Other interpretations of this sutra are given below --
1. In नामासो ं मधपक ु भवित the sandhi of नामासो ं can also be
resolved as न+आमासो ं . By resolution in this manner, the preﬁx
आ in आमासो ं may be taken in the following sense according to
Amarakośa 3.3.239 --
आङीषदथऽिभाौ  सीमाथधातयोगज ु े।Its breaking of words
is आङ्ईषत ्अथअिभाौ सीमा-अथधातयोगज ु ेIt means that the
preﬁx आ is used in the senses of little, pervading, limitation 120 blunders of indological scholars
and addition to the root.
The meaning of आमासो ं of नामासो ं मधपक ु भवित will be
‘pervaded with ﬂesh’ and its sense comes to ‘containing ﬂesh’
only. The whole sūtra will mean मधपक ु आमासो ं न भवित
‘madhuparka is not pervaded with - not containing i.e., devoid
of ﬂesh’.
This clariﬁes and removes any misapprehension that the
cow was brought for killing. So it is explicitly pointed out that
madhuparka is never with meat. The bringing in of the cow is
not for slaughter, but for offering or gifting away. If the guest
desires to take away the gifted cow he says ‘Om, do it’ and if
he does not want to take her away, he says ‘let her go’.
2. Pandit Dinanath Shastri, in his book ‘Sanātana-
Dharmālok‘ Vol 6. p.337-338, has interpreted the word mamsa
मासं in relation to madhuparka as under :
‘‘The above-stated ingredients of madhuparka should be
मासलं i.e., rich in fats, nourishing and should not be devoid of
substance. To the word mamsa (मासं ) अच has been suf ् ﬁxed in
accordance with अशआिदोऽच ्(Astādhyāyī 5.2.127) in the
sense of ‘with, together’ and it gives the meaning of ‘rich in
fats’.
This meaning is also relevant to the present context. In
practice it means that the milk and curd used in madhuparka
should not be that from which butter or cream has been
extracted. Milk or curd from which butter, cream has been
extracted will neither be rich in fats, nor delicious and tasty,
nor well nourishing, rather it will be devoid of substance. Only by Anandatirtha sharma 121
good things should be used for an honoured guest and not
things devoid of substance.
3. Pandit Madhavacharya Śāstri has interpreted the word
mamsa मासं on page 39 of the ‘Removal of doubts’ number
शा समाधान अ of his monthly magazine ‘Lokālok’ (published
by Madhava Pustakalaya, Dharmadham, Kamla Nagar, Delhi-7).
There he says that in the context of Madhuparka, mamsa मासं
means the ﬂeshy part of fruits, kernels of dry fruits like almonds
etc., fresh newly milked warm milk, or substantial milkproducts
thickened by boiling and sweetened like रवडी, खोया, िसखरन ्
etc. This meaning is also not irrelevant as it is not contradictory
to principles. Incongruence, if any, is that fruits, etc. are not
mentioned anywhere in the ingredients of madhuparka, but
curd and milk do ﬁgure among the ingredients and newly-
milked fresh warm milk of a cow is desirable to remove the
fatigue of the honoured guest.
These discussions make it clear that there is no place even
for any surmise of animal-ﬂesh in madhuparka.
PĀRASKARA - GṚHYASŪTRA
In continuance of the aforesaid description of the rites, the
cow is mentioned only after madhuparka has been taken and
the mouth has been puriﬁed with sipping water. Mention of a
cow after the madhuparka has been taken, clearly indicates
that there is no possibility of beef in madhuparka.
Mr. E.W. Hopkins writes about madhuparka in the
‘Cambridge History of India’ Vol. 1 Chapter 10, page 208
(second edition, 1962, published by S.Chand & Co., Delhi) : -122 blunders of indological scholars
‘‘But it is an old rite of hospitality to kill a cow for a guest
and as a matter of form, each honoured guest is actually offered
a cow’’.
Mr. E.W. Hopkins further continues -
‘The host says to the guest, holding the knife ready to slay
the cow that he has the cow for him but the guest is directed to
say - ‘‘Mother of Rudras, daughter of Vasus, sister of Adityas,
Navel of immortality (is she), do not kill the guiltless cow; she
is (earth itself), Aditi the goddess’’. I speak to them that
understand. He adds, ‘‘My sin has been killed and that of so
and so, let her go and eat grass’’. But if he really wants to have
her eaten, he says ‘‘I kill my sin and the sin of so and so, (in
killing her)’’, and though in many cases, the offer of the cow is
thus plainly a formal piece of etiquette, yet the offering to the
guest was not complete without flesh of some sort; and it is
clear from the formulas, any of the worthiest guests might
demand cow’s death’’.
Such a statement seems to be based on Pāraskara-gṛhya
sūtra 1.3.26 which reads :
आचाोदकाय शासमादाय गौिरित िः ाह ॥
It means that after the guest has taken madhuparka and
rinsed his mouth with sipping water, holding the śāsa शास the
host says thrice : ‘this cow is (for you)’. There is no such word
in the orginal text which refers to killing or slaughtering. It
seems that Mr. E.W. Hopkins has taken the meaning of शासम ्
आदाय as ‘holding the knife ready to slay the cow’.
In Yājnavalkya samhitā as told by Brahmā 8.212 (Smṛti
sandarbha part 4, published by Mansukh Rai Mor, 5- Clive Row, by Anandatirtha sharma 123
Calcutta, ﬁrst edition) the meaning of śāsa शास has been given
आचाः शासमादाय शासं शासनम ्उतेi.e., after cleaning the
mouth with sipping water, the meaning of holding a śāsa शास
is ‘‘to control with a śāsa शास’’.
The meaning of the word शास is to control by the use of ं
some object. Here a cow is brought for a guest who has just
arrived and this cow is intended only to be gifted (see the
heading ‘Gift of a Cow in Madhuparka’). The nature of a cow is
that she does not easily go to the house of a new owner from
that of her previous owner. Even nowadays it is seen that if a
cow is sent to a new place then she returns to the place of her
old owner at the end of the day while returning after grazing in
the forest and it is only with some efforts that she gets
accustomed to and intimate with new owner. In such efforts
one may sometimes have to control the cow by the fear of a
stick or a rod. Likewise it has been said that a stick or a rod
should be held in one’s hand to keep the cow under control so
that she does not back at going with new guest. It is not said
here that one should hold a knife in hand to kill the cow. It is
not understandable as to wherefrom Mr. E.W. Hopkins has
brought the meaning ‘holding the knife ready to slay the cow’
when in the original text there is now indication of slaying or
slaughtering.
In Monier William’s Sanskrit- English Dictionary the
meanings of the root śās शास have been given as under : - ्
to chastise; to correct; to censure; to punish;
to restrain; to control; to rule; to govern;
to adminster the law; to direct; to bid;124 blunders of indological scholars
to order; to command; to teach etc.,
The verbal noun from the root śās (शास) has the form ् शासं
in the accusastive singular which means to an object of
controlling. With reference to one whom the Government has
sentenced to death, the meaning of the word शासं can be
taken as a knife or a sword, but here the meaning ‘knife’ or
‘sword’ does not ﬁt-in.
The meaning of Pāraskara-gṛhyasūtra 1.3 : -
ाह । माता ाणां िहता वसना ू ंसािदानाममतृ नािभः ।
 नुवोचििकतषुेजनाय मागामनागामिदितं विध । मम चामु च
पाानं हनोमीित यालभते ॥२७॥ अथ यिस ु ृ म े चामु च
पाा हत ॐ उजतृ तणािित ृ यात ू ्॥२८॥ न वामा े सोऽघ ं ः
ात ्॥२९॥is almost the same as that of Āśvalāyana-gṛhya
sūtra 1.24 हतो मेपाा पाा मेहत इित जिपोतिते कारियन ्
॥२४॥ माता ाणां िहता वसनािमित ू जिपोमु जतृ े न ु ्
॥२५॥ नामासो ं मधपक ु भवित भवित ॥२६॥
which has already been considered under the heading
‘Āśvalāyana gṛhya sūtra’. Only the 28th sūtra is slightly different,
whose simple and straight forward meaning is given hereunder
for the information of our readers, wherein the mention of
‘leaving the cow for grazing’ also proves that the cow was
meant for gifting. The meaning of 28th sūtra is :
अथ यिद If उिसृ ते ्he desires to leave her, यात ू ्he
should say मम च mine and अमु च his i.e., host’s पाा sin
हतः has ended, अोम ्उजतृ yes, leave her, तणािन ृ अुlet her
graze.by Anandatirtha sharma 125
The meaning of नवामा े सोऽ ं ः ात ्the 29th sutra of the
Pāraskara gṛhyasūtra can be taken in two ways like that of
नामासो ं मधपक ु भवित -
(१) न तुएव अमासो ं अः ात ्।
(२) न तुएव आमासो ं अः ात ्।
The meaning in the ﬁrst case is : madhuparka अः is
never devoid of ﬂesh अमासः ं while in the second case the
meaning is : madhuparka अnever contain ﬂesh आमासः ं . The
cohererence and incoherence of both these renderings together
with the meaning of mamsa मासं as ﬂeshy fruit have been
discussed under Āśvalāyana gṛhyasūtra.
VASIŚTA DHARMA SŪTRA
ŚĀNKHĀYANA GṚHYA SŪTRA
Pandurang Vaman Kane writes in his ‘History of
Dharmaśāstra’ Vol.2, Part II, Chapter 22, ‘Bhojana and Flesh-
eating’ on page 778 lines 22-24 :
Manu (V.27-44) at first contains a permission to kill animals
only in Madhuparka, in sacrifice (yajna) and in rites for gods
and manes and on no other ocassion. This is same as Vasiṣṭa
IV.6, Viṣṇu-dharma-sutra 51.64, Śānkhāyana-gṛhya-sūtra
II.16.1, (Śānkhāyayana-gṛhya-sūtra reads सोम for े य)े
In the extant Manusmṛti, meat in madhuparka has been
mentioned only in 5.41 which has been considered under the
heading ‘Manusmṛti’. The very same text is also found in the
extant Vasiśṭa-dharma-sūtra (Vasiśṭa-dharma-śāstra or Vasiśṭasmṛti) 4.6 and in Śānkhāyayana-gṛhya-sūtra 2.16.1 :126 blunders of indological scholars
मधपकु च येच िपतदृ वतकम ै िण ।
अवै च पशंुिहंााथवीन े ःु॥
It has not been seperately and speciﬁcally prescribed in the
Vasiśṭa-dharma-sūtra or the Śānkhāyayana-gṛhya-sūtra that
animal-slaughter is permitted in madhuparka, yajna and rites
of the manes and gods and nowhere else; but it has been
quoted in passing as an opinion of Manu.
As has been proved under the heading ‘Manusmṛti’, the
above-mentioned stanza cannot be that of the Manu-smṛti
5.41. Moreover an independent prescription of this intent is
found nowhere else in the Manu-smṛti. Therefore, it is also
proved that the citing of such a stanza from the Vasiṣṭa-
dharma-sutra or Śānkhāyayana-gṛhya-sūtra or from another
scriptural text by Pandurang Vaman Kane is not genuine but
imaginary and spurious, speciﬁcally when such a speciﬁc
prescription is not available elsewhere in the Manusmṛti.
In the fourth chapter of the Vasiṣṭa-dharma-sūtra, the
seventh stanza after the sixth one reads :
नाकृा ािणनांिहंसा मासमं त ु ेिचत ।्
न च ािणवधः ाथााग  ेवधोवधः ॥
This stanza tallies with Manu-smṛti 5.48; only the fourth
quarter differs. Here it is ताागेवधो वधः which means that
‘violence in a yajna is considered non-violence’, while the Manusmṛti reads ताासं ं िववजय ते ्which means ‘therefore, one
should avoid meat’. The text of this stanza of Manu-smṛti is
valid by virtue of its being in conformity with the Vedas; and
the reading of Vasiṣṭadharmasūtra is invalid being against the
Vedas.by Anandatirtha sharma 127
BAUDHĀYANA-GṚHYASŪTRA
Pandurang Vaman Kane, in his book ‘History of Dharma-
sūtra’ Vol.2 Part I, chapter 10, Madhuparka and other Usages’
page 545, lines 32-37, writes -
‘‘The Baudhāyana-gṛhyasūtra says (1.2.51-54) that
when the cow is let off, the flesh of a goat or ram may be
offered, or some forest flesh (of a deer etc.) may be
offered, as there can be no madhuparka without flesh or if
one is usable to offer flesh, one may cook ground grain’’.
The original reading of these Sūtras is as under : -
तामृ ाया ृ ंमषमज े ंवाऽऽलभते॥५१॥
आरयने वा मासं ने ॥५२॥
न वामा े सोऽ ं ात  ॥५३॥ ्
अशौ िपांसिसं ते ॥५४॥ ्
According to the Baudhāyana- gṛhya sūtra, honey, curd,
milk, ghee and water - only these ﬁve are the ingredients of
madhuparka. It has been discussed already that meat has not
been mentioned in the ingredients of madhuparka, neither
there is any scope for serving meat after slaughtering an
animal within the time for the rites of welcoming a guest (it
takes even more time in bringing the meat of a wild animal,
like deer etc., after hunting it), and nor is meat desirable
according to the principle. Therefore, the contention that
madhuparka is not without meat is incorrect and unfounded. If
there can be no madhuparka without meat, then why a
prescription of offering ‘cooked ground grain’? This afﬁrms that
the contention that ‘madhuparka cannot be without meat’ is
not true.128 blunders of indological scholars
MĀNAVA- GṚHYA SŪTRA
Pandurang Vaman Kane, in his ‘History of Dharmaśāstra’
Vol.2, Part I, chapter 10, ‘Madhuparka and other Usages’, page
545, lines 28-31, writes : -
‘Mānava-gṛhyasūtra 19.2.2 says that the Veda declares
that the Madhuparka must not be without flesh and so it
recommends that if the cow is let loose, goat’s meat or
Pāyasa (rice cooked in milk) may be offered’’.
The original sūtra reads : -
पं पायसंवा कारयते नामा ् सो ं मधपक ु इित ितः ु ॥
Shri Bhimsen Sharma, editor of the monthly ‘Brāhmaṇasarvasva’ (published by Satyavrata Dvivedi, printed by Veda
Prakasha Press, available from Sanatana Dharma Pustakalaya,
Etawah, pages 19-20) has translated it into Hindi, which can
be rendered to English as follows : -
‘‘One should offer madhuparka with milk-rice pudding
(pāyasa) which is symbolic of cattle; as milk is a part or product
of cattle, they are casually present therein. It is written in Śruti
that madhuparka is not without meat, so when milk rice
pudding has been prepared and milk being part of cattle,
words of the śruti is fulfilled’’.
Under the heading ‘madhuparka in the Vedas’ on page 88
it has already been pointed out that according to Pandit Sripad
Damodar Satavalekar even the word madhuparka is not found
in the Vedas. The author or commentator of Mānava gṛhya-
sūtra has not quoted any Vedic Mantras; therefore, it is not a
fact that the Vedas mention that there is no madhuparka
without meat. If mamsa मासं is interpreted to be a pudding by Anandatirtha sharma 129
पायस prepared by admixing milk obtained from cattle and rice,
then this will not be acceptable to the propagators of meat and
if they accept it then we have no objection because it involves
no violence. Even in the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 11.7.1.3 meat
(mamsa) has been termed परमा (एत ह वैपरममांयासमं ) ्
and according to Amarakośa 2.7.24 paramānna परमा is a
synonym of pāyasa पायस or a pudding of milk and rice with
sugar added to it (परमां तुपायसम). But it takes time in ्
preparing a milk-rice pudding (pāyasa). Such a scope of time
does not exist in madhuparka rites; and therefore, it seems
more appropriate that instead of milk-rice pudding (pāyasa)
fresh warm milk was served. In the original text of the Mānava
gṛhyasūtra, there is no mention of the meat of a he-goat as
alleged by Pandurang Vaman Kane, and wherefrom he has got
this he alone knows.
MANU-SMṚTI
On page 6 of his afore-mentioned ‘Beef in Ancient India’
Raja Rajendra Lala Mitra mentions : -
‘‘Being justly applauded for his strict performance of his
duty, and having received from his natural or spiritual father
the sacred gift of the Vedas, let him on an elegant bed, decked
with a garland of flower, and let his father honour him, before
his nuptials, with the present of a cow, according to the
madhuparka rite’’.
There is no difference of opinion here. Raja Rajendra Lala
Mitra writes further : -
In a subsequent passage (Manu III 119-120) he (Manu)
recommends the madhuparka or the ‘honeyed meal’ with beef 130 blunders of indological scholars
for the reception of kings and other great dignitories’.
The stanzas of Manu-smṛti (3.119-120) : -
राजिातकग  नु ्ियसरमात ु लान ु ।्
अहय ध े पकु ण पिरसवरा ं नःु ॥
राजा च ोियवै यकमय पितौ ु ।
मधपकु ण स ौ ू न य इित िितः ॥
In the above ﬁrst stanza it has been said that a king,
priest, graduate teacher, son-in-law, father-in-law and maternal
uncle should be honoured with madhuparka if they come once
a year. In the second stanza it has been said that a king and a
scholar of Vedas should be honoured by madhuparka whenever
they are present at the performance of yajna. In both these
stanzas honouring by madhuparka has been mentioned, but
there is no inkling of beef anywhere in them. We are at a loss
to understand wherefrom Raja Rajendra Lala Mitra or others,
whosoever they may be, scent beef in these stanza while citing
them.
On page 29 of the same book, Raja Rajendra Lala Mitra
writes : -
‘Āśvalāyana emphatically ordains that no Madhuparka
should be celebrated without flesh’.
This has already been discussed at length under the
heading ‘Ingredients of Madhuparka’, ‘Practicability of Beef in
Reception of Guest with Madhuparka’ and ‘Āśvalāyana- gṛhya-
sūtra’.
Pandurang Vaman Kane writes in his ‘History of
Dharmaśāstra’ Vol. 2, Part 2, Chapter 22 ‘Bhojana and Flesh- by Anandatirtha sharma 131
eating’ : -
‘Manu (V.41) contains a permission to kill animals only in
madhuparka and in sacrifice (yajna) and rites for gods and
manes and no other ocassions’.
The text of the above-mentioned stanza in the Manu-smṛti
editions available now-a-days reads : -
मधपकु च येच िपतदृ वतकम ै िण ।
अवै पशवो िहंा नावीन ै ःु॥ (Manu 5.41)
The meaning of this stanza is : An animal can be slain on
the ocassions of madhuparka, yajna, rites for the manes and
gods and nowhere else - this has been said by Manu.
The ﬁnal words of this stanza इवीनःु (इित अवीत ्
मनःु) -- ‘this has been said by Manu’ are indicative of the fact
that this the stanza as a whole does not belong to the Manu-
smṛti. All the injuctions given in the Manu-smṛti are by Manu
and as such it is not necessary to specify that this has been
said by Manu. If Manu’s injunctions are quoted in another
work, then it can be speciﬁed that thus it has been said by
Manu - Manu has thus ordained. This also goes to prove that
this injunction does not form an integral part of the Manu-
smṛti as propounded by Manu.
It seems that the above quoted stanza is the basis for the
following attribution in the Cambridge History of India, Vol I,
Chapter X (by E.W. Hopkins), page 208, (2nd edition of 1962,
published by S.Chand & Co., Delhi) : -
‘The general rule is this regard is that attributed to Manu -
Animals may be killed (so said Manu) at the Madhuparka and 132 blunders of indological scholars
soma sacrifice (yajna) and at the rite of manes and gods’.
As proved on the basis of arguments given above, this
stanza should not belong to the Manu-smṛti and hence its
statement is also baseless.
In the same ﬁfth chapter of Manu-smṛti, the 27th stanza
reads :
ोितंभया े सं ंाणानांच काया ।
यथािविध िनयु ुाणानामवे चाये॥
Its correct word-to-word meaning in prose order is as
under : ाणानाम अय ् े At the time of impending death एव only
(i.e. only when death is imminent and under no other
circumstance) च and ाणानां काया at the desire of by the
permission of Brahmaṇas (i.e., if brahmanas feel that it is
essential for the person to live, then only), िनयु ुdirected
यथािविध according to the rites, भयते ्one may take, मासं ंmeat
ोितं which has been sanctified (but under no other
circumstance or in no other way).’’
It is clear that meat can be taken by those, whose death is
imminent and who do not want too give up life, as on the non-
availability of cereals during famine or in some fatal disease
when no other cure is possible, but in no other circumstances
is the taking of meat prescribed. According to this prescription
of Manu also, meat is not possible in madhuparka.
The following stanzas are also from the fifth Chapter of
Manu-smṛti : --
योऽिहंसकािन भतािन ू िहनासखुया े ।by Anandatirtha sharma 133
स जीवं मतृ वै न िचखमु धते े॥४५॥
‘‘He who slays innoxious beings with the intention of one’s
own pleasure, attains happiness neither in this world nor in the
world hereafter’’.
यो बनवधेशान ािणना ् ंन िचकीषित ।
स सव िहते ःुसखमम ु तुे॥४६॥
‘‘He who does not seek to keep the animals under
detention, to slay or to cause suffering to them, and who
desires the good of all, attains endless bliss.’’
यद ्ायित युतेधितृ ं बाित य च ।
तदवाोयने यो िहनि न िकन ॥४७॥
‘‘He who does not injure or slay anyone, whatever he
wants, whatever he thinks of, whatsoever he ﬁxes his mind on,
he attains all that without any effort’.
नाकृा ािणनांिहंसांमासमं त ु ेिचत ।्
न च ािणवधः याा  सं ंिववजय ते ॥४८॥ ्
‘‘Flesh can never be obtained without slaughtering a living
creature. As animal-slaughter cannot cause attainment of
heaven, so one should abstain from meat.’’
समि ु ंच मासं वधबौ च दिहनाम े ।्
समी िनवतत सवमा  सं भणात ॥४९॥ ्
‘‘One should abstain from eating all kinds of ﬂesh having
well considered the origin of ﬂesh and the cruelty of fettering
and slaying animals’’.
न भयित यो मासं ंिविधंिहा िपशाचवत ।्134 blunders of indological scholars
स लोकेियतांयाित ािधिभ न पीते॥५०॥
यः He who, न भयित doesnot eat मासं ं meat िहा
disregarding, िविधंthe rule of (what is eatable and what is not)
like a िपशाच piśāca, that is, a person who does not follow the
piśācās who disregard all the rules of what is to be eaten and
what is not to be eaten, स he ियतांयाित becomes dear लोकेto
all च and न he is not पीतेtormented ािधिभः by diseases.
अनमा ु िवशिसता िनहा यिवयी ।
सता ं चोपहताच खादकिते घातकाः ॥५१॥
‘‘He who permits slaughter, he who cuts it into bits, he
who kills it, he who buys or sells it, he who cooks it, he who
serves it, and he who eats it - all these are slayers (butchers)’’.
वषवष ऽम  धे ने यो यजते शतंसमाः ।
मासािन ं च न खादयोः े पयफल ु ंसमम ॥५३॥ ्
He who performs an Aśvamedha yajna annually during a
hundred years and he who does not take meat altogether, both
obtains the similar reward for their respective merits.
फलमलाशन ू मै मैाना ु ंच भोजनःै।
न तलमवाोित यासपिरवज ं नात  ॥५४॥ ्
By taking fruits and roots and the food ﬁt for ascetics, one
does not gain the reward which is attained by entirely giving
up meat.
मांस भियताऽमु य मासिमहाहम ं ।्(?)
एतासं मासं ंवदि मनीिषणः ॥५५॥(1)
(1). येनवेिवदोऽसः ं ाः सदिभमािननः ।by Anandatirtha sharma 135
Me मां he सः will eat in the next world, whose meat I am
eating in this (life). This is the real meaning of the word māmsa मा-ंस (me-eat) (i.e., this is the etymology of the word māmsa
मासं - meat).
Again in the 11th Chapter of the Manu-smṛti we ﬁnd : -
िहंसया ािधभयम ू ॥५२॥ ्
Violence (i.e., eating of meat) given rise to diseases (Please
see sub-heading ‘prohibition of Beef-eating in Islam’ under
Chapter : Were cow-slaughter, Meat Sacriﬁce and Meat - eating
Prevalent in the Vedic Age?’.
यरः िपशाचांमंमाससं रासवम ु ॥६५॥ ्
Intoxicating drinks, ﬂesh and wine are the food of yakṣas,
rākṣas and piśācas.
(Please see sub-heading ‘Punishment for Meat-Eating’
under Chapter ‘Were Cow-slaughter, Meat Sacriﬁce and Meat-
Eating Prevalent in the Vedic Age?’.
It is a matter of great surprise and regret, as to why
learned lawyers like Raja Rajendra Lala Mitra (Doctor of Law,
LL.D) and Pandurang Vaman Kane (M.A. LL.M. Advocate) had
closed their eyes to afore-cited clear injunctions of Manu
against ﬂesh-eating and why did they indulge in such
condemnable efforst of propagating ﬂesh-eating.
The above quoted Manu-smṛti 5.55 is attested by Bhāgavata
Mahāpurāṇa 4.25 which narrates the episode of King Prācīna-
barhi, who used to perform yajnas by slaying animals. Holy
पशनू ्ि िवाः े खादि तेच तान ्॥- ीमागवत ११.५.१४136 blunders of indological scholars
Nārada told him : -
भो भो जापतेराजन पश् नू पय ् यारे।
सािपतान जीवसान ् िनघ् णृ ने सहशः ॥७॥
एतेांसतीेरो वशसै ंतव ।
सरतमय े कूटैिछितमवः ु ॥८॥
Nārada said : Oh Ruler of men! Oh King! behold the
multitudes of creatures slaughtered by you in thousands as
animals for sacriﬁce, merciless that you are(7). Retaining the
memory of your cruelty, they eagerly wait for you, their anger
having been roused (by the recollection), and will tear you with
their horns, made of steel, when you have departed to the
other world.
When venerable Nārada gave a glimpse of such retributions,
King Prācīnabarhi was enlightened; he gave up yajnas with
violence and went away to perform penances.
How can the slaughter of animals be justiﬁed in
madhuparka and in rites of the manes and gods in face of such
historical truth?
UTTARA - RĀMA- CARITA AND MAHĀVĪRA - CARITA
Raja Rajendra Lala Mitra writes on page 3 of his above
quoted booklet ‘Beef in Ancient India’ :
The passage in which Vālmīki’s preperation for the
reception of Vasiṣṭa is described in Uttara-rama-carita, is so
remarkable, that I need not offer any apology to quote it entire.
The scene is laid in front of hermitage of Vālmīki...............
After this he has given the running sense of that passage by Anandatirtha sharma 137
from the play Uttara-rama-carita, which need not be quoted.
Let us consider the original text itself.
Bhavabhūti’s ‘Uttara-rama-carita’ is a drama in which the
sentiments of pathos (karuṇā) dominates. It relates to the
renouncing of Sītā Mahāraṇi by Lord Śrī Rāma sometime after
his coronation. The plot is not based on any ancient history
but it has been supplemented by a number of fancies. It has
been considered excusable to add imaginative fancies even in a
historical play to augment its aesthetic appeal. But fancies
which mar the aesthetic sentiment and which are contrary to
the scriptures cannot be considered pardonable. The playwright
sends off the preceptor Vasiṣṭa, his wife Arundhati and
Kauśalyā, the mother of Śrī Rāma, to the twelve-year yajna in
the hermitage of Ṛṣyaśṛnga before Lord Śrī Rama renounces
Sītā Maharani who is pregnant, so that no elders may be
present to hinder renouncing of Sītā Maharani. This event is
not supported by any Purāṇa. This fancy can be held pardonable
till here.
After about twelve years, on their return journey, they stop
at the hermitage of Vālmīki.
Report of the renouncing of Sītā Mahāraṇi spreads like
lightning in all directions. Grieved at it, King Janaka, the father
of Sita Maharani takes up the third āśrama of Vānaprastha and
goes for penance to the forest, hermitage of Candradvīpa. At
the time when Holy Vasiṣṭa, along with Arundhatī and the Royal
mother Kauśalyā, reaches the hermitage of Vālmīki after
interrupting his peanances.
Sītā Mahāraṇi was pregnant and about to give birth before
her renouncement. Readers may themselves consider how 138 blunders of indological scholars
appropriate and justiﬁed in the dramatist’s innovation to send
away the mother-in-law, Royal Mother Kauśalyā, to a far-off
place leaving behind her daughter-in-law Sītā Mahārāṇi in such
a state; then to keep Kausalya there fore twelve years, to
deprive her of the likely pleasure at the birth of grandsons, to
make all of them reside for twelve years at the hermitage of
Ṛṣyaśṛnga even after the renouncing of Sita Maharani by her
husband had become known to all. It is not found possible
even today in a society over-whelmed by modern civilization.
In such a situation of bereavement, the reception with
beefy madhuparka by sage Vālmiki in his hermitage, Janaka
refusing the beefy madhuparka and the great sage Vaṣiṣṭa
accepting the beefy madhuparka, can all these innovations in
the plot be said to promote the sentiment of karuṇā or pathos,
to further which this play has been written? If such are the
imaginations of Bhavabhuti, then it hardly spells well of his
genius; and if somebody has interpolated it later, then he has
committed an unexcusable and heinous crime. It has also to be
noted that when Lord Rāma arrives there, he has not been
welcomed with madhuparka in compliance with the injunction
of the scriptures.
Even today Westren oriented people will not like intoxicants
or meat in such an agonising situation; then readers may
themselves judge how debased and vile is the conjuring up of
getting beefy madhuparka accepted by Sage Vasiṣṭa at the
sorrowful ocassion of the sad renouncement of Sita Maharani
when her father, king Janaka, is present in that very hermitage.
Once when a lion had attacked the Nandini cow of the
great sage Vasiṣṭa, king Dilipa, an ancestor of Sri Rama, was by Anandatirtha sharma 139
ready to offer his life to the lion to save that cow. It is an
impossible fancy that the heriditary royal preceptor of such a
dynasty as of the Raghus, the great Sage Vasiṣṭa, should
accept beef and that too a time of grief and sorrow.
Because the incident is imaginary, therefore getting beefy
madhuparka served to sage Vasiṣṭa by sage Valmiki and getting
it accepted, is also imaginary and unreal. Therefore, it is proved
that the incident of madhuparka with beef freshly obtained by
slaying a cow, in the fourth act of the Uttara-Rama-Carita is
imaginary and false and it is not a historical truth.
The above incident is presented by two disciples of Valmiki
as a comic interlude. Readers may themselves judge as to what
is the value as to the reality of a comic. Furthermore, it has
already been discussed above that there is no possiblity of
meat in the ingredients of madhuparka or in the madhuparka
rites.
Further Raja Rajendra Lala Mitra tries to prove beef in
madhuparka from the Mahavira-Carita of Bhavabhuti. Let us
now consider it too.
Bhavabhuti’s Mahavira-carita is the anterior story of Lord
Rama. The sage Viśvāmitra took Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa for
protecting his yajna. The plot of the play begins hereafter. It
continues to the exile of Rāma, killing of Rāvaṇa and other
demons and coronation of Lord Rāma on his return to Ayodhyā.
This is the span of events covered in this play. The plot has not
been based on the history available in the Purāṇas. Dramatists
usually seem to follow an independent course in this direction.
Thus no play can be accepted as history. In short, the plot of
the play is :140 blunders of indological scholars
‘‘When Rāma and Lakṣmaṇa reach the hermitage of Sage
Viśvāmitra for the protection on his yajna, at that very time,
Kuśadhwaja, the brother of King Janaka, also reaches there
along with Sītā and Urmilā, as a representative of King Janaka
who had been invited. Seeing Rama, he is so attracted towards
him that he thinks that if there had not been the condition of
breaking the bow, then Rama and Sita would have been
married. There itself comes Sarvamāya, the royal chaplain of
Rāvaṇa, with the proposal of Sita’s marriage to Ravaṇa. The
proposal is cyaded. In his very presence, demoness Tātakā
comes to disturb the yajna. Rama kills her in everybody’s
presence. Viśvāmitra blesses Rama and Lakṣmaṇa with divine
weapons. Visvamitra gets the bow of Śiva there itself by the
virtue of his meditative powers and gets it broken by Rama.
Then and there Rama and Sita; Laksmana and Urmilā; Bharata-
Māndavi; and Śatrughna-Śrutakīrti are engaged. Thereafter
Subāhu and Mārica come to create havoc but they are killed.
The demon Sarvamāya takes all this information to Lankā.
At the same time, Rāvaṇa gets a letter from Jāmadagnya
Paraśurāma that demons are creating havoc in Daṇḍakāraṇya
and it should be stopped. As Rāma has broken the bow of Lord
Śiva, the preceptor of Paraśurāma, Rāvaṇa plans to incite
Paraśurāma to collide with Rāma and sends him to Janakapura
where marriage preperations are being made. Paraśurāma is
surprised on seeing the handsome figure of Rāma, but feigns
anger as before. King Janka comes and says that if he has come
as a guest then he should be served with madhuparka, fit for a
śrotriya and if he has come as an enemy then he should be
faced. After some heroic utterances, Rama goes inside for the
marriage ceremony. Vasiṣṭa and Viśvāmitra try to pacify
Paraśurāma. Daśaratha gets ready to face Paraśurāma, when
his anger is not pacified. After the marriage-rites are over, by Anandatirtha sharma 141
Rāma comes there, defeats Paraśurāma, who then goes away.
Mantharā, the maid-servant of Kaikeyī comes to Rāma with
a letter of Kaikeyī from Ayodyā. In the letter, Kaikeyī reminds
of two boons given to her, and in this context expresses her
wish that Rāma should go in exile for fourteen years together
with Lakṣmaṇa and Sītā and that Bharata should get the throne.
Lord Rama goes to his father Daśaratha and seeks
permission to go in exile. From Jankapura itself Rāma, along
with Sita and Lakṣmaṇa, goes to the forest leaving behind all
the relatives wailing, including Yudhājit the brother of Kaikeyī.
On the insistence of Bharata, Rāma leaves for him his golden
sandals sent by Śarabhanga.
Bharata, after establishing the sandals of Sri Rama at
Nandigrama, starts following the directions of Sri Rama. With
Laksmana and Sita, Rama reaches Daṇdakāraṇya, killing
Virādha and other demons, passing through Citrakūṭa and
meeting sages on his way. Khara, Dūṣaṇa, Triśira etc. 14000
demons are killed by him on the way. Jaṭāyu is wounded in an
encounter with Rāvaṇa while he is carrying away Sītā.
From the narration of Bharata’s going to Nandigrama upto
here is covered by an interlude.
‘Rāma meets Jaṭāyu who informs him of the kidnapping of
Sita and passes away. Then comes Śramaṇa with a letter of
Vibhīṣaṇa seeking refuge and Vibhīṣaṇa surrenders himself for
asylum. Afterwards takes place the meeting with B(V)ali, who
challenges to encounter, in which he is killed by Rama, leaving
his kingdom etc., to Sugrīva.
Lanka is ablaze. Trijaṭa informs Mālyavān about the death
of Akṣayakumāra. Kumbhakarṇa is awakened. Battle ensues.
In the flight, Lakṣmaṇa becomes unconscious. Laksmana 142 blunders of indological scholars
regains consciousness by the herb Sanjīvini. Meghanāda,
Kumbhakarṇa and others are killed. The fire-ordeal of Sita
takes place.
All this has been told in conversation in the form of an
interlude.
‘Lord Rama, Sita and Laksmana return to Ayodya by an
aeroplane. All meet in re-union and Rama is coronated King’.
We can imagine from the above plot as to how imaginary
it is and how different from the historical facts in the Purāṇas.
On page 5 of his above quoted book ‘Beef in Ancient India’,
Raja Rajendra Lala Mitra mentions beef in the Mahavir- carita.
Vasiṣṭa, in his turn, likewise, slaughtered the ‘ﬂattened-
calf’ when entertaining Viśvāmitra, Janaka, Śatānanda,
Jāmadagnya and other sages and friends, and in the Mahavira-
carita, when pacigying Jamadagnya, tempted him by saying,
‘‘The heifer is ready for sacriﬁce, and the food is cooked in
ghee. Thou art a learned man, come to the house of the
learned; favour us (by joining in the entertainment)’’.
In support, the original stanza of the third act of the
Mahavira-carita has been quoted there in a footnote :
सापतेवतरी सिप  पते।
ोियः ोियगहानागतोऽिस ृ जषु नः ॥
It seems that सातेवतरी has been taken here as ‘the
heifer is ready for sacriﬁce’. Raja Rajendra Lala Mitra has said
before that Vasiṣṭa slaughtered a fattened calf to entertain
Viśvāmitra, Janaka, Śatānanda, Jāmadagnya, other sages and
friends. In this stanza there is nowhere that a fattened calf by Anandatirtha sharma 143
was slaughtered, and in the Mahavira-carita there is no such
indication anywhere before or after this stanza. It is not clear,
wherefrom Raja Rajendra Lala Mitra has brought in the
‘slaughter of a fattened calf’. Later on he says ‘the heifer is
ready for sacriﬁce i.e., slaughter’. These two statements in his
text, that is (1) Vasiṣṭa slaughtered the fattened calf and (2)
the heifer is ready for sacriﬁce, that is for slaughter, are
contradictory. In this way such people try to confuse simple
folk by making such absurd antithetical statements.
In the above context, Vasiṣṭa and Viśvāmitra try to pacify
Paraśurāma, and in the original text their words are :
इापतूिवध ःे सपशमनात ्याघोनः े सखा
यने ौिरव विणा वसमती ु वीरणे राजती ।
यतैेवयमतः िकमपरंवशं ववतः ै
सोऽयंांतनयियः पिरणतो राजा शमंयाचते॥
तिरम शकलहान ु इद् ंचाु।
‘‘The aged king Daśaratha, who has become a friend of
Indra by performing yajna, by constructing temples and by
vanquishing enemies, who has become famous on earth as a
good King like the divine King Indra in heaven, with whom we
are allied and who is a scion of the Soiar Race, moved by
affection for his son, he requests you to be calm. So give up
this futile quarrel.’’
We have already discussed the stanza cited by Raja
Rajendra Lala Mitra in support of his contention in a footnote
of his book. Neither is there any mention in the Mahavira-
carita that Vasiṣṭa slaughtered a fattened calf for Viśvāmitra,
Janaka, Śatānanda, Jāmadagnya, other sages and friends, nor 144 blunders of indological scholars
is there any mention of the entertainment of them all by
Vasiṣṭa.
How surprising and shocking it is that men like Raja
Rajendra Lala Mitra who are considered well-read and learned,
should lead astray their simple countrymen, who respect their
learning, by such imagined contentions and by twisting them
according to their fancy. Its reasons have been enunciated very
clearly in the ‘Introduction’. To this day his book is quoted with
great pride by the Government of India to mislead the people
that beef was taken in ancient India.
MAHOKṢAM, MAHĀJAM AND VEHATAM IN THE
RECEPTION TO A GUEST
In his ‘History of Dharmaśāstra’, Vol II, part 2, page 750,
lines 8-17, in the Chapter on Nṛyajna or Manuṣya yajna P.V.
Kane writes :
‘‘Yajnavalkya- Smṛti 1.109 also says that a big ox or a got
was kept apart for a guest learned in Veda. But the commentary
Mitākṣara on Yajnavalkya smṛti and other medieval writers to
who flesh-eating was an anathema and an unspeakable sin for
a Brahman remark that an ox or a goat was to be understood as
set apart for the guest to flatter him (with the words ‘this ox is
yours’) just as one says in humility ‘all this house is yours’ and
that the ox or goat was not meant to be given in gift or to be
killed since it would be impossible to find an ox each time a
śrotrīya guest comes’’.
The relevant stanza of the Yajnavalkya-smṛti 1.109 occurs
in the section on the duties of a householder with in the
chapter on conduct (ācāra) It runs as follows :by Anandatirtha sharma 145
महोंवा महाजंवा ोियायोपकयते ।्
सियाऽासनंा भोजनंसनूतृ ंवचः ॥ (यावितः ृ १.१०६)
It simply means :
‘One should offer a big bull or a big goat before a guest
who is versed in the Vedas (śrotrīya). (Thereafter) one should
welcome him (with pādya, arghya, ācamana, a seat etc.,) (After
he has taken his seat) one should sit down near him; give him
delicious food and speak pleasant words’.
In the aforesaid stanza, the original Sanskrit word for
offering a big bull or a big goat is upakalpayet, which is
conjugated from the root kḷp ृप with the prefix upa-.
The meaning of upa-kḷp उप-ृप in Monier-Williams’ Sanskrit
English Dictionary, page 195, column 3 is :
to be fit for; to be ready at hand; to become;
to serve as; to lead to; to take the shape or form of
to become; to be; to prepare; to make ready;|
to equip; to procure; to bring near; to fetch;
to allot; to assign; to put or set up;
to turn towards; to impart; to arrange; to communicate
to assume; to suppose,
In carries no nuisance of himsa or killing. It is clear that it
does not even imply the killing of these animals and fetting the
guest with their meat. A śrotrīya, i.e., a guest versed in the
Vedas, is entertained with madhuparka - thus it is specified in
the succeeding stanza number 110. In this context, either in
the preceding or succeeding stanzas, there is not mention of 146 blunders of indological scholars
offering meat with madhuparka, and nowhere is there any
reference to killing.
It proves that animal meat of any kind is not required in
madhuparka.
The commentators opine that a big bull (mahokṣa) or a big
goat (mahāja) is brought before a guest, which is just a part of
etiquette wherein the host as a matter of courtesy says that
this is your house; this thing is yours, etc., etc. In fact, they
are not intended to be presented to the guest. New guests,
learned in the Vedas, visited people now and then, and if a
big bull or a big goat were presented to every one of them,
where could one obtain so many big bulls or big goats. Nor,
does the original stanza convey such an intention. But, it is
simple enough to understand that one who has the means may
present the things enjoyed, and one who does not possess the
means to do so, he need neither offer them nor give them
away.
Now we come to words of politeness and courtesy. This is
the practice to this very day. Whenever a guest comes,
courteous sentences are spoken, such as ‘this is your house,
please make yourself free and comfortable; such and such a
thing is yours, you may feel free to use anything you like’ etc.,
etc.
Whether the offering of a big bull or a big goat is significant
or not, will be considered further on.
The alleged offering of a big bull or a big goat to a guest
also occurs in the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa, etc. It may also be
taken up for discussion.by Anandatirtha sharma 147
In the same section nṛyajna or manuṣya-yajna of his
‘History of Dharmaśāstra‘ Vol 2. Part 2, Chapter 21, page 750,
lines 4-6, P.V. Kane writes :
‘‘The Śatapatha shows that an ox or a goat was cooked for
a guest, either a King or a Brahman (III.4.1.2)’’.
Its original text is as follows : -
अथ यादाितंनाम । अितिथवाएष एतागित योमः
ीता एतथा राेवा ाणाय वा महोंवा महाजंवा
पचतदह े मानषुंहिवदवानाम  वमा े एतदाितंकरोित ॥
(शतपथाण ३.४.१.२)
Some people translate the verb pacet पचते ्in this passage
as ‘cooking on fire’. The common meaning of pacet is ‘cooking
on fire’. But what is the sense intended here has to be
discussed.
According to Chapter 318 of the Śāntiparva of Mahābhārata,
Yajnavalkya obtained the Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa from Sūrya.
Through such a revelation he must have authored the
Yājnavalkya-Smṛti. Thus there should be consonance in both
the works in the matter of honouring a guest with a big bull or
a big goat. Pandit Dinanath Sharma Sastri has discussed this
question at length in the sixth volume of his Hindi book Śrī
Sanātana Dharmālok on pages 333-334 and pages 342-343.
It is translated below in extenso :
‘‘The meaning of pacet in the Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa is not
cooking but it is ‘presenting; offering’ (vyaktīkuryāt ीकुयात ) ्
Here the root is paci vyaktīkaraṇe (पिच ीकरण) of the first े
conjugation, set and ātmanepada. In the Bālamanoramā148 blunders of indological scholars
commentary (editions of Guruprasad Shastri and of the
Chowkhamba Sanskrit series office) it is said - pacetyeke
पचे केेi.e., there is also the variant pac पच ्of the root paci
पिच. It signifies to present vyaktīkaraṇa. This meaning proves
the identical intention of the Śatapatha-Brāhmaṇa and the
Yajnavalkya smṛti. Now the question arises that while the
aforesaid root is ātmanepada, in the Śatapatha it is not
ātmanepada. In this context it should be noted that the
ātmanepada is not obligatory by the rule anudātte tvalakṣaṇam
ātmanepadam anityam अनदाु ेलणमानपदमिनम े . Hereby ्
it is not ātmanepada in the Śatapatha or it can also be an ārṣa
or aberrational usage.
Our meaning is attested by other texts also
(1)
. In the
mantra ukṣāṇam pṛṣṇim apacanta उाणंपिन ृ अपच ् (Ṛgveda
(1). This interpretation of the root pac (पच) is confirmed by ्
the Mādhavīya-dhātuvṛtti of Sāyaṇācārya (Pracyabharati
Prakashan, Varanasi, 1964, root no 107 of the bhvādi-gaṇa
ािदगण पिच ीकरणे
पच इित गः तथा वधमानोऽिप  , यदाह । अिनिधौ पािदसूेडुपचष ्पाके,
पच ीकरणे इित । सतायां तुवधमानवद  ्उा "अयिभिदत ै ्पत' े
इमु ्। 'ितो गोादीिन' इ पचित गोिमपादाय ु 'पच ीकरण' े इित
पठन ्ासकारः परपिदन ै ंच मते।
Durga has accepted the identity of पिच ीकरण and े पच
ीकरण. Vardham े āna also follows the same interpretations,
the book Sammatā also expresses the same opinion as
Vardhamāna and adds that some others read it as paci. The
author of the Nyāsa commentary admits the root paca
vyaktīkarṇe पच ीकरण according to the Pa े ṇinian sūtra 8.1.27
tiṇo gotrādīni ितङो गोादीिन and considers it Parasmaipada. In
the Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa also it is Parasmaipada and so the
meaning ‘to make evident’ ीकरण suits the context. ेby Anandatirtha sharma 149
1.164.43) the root pac has been commented upon by Sāyaṇa
as -
उाणंफल सार े ंसोमम ऋिजः ् अपच ....
पचधाथनादर  णे ितङ-्यः करोथः । स च
ियासामावचनः । अत अौिचात सािदतवः ् इथः ।
Here the root pac signiﬁes ‘to effect; to accomplish’.
Similarly, in Diñ-nāga’s drama ‘Kundamālā’ too :
इाकूणांच सवषा  ंियाः पसवनािदकाः ंु ।
अािभरवे प (े १.३१)
the root pac means ‘to effect’. Likewise, in the famous
Purāṇic hymn Deva-stotra there is the sentence :
नमो मकूमािदनानाप  .......... े मखािदियापाककऽघह  े।
where pāka-kartre means ‘one who effects or accomplishes’.
So in the passage in Yajnavalkya’s Śatapatha also the meaning
of the pac is ‘to effect; to accomplish’ etc. and not ‘to cook’.
This very meaning is intended by Yajnavalkya, as it has been
expressed by him in his Yajnavalkya-smṛti.
Or, ukṣā also means Soma, for example सोम उाऽभवत ्
(Sāyaṇa’s commentary on Ṛgveda 1.164.43). Its accomplishment
is intended here, and it is relevant too. In fact the source of
Brāhmic महों पचते ्appears to be the Ṛgveda mantra उाणं
पिमपच ृ (Ṛgveda 1.164.43). Here Sāyaṇa has translated it
as the preperation of Soma. So it appears to be appropriate in
the Brāhmaṇa too i.e., to prepare Soma for the guest. Or ukṣā
is also tuberous plant ṛṣabha or bull. Because of its succulence,
the plant ukṣā. The names of this plant are all synonyms of 150 blunders of indological scholars
vṛṣabha or bull. Because of its succulence, the plant ukṣā is
one of the medicinals for long life (Rāja-nighṇṭu, varga 5)
There the following synonyms are given for it : ṛṣabh; ukṣā,
gauḥ; vṛṣabh. Aja also means ajamodā or common carroway.
Mahāja means the big carroway. It is probable that these
medicinals were offered to a guest after food, as a digestive or
invigorating tonic. Or, there is the sentence अजा ीहयावत ्
सवािषकाः  in the third story of the Kākolukīya section of the
Pancarātra, and the stanza :
बीजयै षे ुयिमित वैविदकी ै ितः ु ।
अजसािन बीजािन नो छागंहमहु थ ॥ (म.भा. शािपव३३७.४)
In the Mahābhārata (Śāntiparva 337.4), the word aja is
clearly stated to mean ‘seven year old rice’.
The cooking of such rice, or of the vṛṣabha tuber, or of
Soma-juice, might have been intended here.
If we do not accept the aforesaid meanings and insist it to
mean that a great bull (mahokṣa) or great goat (mahāja) were
slaughtered and their meat was cooked on ﬁre, then it would
be against Vedic principles and thus it will be without sanction
and invalid.
The Vasiṣṭa-dharma-sūtra 4.8 also refers to the reception
of a guest by a mahokṣa or a mahāja. अथािप ाणाय वा
राजाय वाागताय महोाणं वा महाजं वा पचदेवमा े आितं
कुवीित  । After the foregone discussion, it is not necessary to
discuss it over again. Some maintain that the preceding stanzas
refer to meat in madhuparka and to killing the yajna, but we
have discussed it at length under the caption of ‘vasiṣṭa-dharma by Anandatirtha sharma 151
sūtra and Śānkhāyana-gṛhyasūtra’ in this chapter.
In his ‘History of Dharmaśāstra’ Vol.2, part I, in the section
on Madhuparka in Chapter 10, page 542, lines 6-10, P.V. Kane
writes -
‘It appears that Aitareya Brāhmaṇa III.4, when it says that
‘if the ruler of men comes as a guest or anyone else deserving
of honour comes, people kill a bull or a cow (that has contacted
a habit of abortion) refers to madhuparka, though that word is
not actually used’’.
The original text of this sentence of Aitareya Brāhmaṇa
III.9 is quoted there in a footnote :
तथवादो ै मनराज ु आगतऽिाऽह े ित उाणंवा वहते ंवा
दे।
It is further stated that this is cited by Medhatithi on Manusmṛti 3.119 and by Haradatta on Gautama-dharma-sūtra 17.30.
In Vol.II, part 2, in the Section on Nṛyajna or Manuṣyayajna in Chapter 21, page 750, lines 6-8 of the same work, P.V.
Kane writes :
‘Vide also Aitareya Brāhmaṇa III.4, for the offering of an ox
of a barren cow to king or another deserving person coming as
a guest’.
We have already discussed Manu-Smṛti 3.119 under caption
‘Manusmṛti’. It is clear beyond doubt that there is no reference
to meat therein, and the question of beef does not arise at all.
In the Gautama-dharma-sūtra 2.8 prohibited foods are
listed. The 30th sūtra reads धनड े ुहौ च which simply means
that the cow (dhenu) and the bullock (Anaḍuh) are also among 152 blunders of indological scholars
prohibited items and should not be eaten. This does not prove
the presence of meat or beef in madhuparka.
The citation of Aitareya-brāhmaṇa III.4 in a footnote by
P.V. Kane is the 15th pad and the whole reads :
अिंमि सोमो राजागतेतथवादो ै मनराज ु
आगतऽिा े हे ाणु ंवा वहते ंवा द एवमवाा े एतत ्
दंयदिंमििहदवाना े ंपशःु॥
Earlier, it has been established that the word pacet पचते ्
occuring in a similar context in the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa
corresponds to upakalpayet in the Yājnavalkya-smṛti. Now we
have to consider if kṣadante occuring in this context of the
Aitareya Brāhmaṇa also corresponds to it. In his Hindi book,
‘Śrī Sanātana-Dharmāloka’ Vol.6, pages 360-374, Pandit
Dinanath Sharma Shastri has discussed it at length. Hereunder
are a few quotations --
‘‘Now we have to consider the root kṣad. The cited
Brāhmaṇa passage means : ‘If a king or a celebrated śrotrīya
comes, then the kṣadana of a bull or cow should be effected in
his honour’. The root kṣad does not occur in Pāṇini’s Dhātu
pāṭa. So we cannot know its meaning therefrom. But we find it
in the Uṇādi (Panchapādi) sūtra, tṛn-tṛcau ṣamsi-kṣad-ādibhyaḥ
samjnāyām cāniṭau.’’
(तनृ -्तचौ ृ शिसं -दािदः सायांचािनटौ) (२.९४; २.५१)
So it is clearly a root derived from the sūtras. But its
meaning is not clear even from the sūras. (p.362)
‘‘In the Nighaṇṭu 2.8 where roots signifying ‘to eat’ are
listed, there is no mention of kṣad this fact should be noted. In
2.19, which is a list of roots meaning ‘to kill’, the root kṣad is by Anandatirtha sharma 153
not mentioned - it should also be noted’’. (page 363)
‘‘Now we should look into the usage of the root kṣad in the
mantras of the Ṛgveda Samhitā and also consult the
commentary of Sāyaṇa on the relevant passages. We should
explore the meaning assigned to it by ancient scholars’’.
(page363).
The following passage of the Mahābhāṣya 1.3.1 is well
known : –
अनकाथा े अिप धातवो भवि । तद ्यथा - विपः िकरण (े वीयाधान  ) े
ः, छदने ेचािप वतत े। ... करोितरभतू-ाभाव ेौ िनमलीकरण  े
चािप वतत , ेिनपणे ेचािप वतत े। एविमहािप ितितरवे
िजियामाह, ितितरवे िजियाया िनविम ृ ।्
So it is possible that a single root can have two opposite
meanings, e.g. the root sthā means ‘to stay’ and ‘to move’.
Then, if for contextual propriety we taken an unspeciﬁed
meaning of a root, then it will not be against grammatical
considerations (pages 363-364)
Thus, bhakṣaṇa (consuming) also means ‘to make use of’,
‘to employ’ or ‘to accept’ (page 364)
‘‘In Ṛgveda 1.25.18 Ācārya Sāyaṇa has written : हिव दसे
- अािस where, after having translated kṣadase as ‘you eat’, he
goes on to take aśana to mean ‘to accept’ हिवः - ीकाराद ्
ऊम ्If the root kṣad means ‘to eat’, does this meaning apply
to the Ṛgvedic Brāhmaṇa passage उाणंवहते ंवा द. े Then it
will mean : ‘They eat a bull or a vehata on the arrival of a king
or a śrotrīya’. But is this meaning applicable here? If we
translate it this way, then it will refere not to its partaking by 154 blunders of indological scholars
the guest but the eating of the vehata by the host himself.
Haridatta has prohibited its eating by anyone other than the
guest. If we take kṣad in the meaning ‘to accept’, then it will
mean ‘they accept the cow or the bull’, i.e., ‘they bring them
for the guest’ this is a relevant meaning. (pages 364-365).
‘‘In the Uṇādi, where a Ṛgvedic Brāhmaṇa passage is cited
to illustrate the usage of the root kṣad, there kṣadanta means
neither ‘to hack to pieces’ nor ‘to eat’. The meaning ‘to hack to
pieces’ would be most inappropriate’’.
‘‘Himsa also refers to ‘goading’ ताडन. In the Nirukta 1.3.2
hasta has been explained as हेाशहुनन . ेHere the meaning of
han is ‘to goad’ and not to kill or deprive of life. Kṣattā is the
sense of ‘a chariotteer’ (Atharva-veda 5.7.14; 9.11.1) also
refers to the goading of the chariot’s horse, and not to its
killing. While bringing a cow or a bull to a guest, it had to be
goaded and this was its himsā’ (page 366)
‘‘When the root kṣad can have a third meaning besides ‘to
hack to pieces’ ‘to eat’ as pointed to above, then this sūtra-
occuring root can have other meanings too. Views of other
learned people should also been taken into consideration in
this context’’. (page 366)
‘‘While explaining the word kṣadma Skandaswāmi writes
द यै ( सौ०). The same view is held by Devarāja-yajvā on
Nirukta 1.12.3. कायिरं भवित, जलाशयंा िरीभवतीित वा
Thus the passage can mean - ‘When the guest comes, he
should steady the cow or the bull’; this meaning is also relevant
here. The author of the Subodhini derives kṣadma meaning
‘water’ from the root द गित िहंसनयोः. In दित - िहनिby Anandatirtha sharma 155
िपपासामता ु ं वा अभीितं वा पषम ु ्the root signifies ‘going’, as
the killing of the un-killable cow (aghnyā) was not possible.
Kṣadanti can mean अितिथपागां गमयीित i.e., ‘they take the
cow near the guest’ a meaning which is also relevant here.
One who is dearly loved is never killed, and he certainly is
brought near’’. (page 367)
‘‘While explaining the word kṣattā in his Sudhā-vyākhyā on
the Amarkośa, Bhānuji Dīkṣita writes द ्सवरण ं ेसौः (२.८.५९).
Hence the root kṣad has been rendered as ‘closing’ - samvaraṇa.
He accepts the same meaning in the word kṣatriyaḥ (2.8.1).
Swami Dayananda has also accepted the same meaning in his
Uṇādi-kośa’’. (pages 367-368)
Bhānuji Dīkṣita has explained kṣattā in Amarakośa (2.10.3)
as दित, दतेवा, द सतौ ृ . Here the meaning of the root
kṣad is indicated as ‘bringing up’. As the killing of the unkillable
cow (aghnyā) and of the unkillable bull (aghnya) is impossible,
the cow and bull were brought up for being donated to a
guest- this can also be relevant. In the Brāhmaṇa sentence,
the locative case can be considered to be used in the meaning
of ‘by reason of’, ‘for’ (page 368).
‘‘The foregoing investigations prove that the root kṣad has
many meanings, and it does not mean only ‘to kill’ or ‘to eat’. A
meaning that is appropriate to the context and one which does
not go against the accepted principles, that meaning alone is
correct in that context, and not any other meaning. If गायां
घोषः is a case of transferred meaning, then in गायां
मिहषारि it would not be correct to take it in a transferred
sense as in the previous case, though there is not technical 156 blunders of indological scholars
impropriety. In the Kusumānjali 3.12, Udayana Ācārya holds
the same view :
तायाद ु ्अनाकांन वांहिदित ।
पदाथायव  धैया ु त तदाि ् ने सितः ॥ (कुसमािलः ु ३.१२)
i.e., in the case of a logical connection no other signiﬁcation
is required; in the event of an incongruity another meaning
appropriate to the context has to be sought. Hence, when the
incongruity of killing an aghnya or one who is not to be killed
arises, we have to seek a meaning that suits the context.
(pages 368-369)
‘‘The readers should consider another piece of evidence
from the Vedas and Sāyaṇa’s commentary thereon, which
clearly fortiﬁes our interpretation. In the Ṛgveda 6.13.2 ा
वाम दवे! भरू, े kṣattā is a derivative of the root kṣad. Sāyaṇa
comments -
ऋत उदक य वा ा - दितर दानकमा,  दाता भविस ।
Here Sāyaṇa has clearly stated that the root kṣad means
‘to give’. It merits consideration as to why Sāyaṇa has translated
the root kṣad as ‘to give’ against his own statement that kṣad
is primarily used in the sense of ‘killing’. It is clear that here
‘killing’. It is clear that here ‘killing‘ is not pertinent, hence the
meaning ‘giving away’. If it is so, then in the passage of the
Aitareyabrāhmaṇa too, the ‘giving of a cow or of a bull (aghnya
- not to be killed) is intended. It is but natural, as the killing of
one who is not to be killed is a contradiction. On setting out for
a journey, the meaning of saindhavam ānaya as ‘bring salt’
would be unwise; ‘bring a horse’ stone would be the relevant by Anandatirtha sharma 157
meaning.
Hence, in the sentence उाणं वहते ं वा देof Ṛgvedic
Brāhmaṇa the meaning ‘he gives a bull or cow’ alone is proved
that pertinent. Thus its identity with the महों वा महाजं वा
ोियायोपकयते of the Yajnavalkya - sm ् ṛti (1.5.199) is
established. Upakalpana also means ‘donating’.
The Mitākṣara realised the impossibility of such a big
donation, and hence it interpreted it as a polite offer by words
alone, in honour of the guest. It is indeed impossible to donate
bulls everytime. How can a person have so many of them? But
here an ordinary cow and an ordinary bull are enjoined - hence
there is no incongruity even in donating.
The meaning of vehata as a miscarrying cow is not appro-
priate here, because such cows cannot always be obtained
(pages 369-370)
‘‘In this way, by these authoritative proofs it has been
settled that in महों पचते, ्it means ‘he should present’ and in
उाणं देit means ‘he should donate’. Here the root kṣad
means ‘to donate’. When the root kṣad in the sense of ‘to
donate’ is attested by the Vedas, Sāyaṇa also corroborates it,
and all the scriptures from the Vedas downwards are replete
with the glorious praises of ‘donating a cow’, then this meaning
alone is correct from all points of view; it alone is appropriate’’.
(pages 370-371)
‘‘Scholars mis-understood the root kṣad as ‘to kill’ ‘to eat’
because they did not find it in the Dhātupāṭa where the
meaning of roots are given. Instead, they came across khad
खद यैिहंसायां च, चाद ्भणेand they imposed the meanings 158 blunders of indological scholars
of khad on the root kṣad. Whatever be the meaning of the root
khad of the Dhātupāṭha, it does not follow that the sautra root
with kṣ means the same. When the root kṣad is attested in the
meaning ‘to donate’, and this meaning is also appropriate;
when the eating or killing of a cow and bull is prohibited and
censured in the Śatapatha-brāhmaṇa; when Vedas and other
scriptures are full of the glories of donating a cow; when Sage
Yajnavalkya of the Śatapathabrāhmaṇa and the Yajnavalkya -
smṛti desires the donation or presenting of a cow or bull in
madhuparka; when in the Bṛhadāraṇyaka which is the 14th
book (kāṇḍa) of Śatapatha, Yajnavalkya clearly wants to
perpetuate the cows गोकामा एवं वयंः (१४.६.१.४; ११.६.३.२),
then the unanimity of all these authorities proves that in the
Aitareya-Brahmana passage too kṣadana means ‘the donation’
of a cow or a bull. (pages 371-372)
In the reception to a guest, after the offering of pādya,
arghya etc., several Gṛhyasūtras and Dharma-sūtras prescribe
the madhu-parka and alongwith it the giving of a cow is also
enjoined. The offering of a big bull or a big goat occurs only in
the Yajnavalkya smṛti and Vasiṣṭha- dharma- sūtra, but there is
no reference to a miscarrying cow (vehata). Its relevance is
not clear. In the Śatapatha and Aitareya brahmanas, there is
no imperative injunction, but there it is stated as an illustration
that as on the arrival of a human king or of a learned
Brahamana, one would महों वा महाजं वा पचते ्(Śatapatha), or
उाणंवा वहते ंवा दे(Aitareya), likewise one should duly offer
all the courtesies to King Soma who has arrived as a guest. It
means that the followers of Yajnavalkya used to present a
mahokṣa or a mahāja in the reception to a guest alongwith by Anandatirtha sharma 159
pādya, arghya, madhuparka etc. If this is correct then the
intention of the Śatapatha and Aitareya Brahamanas regarding
the mahokṣa or mahāja is probably the same as that of
Yajnavalkya smṛti or of the Vasiṣṭha - dharma -sūtra; for such a
reference has not been found in any other book. Then how can
it be that the word pacet in the Śatapatha-Brahmana and
kṣadante in the Aitareya-Brahmana carry the sense of killing
(himsa) when the meaning of Yajnavalkya - smṛti is clearly of
non-killing? Hence those who impart the sense of killing to
pacet or kṣadante, they do so without considering the context,
which is altogether inappropriate.
Another point also deserves consideration. Ukṣā is a bull
for breeding. High pedigree stud bulls are very few in number.
Everyone does not own such a bull. One stud bull suffices for a
village. If a śrotrīya guest does not own several cows, the
presentation of a stud bull will be of no use to him, and the
host giver will render great disservice to the community of
cows. Thus bringing a big stud-bull for presentations to a guest
in his reception, does not make sense, and much less so killing
it. Bringing a stud-bull to receive a king also makes no sense,
because the king normally owns several cows along with
proportionate number of bulls in a royal cow-stall.
If we try to translate ukṣā as a draught bull, then such a
meaning is not attested by usage. The word for a draught bull
is anḍuh. Secondly, if one does not present so many and such
heavy things to a guest as to require a bull to carry them, then
one cannot understand the propriety of such a presentation. If
the bull presented is intended for agricultural purposes, it may
be appropriate for a śrotrīya, but not for a king.160 blunders of indological scholars
The permission of a big goat can be only for carrying
burden, but that too does not seem to be proper.
It is likely that महोंवा महाजंवा has a spiritual signification,
which has not been elucidated so far. Scholars should
investigate it.
It is certain that the महोंवा महाजंवा are not intended to
be slaughtered. Those who try to force such a meaning, they
are in the wrong.
MEANING OF GOGHNOTITHIḤ
Raja Rajendra Lala Mitra quotes Colebrooke in his aforesaid
book ‘Beef in Ancient India’ page 5, lines 20-24 :
‘‘Colebrooke noticed the subject in his essay on ‘the
religious ceremonies of the Hindus’, in which he says, ‘it seems
to have been anciently the custom to slay a cow on this occasion
(the reception of a guest) and a guest was therefore called
GOGHNA or cow-killer’’.
Gognaḥ गोः has been explained as गौहत  ेतैगोः ।
There is no scope for difference of opinion in this etymology.
There certainly is difference in the interpretation of हत. े
Those, who propagate beef-eating, find it handy and interpret
goghnaḥ गोः as ‘the killer of a cow’, inspite of the fact that
they are aware of the multiple meanings of the root han :
हन - िहंसागोः । गतयोऽथा े ः - ान , ं गमन, ं ाििते ।
Besides the meaning ‘to kill’, the root हन ्in हतेalso
means ‘to mulitply, to go, to move, to obtain, to attain, to get,
to touch, to come into contact; etc. (see the Sanskrit - English by Anandatirtha sharma 161
Dictionaries of Monier-Williams and V.S. Apte). But they do not
want to take these meanings into account because by them
their main purpose of the propagation of beef-eating is not
served. According to the previous discussions, when any
possibility of beef or any other kind of meat cannot be proved
in the madhuparka rites to entertain a guest, but what can be
proved is the gifting of a cow, then it is clear that the meanings
of goghnaḥ गोः can only be one who ‘touches’ the cow for
accepting her in gift and by drinking her milk; or one who
‘multiplies’ the number of his cows by taking the cow in gift,
etc.
According to the Dhātupaṭha धातपाठु of Ācārya Pāṇini which
reads हन िहंसागोः the meanings of the root han हन are himsa ्
(violence) and gati (movement). Gati गित has three meanings
(i)jnana (learning), (ii) gamana (going or moving) (iii) prāpti
(obtaining, attaining, getting). The meaning of हतेin गौहत  े
तैगोः is गतेातेi.e., ‘attained, obtained’.
Scriptural proof has been adduced under the heading ‘Gift
of a Cow in Madhuparka’ which makes it clear that there can
be no other meaning of goghnaḥ गोः except ‘one who gets a
cow in gift’ or ‘one who takes a cow with him after obtaining
her in gift’.
Panini’s sūtra दाशगोो सदान (े ३.४.७३) also makes it clear
that the words दाश and गो are formed irregularly in the sense
of the dative सदान.े If the dative case चतथ ु alone had been
intended here, i.e., if the aim had been to convey that the
cow was killed for a guest, then the word सदानेwould not
have been used, but तैwould have been employed instead, 162 blunders of indological scholars
i.e, an indeclinable अय indicative of the dative case would
have been used. But, as it is phrased सदान, the only sense े
expressed here is that of gifting. Therefore, the correct and
genuine signification of गोोऽितिथः is ‘a person to whom a cow
is gifted’.
The word ह occurs in the mantra begining अिहिरव भोगःै
in the Ṛgveda and Yajurveda. Its meaning has been given in
Monier-William’s Sanskrit - English Dictionary on page 1295,
column I, as follows : ह - a kind of hand-gaurd (protecting
the hand in archery RV.)
When the word ह hastaghna can mean ‘a kind of hand
gaurd’ then why can the meaning of गोोऽितिथः not be ‘a guest
who protects a cow’?
THE MEANING OF ATITHINĪR-GĀḤ अितिथनीगाः AND ATITHIGVA
अितिथव
Under the sub-heading ‘Food and Drink’ in Chapter 19
‘Social and Economic Conditions’ of ‘The History and Culture of
the Indian People’ Vol.I. The Vedic Age, page 393, lines 20-22,
Dr. V.M. Apte mentions the expression अितिथनीगाः अितिथनीः +
गाः and asserts that its only meaning is that the cow was
slaughtered for a guest. In support he cites Ṛgveda 10.68.3.
Macdonell and Keith also write under the entry māmsa in
the Vedic index, part II, page 145 :
‘‘the name Atithigva probably means ‘slaying cows for
guests’. (Bloomfield, American Journal of Philosophy, 17.426;
Journal of American Oriental Society, 16, cxxiv. Cf Atithinīrgāḥ
‘cows fit for guests’ R.V. x.68.3)’’.by Anandatirtha sharma 163
Prof. Bloomﬁeld has also written on the problem in the
Journal of the American Oriental Society, Vol 16 (1896), page
cxxiv line 12 to page cxxv line 6, in the proceedings of the
American Oriental Society’s meeting in New York N.Y. on March
29th, 30th and 31st, 1894, Item No 17, ‘On the group of Vedic
Words ending in gva and gvin.
‘‘The proper name Atithigva has so far as is known, never
been translated. Grassman’s gva ‘going’ does not yeild
appreciable sense.
If we analyze structurally atithi-gv-a ‘he who has or offers
a cow for the guest’, ‘he who is hospitable’, we have a normal
compound, normal sense, and a valuable glimpse of Vedic
housepractices, known hitherto only in the Brāhmaṇas and
Sūtras. At the arghya ceremony, which is performed on the
arrival of an honoured guest, the ‘preperation’ of a cow is the
central feature. The technical expression is gām kurute; see
CGS. ii.15.1 AGS. i.24.30.31; PGS. i3.26.30; Gobh. iv.10.1;
ApGS 13.15; HGS i.13.10; ApDhS. ii.4.8.5. In TS vi.1.10.1 the
ceremony goes by the name go-arghya. There is no reason
why this simple and natural practice should not be reﬂected
by the hymns, and it comports with the character of Atithigva
as a generous giver : cf. vi.47.22; x.48.8; i.130.7; also similar
statements in reference to descendants of Atithigva in
viii.68.16.17. The adjective atithin is a hapax legamenon in RV.
x.68.3; it occurs in the expression atithinīr gāḥ; and whatever
it may mean, it suggests forcibly the proper name in question.
The rendering of atithin by ‘wandering’, as given by the
Petersburg lexicons and Grassmann, is based upon the
supposed etymology (root at ‘wander’), and reﬂects the 164 blunders of indological scholars
vagueness usual with such interpretations. Ludwig’s translation
(972) ‘wie gaste kommend’ is a compromise between the
etymology and the ordinary meaning of atithi. The passage in
question reads : Bṛhaspati has divided out like barley from
bushels the (rain-)cows propitious to the pious, ﬁt for guests
(atithin), strong, desirable, beautiful in colour; faultless in form,
after having conquered them from clouds’. The proper name
atithi-g-va means therefore precisely one who has atithinīr gāḥ’’
Prof. Bloomﬁeld gives the technical term गां कुत for the े
‘preperation of a cow’ in the arghya rites; and in support
thereof he has cited a number of sūtra texts. The expression
गांकुतेis not found in those sūtra texts. It is just possible that
the references of Gṛhya-sūtras through oversight are not
correctly recorded and/or printed or the wordings in place of
गां कुतेmay slightly differ in the original texts; for example;
Āśvlāyana-gṛhyasūtra 1.24.23 reads आचाोदकाय गां वदये े
Gobhila-gṛhyasūtra reads मु गां वणापाशािषं मऽिभध े िहे
(४.१०.१९) and कुतिधयम े ( ् ४.१०.२२); ĀpastambīyaDharmasūtra 2.4.8.5 reads गोमधपकह ु वदाायः े . But a number
of sūtra texts from among them have been interpreted as
putting forth madhuparka with meat. These passages have
already been discussed under the headings ‘Paraskara-gṛhya-
sūtra and Āśvalāyana-gṛhya-sūtra‘
Prof. Bloomﬁeld has taken Atithigva अितिथव as the proper
name of a person who is described as a noble generous giver,
and he has cited Ṛgveda 6.47.22 (6.4.4.22), 10.48.8 (10.4.6.8)
and 1.130.7 (1.19.4.7) in support. In the English translations of
these mantras Grifﬁth and Wilson have also taken it as the by Anandatirtha sharma 165
name of a person and not as ‘cow-slaughterer’. Their english
translations are as quoted below :
R.V. 6.47.22 (6.4.4.20)
Grifﬁth : Out of the bounty, Indra, hath Prastoka
bestowed ten coffers and ten mettled horses. We have received
in turn from Divodāsa Sambara’s wealth, the gift of Atithigva.
Wilson : Prastoka has given to thy worshipper, Indra, ten
purses of gold, and ten horses, and we have accepted this
treasure from Divodāsa, the spoil won by Atithigvan from
Shambara.
RV. 10.48.8 (10.4.6.8)
Grifﬁth : Against the Gungus I made Atithigva strong, and
kept him mid the folk like Vṛtra - conquering strength; when I
won glory in the great foeslaying ﬂight, in battle where Karanja
fell, and Parnaya.
Wilson : I prepared Atithigva for (the protection of) the
Gungus, I upheld him, the destroyer of enemies, as sustance
amongst the people; when I gained renown in the great Vṛtrabattle, in which Parnaya and Karanja were slain.
RV. 1.130.7 (1.19.4.7)
Grifﬁth : For Puru thou hast shattered, Indra, ninety forts,
for Divodāsa thy boon servant with thy bolt, Oh Dancer, for thy
worshipper.
For Atithigva he, the Strong, brought Śambara from the
mountain down. Distributing the mighty treasure with his
strength, parting all treasures with his strength.
Wilson : For Puru, the giver of offerings, for the mighty 166 blunders of indological scholars
Divodāsa; thou, Indra the dancer (with delight in battle), hast
destroyed ninety cities, dancer (in battle), thou hast destroyed
them with (thy thunderbolt) for (the sake of) the giver of
offerings. For (the sake of) Atithigva, the ﬁerce (Indra) hurled
Śambara from off the mountain bestowing (upon the prince)
immense treasure, (acquired) by (his) prowess; all kinds of
wealth (acquired) by (his) prowess.
The meaning of the word atithigva (अितिथव) has been
given in Monier-Williams Sanskrit Dictionary as under -
‘To whom guests should go’
Besides this, no other meanings has been given. There is
not even the slightest inkling of cow-slaughter in this meaning.
Therefore, the noun atithigva (अितिथव) can never imply ‘to
slaughter a cow for a guest’; or ‘a guest who gets a cow
slaughtered’.
Shri Kanahaiyalal Maniklal Munshi, Chairman of Bharatiya
Vidya Bhavan, Bombay, in his Hindi novel ‘Lopāmudra’, page
34, lines 16-17 has indicated Atithigva as a particular person
and has interpreted this word as ’one who serves beef to a
guest’, while Prof. Bloomﬁeld after analysing this word
structurally Atithi-gv-a has interpreted it as ‘he who has or
offers a cow for the guest’ or ‘he who is hospitable’ and Monier
Williams has interpreted it in his Dictionary as ‘to whom guest
should go’. Shri K.M. Munshi in interpreting it as ‘one who
serves beef to a guest’ has given neither any etymology nor
other testimony nor has Atithigva been shown in the story as
actually serving beef to a guest. When a person of the standing
of Shri K.M. Munshi propagates in this manner, then there is no by Anandatirtha sharma 167
wonder if ordinary public is misled.
Those who insist to ﬁnd cow-slaughter in atithigva
(अितिथव) and atithinīrgaḥ (अितिथनीगाः) are clearly prejudiced.
The basis of their prejudice is the predilection of Westren
scholars like Keith, Macdonell and others who are insistent in
their efforts to prove that the Aryans were uncivilized.
The expression atithinīrgaḥ -- अितिथनीगाः (अितिथनीः + गाः)
occurs in Ṛgveda 10.68.3 whose meaning has been clariﬁed by
Bloomﬁeld in the Journal of the American Oriental Society. The
original mantra reads --
सायाअितिथनीिरिषराः ाहाः सवणा ु अनवपाः ।
बहितः ृ पवत ो े िवतया ू िनगाऊपेयविमव ििवः ॥
(ऋवदे १०.६८.३)
After resolution of the sandhis this will read as follows --
8 9 10 11 12 13
साया,  अितिथनीः, इिषराः, ाहाः, सवणा ु ः अनवपाः,
1 15 14 2 7 3 5 4 6
बहितः ृ , पवत ः े , िवतया ू ,  िनर, ्गाः, ऊप, ेयवम, ्इव, ििवः ।
The literal meaning of this as given by Prof. Bloomﬁeld in
the Journal of American Oriental Society is as follows --
(१.बहितः ृ ) Bṛhaspati (२.िनर, ् ३.ऊप) े has divided out (४.
इव) like (५.यवम) ्barley (६.ििवः) from the bushels (७.गाः)
the (rain-)cows (८.साया)  (which are) propitious to the pios,
(९.अितिथनीः) ﬁt for the guest, (१०.इिषराः) strong (११.ाहाः)
desirable (१२.सवणा ु ः) beautiful in colours (१३. अनवपाः) 168 blunders of indological scholars
faultless in form (१४.िवतया ू )  after having conquered them (१५.
पवत ः े ) from the clouds.
H.H. Wilson has translated it as under.
‘‘Bṛhaspati brings unto (the gods), after extricating them
from the mountains, the cows that are the yeilders of pure
(milk), ever in motion, the objects of search and of desire, well
- coloured and of unexceptionable form, (as men bring) barley
from the granaries’’ (RV x.5.8.3)
And Ralph T.H. Grifﬁth has translated it as follows -
‘‘Bṛhaspati, having won them from the mountains, strewed
down, like barley out of winnowing-baskets, the vigorous
wandering cows who aid the pious, desired of all, of blameless
form, well coloured’’.
In both these English translations of the Ṛgveda mantra,
nowhere is there any indication that the words atithinīḥ and
gaḥ suggest the meaning of ‘a guest who causes the slaughter
of a cow’. Bloomﬁeld’s interpretation of the words atithigva and
atithinīgāhḥ in the Journal of the American Oriental Society
also does not indicate even a remote hint of cow-slaughter and
to the contrary he has taken them as proper names.
The word atithinī (अितिथनी) can be formed only by adding
the possessive suffix- inī. Meanings with the possessive suffix
can be ‘with a guest’; ‘one whose the guests are’; ‘one for
whome the guests come’; ‘one who is useful to guests’ etc.,
and the cow can be useful to the guests only by her milk, curd,
ghee etc. If one contends that she can also be useful by her
beef, then she will be useful only once for a guest and it will
become impossible for a man of common status to slaughter a by Anandatirtha sharma 169
new cow every time he receives a guest. Reception of guests is
as important to a common man as it is to an affluent person.
Taking into account all these considerations, atithinīrgāḥ
will mean ‘cows fit for guests, i.e., for serving them with milk,
yoghurt, ghee, etc‘ and atithigva will mean ‘the person to
whom a guest should go’, i.e., a host whose hospitality with
milk products a guest should accept.
CULINARY IMPOSSIBILITY OF MIXING MEAT WITH
MADHUPARKA
Late Pt. Shripad Damodar Sātavalekar has written in the
section on Madhuparka, in his ‘Go-Jnana-Kośa’, Ancient Period
Vedic Section, part I, which is translated below --
‘‘We do not know it fully as none in our family has ever
tasted meat, as we have been strict vegetarians. Even then we
have enquired from our non-vegetarian friends who have
informed us that no preperation of meat is prepared with
honey or candy-sugar. Whatsoever preperations of meat are,
they are all salted and spiced. If this is true, then how can
madhuparka be prepared with meat? Because it is madhuparka,
i.e, it is a sweet preparation mixed (पक) with honey (मध).ु
Nothing is prepared from meat by mixing it with honey or
candy-sugar, but meat is always mixed with salt and spices’’.
To verify its truth, we wrote and enquired from the Institute
of Hotel Management, Catering and Nutrition; and a number of
hoteliers. Their replies are reproduced hereunder --
Institute of Hotel Management, Catering and Nutrition,
Pusa, New Delhi - 12 writes in its letter No. ICT/PA/2/69/192,
dated 29-1-69 --170 blunders of indological scholars
‘‘No popular or famous dishes have been prepared so far
out of meat and sugar in classical French, Indian or English
cookery. Of course, this does not mean that the sweet meat
preperations cannot be prepared, but the problem that has to
be faced is the consumer’s acceptibility and market potentiality’’.
It is clear from the above that no sweet dish is prepared
with meat. If prepared, consumers will not relish it and it will
be difficult to sell it.
Hotel Oberoi Intercontinental, Wellesley Road, New
Delhi-11 writes in its letter dated 11-2-1969 :
‘‘I would like to point out that no sweet meat preperations
are made by us and whatsoever no meat is used for our dessert
preperations’’.
From this also it is evident that no sweet is prepared with
meat; meat is not mixed in any sweet dish; and meat
preperations are only salted and spiced. An honoured guest is
entertained only by serving what is most delicious and what
he likes best, When in the refinement of culinary art there is
no sweet dish prepared with or from meat, then how is it
possible that meat should have been added to madhuparka at
the reception of an honoured guest?
Some people add a little sugar to salted spiced vegetable
preperations, but it cannot be maintained on this basis that
vegetable preperations are sweet. Nobody will relish vegetables
prepared with sugar alone. In the same way if somebody
perchance adds a little sugar to salted and spiced meat
preperations, then they do not become meat containing sweets.
Salt or spices are not mentioned among the ingredients of by Anandatirtha sharma 171
madhuparka. In such cicumstances, mixing of meat in
madhuparka will be a sweet meat preperation devoid of salt
and spices which has neither been seen nor heard of so far.
Then it is beyond comprehension, how an honoured guest
would relish the addition of meat to madhuparka. If we apply
our minds seriously, then the mixing of meat in madhuparka is
impossible.
Madhuparka System in Siberia
Doctor Lokesh Chandra, Director of Saraswati Vihar
(International Academy of Indian Culture), New Delhi and son
of late Dr. Raghuvira, the well known Indologist, has given an
instance of his experience with madhuparka, which is narrated
below in his own words --
‘‘Deep in the heart of Eastren Siberia lies the Aginsky
Monastery which has been renowned for its inexhaustible
manuscript resources and unparalleled scholarship. Till the
thirties of our century it continued the academic and spiritual
traditions of the Nalanda University. On the midnight of 14/15
June 1967 we reached this Aginsky Monastery, a legend for
those who have taken interest in Eastern Siberia, in her thought
and her deep traditions. For the first time in our life we were
received in national style with madhuparka comprising of
yoghurt (dahi), milk and honey in silver spoons from silver
vessels’’.
This shows that even meat-eaters of Russian Siberia do not
include any kind of meat in madhuparka and as such it is
beyond doubt that there is not even an inkling of meat in
madhuparka and the statement that madhuparka is never
without meat is baseless and wrong.172 blunders of indological scholars
CONCLUSION
It is clear from the above considerations that there is no
possibility of mixing meat in madhuparka. Due to shortage of
time, even the possibility of preparing milk-rice-pudding (पायस)
then and there and serving it to entertain the guest if rather
slight. It may be possible that parched barley (sattu) besides
milk, curd and ghee was mixed with madhuparka as is
prescribed in Baudhāyana-gṛhya-sūtra 1.2.54 (अशौ िपां
सिसद ं -्ते)् and Hiraṇyakeśi-gṛhya-sūtra 1.12.10. Even
nowadays in the countryside of Bihar and Uttar Pradesh, guests
coming from far-off places at summer time are served with
parched barley (sattu) dissolved in water mixed with sugar.
WERE COW-SLAUGHTER, MEAT SACRIFICE AND MEATEATING
PREVALENT IN THE VEDIC AGE?
By constant propaganda it has been dinned into the minds
of several people that during the Vedic age killing was a part of
yajna, even cows were slaughtered, beef and other kinds of
meat were commonly eaten; and the total prohibition of killing
(ahimsa) came into vogue in the Buddhist and Jain period. It is
true that before the Buddhist and Jain period, by
misunderstanding, killing became prevalent among people to
some measure, but it is totally false that in the Vedic age there
was killing in yajna, or meat-eating prevailed. A number of
people think that the cow is considered aghnya अा ‘unkillable’ in the Vedas, but there is no prohibition regarding the
killing of other animals and hence animals were slaughtered in
the yajnas - this assumption also is false.
The high respect accorded to the cow in Vedic times has by Anandatirtha sharma 173
been described in details by the late Pandit Shripad Damodar
Satavalekar in his Go-jnana-kośa (published by the Svadhyaya
Mandal, Anandashram, P.O. Pardi, Dist. Balsar, Gujarat), by
Pandit Dinanath Sharma in his Śri-sanatana-dharāloka, and by
Pandit Dharmadev Vidya-vacaspati in his Vedon kā Yathārtha
Svarūpa (published by the Gurukul Kangri University). A few
extracts are being cited here which clearly prove that in Vedic
times there was neither cowslaughter, nor beef-eating, nor the
killing of other animals and the eating of their meat. Those
who want to go into greater details they should study the three
works just referred to.
THE INVIOLABILITY OF THE COW
By a careful reﬂection of the Vedic mantras it becomes
clear that the cow is inviolable. This has been spoken of in a
number of ways in the Vedic mantras. In the Veda, the very
name of ‘a cow and bull’ is aghnya (अ). It means ‘inviolable’.
Whose name itself is ‘inviolable’, its cutting up or slaughter is
impossible. Vedic words are full of meaning, they are significant,
and intrinsically relevant. Therefore whose name is aghnyā
अा or ‘inviolable’, its slaughter is impossible in Vedic times.
And without slaughter, the offering of beef in havan is
altogether impossible. The hypothesis of the slaughter of cows
and the offering of beef in gomedha are all figments without
any foundation.
Thus the word ‘go’ has several meanings like, cow, her
milk, her yoghurt, her butter, her sour-milk, her ghee, her
urine, her dung, her hide, her hair, her bone etc. In the Veda it
is used chiefly in the sense of ‘milk’ and ‘ghee’. This is specially 174 blunders of indological scholars
to be borne in mind.
गोिभः ीणीत मरम ।् Ṛg. 9.46.4
The literal meaning of this mantra is : mix (śrīṇīta ीणीत)
soma (matsaram मरम)् with the cows (gobhiḥ गोिभः). The
words literally convey that mix the whole of soma with a whole
cow. But here it means : ‘mix soma-juice with the milk of a
cow’. Here the whole has been used for its part. Milk is a part
of the cow, and a part of soma is its juice. Here the mixing of
these two parts alone is intended. Such was the idiom of Vedic
speech. It is a mode of language. If this mode is understood
then no doubt remains.
If in this mantra we do not translate the word go as ‘cow’s
milk, and interpret it as mix soma with a cow, then it has no
congruency of meaning, because soma cannot be mixed with a
cow by any means. The cow is a long and broad animal specy
and soma is the juice of a creeper. How can they be mixed?
Soma cannot be mixed with a living cow, nor with a whole
dead cow. If the proponents of cow-slaughter and beef were
still to insist that soma can be mixed with the ﬂesh of a cow
after slaughtering her, then we shall have to set aside the real
meaning of gou as a cow, but we will have to understand it in
the secondary meaning of ‘beef’ as a ﬁgurative extension. In
such a situation when we have to give up the real meaning of
the word gau गौ as ‘cow’ and we are compelled to resort to its
subsidiary meaning of ‘beef’, then why should we not take gau
गौ as meaning ‘cow’s milk, which will be easier to mix with
soma juice. Those who interpret it as ‘beef’ they will have to
go to the length of taking it as ‘the meat of a dead cow’. It will by Anandatirtha sharma 175
be easier and more befitting than that if we interpret it as ‘the
milk of a living cow’. Because the principle is that the closer
the subsidiary meaning to its primary the better it is to that
extent.
THE PRIMARY PRINCIPLE OF THE VEDA
The primary principle of the Veda is to view all beings in
friendly compassion. So we can say that those who saw all
beings with friendly love, how could they slaughter others for
their stomach? Friendly love will lead to the dedication of one’s
own life for others, and it is impossible that the loved one is
slaughtered for the stomach. The primary principle of the Veda
is exempliﬁed by the following --
१. िम मा चषा ु सवािण भतािन ू समीाम ।्
May all beings behold me with the eyes of a friend.
िमाहंचषा ु सवािण भतािन ू समीे।
I behold all beings with the eyes of a friend.
िम चषा ु समीामहे।
We behold each other with the eyes of a friend.
(Vājasanchi-samhitā 36.18)
२. िम वषा ु समीम ।् (मायणी ै सिहता ं ४.६.२७)
Behold all with the eyes of a friend. (Maitrāyaṇi-samhitā)
३. ियः पशना ू ंभयासम ू ।् (अथवव दे १७.१.४)
May I be dear to all animals. (Atharvaveda 17.1.4)
४. तेंह मा िम मा चषा ु सवािण भतािन ू समीाम ।्176 blunders of indological scholars
िमाऽहचषा ु सवािण भतािन ू समीे।
िम चषा ु समीामहे। -(यजवुद ३६.१८)
Oh Dispeller of all pangs and ignorance (त) े strengthen
me (ंह मा) may all beings (सवािण भतािन ू ) regard (समीा) ं me
(मा) with the eye of a friend (िम चषा ु ) May I regard (अहं
समी) े all beings (सवािण भतािन ू ) with the eye of a friend (िम
चषा ु ) may all of us regard (समीामह) े each other with the eye
of a friend (िम चषा ु ).
This is the commandment of the Veda. Here it admomishes
us not only to regard all men with the eye of a friend, but the
entire gamut of sentient beings. Then should one kill one’s
friend for one’s stomach. If he is to be killed, then where is the
friendly eye. The Vedic people who followed the prime principle
of the Veda to regard all beings or the entire sentient world
with the eye of a friend, could never even imagine to slaughter
them to eat. So it will have to be accepted that due to some
extraneous causes meat-eating intruded into the Aryans. The
natural diet of the Aryans was vegetarian.
In the Bhāgavata-mahāpurāṇa 7.14.9 we ﬁnd the same
assertion --
मगोखरमका ृ ख सरीस ु गिमिकाः ृ ।
आनः पवत ु पय ् ते त् रेषामर े ंिकयत ॥् (ीम०भा०७.१४.६)
‘‘Deer, camel, donkey, monkey, rats, creeping animals, birds
and ﬂies - one should consider them like one’s own sons; what
difference is there between them and the sons?
AHIMSA IN VEDAby Anandatirtha sharma 177
The Veda enjoins the non-killing not of the cow alone, but
it calls upon the non-killing of all the bipeds and quadrupeds.
The prime principle of the Veda is to view all beings with the
eye of a friend. Consider the following supporting passages --
यजमान पशनू पािह ् ॥ यजवुद १.१
मा िहंसीा जाः ॥ यजवुद १२.३२
अ ....... ं मा िहंसीः ....... ॥ यजवुद १३.४२
अिव .... ं मा िहंसीः ........ ॥ यजवुद १३.४४
इमंमा िहंसीिपाद  ंपशमु ॥् यजवुद १३.४७
इमंमा िहंसीः .......... वािजनम ॥् यजवुद १३.४८
इममणा ू य ....... ंु मा िहंसीः ॥ यजवुद १३.५०
मा िहंसीः पषम ु ॥् यजवुद १६.३
मा ... िहंिसंिपदो मा चतदः ु ॥ अथवव दे ११.२.१
‘‘Do not kill any of the creatures, like the horse, goat,
bipeds, quadrupeds, wool-giving animals and human beings’’.
Reading these mantras alongwith those propounding the
principle of the friendly eye, and never kill them - this is the
admonition of the Veda to men. Inspite of such a clear
injunction, Europeans constrain to think that non-killing
(ahimsa) was not so strict in the Veda as it became in later
times.
Pandit Dharmadeva Vidya-vacaspati has given a clear
exposition of non-killing (ahimsa) in the Vedas on pages 498-
499 of his book Vedon kā Yathārth Svarūp (publish by the
Gurukul Kangri, Haridwar). A few extracts from it are cited 178 blunders of indological scholars
below --
बहिभा ृ न िभभा ु सन मा ् िहंसीा जाः ॥ यजवुद १२.३२॥
‘‘May you be illumined by the mighty rays of knowledge
(बहिः ृ भानिभः ु भासन) ् and may you not kill (मा िहंसीः) the
creature (जाः) by your body (ता)’’.
येरािमनिति ु येच भतूषे ुजाित ।
पशनू य् ेसवान रि ् तेन आसुजाित तेनः पशषुुजाित ॥
(अथवव दे १६.४८.५)
‘‘Those noble souls who practice meditation and other yogic
ways, who are ever careful about all beings, who protect all
animals, they also care for our spiritual progress. They always
take care that our behaviour does not afﬂict any animal’’.
ियः पशना ू ंभयासम ू ।् (अथवव दे १७.४)
‘‘May I be dear to the animals’’.
One who protects the animals, and regards them with a
kindly heart, he alone can be dear to them, and not one who
slaughters them - this is quite clear.
It may be acceded to, that the totally complete and
singularly unqualiﬁed non-killing (ahimsa) propagated by the
Jains and Buddhists is not found to such a degree in the Veda,
but it is unreasonable to say that the principle of non-killing
(ahimsa) did not exist in the Veda. The Veda preaches ahimsa
alone as the common norm of behaviour, but in special
circumstances like war it does not enjoin to refrain from killing.
Veda enjoins ahimsa of a type in which killing necessitated by
a great national war is not ruled out. But should one desire to by Anandatirtha sharma 179
kill others for his stomach, such killing is not permitted by the
Veda. The readers should clearly bear this difference in mind.
In fact, it is the Vedas alone that propound the true principle of
non-killing (ahimsa). So the Aryas who follow the Veda try to
save the insects moving on the road, and if some are crushed
by oversight that horriﬁes them and they recede back uttering
‘Rām Rām - राम राम in repentance, and they also safegaurd
sparrows and pigeons who lay eggs in their houses.
A number of modern scholars think that in the Vedic age
the cow was surely killed at gomedha. They adduce in proof
that the kalivarjya sections prohibit gomedha in this Kali-age.
But they entirely forget that in the Zend Avesta scriptures of
the Parsis, there is surely no cow-slaughter in the gomez yajna
which is equivalent to the Vedic gomedha, and in their somayāga also there is no slaughter, but the juice of the soma
creeper alone is used. European scholars make a comparative
study, but as soon as comparative studies prove ahimsa they
give up this basis. When the gomez yajna of the Parsis can be
accomplished without cow-slaughter, then why not the
gomedha of the Vedic Aryans.
Medha does not imply killing or slaughter at all. For
instance we may cite the words gṛhamedha (गहमृ धे) and
pitṛmedha (िपतमृ धे). Just as honoring the father is intended in
pitṛmedha (िपतमृ धे), and just as sanitary and other conditions
of well-being of a house are explicitly predominant in
gṛhamedha (गहमृ धे), likewise in gomedha too honouring of the
cow and the preservation of her health were naturally desired.
Manu has also said --180 blunders of indological scholars
अापनंयः िपतय ृ ुतपणम ।्
होमो दवो ै बिलभतो नयोऽितिथप ृ जनम ू ॥् -(मनु ितृ ३.७०)
Teaching is brahma-yajna (य) pleasing the parents is
pitṛmedha (िपतमृ धे) offering of homa is deva-yajna (दवय े )
offering of food to worms and insects is bhūta- yajna (भतय ू )
and honoring the guests is nṛyajna - nara-medha (नयृ -
नरमधे)’’.
VEDIC NAMES OF THE COW
The Vedic lexicon Nighaṇṭu gives nine synonyms of the
cow. Out of them the following three bear the meaning ‘not to
be killed’.
1. aghnyā (अ-ा) = not to be killed
2. ahī (अ-ही) = not to be killed
3. aditi (अ- िदित) = not to be cut to pieces.
These three synonyms clearly indicate that the cow should
not be slaughtered. First we showed that the names of yajnas
imply non-killing (ahimsa), now we see that the synonyms of
the cow show the same non-killing. The intrinsic meaning of
the synonyms of the cow itself proclaims that the cow is holy,
and therefore she should never be slaughtered. The same
meaning is the basis of a stanza in the Mahābhārata :
अा इित गवांनाम क एता हमहु ित ।
महकाराकुशलंवषृ ंगांवाऽऽलभते त् ुयः ॥ (म.भा.शा०ं २६२.४७)
‘‘The very name of the cows is aghnyā that is the cow is
not to be slaughtered. Then who can slay them. Those who kill by Anandatirtha sharma 181
a cow or a bull, they commit a most heinous crime’’.
SYNONYMS OF YAJNA
From among the synonyms of yajna, the word adhvara
(अर) occurs several times in Veda. Its very meaning is ‘nonkilling’. The word dhvara (र) denotes killing (रा िहंसा तदभावो
य स अरः), it is prohibited by the word a-dhvara. The
presence of the word a-dhvara meaning ‘non-killing’ among the
synonyms of yajna proves that any type of killing is not
appropriate in a yajna or medha. The word medha (मधे) has
three meanings : ‘increasing intelligence; attending and killing’
(मधे ृिहंसासमनेच). The word medha has a nuiance of killing,
but it also signifies ‘increasing; attending’. Thus the etymological
meaning of go-medha (गो-मधे) can be : (1) increasing the
cows; (2) attending the cows, and (3) killing the cows. The
readers themselves should consider which of the three
meanings is intended. By association with the word a-dhvara
(अर) ‘non-killing’ for a yajna the idea of cow-killing has to be
discarded, and the other two meanings remain. Rearing the
cows, multiplying them, and eugenic cow-breading is meant by
‘attending the cows’. All these are comprehended by gomedha
(गोमधे) but not cow-killing; this is clear even by considering
just the synonyms of yajna.
PROHIBITION OF COW-SLAUGHTER
गांमा िहंसीरिदतंिवराजम ॥४३॥ ्
धतृ ंहानामिदतंजनाय ... मा िहंसीः ॥४६॥ (यजवुद १३)
‘‘The cow is illustrious and inviolable, therefore do not slay 182 blunders of indological scholars
her (yajurveda 13.42). The cow is inviolable and she yeilds
ghee for the people, therefore do not slay the cow’’. (13,49)
Thus, slaughter of cows is prohibited, it is a clear injunction
against killing them.
THE INCOMPARABLE COW
The Veda enjoins that for everything else there is a
comparison, but the cow is beyond comparison; so many are
the beneﬁcences conferred by her on man. For it, see the
following mantra --
 सयूसम ं ोितः समसम ु ंसरः ।
इः पिथृ ैवषयान गो् ुमाा न िवते॥ (यजवुद २३.४८)
‘‘The effulgence of knowledge can be compared to the sun,
the Heavens (लोकु ) can be compared to the sea, the earth is
very vast, yet Indra is vaster than her, but the cow cannot be
compared to anything’’. (Yajurveda 23.48)
Behold! how the Vedas describe the loftiness of the cow.
Though the word gau (गौ) is used for the earth also, but in the
above mantra the word gau (गो) stands for the cow alone, and
the passage expresses its (cow’s) incomparability in so many
words.
ADVANTAGES OF THE COW
हामिांपगो अये ंसा वधता  ंमहतेसौभगाय ॥ ऋ.१.१६४.२७)
‘‘May this inviolable cow yeild milk for both the Aśvini, and
may she prosper for our great good fortue’’ (Ṛg 1.164.27). In
this mantra it is said that may the inviolable cow prosper (साby Anandatirtha sharma 183
अया े ं वधताम ) this mantra deserves careful re ् ﬂection. Mr.
Grifﬁth translates it as ‘and may she prosper to our high
advantage’. When this mantra proves that the increase of cows
leads to the growth of our fortune, then whence arises the
possibility of slaughtering the cow? The numerical increase of
the cow and the enhancement of its quality leads to numerous
advantages for man - this has been propounded by the Veda
without reservations and in several ways. Such great importance
was attached to the cow in Vedic times. So we can say that in
Vedic times efforts of the pious were directed to the
improvement of the cow. Also see Ṛg-veda 1.164.40 --
सयवसाद ू ्भगवती िह भया ू अथो वयंभगवः ाम ।
अि तणम ृ ेिवदान िपब शमु दकमाचरी ु ॥ (ऋ.१.१६४.४०)
‘‘May the cow eat the best of grass, may she be blessed,
and by her may we also be blessed with wealth. Oh inviolable
cow (अ!) े ever feed on grass (तणमृ ्अि) and coming back
(आ-चरी) drink pure water (शमु उदक ् ं िपब).
What the cow should be fed has been clearly spoken of in
the mantra. The cow should eat grass alone, and when a cow
is kept, there should be such arrangements as she gets the
best grass. Milk obtained from a cow that eats the best grass
and drinks pure water - that alone in health - bestowing for
man. The milk which is obtained from a cow fed on fried
dishes, grains, decaying produce and human excreta etc - that
cannot be so wholesome.
The following mantra is note-worthy in this respect --
यावतीनामोषधीनांगावः ाा यावतीनामजावयः ।184 blunders of indological scholars
तावतीमोषधीः ु शमयाभताः ृ ॥ (अथवव दे ८.७.२५)
‘‘All the herbs that inviolable cows feed on, and all those
on which goats and sheep fed, may all of them increase your
well-being’’. Grifﬁth has translated the word aghnyā (अा) as
‘whom none may slaughter’. If the word (अा) standing for
the ‘cow’ has this meaning, and her slaughter is not proper
then on what basis do European scholars opine that beef-
eating was prevalent among the Aryans?
ANIMALS IN YAJNA
Whatever man offered to the gods in yajna, that he ate
himself - on this basis European scholars have written -
‘‘The usual food of the Vedic Indian, as far as flesh was
concerned, can be gathered from the list of sacrificial victims;
what man ate he presented to gods - i.e., the sheep, the goat
and ox’’ (Vedic index. Vol II, page 147 lines 10-13)
It means that all the offered animals were slaughtered and
eaten. It appears from what follows in the Vedic index that
according to the Europeans the horse was killed at aśvamedha,
but they have speciﬁed that the Vedic Aryans mostly did not
eat horse-meat. It is really considerate of the Europeans that
they have spared the Aryans from eating horse-meat. Because
of the general European belief that what was offered at yajna
was eaten, and that the horse was slaughtered at yajna, it was
difﬁcult for the Arayans to be spared from it. But in the book
‘Vedic index’ it is clearly stated that horse-meat was not eaten
- so we tender them our thanks.
If Europeans concede the exceptions that inspite of human by Anandatirtha sharma 185
sacriﬁce at narmedha (नरमधे) human meat was not consumed,
and inspite of the sacrifice of a horse at aśvamedha, horsemeat also was not eaten, then what objection do they have to
accept the fact that the flesh of other animals was also not
partaken of. Now remains the question of animal-offering in
the Vedic yajna. Under the sub-head ‘Ahimsa (non-violence) in
the Veda’ and ‘Synonyms of Yajna‘, we have come to the
conclusion that in the Vedic yajna there was not slaughter or
offering of animals; and as a general rule violence to all beings
is forbidden in the Vedas.
According to Ralph T.H. Griffith’s translation. Atharvaveda
provides that :
i) ‘Horses are the grains : Oxen the winnowned rice-grains;
gnats the husks (अाः कणा, गावडुला, मशका षाः ु ) ११.३.५
ii) The grains of corn have now become a cow; the
sesamum her calf (धाना धने रभवद ु ्वोऽािलोऽभवत) ्१८.४.३२
The above quotations indicate that wherever prescriptions
of oblation of cow are apparent, there they mean only corn
(barley), rice, sesamum etc., and not animal ﬂesh.
According to Mimamsa-darsana -धनेवादिणा ु सण इित
पषापनयो ु यथा िहरय १०.३.६५ a Brahmana takes away a cow
or horse as a gift (दिणा) just as he does in the case of gold
dakṣiṇā. This proves that in yajna cows and horses were
assembled for giving away to Brahmanas in dakṣiṇā.
CATTLE EXHIBITION AT YAJNA
Here it must be pointed out that the meaning to come 186 blunders of indological scholars
together of the root medhṛ (मधे)ृ is supported by several
episodes of yajnas in Mahabharata. For instance, in the
Aśvamedha-parva of Mahabharata it is narrated as follows :
(The references of chapter and verse numbers are from Gita
press edition followed by Bhandarkar Research Institution
edition).
लजा जलजा येच पशवः केचन भो ।
सवान वे समानीतान अपय ्  ं तेनपाः ृ ॥८५.३२; ८७.६
गावै मिहषीवै त वियोऽिप ृ च ।
अौदकािन च सािन ापदािन वयािसं च ॥ ८५.३३; ८७.७
जरायजाडातािन ु दजा े िदािन ु च ।
पवतान  पजातािन ू भतािन ू दशु ते॥८५.३४; ८७.८
एवंमिदतु ंसवपशगोधनधातः ु ।
यवाटं नपा ृ ा परंिवयमागताः ॥ ८५.३५; ८७.९
‘‘In the pavillion of the yajna, people saw all kinds of land
and water animals which had been brought there. There were
several kinds of cows, she-buffalos, old women, water
creatures, beasts of prey and birds. Viviparous and ovoparous
creatures, creatures born of sweat and plants of mountainous
and lacustrine regions all were to be seen there. Thus seeing
the pavillion abundant in animals, cows, wealth and grains, and
ﬁlled with joy, the kings were in ecstacy’’.
This clearly proves that exhibitions were held at gomedha,
naramedha, aśvamedha and avimedha etc.
EVIDENCE OF YAJNA
Whether meat should be used in the yajna or not is a by Anandatirtha sharma 187
different matter. Our opinion is that yajnas were without meat,
but for arguement’s sake if we consider yajnas with meat, then
we will
............. (p.162)
In the purva altar there were several altars in which only
grain was offered, and meat is never mentioned. Meat is said
to be offered only in the uttara altar. If the two adjectives of
altar, purva and uttara, are understood as ancient times (purva
kala) and later times (uttara - kala, then it is clearly proved
that only grains were offered on ancient (purva) altar, and
meat began to be offered on the later (uttara) altar.
The altar on which meat is offered nowadays, that is the
later altar. Uttara-vedi clearly means the altar that came into
vogue in later times, i.e. in the ancient yajnas, this altar did
not exit at all. The altars which existed in ancient times, the
purva (ancient) altars’ are still found. In the purva altar only
pure grain is offered, and meat is offered on the uttara altar.
Not only that, but ﬁrst the offering of grains was completely
ﬁnished on the purva altars, and then offering on the meat-
altar started. Meat is never offered in the early part of the
yajna, only grains are offered, and in the later days of yajna
meat is offered in the uttara altar.
It is clearly proved that in very ancient times, the yajna
was performed at purva altars on which only grains were
offered, and the offering of later times comprised of the
offering of meat at the uttara altar. If somebody insists that
meat yajnas were prevalent during the period of Brahmanas,
then he will have to agree to the fact that this was not the
vogue in ancient times and only meat-less yajnas were 188 blunders of indological scholars
prevalent in those days.
If meat yajnas began in later times, it was to prevent
meat-greedy men of sinister nature to continue this disposition.
With this end in view it must have been ordained that if meat
has to be ................................................. (p163)
तेयेमतमिवाय महो ................. ं
िहंसायांयिद रागः ाद ्य एव न चोदना ॥ (ीम०भा०११.२१.२६)
Lord Sri Kṛṣṇa said to Udhava -
‘‘Not knowing my implicit view, if sensuous man ﬁnd
pleasure in violence, then they should induldge in it only in
yajna’’.
From the above it is clear that it is not a general injunction.
It has been ordained only for the purpose of putting curb on
sensuous pleasures and not as a general injunction to duty.
Lord Krishna has said further --
िहंसािवहारा ालःैपशिभः ु सखुया े ।
यजेदवता े यःैिपतभृ तपतीन ू खलाः ् ॥ (ीम०भा०११.२१.३०)
‘‘People who ﬁnd enjoyment in violence, out of wickedness
and for the gratiﬁcation of their pleasures they slaughter
animals, offer the meat in yajnas, and thereby make a pretence
of worshipping the gods, manes and rulers of evil spirit’’.
Śrīmad-Bhāgavata has stated clearly earlier also that
animals killed in sacriﬁce take their revenge by devouring their
killer in the next birth :
येनयेिवदोऽसः ं ाः सदिभमािननः ।
पशनू ि ् िवाः े खादि तेच तान ॥्by Anandatirtha sharma 189
(ीमागवतम ११् .५.१४)
‘‘Those who are ignorant of this real Dharma (that is in
yajna, the touching of animal is enjoined - not its killing - पशोः
अालभनम ्न िहंसा - Srimad Bhagavata (11.5.13) and though
wicked and naughty, account themselves virtuous, kill animals
without any feeling of remorse or fear of punishment, and are
devoured by those very animals in their next birth’’.
In the Mahabharata also, which is considered as a fifth
veda, animal killing is prohibited in yajna :
इ ायितकु ृतय ै मागरब धोऽधमः ु ।
हानू मा ् सगं ृ ःुस वैनरकभारः ॥
(Mahabharata, Anuśāsanika parva 115.43;116.45)
The wretch among men who, pretending to follow the path
of religious rites and yajnas laid down in the Veda, would kill
living creatures from greed of its ﬂesh, would certainly go to
hell.
KALIVARJYA SECTION
Some people assert that in the kali-varjya sections
aśvamedha, gomedha etc. are prohibited in the Kali age,
therefore before this prohibition aśvamedha and gomedha were
performed, and horse-meat was eaten at aśvamedha and beef
during gomedha.
No the question arises who has written this kali-varjya
section, and in which text is it incorporated? Is this found in a
respectable authoritative work? This is not found in the
respectable authoritative smṛti works, therefore we cannot
arrive at any special and potent conclusion from such an 190 blunders of indological scholars
imaginary section.
The second point is that everything becomes clear when
the chronology of the Kali-varjya section is ﬁxed. According to
us, the kalivarjaya section has been written within the last 700-
800 years. Therefore this cannot regulate the entire past
preceding it. Here too, there is the aforesaid defect of
chronological incongruency.
Besides, if we accede that in the kalivarjya section,
aśvamedha and gomedha are prohibited, even then we cannot
come to know of the Vedic rites of aśvamedha or gomedha. It
can only prove that before the writing of the kalivarjya section,
meat yajnas were performed.
Yajnas of the Brahmanas and Sūtra texts show additions
and subtractions as compared to the yajnas of the period of
the Vedic mantras. Certain items are not found in the yajnas of
the mantrasamhitas, but they have been inserted later on. The
reason, is that in the purva altar, meat was not employed in
offering, and in the offerings of the uttara altar, that is in the
yajna ritual of later insertions, meat offering was employed. It
was a custom of the times when the manual of yajna ritual
was composed. The vedic usage is only that which has been
prescribed in the metrical mantra portions. Therefore, we ask
as to which Vedic mantra proves that the cow was slaughtered
in the Vedic gomedha; if there is even a single mantra, let
anyone bring it forward. Gone are the days of accepting
statements without proof. We know that now-a-days several
scholars acquiesce into the contention that cows were
slaughtered during gomedha, but here the question is not the
status of persons who accept it : the scholars or the non- by Anandatirtha sharma 191
scholars. Here we have to consider as to what is attested by
the Vedic mantras and what is not attested - this is the question
here and it is this that we have to consider.
PUNISHMENT FOR EATING MEAT
Those who eat meat, such carnivores have been termed
yātudhāna (violent person of a ﬁendish disposition) by the
Veda and it enjoins punishment to them :
यः पौषयेणे िवषा समेयो अने पशना ु यातधानः ु ।
यो अाया भरित ीरमेतषा े ंशीषािण हरसािप वृ ॥
(ऋवदे १०.८७.१६)
.......................ddddd.....
य आमंमासमदि ं पौषये ंच येिवः ।
गभान खादि ् केशवाािनतो नाशयामिस ॥ (अथव० ८.६.२३)
It is said in this mantra of the (Atharva-veda 8.6.23) that
those who eat uncooked ﬂesh, who eat meat cooked by men,
who eat eggs that are embryos, do away with this evil addiction
of theirs.
This very cleary proves that in the Vedas there is prohibition
of meat-eating.
EVIDENCE OF THE MAHABHARATA
सराु मा मधुमासमासव ं ंकृसरौदनम ।्
धतूःवितत ंते तदै ्वदेषे ुकितम ॥्
-(म.भा.शाि.२६५.६; २५७.६)
‘‘Liquors, ﬁsh, mead, meat, spirits, rice cooked with
sesamum (til) seeds - all these have been inserted into yajna 192 blunders of indological scholars
by the wicked people. Vedas have not prescribed their use in
yajna.’’
बीजयै षे ुयिमित वैविदकी ै ितः ु ।
अजसािन बीजािन ागंनो हमहु थ ।
नषै धमसतांदवा े य वते वैपशःु॥
-(म.भा.शाि. ३३७.४-५; ३२४.४-५)
‘‘Yajnas should be performed with seeds - this is the Vedic
tradition. Aja are a variety of seeds, therefore it is not ...
आचायच वारंिपतरंमातरंगमु ।्
न िहंाद ्ाणान गा ् ं सवावै तपिनः ॥ (मन०४ु .१६२)
‘‘A teacher, propounder (of the scriptures), father, mother,
guru, brahmana, cow and ascetic - they should never be killed’’.
The slaying of persons speciﬁed in the stanza has been
equated with cow- slaughter. In other words it means that
cow- slaughter is on par with murder of a teacher, propounder
of the scriptures, father, mother, guru and brahmana.
HEINOUSNESS OF COW-SLAUGHTER IN CHRISTIANITY
‘He that killeth an ox is as if he slew a man‘‘ (Isaiah 66|3)
According to English dictionaries, the word ‘ox’ stands for
the male and female species of the bovine family.
PROHIBITION OF BEEF IN ISLAM
Al-Ghazzāli (1058-1111 A.D.) was one of the most brilliant
philosophers of Islam. At the age of 28, he headed the Institute
of Islam at Baghdad. His chief book, ‘Ihya Ulum ul-Din’ - ‘The
revival of Religious Sciences’ is respected as highly as the by Anandatirtha sharma 193
Quran. Its Urdu translation has been published by the
Navalkishore Press, Lucknow under the title Mazākul Āraﬁn. In
its 1955 edition (part 2. p.23) lines 17-19 the detrimental
effects of beef and the virtues of ghee and milk of a cow are
stated as follows --
‘‘the meat of a cow is disease (marz), its milk is health
(śafā) and its ghee is medicine (davā)’’.
THE MEANING OF UKṢĀNNA AND VAŚĀNNA
AND
THE BARRENESS OF THE VAŚĀ COW
In the Vedic index, Vol 2. p.145, under the caption ‘Mamsa’
Macdonell and Keith have written --
‘‘The eating of flesh appears as something quite regular in
the Vedic texts, which show no trace of doctrine of ahimsā, or
abstaining from injury to animal. For example, the ritual
offering of flesh contemplates that the gods will eat it, and
again the Brahmanas ate the offerings.
(Footnote : So Agni is called eater of Ox and Cow in RV
VIII. 43.11)
A similar assertion has been made by V.S. Apte in Chapter
19. p.389 of ‘The Vedic Age’, which has been quoted above
under the heading of ‘Cow killing and Beef in the Marriage
Ceremony’.
THE BLIDED TADDHITA OR THE USE OF THE WHOLE FOR THE
PART
The late Pandit Shripad Damodar Satavalekar has explained
the system of the Elided Taddhita (lupta-taddhita prakriyā) on 194 blunders of indological scholars
the p.13 of the ﬁrst part of the Vedic Section of his Go-jnana-
kośa :
‘‘There are some Vedic mantras where the word-meaning
seems to convey a strange sense, for example :
गोिभः ीणीत मरम ।् (ऋवदे ९.४६.४)
Its word meaning is : Cook or mix (śrīṇīta) soma
(matsaram) with cows (gobhiḥ).
Prima facie, people are misled to interpret it as a injunction
to cook or to mix soma with beef. This misapprehension arises
due to the ignorance of grammar. If one is fully conversant
with the taddhita afﬁxes, then this error doesnot arise.
Regarding it Ācārya Yaska has said in the Nirukta 2.5 --
अथाांताितने कृविगमा भवि । 'गोिभः ीणीत
मरिमित पयसः ।
meaning - When there is at taddhita affix, the whole is
used for a part. For example gobhiḥ śrīṇīta matsaram, the word
gau means ‘milk’.
In this connection, it is well-worth to notice what Yāska
has elaborated elsewhere too --
'अशं ुहो अासतेगिव' इिधवषणचमणः  ।
अथािप चमच ा े च 'गोिभः सौ अिस वीलय'
इित रथतौ ु ।
अथािप ाव च ा े च 'गोिभः सा पतित सता ू ' इतीषु तौ ु
॥१॥५॥
 ाऽिप गौते। गा चताितम े , ्अथ चे गा गमयतीषनू ्by Anandatirtha sharma 195
इित ।'वृ ेवृ ेिनयतामीमयदगौतोवयः पतान प्षादः ू ' -
(िन २.५)
Here Ācārya Yāska has cited three Vedic mantras and has
given meanings of the word go as ‘hide, gluten, ligament and
bowstring’ - in all of them a part is denoted by the whole.
Arthur Anthony Macdonell and Arthur Berriedale Keith have
also accepted it on p.234, Volume I of the ‘Vedic Index’ -
‘‘The term go is often applied to express the products of
the cow. It frequently means the milk; but rarely the flesh of
the animal. In many passages it designates leather used as the
material of various objects, as a bowstring, or a sling, or thongs
to fasten part of the chariot, or reins, or the lash of a whip’’.
Instead of saying ‘the eyes see’, it is said that ‘man sees’.
Similarly, for cow products like milk, yoghurt (dahi), ghee, hide,
gluten, ligament and the string made of ligaments- for all of
them - the Veda uses one word gau. In such cases, the
meaning should be arrived at by the context. For convinience
of our readers we will cite an instance of each --
अशं ुहो अासतेगिव । (ऋवदे १०.९४.९)
‘‘Draining (duhantaḥ) the soma (amśum) they sit
(adhyāsate) on the hide (gavi)’’.
Rulph T.H. Grifﬁth has also translated it in the same way,
taking gavi to mean ‘hide’, ‘draining the stalk they sit upon the
Ox’s hide’.
See further --
वनतेवीो िह भया ू अखा तरणः सवीरः ु ।196 blunders of indological scholars
गोिभः सौ अिस वीलयााता तेजयतुजािन े ॥
(ऋ६.४७.२६)
‘‘O chariot fashioned out of the tree (vanaspathe)! be
(bhuyāḥ) strong in your parts (viḍvango), be our mate to carry
us across (prataraṇaḥ), being full of brave heroes(?) (suvīrrḥ).
Compact with (sannaddhaḥ) straps of leather (gobhiḥ) show
forth thy strength (vīlaysva) and may thy rider (te āsthātā)
with the vincible foe (jetvāni jayatu)’’.
In this mantra, the whole denotes the part in two cases :
(1) the word go denotes the straps of leather, and (2) the
word vanaspate refers to the chariot made of wood of a tree.
Just as the tree is lumbered into wood, and the wood is
manufactured into a chariot, so the hide is derived from the
cow and string from the hide. Similarly, the cow produces milk,
milk curdles into yoghurt, the yoghurt yeilds butter, and butter
is boiled to ghee - for this reason the word go is used
metaphorically for all these parts.
Now let us go on to another illustration --
सपणु वेमगो ृ अा दो गोिभः सा पतित सता ू ।
(ऋ ६.७५.११)
‘‘This arrow is dressed (vaste) in ﬁne feathers (suparṇam),
its tip (danataḥ) is made out of deer-bone (mṛgaḥ), it is
strangly fastened with ﬁne threads of cow-hide (gobhiḥ
sannaddhā) and when launched (prasūtā) it strikes (patati) the
enemy’’.
In this mantra also there are two instances where the
whole denotes the part. The word mṛga ‘deer’ expresses the by Anandatirtha sharma 197
bone of a deer. Instead of saying ‘the bone of a deer’ only the
elliptic expression ‘deer’ is used. Further on, the leather straps
are expressed by gobhiḥ. This word has also been used
elliptically for ‘the straps of cow-hide’.
Also refer to the following mantra of Ṛgveda 10.27.22 --
वृ ेवृ ेिनयतामीमयदगौतो वयः  पतान प्षादः ू ॥
‘‘The bowstring made of cowhide (gauḥ) strung(niyatā) on
every bow made of wood (vṛkṣe vṛkṣe) resounds (amīmayat)
and the arrows with bird-feathers (vayaḥ) which consume men,
i.e., strike them to death (puruṣādaḥ) fall (prapatān) in the
ranks of enemies.’’
In this mantra, three words exemplify the semantics of a
whole for a part --
(1) vṛkṣa ‘tree’ means a bow made from the wood of a
tree.
(2) gau ‘cow’ denotes the bowstring made of cow-hide.
(3) vayaḥ ‘birds’ stands for arrows with bird-feathers.
From the afore-mentioned examples the readers must have
understood that in the Vedic style the whole stands for its part.
If this principle had been only applicable to the word gau ‘cow’,
then one could have objected to it as an over-straining, but
this is found in the case of other words also. Over 2500 years
ago, Achārya Yāska has also said the same, and his examples
are tabulated below --
1. vanaspati ‘tree’ stands for a chariot made of the wood
of a tree.198 blunders of indological scholars
2. vṛkṣa ‘tree’ stands for a bow made of the wood of a
tree.
3. gau ‘cow’ stands for its milk, ghee and others.
4. gau ‘cow’ stands for its hide, hide-products etc.
5. gau ‘cow’ stands for string, bag etc, made from its hide.
6. mṛga ‘deer’ stands for weapon made from its bones.
7. vayaḥ ‘birds’ stands for the arrows made from the
feathers of the birds.
Several instances can be cited; but here we have conﬁned
ourselves only to those quoted by Āchārya Yāska. These will
clarify to our readers that this is the Vedic style. As such the
word gau (cow) used in Vedas or elsewhere as oblation material
for yajna indicates milk, ghee etc. obtained from a cow.
THE MEANING OF VAŚĀNNA
Now we have to consider the meaning of the words
ukṣānna and vaśānna which are the epithets of Agni. Europeans
surmise that ukṣānna means ‘meat of bull‘ and vaśānna is beef.
The Europeans opine that because these words occur for Agni
(Fire) in the Vedas, meat was offered in the ﬁre and it was also
consumed. If human food is inferred from the synonyms of
ﬁre, then ﬁre is termed viśvād which means ‘one who eats all’
as in Ṛgveda 8.44.26 --
यवानु ंिवपितंकिवंिवादंपवु पसम े ।्
अिंशािम ु मिभः ॥
‘I glorify with noble ideals Agni, the youthful, Lord of the
Universe, sage who eats all viśava-adam, and who stirs much’.by Anandatirtha sharma 199
IN this mantra, the word viśvādam has been used for Agni.
Agni eats (अद) all (िव), hence man ate everything; it is
improper to conclude from it that men of the Vedic age were
omnivorus. Agni ate all, it consumes whatever is put into it,
but how does it prove that man also necessarily consumed all
these things.
Faggots of seven kinds of trees were offered into the fire,
but how does this lead to the conclusion that Vedic Aryans ate
the wood of the seven trees of mango, catechu, wood-apple,
Butea frondosa, banyan, Calotropis gigantea. Such a procedure
of deductions would be disastrous. Hence it would be improper
to deduce from the words ukṣānna and vaśānna, which are
found in the Ṛgveda, that Vedic Aryans ate meat of the bull
and beef.
We have already explained before, the principle that the
whole is used for its part. In accordance with it, the word
vaśānna means ‘the Agni which consumes milk, ghee and other
produce from the cow’. Other similar examples are :
In Ṛgveda 1.137.1 there are gośrītaḥ and gavāśiraḥ. They
are adjectives of soma. Their literal meaning is ‘mixed (śrīta)
with cow (go), and again mixed (āśiraḥ) with cow (go). In both
of them the word go ‘cow’ occurs, and here no one interprets
it as beef, but as ‘milk of a cow’. Mr. Griffith has translated the
word gavāśiraḥ as ‘bent with milk’. It is known to all that a
very pleasant drink was prepared by mixing cow’s milk with
soma.
Ācārya Sāyaṇa comments on the words gośrītāḥ and
gavāśirah as follows :200 blunders of indological scholars
िवकारेकृितशः । पयोिभः िमिताः । गोिभः ीरःैअिशरो
िमिताः साता । (ऋ १.१३७,१-२)
To wit, here the word go ‘cow’ has been understood as
‘milk’ and soma is mixed therewith - so it is said here.
THING MIXED WITH SOMA AND THE MEANING OF
UKṢĀNNA
The following products used to be mixed with soma
according to information contained in the Vedic mantras :
1. Gavāśiraḥ गवािशरः ‘Soma mixed with cow’s milk’ (ṚV
1.137.1)
2. Gośrītā गोीता ‘Soma mixed with cow’s milk (ṚV
1.137.1)
3. Dadhyāśiraḥ दािशरः Soma mixed with curd of cowmilk (ṚV 1.137.2)
4. Yavāśiraḥ यवािशरः Soma mixed with four made from
parched barley (ṚV 1.187.9)
5. Tr yāśiraḥ ािशरः Soma mixed with milk, curds and
parched grain (ṚV 5.27.5)
6. Rasāśiraḥ रसािशरः ‘Soma mixed with juices’ (ṚV 3.48.1)
From the above it is clear as to which products were mixed
with soma. This should be particularly borne in mind by the
readers that nowhere is there any reference to the mixing of
ﬂesh or blood with soma.
In the Vedas, soma is also termed ukṣā. The root meaning by Anandatirtha sharma 201
of the word ukṣā is ‘one who sprinkles’. Drops of juice drip
from soma- hence it is called ukṣā. At ﬁrst, soma juice is
offered at the former altar (पवूवदी े ). Hence, soma is the food
of ﬁre - this is the meaning of the word ukṣānna ‘one whose
food is soma’. The meaning ‘bull’ is not intended here, because
meat of the bull is never offered at havana, then how can it go
into the ﬁre.
For a comprehensive discussion of the meaning of ukṣā as
‘soma’, see the chapter on ‘Is Beef eating Prescribed in the
Bṛhadāraṇyaka Upaniṣad?’
This evidence proves that the terms ukṣānna and vaśānna
for ﬁre do not mean ‘one who eats the ﬂesh of a bullock or of
vaśā cow’, but it means that ‘one who consumes products
obtained from a bullock or a vaśā cow’ as for instance :
ukṣā or soma - the ﬁre that consumes soma juice; or
ukśā or bull - the ﬁre that consumes grain produced
through agriculture by bullock; or
ukśā or bull - the ﬁre that consumes grain which imparts
energy like that of a bull and
vaśā वशा - the ﬁre that consumes milk-rice-pudding, ghee
or other produce from th emilk of a vaśā cow.
On page 929, column 2 of the Sanskrit- English Dictionary
by Monier - Williams, vaśā वश is translated as ‘‘will, wish,
desire RV. etc., etc.’’, vaśān anu or anuvaśān ‘according to wish
or will’.
THE MEANING OF ṚGVEDA 8.43.11202 blunders of indological scholars
Those who translate the terms ukṣānna and vaśānna as
ﬁre that eats bullock’s ﬂesh or beef, they cite Ṛgveda 8.43.11
to prove their contention. The original mantra is as follows --
उााय वशााय सोमपायृ वधसे ेोमिवै ध माय े े।
It has been translated into Hindi by Pandit Jayadeva
Sharma, Vidyalankar, Mimamasa-tirtha and a commentator on
all the four Vedas. Its English version is given below --
(1) Let us adore and perceive (िवधमे) with Vedic mantras
(ोमःै) the soul (ātmā आा) that is eternal like the ﬁre (अ) े
that consume food capable of procreating (उााय) that enjoys
food as it desires (वशााय) and that is of the nature of vigour
and verve (सोमपायृ ).
(2) Let us revere, adore and worship (िवधमे) with hymns
(ोमःै) the Supreme Lord who is effulgent like fire (अय) े the
giver of waters (उा) the Mover of all, of supreme way
(सोमपायृ ) and the Creator of the Universe (वधसे ).े
BARRENNESS OF THE VAŚĀ COW
The late Pandit Shripad Damodar Satawalekar has discussed
this topic on pages 78-80 of this book Go-jnana-kośa (Ancient
Period Vedic section, Vol I). Its English version is given below
-
In Classical Sanskrit, ’Vaśā‘ means a barren cow. By inter-
preting these hymns as such under the impression that they
pertain to barren cows, many people have gone to the extent
that barren cows were slaughtered and different parts of her
body were offered at the yajna. In our opinion it is excessive by Anandatirtha sharma 203
overdoing in interpretation. First of all we should examine
whether in these hymns the word vaśā conveys the meaning of
a barren cow or of a milch cow. Let us consider the following
verses from the Atharva Veda -- १०.१०
१. वशा सहधारा णाछावदामिस॥४॥
We praise the vaśā cow which gives us milk in a thousand
streams.
२. शतंकंसाः शतंदोधारः शतंगोारो अिध पृ ेअाः ॥५॥
For the vaśā cow a hundred keepers and a hundred milkers
stand ready with a hundred milk vessels.
३. यपदीराीरा धााणा महीका।
वशा पजपी  दवा े अिते णा॥६॥
The giver of milk as food is the vaśā cow
४. अनुािः ािवशद ्अनुसोमो वशेा।
ऊधेभेपजो  िवतु ेना वश॥७॥ े
The udder of the vaśā cow symbolises the rain- cloud.
५. अप धु ेथमा उवरा अपरा वश।े
ततीय ृ रा धुऽे ीर वशेम॥८॥ ्
O vaśā cow! you pour milk.
६. यद ्अनचीम ू ऐर् ्आा ऋषभोऽयत।्
तात त् ेवहा ृ पयः ीरंुो ऽहरद ्वश॥१०॥ े
Milk of vaśā cow has been extracted.
७. यत त् ेुो धनपितर ्आ ीरम अहरद ् ्वशे।204 blunders of indological scholars
इद तद ्अ नाकस िष ् ुपाषे ुरित॥११॥
After milking the vaśā cow, its milk has been restored in
three vessels.
८. सवगभाद ्अवपे जायमानाद ्असः। ू
ससवू िह ताम आ ् वशिते िभः ः स  अा ् बः॥२३॥ ु
When the cow which generally does not conceive becomes
pregnant, all get frightened.
९. वशाम एवाम ् तमृ आर ् ्वशा मृ मु उपासत ् े।
वशदे सवम अभवद ् ्दवा े मना ु असराः ु िपतर ऋषयः॥२६॥
The semen of vaśā cow is her milk, ambrosia-like.
१०. वशा ौवशा  पिथवी ृ वशा िवःुजापितः।
वशाया धम अिपब ् साा ् वसव य॥३०॥ े
The Sādhyas and Vasus have drunk the milk of the vaśā
cow in yajna.
११. वशाया धंपीा साा वसव ये।
तेवै िविप पय अा उपासते॥३१॥
When the Sādhyas and Vasus have taken the milk of the
vaśā cow, they praise her milk alone in Heaven.
१२. सोमम एनाम ् एक् ेेघतमृ एक् उपासत।े
य एव िवषेवशा दस त् ेगतास ििदव ् िदवः॥३२॥
Some milk this cow, while others look after its ghee.
ATHARVA VEDA 12.4
१३. यो अा ऊधो न वदाथो े अा नान उत। ्
उभयनेवाै ैहेदातुचदे ्अशकद ्वशाम॥१८॥ ्by Anandatirtha sharma 205
This cow gives milk through both udder and teats.
१४. परोडाशवा ु सघा ु लोकेऽा उप ितित ।
साैसवान कामान ् वशा ् दषेह॥३५॥ े
The vaśā cow is easy to milk.
१५. वीयमाना चरित ुा गोपतयेवशा ।
वहते ंमा ममानो मोः ृ पाशषे ुबताम ॥३७॥ ्
The vaśā cow gets conceived.
१६. महद ्एषाव तपित चरी गोषुगौर ्अिप।
अथो ह गोपतयेवशादषेिवष ह॥३९॥ े
Vaśā yeilds milk as if it were poison to the owner of the
cow who does not donate.
१७. िय पशना ू भवित यद ्ः दीयते।
अथो वशायास तत् िय् यद ्दवा े हिवः ात ॥४०॥ ्
The vaśā cow loves those who offer her milk products in
yajna.
According to Atharva-Veda 10.10.23 (sl.no.8 above) it
appears that the vaśā cow normally does not progenerate and
in a while when she conceives, the rearers get scared.
According to atharva-veda 12.4.17 (sl.no 15 above), at certain
times, the vaśā cow conceives and progenerates. This verse of
the Atharva - Veda reads in full as follows --
वीयमाना चरित ुा गोपतयेवशा ।
वहते ंमा ममानो मोः ृ पाशषे ुबताम ॥् (अथव१२.४.३७)
(वशा) The vaśā (वीयमाना) cow which progenerates (ुा206 blunders of indological scholars
चरित) roams about in anger (गोपतय)े towards her master and
curses him saying (ममानः) he who considers (मा) me (वहते ) ं
abortive (वता)ं may he be liable to be seized (मोः ृ पाशषे)ु in
the clutches of death.
From this it appears the Vedic vaśā cow is neither barren
nor does she progenerate often like an ordinary cow. Whether
she is barren or she progenerates, she gives milk in abundance
and that is why a hundred persons attend to her, another
hundred remain ready to milk her, and yet another hundred
carry vessels for her milk.
If it is accepted that the vaśā cow, without giving progeny,
provides milk in such a large quantity, then it will also have to
be accepted that only a very few fortunate persons are blessed
with such a cow. Such cows surely cannot be had in numbers.
In no circumstances, can a man think of destroying such a rare
animal. Even in foreign countries where beef is eaten without
any scruples and restrictions, even there if one were to get
such a cow by good luck, one would protect and maintain her
by all means and in no circumstances will allow her slaughter.
As such those who try to establish that the vaśā cow used to
be slaughtered in the Vedic period are altogether in the wrong.
Not to speak of the slaughter of the vaśā cow, even the killing
of an ordinary cow in the Vedic period cannot be established
according to Vedas.
Keeping his self-interest and ﬁnancial gain in view, even a
butcher will not like to kill a cow having such qualities, but on
the other hand he will protect her and will always beneﬁt
himself from her milk etc.by Anandatirtha sharma 207
WAS THERE COW-SLAUGHTER AND BEEF
IN THE MARRIAGE CEREMONY
In the ﬁrst volume of the history of the Indian People,
entitled ‘The Vedic Age‘ published by George Allen and Unwin
Ltd., London under the auspices of the Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan,
Bombay, Dr. V.M. Apte has written in the 19th chapter on
‘Social and Economic Conditions’ (Second Edn 1952) under the
caption ‘Marriage and the position of Women‘ (p.389)
A hymn in ṚV(X.85) - which may be called the wedding
hymn- gives us some idea of the oldest marriage ritual. The
bridegroom and party proceed to the bride’s house (X 17.1)
where the well-adorned bride remains ready (IV. 58.9) to join
the marriage-feast. The guests are entertained with the flesh of
cows killed on the ocassion. The ceremony now commences.
The bridegroom grasps the hand of the bride and leads her
round the fire (X. 85.36,38). These two acts constitute the
essence of the marriage and the bridegroom is now the husband
who takes her by hand (hasta-grābhaḥ X.18.8). The bridegroom
next takes the bride home in a car, in a wedding procession
(X.85.7,8,10,24-27,42). Then follows the consummation which is
signified chiefly by the purification of the bride’s garment
(X.85,28-30,35).
Thereafter Dr.Apte writes on page 393 under the caption :
‘Food and Drink’ --
‘‘The cow receives the epithet aghnyā (not to be killed) in
the Ṛgveda, and is otherwise a very valued possession. It is
difficult to reconcile this with the eating of beef, but we may
get some explanation if we remember the following :
i) Firstly, it was the flesh of the ox rather than of the cow
that was eaten; a distinction was definitely made.208 blunders of indological scholars
ii) The flesh of the cow was (if at all) eaten at the sacrifices
only, and it is well known that one sacrifices one’s dearest
possession to please the gods.
iii) Even in the Ṛgveda, only vaśās (barren cows) were
sacrificed. For example, Agni is called in VIII.43.11 as vaśānna.
The expression atithinīr gaḥ (cow fit for guests) in X.68.3
implies the same distinction.
In the Vedic Index, Vol.2, page 145, Arthur Anthony
Macdonell and Arthur Berriedale Keith have stated :
‘The marriage ceremony was accompanied by the slaying
of oxen, clearly for food’
Before taking into consideration the 3rd mantra of the 85th
sūkta of the tenth maṇḍala of the Ṛgveda, on the basis of
which the aforementioned scholars have alleged beef in the
marriage ceremony, it would be in the ﬁtness of things that all
the mantras of the 85th sūkta be considered for the appropriate
setting of the whole situation.
EXPLANATION OF ṚGVEDA
Dr. Apte alleges that according to Ṛgveda IV.58.9 as the
bridegroom’s party reaches the house of the bride, she is well-
adorned and keeps ready to join the marriage-feast. The
mantra reads :
का इव वहतमुतवा े उ अना अिभ चाकशीिम।
य सोमः सयतू ेय यो घतृ धारा अिभ तव॥े ४.०५८.०९
काः, इव, वहतमु, ्एतवा, उ, अि, अना, अिभ, चाकशीिम, य,
सोमः, सयतू , ेय, यः, घतृ , धारा, अिभ, तत, ्पवे॥by Anandatirtha sharma 209
The word meaning of the mantra is as follows --
काः, इव,
as the girls
अि, अना, having adorned themselves with ornaments
अिभ, पवे are resplendent
वहतमु, ्एतवा, while going for marriage
physical meaning spiritual meaning
य, सोमः, सयतू ,े where the soma-yajna
is conducted
where there are disciples of noble virtues
य, यः, where the yajna takes
place
where there is the yajna of intellectual give
and take
तत,् there
there
घतृ , धारा,
अिभ, चाकशीिम,
I see the shining
streams of ghī. where
there is yajna, the
offering faggots are
kindled being soaked
in ghī and thereby
yajna becomes bright,
brilliant and illuminated.
I envision or experience
the uninterrrupted flow
of the expression of
knowledge which is like
the fast-flowing ghee
i.e, illuminated knowledge is visualized.
This is an allegorical mantra, and there is not even a
remote inkling of a beef feast.
H.H. Wilson has translated this mantra into English and
there is not even a far-fetched allution to a beef feast. His
translation is quoted below --
‘‘I contemplate these streams of ghī as they flow from
where the soma is effused, where the sacrifice (is solemnized), 210 blunders of indological scholars
as maidens decorating themselves with unguents to go to the
bridegroom’’ (ṚV. IV. 5.13.9)
Ralph T.H. Grifﬁth has referred to the bridal feast in the
English translation of this mantra, but there is no reference to
beef. His complete translation is as under --
’’As maiden deck themselves with gay adornment to join
the bridal feast, I now behold them,
Where Soma flows and sacrifice is ready, thither the
streams of holy oil are running.’’
In the English - Sanskrit dictionaries of Monier-Williams and
V.S. Apte, the following Sanskrit equivalents are given for
‘feast’.
सिया, सहभोजनम, ्सोजन, ं उमासारः, परमासारः,
िविशासारः ।
How this meaning ‘of joining the marriage feast’ has been
inserted by Dr. V.M.Apte writes that it was the ﬂesh of the ox
rather than of the cow that was eaten, because the cow has
been termed aghnyā (अा) ‘one who is not to be killed’ and
she is also a valued posession. According to him, the bulls are
not valued wealth, and thus they are not referred to as the
inviolable in the Vedas. But this is a misunderstanding on his
part. The late Pandit Shripad Damodar Satavalekar has
discussed it at length in his Go jnana-kośa, Vedic section, part
2, on pages 8-9 of the introduction. It is cited below in our
English translation.
THE INVIOLABILITY OF THE BULL
As the word (अा) is used for the cow, likewise the term by Anandatirtha sharma 211
aghnya (अ) is applied to the bull. Therefore, like the cow
the bull too is to be protected, looked after and inviolable. See
Atharva-Veda 9.4 --
ाांर ऋषवितहि चषा। ु
णोित भ कणाा  ंगवा यः पितरः॥१७॥
शतयाज स यजतेननै यः।
िजि िवेत दवा े यो ाण ऋषभम आज ् होित॥१८॥ ु
‘‘That Lord of the cows, the inviolable (aghnya अ) that is
the bull, he listens to good tidings with his ears, he banishes
famine by his eyes, he chases away the demons with his horns.
He worships with a hundred yajnas, the ﬁres do not consume
(aghnyaḥ na duvanti) him (enam, the bull). All the gods
promote him who offers (ā juhoti) the bull (ṛṣabha) to the
Brahmana’’.
In the above mantra, the following points deserve attention
: ---
1. The bull is termed a-ghnya (अ) which means ‘not to
be killed’.
2. The donation of a bull to a Brahmana is equivalent to a
hundred yajnas (mantra 18). Such is the importance of the
protection, bringing up and donation of a bull.
3. The fires do not consume him, such is the importance
of a bull. (mantra 18).
4. The bull does not hear untoward speech, because all
only praise him (mantra 17).
The bull does away the horrors of famine (avatri hanti 212 blunders of indological scholars
cakṣuṣā).
By perusing the above Atharva-vedic description of the bull,
the readers will realise the utility of the bull, so who will dare
to slaughter him for filling up his stomach and who would be
willing to invite famine thereby. If the bull averts famine, it is
necessary to keep him well-gaurded.
Dr. V.S. Apte has written : ‘The flesh of the cow was (if at
all) eaten at the sacrifices only, and it is well known that one
sacrifices one’s dearest possession to please the gods’. It
should be known that to sentient being the dearest is one’s
own body; so if offering of life has to be made to please the
gods, the dearest possession that is one’s own body should be
offered. It is his misunderstanding that the gods are pleased
by the offering of a cow. See its detailed discussion under the
caption : ‘Were Cow-slaughter, Meat sacrifice and Meat-eating
Prevalent in the Vedic Age?’’
Hereafter Apte writes that according to the Ṛgveda a
barren (vaśā) cow was offered, because in Ṛgveda 8.43.11
Agni is called vaśānna. By this he means that the food of agni
is vaśā, therefore, a barren (vaśā) cow was slaughtered and its
flesh offered in havan. To consider the Vedic vaśā cow to be
barren is due to ignorance. For its correct interpretation see
the caption : ‘‘The meaning of Ukṣānna and Vaśānna and
barrenness of the vaśā cow’’.
Still further, Dr. Apte asserts that the expression athithinīr
gāḥ (Ṛgveda 10.68.3) also implies the same. See its detailed
discussion under the sub-caption : ‘The Meaning of Atithinīrgāḥ
and Atithigva of the caption : ‘Is Beef possible in Madhuparka?’by Anandatirtha sharma 213
THE MEANING OF ṚGVEDA 10.85
Now we will consider the relevance of cow-slaughter and
beef in the marriage ceremony. It has been discussed by the
late Pandit Shripad Damodar Satavalekar in his Go-jnana-kośa,
Vedic Section part 1, pages 16-20. It is quoted below in our
English translation. The following mantra is cited in support :
सया ू या  वहतःुागािवता यमवासजतृ ।्
अघासुहेगावोऽजोः ु पयतु ॥े Ṛgveda१०.८५.१३
This mantra occurs in an allegorical context. The meaning
will become clear by taking its contextual setting into account.
Now let us see some mantras preceding it as well as a few that
follow ’
सनोिभता े भिमः ू सयूणोिभता  ौः।
ऋतनािदािि े िदिव सोमो अिध ितः॥ १०.०८५.०१
सोमनािदा े बिलनः सोमने पिथवी ृ मही।
अथो नाणामषामे पु ेसोम आिहतः॥ १०.०८५.०२
सोमंमतेपिपवािषोषिधम ं ।्
सोमंयंाणो िवनतााित कन॥ १०.०८५.०३
आिधानगैिपतो ु बाहत ःैसोम रितः।
ाािमवििस न तेअाित पािथवः॥ १०.०८५.०४
या दवे िपबि तत आ ायसेपनः। ु
वायःुसोम रिता समानांमास आकृितः॥ १०.०८५.०५
रासीदन ै दुयी े नाराशसी ं ोचनी।
सया ू या  भिमासो गाथयितै पिरृतम॥् १०.०८५.०६
िचिरा उपबहण ंचराु अनम।्214 blunders of indological scholars
ौभिमः ू कोश आसीदयाया ू पितम॥् १०.०८५.०७
ोमा आसितधयः कुरीरंछ ओपशः।
सया ू या  अिना वरािरासीरोगवः॥ ु १०.०८५.०८
सोमो वधयूरभवदिनााम ु भा ु वरा।
सया ू येशस ं मनसा सिवताददात॥् १०.०८५.०९
मनो अा अन आसीौरासीत िदः।
शावनाहावाा ु ंयदयाया ू गहमृ ॥् १०.०८५.१०
ऋामाामिभिहतौ गावौ तेसामनािवतः।
ोंतेचेआांिदिव पाराचारः॥ १०.०८५.११
शची ु तेचेयाा ानो अ आहतः।
अनो मनयंसया ू रोहयती  पितम॥् १०.०८५.१२
सया ू या  वहतःुागािवता यमवासजतृ ।्
अघासुहेगावोऽजोः ु पयतु ॥े १०.०८५.१३
यदिना पमानावयात ृ ंिचेण वहतंुसया ू याः। 
िवेदवा े अनुतामजानःु िपतराववणीत ृ पषा॥ू १०.०८५.१४
यदयातंशभती ु वरये ंसया ू म प।ु
ैकं चं वामासी दाये तथः॥ु १०.०८५.१५
ेतेचेसयूाण ऋतथा ु िवः।
अथकैं चं यहाु तदातय इिः॥ १०.०८५.१६
(Ṛgveda 10.85.1.7-13,15,16)
While considering these mantras the readers should bear in
mind that it is an allegorical description of the marriage of
Suryā सया ू , the Daughter of the Sun, to the Moon. Its meaning 
is :by Anandatirtha sharma 215
Earth is sustained by Truth : by Surya सयू are the heavens
sustained. By verity the Ādityas stand secure, and Soma stands
in heaven - लोकु (1) Intellectual power was the pillow of her
couch, sight was the unguent for her eyes : All the objects
from the earth to the heavens were her treasure when bride
Suryā सया ू went to her Lord. (7); Mantras were the cross-bars
of the chariot, Kurīra-metre decked it; The bridesmen were the
Twin Aśvins, Agni led them all. (8); Soma was he who wooed
the bride, groomsmen were both the Aśvins, when the Sungod Savitā, bestowed his willing Suryā सया ू on her Lords. (9);
Her mind was the bridal car; the covering thereof was heaven;
the two white steers drew it, when Suryā सया ू approached her
husband’s home (10); The two bulls were kept steady in place
by the mantras of Ṛg and Sāma Vedas. The two ears were the
two chariot wheels : stationary and moving were the path in
the heavens. (11); Clean as thou wentest, were thy wheels;
the vyāna breath was the axle of the chariot. Seated on such a
chariot fashioned of the mind. Suryā सया ू proceeds to her Lord.
(12); Savitā gave a bountiful dowry to Suryā सया ू .  She moved
forward. This is the time of the Maghā constellation when the
cows are sent as dowry (Europeans have interpreted it as cows
are slain during the Maghā constellation), that is, the rays of
the sun reach the moon and in the Phālgunī constellation
(arjunnyoḥ paryuhyate) the moon Soma is wedded to Suryā,
(13); O ye twin Aśvi-devas, when you came to Suryā’s wedding
on a three-wheeled chariot, where was the one chariot wheel
of yours? Where stood ye for the command? (15); O Surya सयू 
the Brahmanas recognize the two seasons (Uttarāyaṇa and
Dakṣiṇāyana) as two wheels of thine and the one kept 216 blunders of indological scholars
concealed (or invisible in the cave of the heart) is known to
those who are skilled in the eternal truths. (16)
The readers can follow the mantras and comprehend their
meaning. It will be clear that there is no relevance of the
slaughter of cows. If we try to insert that the cows were killed,
that does not suit the context. We have given above the
translation of the Europeans (in brackets) and also the real and
correct meaning. The readers should deliberate and should
themselves come to realise how wrongly the Europeans have
misunderstood these mantras.
Dr. Wilson has translated the expression aghāsu hanyante
gāvaḥ as ‘the cows are whipped along’, which is a bit better
than Griffith, Whitney and others who have understood it as
‘the cows are slaughtered’ which is a grave blunder as is clear
from the whole context. The meanings of the mantras as we
have given above are also accepted by the Europeans; they
differ only in the slaughter of cows. In fact, now it is not
necessary to go into further details. Yet, we will elaborate the
allegory of the bridal chariot to make it clearly intelligible to
the readers.
Bridal chariot Spirit, mind (mantra 10)
Covering of the
chariot
Heaven (mantra 10)
Those who draw
the chariot
Two bulls (mantra 10)
Reins Mantras of Ṛk and Sāma (mantra 11)by Anandatirtha sharma 217
Path or way The stationary and moving
worlds, i.e., the inanimate and
animate worlds
(mantra 11)
Axle of the
chariot
vyāna breath (mantra 12)
Pillow Intellectual power (mantra 7)
Unguent for the
eyes
sight (mantra 7)
Treasure all the objects (mantra 7)
Crossbars of the
chariot
Mantras (mantra 8)
Shine of the
chariot
Meters of the mantras (mantra 8)
Groomsmen of
the bride
The twin Aśvins (mantra 9)
Herald Agni (mantra 9)
The two wheels of
the chariot
The two ears (mantra 11)
This description follows the mantras literally. The readers
are aware that Vedic depiction proceeds on the three planes of
the physical, deiﬁc, and metaphysical. This three-gold interpretation will become clear from the tabulation given hereunder :
PHYSICAL (in
Wordly usage)
DEIFIC
(in the universe)
METAPHYSICAL
(in the body)
Father of bride Sun The Supreme
father218 blunders of indological scholars
Bride Suryā (light of the
sun)
Intellective power
Bridegroom Soma Spirit endowed
with the 16 degrees
Groomsmen of the
bride
Twin Aśvins Inhalation and
exhalation
In the bridal party Agni in the fore Speech
Unguent in the
eyes
Scenes Sight
Bridal treasure All the objects All the parts of the
body
...... ...... ......
Cows Rays Senses
Chariot Lightning Mind
Covering of the
chariot
Heaven -लोकु Brain
Path of the chariot Stationary and
moving
Inanimate and
animate
Those who draw
the chariot
Two bulls Prāṇa and apāna
breaths
Reins .... Mantras of the Ṛg
and Sāma
Cross bars of the
chariot
.... Mantrasby Anandatirtha sharma 219
Shine of the chariot .............. Mantras
Axle ........ Vyāna breath
Two wheels of the
chariot
Directions Two ears
Pillows in the
chariot
..... Noble thoughts
On perusing this tabulation, the Vedic allegory must have
become evident to the readers. So it is not necessary to
elaborate it further. The readers can see this wedding within
themselves and also in the world without. These vedic mantras
depict the eternal wedding taking place in the external world;
and now-and-then the nuptials occuring in the human body
have also been indicated by allegory to the mind, noble
thoughts, etc. The light of the sun drives pleasure by reﬂecting
into moon; this provides the metaphor for a description of the
metaphysical reality.
USE OF THE ROOT ‘HAN’ WITH THE WORD ‘GO’
The word go (गौ) refers to the rays of the sun; this is
beyond doubt. In hanyante the root is han. The great
grammarian Pāṇini, the Sage, has given two meanings : han
himsā-gatyoḥ, i.e., in the Dhātupāṭha it means ‘killing’ and
‘moving’. In the dictionaries, this root han has the following
meanings :
To kill; To multiply; To go
The readers will find these meanings in every dictionary. If
the readers will take these meanings into account, then the 220 blunders of indological scholars
meaning of the expression
अघासुहेगावोऽजोः ु पयतु े
in the mantra (even leaving out the allegory) will be clear.
(अघास) ुat the time of the Maghā constellation
(गावः) the cows (ह)े are driven along and
(अजोः ु )during the Phālgunī constellation
(पयतु )े the marriage takes place.|
Dr. Wilson has taken only this meaning. Besides the
allegorical interpretation, as a matter of fact on a cursory
glance too, this is the straight-forward meaning. Though the
well-known meaning of the root han is ‘to kill’, yet the other
signiﬁcance of ‘to move’ has not become obsolete. If we take it
to mean ‘the number of cows is multiplied’, the cows are
multiplied two-fold or four-fold. When a marriage takes place,
several people collect together and to offer them milk, cows
are collected and brought from place to place and thus their
numbers are augmented. See how perfectly and naturally this
interpretation suits the context. A meaning which will conform
to the concept of inviolability of the cow inherent in the word
aghnyā and which will suit the context, that meaning alone will
be correct and appropriate.
Besides, it will be clear from the tabulation that the cows
of the physical plane, are the rays in the deiﬁc, and the sensory
powers on the metaphysical plane. In case of doubt, the
meaning should be determined by recourse to other areas of
semantic usage. On there being a doubt as to the meaning on
the physical plane, i.e. in worldly practice, whether the cows by Anandatirtha sharma 221
should be slaughtered or not during a marriage, how the
mantra should be translated; which of the two meanings of the
root han should be taken- we should consider and arrive at an
appropriate decision after taking into account the meanings on
the deiﬁc and metaphysical planes. On the deiﬁc plane, it is
clear that the rays of the sun are reﬂected on to the moon and
light spreads. The rays of the sun are not killed or extinguished.
Considering this, we ﬁnd that the root han in the sense of ‘to
kill’ is not intended, but the signiﬁcance of ‘expansion,
spreading or movement’ alone is meant. If the meaning of
extinction or killing is taken up, then how could the rays of sun
reach the moon after being extinct. How will light, the daughter
of the sun (Sūryā Sāvitrī) be wedded to the Moon (Soma)?
How will the bridal party proceed in pomp and show? In short,
here the root han does not signify ‘to kill’.
On the metaphysical plane we should look within. Will
there be hapiness of the Spirit by annihilating the sensory
powers, or will their discipline alon auger well? The bridal
chariot should proceed on the path of dharma, disciplined by
the mantras of Ṛk and Sāma, on the way of the world. For
this, the bulls who draw this chariot should be well-trained,
and governed by the mantras, they should move on the correct
path. From this train of ideas, it is again evident that cow-
keeping is intended.
Likewise, it is but proper that cows should be collected,
moved along the proper way and not allowed to go astray so
that family relations coming to the wedding ceremony are well-
fed with milk. What will be gained by killing them, by
slaughtering them?222 blunders of indological scholars
From this point of view also it appears that the multiplication
of cows is intended, or to move them along the proper path is
meant. As pointed out above, the root han means gati or
movement. This gati signiﬁes knowledge, going and obtaining.
These meanings are attested by the grammarians. If we take
this meaning of gati, then the expression gāvaḥ hanyante
would mean to gain knowledge about the cows, to move the
cows or to obtain the cows.
The root han also means ‘to prod’. Now-a-days this meaning
is current in the Marathi language. The word hanana - Marathi
hāṇaṇe (हाणण)े mean to prod with a stick, i.e., a cowherd leads
the cows by a stick in whichever direction he wants to take
them. So this is also the signification of the word hanana. If
we take this meaning of the root han, then hanyante gāvaḥ
would mean that the cowherds prod the cows to the desired
direction. In the context of the marriage, they bring them
together and take them to the desired destination.
Whichever alternative we accept, this much is clear that
the killing of cows is not intended. Ācārya Sāyaṇa also does
not translate it as killing मघा नषे ुगावः हेदडःै ताे
रणाथ े म ् i.e., at the time fo the maghā constellation, the cows
are driven to their destination being prodded on with sticks.
The cows starting from the house of the Sun are guided on the
correct way to the house of the Moon. The purport of the
commentary of Sāyaṇa is that the sun god gave cows as dowry
to his daughter at her marriage. To bring the cows to the
house of the moon the cowherd of the sun drive them along,
and if necessary to keep them on the correct path they prod
them with sticks and finally the cows reach the house of soma, by Anandatirtha sharma 223
and at the time of the phālgunī constellation the daughter of
the sun is wedded to the moon. If we accept the meaning of
‘killing of cows’, then the dowry would be annihilated and the
would-be son-in-law would be angered, and the marriage
would be interrrupted. So the meaning of ‘killing’ does not
apply here.
In whatever manner we consider the passage, it will be
evident that cow-slaughter is not meant here. Inspite of all this
European scholars have written on the basis of this mantra that
‘the marriage ceremony was accompanied by slaying of oxen,
clearly for food’. It is really astonishing how they jot down their
imagination without considering the context. The Europeans
may indulge in fancy, but we should arrive at a rendering after
due consideration of the context. As we have seen in the above
mantra, in no way does cow-slaughter fit in the context, yet
Europeans are bent upon presenting this mantra as an evidence
of beef-eating. Can there be a bigger blunder?
The maghā constellation is immediately followed by the
prior (pūrvā) and later (uttarā) phālgunī constellations. The
moon stays in them for three nights. If Monday falls on the
maghā constellation, then the Tuesday and Wednesday fall on
the two phālgunī constellations. Hence the dowry is sent during
maghā constellation, and the wedding takes place on the
second or third day. If any facts have to be deduced from this
mantra, then we will arrive at the situation that according to
the Veda, cows were given as dowry, and the marriage took
place after the dowry reached the bridegroom‘s home. But,
there is no possibility of deducing the slaughter of cows. Such
a conclusion is a display of strange ignorance. We certainly 224 blunders of indological scholars
have to decide which of the several meanings of the root han
is intended here :
1. han - to kill. This meaning is well known.
2. han - to go; to move; to goad. This meaning is given
by grammarians and it is also exemplified by passages. In the
Vedic usage this meaning is commoner than in the classical
language. It is also gati given in the Vedic lexical work Nighaṇṭu
2.74.
3. han - to gaurd; as in hasta-ghna. Here ghna from the
root han means to protect. Hasta-ghna means ‘hand-gaurd’,
which is cognate to dastānā. This is a Vedic usage (Ṛgveda
6.75.14).
4. han - to multiply. It is used in mathematical literature.
ghāta (घात) hanana (हनन) hati (हित) hata (हत) convey the
meaning of ‘multiplication’ etc.
5. han - to raise; to kick up. Its instance is turaga-khura-
hatas tathā hi reṇuḥ - the dust kicked up by the hoofs of
horses in Śākuntala 1.32.
6. han - to beat; to prod; as the cowherds prod the kine
by a stick.
7. han - to ward off; to avert. This meaning is attested by
the Mahābhārata also.
8. han - to touch; to come in contact. It is an astronomical
term in Varāhamihira’s Bṛhat-samhitā.
9. han - to give up; to abandon.
10. han - to obstruct.by Anandatirtha sharma 225
Ten meanings of the root han are given in dictionaries.
Which of them are applicable to the ancient Vedic mantras, can
be decided only after considering their relevancy to the context.
If the root han is interpreted as ‘to kill’ wherever it occurs, that
would become nonsensical.
CONCLUSION
Those scholars who have tried to show on the basis of
Ṛgveda that the cow-slaughter was resorted to for feasting the
bridegroom party, have picked up stray mantras from here and
there without any coherence. They have tried to mislead the
people by their academic standing or by the importance of
their status. The bride is set to be elegantly adorned and
dressed to be taken to participate in the bridal feast in the
fourth Mandala of the Rigveda, and in the remote tenth
Mandala it is alleged that the marriage party is feasted on beef.
While unconnected and far removed, both of them are
allegorical descriptions as has been shown earlier. Those
scholars whose intellect runs over to cover such unrelated
statements, far removed from each other, it is beyond
comprehension that their intelligence is unable to see the
reality of facts. Undoubtedly, they have moulded their
researches being motivated by special considerations. This is
amply attested and it must have become evident to our readers
by the clariﬁcations offered in this essasy.
* * * * *
WAS THE COW KILLED AT CREMATION?
Raja Rajendralala Mitra writes on page 2 lines 4-6 of his 226 blunders of indological scholars
booklet ‘Beef in Ancient India’ : --
‘‘A supply of beef was deemed an absolute necessity by
pious Hindus in their journey from this world to another
world, and a cow was invariably killed to be burnt with the
dead’’.
He has further referred the readers to his article ‘Funeral
Ceremonies of Ancient Hindus’. On ransacking, we found it in
the Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal Vol XXXIX, part I,
No. IV of 1870. It was delivered as a speech in November
1870. On lines 3-10 of page 251 it is stated --
‘‘The Āraṇyaka, after arranging the sacrificial vessels, gives
the mantra for covering the corpse with the raw hide of the
cow, which should be entire with head, hair and feet, the hairy
side being kept upper-most. The mantra for the purpose is
adressed to the hide; ‘Cuirass, carefully protect this body from
the light of Agni; envelope it with thy thick fat and marrow;
holding this impudent Agni, desirous of seeing and consuming
it by his vigour, allow him not to go astray’’.
The mantra of the Āraṇyaka referred to above is the 7th
mantra of the 16th sūkta of the 10th manḍala of Ṛgveda.
On lines 7-9 of page 147 of the ‘Vedic index’, Vol II, it is
asserted --
‘‘The ritual of cremation of the dead required the slaughter
of a cow as an essential part; the flesh being used to envelope
the dead body’’
The late Pt. Shripad Damodar Satavalekar has discussed
this passage at length on pages 4-5 of the Introduction to his
‘Go- jnana-kośa’ ancient sector, Vedic section part II, under the
heading ‘Anantya yajna’. It is quoted below in extenso in our by Anandatirtha sharma 227
English translation --
‘‘According to Vedic tradition the whole life of man is a
great yajna. To devote one’s entire life to the good of all is a
yajna, and death of the human person is the final offering.
When the final offering, i.e. the offering of one’s body, is
effected, that is the completion of the life-long yajna. The
readers should note the loftiness of the conception of a life
prevaded by yajna. In the Vedic tradition, cremation is not
mere reduction of the body to ashes, but it is also the final
yajna, and being the last offering it is the consummating yajna.
The body is offered into the flaming fires; from this point of
view the offering of flesh i.e., one’s entire body - into fire is in
accord with Vedic dharma. But can this be termed a yajna with
meat? Now-a-days a meat sacrifice means offering of the flesh
of horse, a cow, or a bull. This is quite different from the final
offering or cremation. In this ultimate act, the offering of the
human body or of another body, is not meant to be eaten. As
the dead body has not to be kept in the house, it is burnt and
this is termed the last yajna. So if one says that meat is used in
yajna it is true in a way, but what is intended and understood
by it - that is not the truth. So we say that inspite of fire being
named kravyāda ‘consuming flesh or corpses’ it does not prove
the eating of animal flesh. Fire was so termed because of the
cremation of dead bodies in the Vedic age. As a matter of
course, men die, their corpses are cremated. In war, horses,
bulls and other animals die in battle along with men - all of
them were cremated in Vedic times.
The readers can judge from this custom that though ﬁre is
called kravyāda, it in no way proves the eating of meat :
अवेम पिर गोिभय संोणु पीवसा मदसा े च।228 blunders of indological scholars
ना े धृ हुरसा  जषाणो  दधिवधय ृ यात  ॥े १०.०१६.०७
Here the word gobhiḥ is used. Europeans have surmised
from it that the corpse was covered with beef, and for it, the
deem cow-slaughter is essential. Several Indian scholars also
think likewise. Here it has to be taken into consideration that
the word gobhiḥ is in the plural, and according to Sanskrit
grammar, plural means ‘at least three cows’. If a human corpse
has to be covered with ﬂesh, will it require three cows as
minimum? If the rite has to be accomplished with beef, will
one cow not sufﬁce? The body of a cow is three-to-four times
the human body, so the covering of the corpse of one human
being will not require at least three or more cows.
This will draw the attention of our readers to the fact that
something else is intended. By the word gau (गौ) are intended
milk, yoghurt (दही), ghee, hide etc. This is accepted even by
Europeans. So we must find out for which product three or
more cows can be required during cremation, and what is it
that cannot be effected by one cow alone.
Flesh, hide, lard, etc. can be obtained in sufficient quantity
from one cow. So ghee alone is the product which will have to
be obtained from more than three cows. It is essential to
smear the corpse with ghee before putting it on the fire. Those
who perform havan, they know well that ghee is poured over
oblation-materials before they are offered into the fire. So also
the kindling faggots are soaked in ghee before being put into
the fire. In the final havan when the body, the consummating
faggot is offered into the fire, will ghee not be required?
Now-a- days ghee required for properly soaking the faggot is
not available, so they are just sprinkled over with a few drops. by Anandatirtha sharma 229
In the vedic age when there was no dearth of ghee, it is no
wonder that the dead body was well anointed with ghee, the
body that was the faggot offering par excellence into the
ultimate yajna. The ghee also allays poison. When the corpse
burns, poisonous air fills the atmosphere; to cleanse it the
more the ghee the better, and more and more necessary it is.
The atmosphere is purified by it. According to Vedic custom,
the quantity of ghee used for cremation was equal to the
weight of the body. Now-a-days the Hindus make 5 to 10 tolas
suffice for this rite.
To comprehend ‘gau’ as meaning ghee produced from a
cow, is not new. It is accepted by all. Inspite of this, it is
amazing how one can surmise the slaughter of a cow by the
mantra under discussion.
The attention of scholars has not been drawn to the plural
form of gau, or they have intentionally overlooked it, hence
this non-sensical rendering - this is clear and evident.
The detailed consideration of this mantra also proves that
in the Vedic age there was no idea of slaughtering either a
milch-cow or a vaśā cow.
* * * * * *
WAS A RED BULLOCK SLAIN FOR ITS HIDE AT THE
AUSPICIOUS OCCASIONS OF MARRIAGE AND
ROYAL CONSECRATION?
In ‘Cow-slaughter - Horns of a Dilemma‘ edited by Śrī A.B.
Shah, Śrī Mukundi Lal has written under the caption : ‘Cow
Cult in India’ on page 18 : --230 blunders of indological scholars
‘‘Slaughter of cows on ceremonial occassions was
considered auspicious in ancient India. The bride and
bridegroom were to sit on the raw skin of a red bull before the
altar. The skin must have been of the red bull sacrificed on the
occasion of the marriage ceremony to feed the guests’’.
He continues further :
‘‘Similarly, on the occasion of the coronation of kings, the
raw skin of a red bull was placed under the seat of the king to
be anointed. Probably the king had to sit on the fresh cow hide
to perform the ceremony’’.
We have already introduced Messrs. A.B. Shah and Mukandi
Lal and have given an assessment of the depth of their
knowledge under the heading ‘‘Were Cows slaughtered at King
Rantideva’s Place?’’ It is not necessary to repeat it here.
Śrī Mukandi Lal has not referred to the Dharma-sastra
wherever the above facts are cited. It appears that he has no
personal knowledge of their source and neither did he ﬁnd it
necessary to go into their details. His sole objective seems to
be to do propaganda for cow-slaughter somehow or the other,
making use of the stature of his position. Whatever it be, it is
necessary to go into their details. His sole objective seems to
be to do propaganda for cow-slaughter somehow or the other,
making use of the stature of his position. Whatever it be, it is
necessary to clarify the points raised by him in trying to mislead
the common man, so that false apprehensions are removed.
WAS A RED BULL-HIDE OBTAINED BY SLAUGHTER
AT A MARRIAGE CEREMONY
For cow-slaughter in a marriage ceremony and for serving by Anandatirtha sharma 231
beef to guests during a marriage feast, see the heading ‘Was
there Cow-Slaughter and Beef in the Marriage ceremony?’
The contention of Śrī Mukandi Lal is that beef was served
to guests at marriage, and for it a red bull was slaughtered
then and there and the raw hide of the red bull was used as a
seat for the bride and groom. Such a raw hide was also used
at the coronation ceremony as a seat for the King to be
coronated. Let the readers consider how practicable it is that a
red bull was slain just after the arrival of the groom’s party; its
raw hide was utilized for seating the bride and groom and a
similar fresh raw hide was employed as the seat for a King to
be coronated and to serve the meat of that red bull to guests
in the groom’s party? The fresh raw hide of a red bullock slain
instantaneously will be dripping with blood and its ﬂesh will be
oozing, which is a horrid sight. It will be smelling horrible. Is it
possible that such an item ﬁts in the festive decorations of a
marriage or of a royal consecration? Inspite of this, men like
Mukandi Lal try to mislead people by such impossible fantasies
without a proper analysis of the whole situation, taking undue
advantage of the stature of their position.
In recent times, Pandurang Vaman Kane has made a
detailed study of the Dharmaśāstras. Its results have been
incorporated in his book ‘History of Dharmaśāstra’. From the
description given in its Vol.2 part 1, page 530, under the
caption ‘Ceremonies of Marriage’, it is clear that according to
the Sūtras, only the bride is seated on a bullock-hide and that
too when she comes to the bridegroom’s house after the
performance of the due departure ceremony. On that ocassion
the groom makes a few offerings in the marital ﬁre. All the 232 blunders of indological scholars
gṛhya-sutras we have been able to gather, prove this very
situation. Thus it clearly proves as false and unfounded the
contention of Mukandi Lal that a bullock was slain then and
there by the bride’s party to serve beef to the groom encourage
and that its freshly obtained hide was used to seat the groom
and bride for the marriage ceremony.
All the gṛhya-sūtra texts are not available now-a-days. After
strenuous efforts, we have been able to consult Āśvalāyana,
Kāṭhaka, Vārāha, Baudhāyana, Pāraskara, Gobhila, Bhāradvāja
and Khādir gṛhya-sūtras.
All of them refer to the red (रोिहत लोिहत) hide of the
bullock. But the Baudhāyana gṛhya sūtra does not specify the
red colour. Nowhere have we come across a seat of bullock-
hide instead of the usual seat. Wherever a seat of hide is
referred to, there only the deer-hide is prevalent. Even if, for
argument’s sake we accept a bullock-hide seat for any ritual of
the marriage ceremony, it does not prove that to obtain bullock-
hide for a seat, it was incumbent to slay a bovine animal. The
hides of animals who die a natural death are available, which
can be utilised for all appropriate purposes. Cows and bullocks
of a red colour also die. If, in case ox-hide or red ox-hide is
required for a ritual during marriage, then an ox-hide obtained
without killing can also be used as a seat on such ocassions.
Even by straining or twisting the interpretation of words in the
original text we do not arrive at the meaning that it was
essential to obtain hide for a seat by slaying a cow or a bull on
that very ocassion, nor can we come to the meaning that the
groom’s party was to be served with beef.
Here below are the texts of the gṛhya-sūtras on which we by Anandatirtha sharma 233
have been able to lay our hands. Readers conversant with
Sanskrit can conclude for themselves :
1. Āśvalāyana - gṛhya-sūtra 1.8.9
िववाहािमपसमाधाय ु पादाऽऽनडुुहंचमाऽऽीय  
ाीवमरलोम ु तिपिवाया ु ंसमारायाम ।् आ नः जां
जनयतुजापितिरित चतसिभः ृ चृ ंा समुिवदेवा े इित
दः ाय ितयदा श े षेणे वाऽनि दये॥
2. Śānkhāyana - gṛhya-sangraha
अनडुहहोमकमवामः । अ रणााघारा भागाः पािकाः ।
उपलेपनोेखनाारा भागंकृा ततो लोिहतेबलीवदचम िण
वधमूपवु शयि े । ततो वधःूकुशरारभत ै ेपितजहोित ु ।
3. Kāṭhaka (Laugākṣi) - gṛhya-sūtra 3.4.4 (28.4)
रोिहया मलू ेन वा या पयोमपर ु णािमानड े ुहेरोिहते
चमय पिवयािप ु वा दभ वे जयभितिभ ृ ािर  ते ुथम इित च ।
4. Vārāha - gṛhya-sūtra (Gaekwad’s Oriental Series no.
XVIII, Edited by R. Sama Sastry B.A. 1921 edn. योबनम ्करण
p. 18)
पादेरोिहतेचमायड  ुहेाीवेलोमतो दभानाीय  तषे ु
वधमूपवु शयित े ।
5. Baudhāyana - gṛhya-sūtra 1.5.8 -
अथनमानड ै ुहेचमय पवु शयित े -
'इह गावः जायिमहाा इह पषाः ू ।
इहो सहदिणो रायोषो िनषीदतु॥' इित ।
6. Pāraskara - gṛhya-sūtra 1.8.10 -234 blunders of indological scholars
तांढपषु उ ागवोदवाऽन े गुु आगारेआनडुहेरोिहते
चमय पवु शयित े इह गावो िनषीदिहाा इह पषाः ु । इहो सह
दिणो य इह पषा ू िनषीदिित ।
7. Gobhila - gṛhya-sūtra 2.2.3 -
अपरणाऽिमानड े ुह रोिहतंचमाीवमरलोमाीण ु भवित ।
8. Bhāradvāja gṛhya-sūtra 1.18
परािया ु दवा े नयुयत आगता इथना ै ंगहान ृ ानड ु ुहेरोिहते
चमय पवु शयतीह े गावो िनषीदिहाा इह पषाः ु ।
9. Khādira gṛhya-sūtra 1.4.2
ाणकुलेऽिमपसमाधाय ु पादलिहत े चमानड ुहमरलोम ु
ाीवमाीयवायतामपवु शये ते ॥्
10. We could not get the original Sanskrit text of the
Mānava gṛhya-sūtra but only its English translation by M.J.
Dresden. Herein too the sequence is that the bride is seated
after coming to the house of her in-laws, and there is no inkling
of any slaying there. It also enjoins the spreading of kuśa grass
on the hide, and alternatively it prescribes that the bride should
take a kuśa seat. Below we quote the English translation :
‘‘To the west of the fire, he causes the bride to sit down
upon a red bull-skin, of which the neck is turned eastward, on
the hairy side, after having bestrewn it (i.e., the skin) with
Darbha-grass, or (he causes het to) sit down on Darbha grass
(only)’’.
Even a person like Max Muller, whose intention was to
eliminate the feeling of reverence for the cow from the minds
of the Hindus, has not been able to twist the meaning of any by Anandatirtha sharma 235
gṛhya-sūtra in his English translation, to signify that at the
ocassion of marriage, a seat of raw hide was provided for the
bride and groom by killing a red bullock at the spur of the
moment and that its ﬂesh was served to the groom’s party (see
‘Sacred Books of the East’, edited by F. Max Muller, Vol XXIX
and XXX Gṛhya-sūtras, rites of the marriage ceremony are not
detailed anywhere. We are at a loss to know whence Mukandi
Lal has found out that in ancient India cow-slaughter was
considered auspicious at a marriage ceremony and the bride
and groom had to sit on a raw skin of a red bull before the
altar, and that the skin had to be of a red bull which had been
sacriﬁced on the ocassion of the marriage ceremony to feed to
the guests.
From the foregoing discussion it is clear that there was no
on-the-spot slaughter even if the bride had to sit on a bullock-
hide to consummate certain rites after reaching the house of
her in-laws after the marriage ceremonies.
The meanings of the word rohita (रोिहत) in Monier-
William’s Sanskrit-English Dictionary are as follows :
i) a red deer;
ii) a red mare;
iii) a red or chestnut horse
So the meaning of रोिहतेचमिण can also mean the hide of a
red deer, red mare or a red horse.
THE MEANING OF ANADUH AND GOCARMA
According to the texts of Baudhāyana, Pāraskara and
Bhāradvāja gṛhya-sūtras given above, where आनडुहे रोिहते236 blunders of indological scholars
चमिण उपवशयित े occurs, it is followed by इह गावो िनषीद, ुइह
अाः, इह पषाः ु which means may the cows (oxen) sit here,
here the horses, here men’. In Sanskrit the word gau also
connotes a bullock. It can mean that on the return of the
marriage party the bullocks yoked to the chariots may also sit,
i.e. remain there, there also the horses, there the people, i.e.,
the groom’s party. How can the sitting area of the hide of a
bullock or deer accomodate so many bullocks, horses and
men? To make the sentence इह गावो िनषीद, ु इह अाः, इह
पषाः ु significant, what can be the intent of the Pāraskara
gṛhya sūtra अनगु आगारेआनडुहेरोिहतेचमिण उपवशयित े ? This
ought to be well-considered. Its correct interpretation has been
given by Pt. Dinanath Śāstri Sārasvat in his Sanātan Dharmālok,
Vol 6. pages 436-440 whose resume is given below. --
1. According to the Ranti-kośa, the word anaḍuh अनडुह ्
signiﬁes the main residence or the gaiety room in the marriage
pavillion. The etymology of the word anaḍuh अनडुह ् is अनो
वहित - इित अनत. ्So the meaning of anaḍuh अनडुह given by ्
the Ranti-kośa is correct as being the main residence which
bears the chariot in the form of husband and wife.
The Vācaspatya lexicon says अनडुह ्आसदशादौ े which
means that the word anaḍuh (अनडुह) ् is used to connote ‘an
adjacent place’ etc. This refers to the gaiety room near the
marriage pavillion, where it is appropriate to seat the bride, or
the groom and the bride together.
2. रोिहतेचमिण can also mean ‘red hide’ and also ‘the hide
of a red deer, or red horse or mare’. A deer-skin seat has been by Anandatirtha sharma 237
in vogue for ceremonial sitting. Thus the meaning of the
sentence अनगुुे आगारे आनडुहे रोिहते चमिण उपवशयित े in
Pāraskara gṛhya sūtra 1.8.10 according to the two preceding
interpretations will be (उपवशयित े ) he seats (her) (रोिहत) े on
deer-hide (अनगुु) े in a covered (आगार) े building (आनडुह)े in
the gaiety room near the marriage pavillion.
३. The hide of a bullock is also termed go-carma (गोचम
‘bovine hide’). Let us now consider the various meanings of gocarma (गोचम).  The technical senses of go-carma are as follows
--
(a) In the Mitākṣarā commentary of the Yājnavalkya smṛti
-
दशहने दडने िशडिनव ं नम ।् दश तावे गोचम
i.e, ‘ten hands make a rod (दड), 30 rods a nivartana
(िनवतन ). A land area of ten such nivartanas is termed a
gocarma (गोचम).
The meaning nivartana in Monier-William’s Sanskrit-English
Dictionary, page 560, column 1 is as follows :
‘a measure of land 20 rods or 200 cubits or 40,000 square
hastas’
The counterpart of the English word ‘rod’ in sanskrit is
daṇḍa (दड). The English word ‘cubit’ is deﬁned in an English
dictionary as the measure from the elbow to the end of the
middle ﬁnger which is 18 to 22 inches. An English dictionary
deﬁnes the length of rod as 1-1/2 yards or 16-1/2 feet, which is
approximately ten hands. In the Yajnavalkya smṛti too a ‘rod’ 238 blunders of indological scholars
(daṇḍa) has been reckoned as ‘ten hands’ which tallies with
the English dictionary. According to the Yajnavalkya smṛti a
nivartana is 30 rods long X 30 rods wide are of land, i.e. 300
hands X 300 hands ´90,000 sq.hands. But, according to the
Sanskrit English Dictionary of Monier-Williams, a nivartana is 20
rods or 200 hands, i.e. 200 hands long X 200 hands wide =
40,000 square hands.
(b) Gṛhya-samgraha 1.39
ऋषभकशत ै ंय गवांितित सवं तमृ ।्
बालव-सताना ू ंगोचमइित सिवः ं ॥
that is, an area in which 100 bulls and cows can sit with
their calves, that is termed gocarma (गोचम).
The Candra-kānta-bhāṣya comments on the above -
गवांशतंवषृ को ै य ितदयितः े ।
एतद ्गोचममा  ंतुावदिवदो  जनाः ॥
that is, where a 100 cows and bullocks can sit without
restrictive restrains, that land-area is termed gocarma (गोचम)
by those conversant with the Vedas.
(c) The lexicon Padmacandra-kośa defines it on page 136
as a measurement of land 100 yards long and about 3 yards
wide.
(d) It is stated in the 9th stanza of the Bṛhaspati-smṛti :
सवषृ ंगोसहंतुय िततितम ।्
बालवसताना ू ंतद ्गोचमइित तमृ ॥्
i.e., where a 1000 cows and bulls can sit comformtably by Anandatirtha sharma 239
with their calves, that measure of land is termed a gocarma
(गोचम).
The measurements of gocarma given in the Sanskrit
English Dictionary of Monier-Williams on page 364, column 2
are as follows : --
A particular measure of sur-
face a place large enough for
the range of 100 cows, one
bull and their calves; Gṛhya
sūtras
It tallies with the definition
given above in (b)
or a place 10 times as large;
Parāśara smṛti
it agrees with the definition
(d)
a place 300feet long by 10 feet
broad; Wilson
it corresponds to the definition in (c)
or a place 30 Daṇḍas long by
1 Daṇḍa and 7 hastas broad.
Brihasp. (Mahābhārata xiii,
3121 sch)
its style partly tallies with the
definition given above in (a),
but its area measurements are
different
Thus, gocarma (गोचम) means a land area where, according
to the gṛhya-samgraha a 100 cows and bulls can sit along with
their calves, or according to the Bṛhaspati smṛti where a 1000
cows and bulls can be accomadated along with their calves.
These meanings are appropriate to the context, because where
चमिण उपवशयित े is prescribed, there it is also enjoined that इह
गावो िनषीद, ुइह अाः, इह पषाः ू i.e, ‘may be the cows sit here,
here the horses and here men’. If we take the connotation of
an animal -hide, then how can a hide accomadate all the 240 blunders of indological scholars
numerous chariot-bullocks, horses and men assembled for the
marriage ceremony? The aforesaid technical meaning alone is
appropriate to the context as it refers to a measure of land
which can be occupied by cows and others. So sometimes a
meaning based on the etymology alone becomes irrelevant and
absurd; only a signification arrived at after due consideration of
the context can be faultless. Thus, it will mean -- at the groom’s
house, near the marriage pavilion, there should be an area of
land which is sufficient to accomadate all the bullocks yoked to
chariots, riding horses, and all the people who have arrived for
the grand occasion, and where there is a seat of red deer-hide
for the bride in the illuminated gaiety room.
In his article, Mukandi Lal opines that at a royal consecration
the king had to sit on a fresh and raw skin of a red bull. Just
as the technical meaning of gocarma (गोचम) alone is relevant
in a marriage ceremony, likewise the same meaning is
appropriate to the ceremony of a royal consecration, because
during a coronation too, there is a multitudinous crowd as at a
marriage.
HIDE SEAT IN A ROYAL CONSECRATION
It has not been possible to trace a text which details the
rites that are performed when a king ascends the throne. In
the consecration, during a rajasūya yajna, a seat of bullock-
hide is referred to here and there, but there is no reference
that a fresh and raw hide should be obtained by slaying the
animal then and there. Now we will consider all the descriptions
that we have found.
Johannes Cornelis Heesterman has written a book ‘The by Anandatirtha sharma 241
Ancient Indian Royal Consecration’ where in it is said on page
106, Chapter 13, paragraph 1 :
‘‘The unction will be administered to the King while
standing up a tiger skin’’.
(At Mahābhiṣeka, described by Kauśika Sūtra, likewise a
tiger skin is used (17,13). At the Laghvabhiṣeka, however, a
bull’s hide is used (17,3).)
Besides the tiger skin, Āpastamba-śrautasūtra and Vārāha
- śrautasūtra prescribe also a throne of Khadira or Udumbara
on which the tiger skin is to be fastened. The other authorities
do not use a throne at the unction. The actual enthronement
takes place later, after the chariot drive’’.
According to Monier-William’s Sanskrit-English Dictionary,
Khadira (खिदर) means :
Acacia Catechu (having very hard wood, the resin of which
is used in medicine called Catechu, Khayar, Terra japonica).
page 336. column 3.
and Udumbara (उर) means :
The tree Ficus Glomereata page 196, column 3 :
In the above cited texts, there is not even a hint that tiger
- skin or bullock-hide was obtained by slaying them then and
there, and that it was a raw hide. It may be possible that a
new (unused) skin-seat was necessary for the royal coronation.
Consecrations are not of daily occurence; they take place once
in an age, for which a new skin which has never been used for
any purpose can be preserved, and such an un-used new skin
can be used for the coronation ceremony. A new skin does not
mean a raw skin obtained by slaying that animal then and 242 blunders of indological scholars
there. A skin which has never been used for any purpose and
which has been kept in a store-house, in a new skin. Whichever
śrauta-sūtra could be found and wherever a hide-seat is
referred to, all such passages are cited below in original for
Sanskrit-knowing readers, so that it may become clear that a
new hide-seat does not mean a raw skin which has been
obtained by slaying the animal at that very moment : --
1. Āpstamba-śrauta 18.15.5 -
अणे शािधु  ंखािदरीमौरी वास िता सोम
ििषरसीत तांशालचम  ाचीनीवमरलोमाीया ु म तमसीित ृ
तिन शतमान ् ंिहरयंिनधाय िदोा पाहीित सौवणन शतमानने
शतरणे शतकृलेन वा यजमान शीषिध  िनधते।
This description agrees with that given in J.C. Heesterman’s
‘The Ancient Indian Royal Consecration’ as to the type of wood
used for the throne.
2. Kātyāyana-sūtra 15.5.1 -
मतीयाेपाािण पवूण ाचमा णाित ृ सोम ििषिरित
3. Baudhāyana-śrautasūtra 12.10 -
अज यजमानायतनेशालचम  ाचीनीवमरलोमोप ु णाित ृ ।
4. Vārāha-śrauta-sūtra 3.2.43 -
सोम ििषरसीित ाचमिववासन े ामाणािन ृ ।
The throne used by Kings is called a simhāsana (simha िसहं
आसन) which means ‘lions seat’, or ‘a seat made of a lion skin’.
In the śrauta-sūtras, the seat of tiger-skin is referred to
frequently. In his book ‘The ancient Indian Royal Consecration‘, by Anandatirtha sharma 243
J.C. Heesterman says that according to the Kauśika-sūtra a
bull’s hide was used at the minor consecration (laghu abhiṣeka)
of a king, which can be correct. We could not have access to
the original text of the Kauśika-sūtra. Yet, this much is clear
that there is no context which proves that bull-hide was raw
and it was obtained from a bull slain instantaneously.
WAS YAJNAVALKYA USED TO AMSALA BEEF?
Macdonell and Keith have written as follows in the Vedic
Index, Part 2, page 145, under the entry ‘Mamsa’.
‘‘The great sage Yajnavalkya was wont to eat the meat of
milch cows and bullocks (dhenvaḍuha) if only it was amsala
(‘firm’ or ‘tender’) (Śatapatha brahmana iii.1,2,21)
Following them blindly, and without going into the crux of
the situation, a number of Indians have started humming their
tune.
This has been discussed at length by Pandit Dinanath Śāstri
Sārasvat in his Sanātana-Dharmālok, part 6, pages 375-380.
Here below follows a gist of his arguements for the beneﬁt of
our readers. The original text of Śatapatha-Brahmana 3.1.2.21
is :
अथ एन ( ं यजमान) ं शालां पादयित । स धे ैच अनडुह
नाीयात ।् धनड े ुहौ वैइदंसविबभतःृ । तेदवा े अवन - ् धनड े ुहौ वै
इदं सविबभतःृ हः । यदषा े ं वयसां वीयम , ्तद ्धनड े ुहयोदधाम  -
इित । यद ्अषा े ं वीयमासीत  , ्तद ्धनड े ुहयोरादधःु । ताद ्धनेु वै
अनां भिय ू ं भः ु । तद ्ह एतत ्सवायिमव  , यो धनड े ुहयोर-
ीयात ्। अगितिरव तंह अिभुतमिभजिनतो जायायैगभिनरवधीिदित
पापकमकद ्इित पापी कीितः । ताद ्धनड े ुहयोनाीयात  ्। त ह244 blunders of indological scholars
उवाच यावः - आावे अहं असलं ं चदे ्भवतीित (३.१.२.२१)
In the Vedas the cow and bull are inviolable. So the
question of eating any type of ﬂesh of a cow or bull does not
arise. By the principle of the elided taddhita ( तित िया)
the word dhenu (धने) ु‘cow’ means products from the cow, i.e.,
milk and products from milk, and anaḍuh (अनडुह) ् ‘bullock’
means the produce from farming done with a bullock.
The context of the Śatapatha is quite different. Sāyaṇa
acarya has made it clear beyond doubt. After the house holder
has shaved, bathed and dressed, the adhvaryu should lead him
to the pavilion. Then the householder should undertake a fast
to fulﬁl his initiation into the yajna, and he should not eat even
cream and its sweets prepared from cow’s milk and food
obtained from farming with bullock. Here the words of Sayana
are :
अािप (शालावशकत े ःु) अशनकालाद ् अ अशने किद ्
िनयममाह - धे ैधनोः े ीरािदकम ्अनडुहः सि कषणसािमथ  ः,
तभय ं नाीयात ्। ............... तद ्अतः सवाशन ं भवित, त च
जायाया गभसव  ेसित तत ्सवाशन ंतं रतोप े णे पिरणतं गभिहंात, ्
तत ्पापकीितः ात ्। तद ्उभयोः (धनड े ुहयोः) (पायसम) ्अ (ं च)
नाीयात ्। त यावपमाह = चते ्यात ्उभया-(धनड े ुहा)-
ाशनेशरीरम अ् सलं ं (बलवद) ्भवित, ताद ्तयोरमीयामवे ।
Sayana acarya has very clearly translated the two words as
cow’s milk and ‘food procured from farming with a bullock’.
There is no mention of any kind of flesh.
Yajnavalkya is not a house holder for whom fasting would
have been prescribed for a house holder. So Yajnavalkya in his by Anandatirtha sharma 245
capacity of a chaplain says :
अािम एव अहं असलं ं चदे ्भवित इित ।
‘‘I can eat what is amsala (असलं ). Alternatively it can also
be understood as follows : In the opinion of Yajnavalkya if the
performer of a yajna totally abstains from eating and as the
yajna lasts for a long period, he will become emaciated and
then he will not be able to perform the yajna. To keep up his
bodily needs, he will have to eat something. So Yajnavalkya
opines that even as a performer of the yajna I can eat what is
amsala (असलं ). And those householders who follow him can
also partake of such victuals.
The antagonists have translated amsala (असलं ) of the cow
and bullock as ‘tender flesh’, which is not relevant in any
manner. The flesh of young cows and bullocks is not tender;
only the flesh of a calf is tender. In this context the calf is
neither mentioned in the original passage nor in the statements
of the antagonist.
The word amsala (असलं ) does not mean 'the flesh of an
animal. According to sutra 5.2.98 of Pāṇini वासाा ं ं कामबले
it means ‘nourishing, strength-bestowing’. In Amarkośa 2.6.44
also it has been translated as मासलऽसलः ं which means ‘amsala
is Mamsala’. Mamsala (मासलं ) does not apply to flesh (mamsa).
Mamsala is used for cream and sweets therefrom, fresh and
dry fruits and such other nourishing eatables. It is clear that
the word amsala (असलं ) does not refer to ‘animal flesh’. There
is no basis or authority for translating amsala (असलं ) as ‘tender
flesh’. The correct and genuine meaning of amsala is ‘nourishing’ 246 blunders of indological scholars
or ‘strengthgiving’.
So in his capacity as a chaplain or as performer of a yajna,
Yajnavalkya can partake of milk and milk-products like butter,
cream, cream-sweets, or milk-rice pudding (khir), and his
followers can also do likewise. And if these be forbidden, they
can take strength-giving fruits, both fresh and dry, which are
not produced from a cow (dhenu धने) ुor from cultivation with a
bullock (anaḍuh अनडुह)् and this will sustain the prohibitive
injunction of the Śatapatha-brahmana ताद ्धने-ुअनडुहयोः न
अीयात .्
DID AGASTYA SLAY A HUNDRED BULLS?
Macdonell and Keith have written as follows in the Vedic
Index, part 2, page 145 under the entry ‘Mamsa’.
‘‘The slaughter of a hundred bulls (ukṣam) was credited to
one sacrificer, Agastya. (Taittiriya Brahmana) ii, 7,11,1;
Panchavimśa Brahmana xxi.14.5‘‘.
The English translation of Taittirīya Brahmana 2.7.11.1 is
given below with all the original Sanskrit words in parantheses:
‘‘(अगो) Agsthya (ौत) ्performed the prokṣaṇa (उः)
of the bulls (मः) for the Maruts, (इः) Indra (आद तान) ्
carried them away. (त) े They the Maruts (अाय) came upon
him (वम)् with their vajras (उ) uplifted (अग चवै)
Agastya (इः च) and Indra (अशमयताम) ्pacified (तान) ्them
(कयाशभीय ु ने) ्with the Ṛgvedic hymn begining with kayāśubha.
(शाान)् When they were calmed down (उपायत) he called
(तान)् them (यत) ्The (कयाशभीयम ु ) ्kayāśubhīya hymn (भवित) is by Anandatirtha sharma 247
(शा) ैfor pacifying’’.
Pancavimśa Brāhmāṇa, also known as Tāṇḍya Brahmana,
21.14.5 is cited below in its English translations with the
original Sanskrit words in parantheses :
(अगो व) ैAgstya Verily (ोत) ्consecrated by sprinkling
(उः) the bulls (मदः) for the Maruts. (अबात) ्He bound
(तान) ्them (इाय) for Indra. (त) े They (अयतन) ्fell upon
(आदाय) him taking up (वम) ् the vajra (स) He, Agastya
(अपयत) ् saw (कयाशभीयम ु ) ् kayāśubhīya hymn. (तने) By it
(अशमयत)् he pacified (the anger of the Maruts)’’.
In the Sanskrit-English Dictionary of Monier-Williams
prokṣaṇa has been translated as ‘consecration of sprinkling’.
The context clearly indicates that consecration cannot be for
violence. In the Vedas, the bovine family has been declared
inviolable in every way. Yet beef-gluttons see cow-slaughter
everywhere as a lascivious person sees only a woman whether
awake or asleep. When the cow-family is unkillable under all
circumstances, then there is no hinderance in accepting
consecration by sprinkling for gifting.
SUPPLEMENT
WHERE COWS SLAUGHTERED AT KING
RANTIDEVA’S PLACE?
(to be read on page 80, before the Heading ‘Rantideva in
the Meghadūta of the great poet Kālidāsa)
The word ‘badhyate’ is found in the chapter on marriage in
Atharva-veda 14.1.26 and also in Ṛgveda 10.85.28 reading 248 blunders of indological scholars
पितब षे ुबतेwhere it is clearly interpreted even by Europeans
as ‘the husband is bound in bonds (of family life)’.
As such, the verse of Mahābhārata under consideration
would really mean that two thousand cattle used to be kept
near the kitchen by chaining to the peg, so that their products
like milk may be available readily even at odd times for the
guests. The idea of keeping other 2000 animals may be for
utilising them for transport of materials needed in the reception
of guests.
Be it known that this verse is not found in all the editions
of Mahābhārata. As already explained, the Dharma- Vyādha
while preaching to Kauśika Brahmana on various subjects has
not quoted any historical example. The dialogue between
Dharma-Vyādha and Kauśika Brahmana is spread over ten
chapters in Vana-parva in verses approximating in number of
days in a year, out of which about 20 verses recount the
previous birth of Dharma-Vyādha and about three-quarters of a
hundred relate to the querries by Kauśika Brahmana. The
balance of nearly 250 verses relates to the preaching by
Dharma-Vyādha. Out of these, no historical example is quoted
on any subject dealt with in the preaching. Quoting historical
instances in preaching ahimsā (non-violence) is against the
system of preaching by Dharma-Vyādha, particularly against
the context of the subject as interpreted by the protagonists.
Hence it is also not free from doubt, whether this verse is
genuine or not.
IS BEEF POSSIBLE IN MADHUPARKA?
Historical Examples of the GiŌ of a Cow with Madhuparkaby Anandatirtha sharma 249
(To be added on the page 98 after line 24 and before
subheading ‘Āśvalāyana-Gṛhya-sūtra’)
Let us now look into the historical examples of madhuparka,
wherein only the gift of a cow is mentioned and not serving its
beef after immediate slaughter.
Valmiki Rāmāyaṇa -
(a) When Śri Rāma went to Bharadvāja Muni, he
(Bharadvāja Muni) gave a reception to Śrī Rāma by offering
madhuparka and a cow in gift.
त तद ्वचनंा ु राजपु धीमतः ।
उपानयत धमाा  गामम दकु ं ततः ॥
(Ayodhyākāṇḍa 54.17)
meaning - Pious Bharadvāja Muni after hearing highly
intellected Prince Śri Rama, offered him water for washing feet
and hands and then offered arghya (madhuparka) and also a
cow in gift.
(b) On the arrival of Maharṣi Agastya and others Lord Sri
Rama also offered them madhupark in reception along with a
cow in gift.
ा ाान म् ना ु ं ुाय ु कृतािलः ।
पााािदिभरानच  गांिनवे च सादरम ॥् (Uttara-kāṇḍa 1.13)
meaning - On arrival of those great sages, Sri Ramacandra
got up and stood before them with folded hands and then
worshipped them with high esteem by offering water for
washing their feet and hands and by offering agastya
(madhuparka) and a cow in gift to each of them.250 blunders of indological scholars
Mahabharata -
(a) When Sri Nārada presented himself in the assembly of
King Yudhiṣṭhira, the King received him with madhuparka rite
and with the gift of a cow.
गांचवै मधपकु  च सदायाम वे च ।
अचयामास  रै सवकाम  ै धमिवत ॥् (Sabhā-parva 5.15)
meaning- The king, conversant with religious observances
and duties, worshipped them in the prescribed manner by
offering water (for washing feet and hands), madhuparka and
a cow in gift and pleased them by fulﬁlling all their desires.
(b) When Lord Sri Krsna arrived in the assembly of
Kauravas, a cow was gifted to Him in His reception by
madhuparka rite :
अथ गांमधपकु  चादकु ं च जनादन े।
उपजयथााय  ंधतराप ृ रोिहताः ु ॥ (Udyoga-parva 89.19)
meaning - The priests of Dhṛtarāṣṭra presented water,
madhuparka and a high breed cow for the reception of
Bhagavān Janārdana.
(c) When Lord Sri Krsna came to Duryodhana’s place, there
too the gift of a cow with madhuparka is mentioned -
तिन गा ् ंमधपकु  चादकु ं च जनादन े।
िनवदयामास े तदा गहान ृ रा ् ंच कौरवः ॥
(Udyoga-parva 91.9,10)
meaning -- Kururāja (Duryodhana) offered water,
madhuparka, cow and his palace and kingdom on the ocassion.
Srimad-Bhāgavata Mahāpurāṇaby Anandatirtha sharma 251
(a) When Akrūra arrived in Braja, Lord Krsna received him
with madhuparka rite and presented a cow in gift.
पाथृ ागतंतैिनवे च वरासनम ।्
ा िविधवत पादौ ् मधपका ु ह णमाहरत  ॥्
िनवे गांचाितथयेसवां ामातः ।
अंबगणु ंमे ंयोपाहरद ्िवभःु॥ (10-38-38,39)
meaning - Then, enquiring about his safe arrival and giving
him an excellent seat, Balarāma washed his feet with due
ceremony and fetched (for him) an offering called madhuparka
(consisting of honey, clariﬁed butter and curds). Again,
bestowing on the guest of cow and massaging him, weary as
he was, the almighty Lord respectfully and with (great)
reverence brought (for him) pure food endowed with manifold
excellence.
(b) When Kauravas honoured Balarāma with madhuparka
rite, there too, a cow was presented.
तंस यथाायंगामच वदयन े ।्
तषा े ंयेतभावाः णमेःुिशरसा बलम ॥् (Bhāgavata 10-68-19)
meaning - They received Balarāma with due honours and
offered Him arghya (water for washing His hands with) and a
cow; and such of them as knew His greatness saluted Him with
their heads (bent low).
(c) When Sudāma visited Dvāraka, the reception to him
included the gift of a cow, even though reception by
madhuparka rites is not clearly speciﬁed :
धपूःैसरिभिभिम ु  ंदीपाविलिभमदा ु ।252 blunders of indological scholars
अिचाऽऽव  े तालू ंगांच ागतमवीत ॥्
(Bhāgavata 10-80-22)
meaning - Having joyfully worshipped His friend with
scented fumes and rows of lights, and offering him betel-leaf
seasoned with catechu, lime, areca-nut parings and cloves etc.,
and a cow, the Lord greeted the Brahmana with sweet words.
(d) On his arrival at the place of Bahulāśva in Janakapura,
when Lord Krsna was given a reception with madhuparka rite,
gift of a cow is very explicit :
सकुटुो वहन म् ा ू पजया ू ईरान ।्
गमााराकधपदीपा ू गोव  षृ ःै॥ (Bhāgavata10.86.29)
meaning - King Bahulāśva sprinkled that all-purifying water
on his head and on his relatives and worshipped the Lord as
well as the divine sages by offering them sandal-paste, ﬂowers,
textiles, ornaments, scented fumes, lights, oblations of water,
cow and oxen.
Several similar examples can be found in the Puraṇas. But
there is not a single instance, wherein beef or any other kind
of meat is served with madhuparka. Even at present, the meat
eaters will not accept in madhuparka the raw meat obtained by
slaughter of any animal on the spot.
Is Beef Possible in Madhuparka?
Manu-smṛƟ
(To be read three lines above from bottom of page 113)
The aforesaid stanza 5.41 of the Manu-smṛti is not
authentic, as is proved by the statement made by Bhīṣma- by Anandatirtha sharma 253
pitāmaha while preaching duties to Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira. The
stanza reads as follows in the Śāntiparva of the Mahābhārata :
सवकम िह  ंसा िह धमाा  मनरवीत ु ।्
कामकाराद ्िविहंसि बिहवा  ंपशनू नराः ् ॥
(Gitapress 265.5; Bhandarkar 257.5)
meaning - Holy Manu has prescribed ahimsā (non-violence)
only in all performances. Out of their selﬁsh desires, i.e.,
induced by the desire of eating meat and pretending that
slaying of animals in yajna is not himsā (violence), people
slaughter animals on the outer altar of the yajna.
Is Beef possible in Madhuparka?
UƩara-Rama-Carita and Mahavira-Carita
(To be read between lines 9-10 of page 124)
The above quoted सतेवतरी etc., (Mahāvīra carite
3.2) occurs just after इापितू िवध ःे etc., (Mahāvīra carite 3.1)
which is being addressed by Vasiṣṭha and Viśvāmitra to
Jāmadagnya Paraśurāma. Ealier King Janka has expressed :
ऋिषरयमितिथिरः े पामतदनुच मधपकु ः कतां
ोियाय ।(2.44)
That is, if he is a ṛṣi (sage), he may be offered a seat,
pādya (water for washing his feet) and arghya (water for
cleaning hands) and be honoured by offering madhuparka, ﬁt
for a śrotriya. The expression Samjnapyate vatsatarī सते
वतरी etc, is in the context of honouring with madhuparka
rite. It has already been discussed and proved that there is no
possibility of any kind of animal ﬂesh in madhuparka. 254 blunders of indological scholars
Prescription of the gift of a cow with madhuparka is also
indicated in the scriptures. In the phrase referred to
samjnapyate (सत) े is a word which may mean violence
(himsā) as well as non-violence (a-himsa). In the Sanskrit-
English Dictionary of Monier-Williams, page 1133, column 3,
samjnapana is interpreted as ‘causing agreement or harmony;
killing a sacriﬁcial animal’. In Atharva-veda 6.74.1-2 samjnapana
has the former meaning :
संवः पा ृ ंतः संमनािसं समुता ।
संवोऽयंणितभगः संवो अजीगमत ॥्
सपनंवो मनसोऽथो सपनंदः ।
अथो भग यांतने सपयािम वः ॥
Ralph T.H. Grifﬁth, in his translation of the Hymns of the
Atharva-veda, published by Master Khelari Lal and Sons,
Varanasi, third edn (1962, page 285) has translated these
mantras as follows : -
‘‘Close gathered be your bodies;
be your minds and vows in unison!
Here present Brahmaṇaspati and Bhaga have assembled you.
Let there be union of your minds,
let there be union of your hearts,
All that is troubled in your lot with this
I mend and harmonize.’’
Supporters of beef-eating interpret the words ‘samjnapyate
vatsatarī’ as ‘the heifer is ready for sacriﬁce’. As there is neither
gomedha nor another similar yajna performance, interpreting
‘samjnapyate’ as ‘killing a sacriﬁcial animal’ is not possible
according to Monier-Williams Dictionary. As the scriptures by Anandatirtha sharma 255
prescribe in gift of a cow in madhuparka rites, there are
historical examples of the gift of a cow in reception with
madhuparka, there is not a single historical example of beef
served with madhuparka, and as the meat-eaters even these
days would not accept raw meat with madhuparka obtained by
slaughter on the spot and as there is no possibility of any kind
of meat in madhuparka as discussed and proved ealier, the
only justiﬁed interpretation of the words ‘samjnapyate vatsatarī’
would be offering a heifer in gift to Jāmadagnya Paraśurāma
and thus making their union and harmony. The whole stanza
can be translated as follows -
(वतरी) The heifer (सत) े is offered to you as a gift.
(अ) ं Dishes (पत) े are being cooked (सिपिष ) in ghee. (ोिय)
O Śrotriya! (आगतोऽिस) you have come (ोियगहान ृ ) ्to the
house of śrotriya. (जषु नः) Please favour us by accepting our
hospitality.
Le the readers decide themselves as to which is the
appropriate interpretation with reference to the context of the
subject.
- - - - - - -
APPEAL OF THE COW
Poor cows bemoan their lot and humbly plead thus they : -
‘‘You human beings! how the quadrupeds us treat?
With milk we have like mother nursed you day by day;
You send us to the butcher’s house with death to meet.
‘‘The men who hope to fatten bodies their with beef,
And hence by killing brutely us their bellies fill;256 blunders of indological scholars
They will not lose the body, - seems they harbour such beliefOr carry it indeed along with them they will.
You do not seek to get well-built with milk we serve :
Derive nor joy from milk-products not few.
You want to drink our blood, then drink without reserve.
(1)
Ye born ‘mage of God! nothing too much for you.
‘‘Helpless are we poor creatures with no strength, no brawn.
You keep us or destroy, we are under you thumb.
Perhaps God too has now His help from us withdrawn;
‘We are your cows’ - what more can say poor cattle dumb?
‘‘Before our eyes our calves struggle for milk in vain,
While we, not minding that, provide you milk wholesome;
We feed on gross in woods, return to you again,
When grown up are those calves, they too your hacks become.
Goes on like this if process of our decay here,
Regard the sun as set in India's Fortune's sky.
The little verdure too that's left will disappear.
Death on this golden land will stalk and jackals cry.
- - - - - - -
(1). O priests of non-violence! nothing too much for you
Note : (Translated from ‘Bharata-Bharati’ of Rastra-kavi late
Shri Maithili Sharan Gupta, M.P.)

EVERY THING IS WITHIN THE TIME FRAME

Total Pageviews

Sunday, April 15, 2012

BLUNDERS OF INDOLOGICAL

No comments:

Post a Comment

Followers

M.MURALIMOHAN