Gayatri Mantra

ॐ भूर्भुवः स्वः । तत् सवितुर्वरेण्यं ।

भर्गो देवस्य धीमहि । धियो यो नः प्रचोदयात् ॥

Om bhūr bhuvah svah; tat savitur varenyam

bhargo devasya dhīmahi; dhiyo yo nah pracodayāt

“We meditate on the glory of that Being who has produced this universe; may He enlighten our minds.”

Listen to the Mantra here

 

How does one counter hate?

Isn’t that question wrong? Rather, should hate be countered at all?

Let’s view it another way. Is it wrong to hate?

What would someone’s answer be?

If I were to answer the question I would first ask who or what the object of hate was. There is or rather should be nothing wrong in hating an evil human being, a group or ideology that does evil and inspires evil behavior in it’s adherents.

Please remember that what I would consider evil may not necessarily be evil for the person or group manifesting it. This is more culture specific. To me Islam is evil, period. However, to the Muslim it is just the reverse. Should I hate Islam/Muslims? To the extent that Islam manifests itself in Muslims and Muslims manifest themselves in my life – there is cause for me to hate Islam and Muslims. So now the obvious question that innocents and babes-in-woods would ask is – what is hateful in Islam?

So in this light it is simply not hateful to hate.

Liberals very often misinterpret fighting hate-fulness as a manifestation of hate itself. They see the means by which this hate-fulness is being fought. A means they, the liberals, find offensive. Interestingly liberals will never oppose similar means when used against their own pet hates. (for instance, maximum violence against Hindu nationalists will never bring protesting liberals onto the streets) So liberals too can hate; only they do not call it that. They call it a fight against hate.

Now, what distinguishes the hate of the liberal and the hate of the conservative-traditionalist? Values.

If the liberal value be that all cultures and religions are equal then his hate will be focused on those that do not subscribe to his creed of equality.

When evil manifests itself as a consequence of such a liberal creed and this cause and consequence is recognized and hated by the conservative-traditionalist; that is the hate displayed by the conservative-traditionalist.

Ultimately it is not hate that should be countered but evil – it’s cause and it’s manifestations.

How do we recognize evil and it’s effects?

To me anything that is subversive of the well-being of Hindusthan’s society, culture and civilization is evil. I cannot feel compassion towards this and such subversive elements.

So when readers read this article, they will know how much of the facts have been air-brushed to meet liberal requirements.

- Namaste

 

Armed Forces – A question of representation

Let me admit that my first impulse to write this post was the incident at Fort Hood, Texas. We all know that this incident involved an American Muslim psychiatrist in the US Army – and the disgruntlement he reportedly felt about America’s wars with Muslim countries etc. Naturally questions are being raised about the wisdom of forced mirroring of society in the armed forces. I have used the word forced  more in the sense of implications of political correctness and it’s demands on society’s obliging liberal leaders.

In Hindusthan our armed forces have off and on faced questions that settle on concern about a lack of “fair representation” of all sections of society. Meaning, does the Hindusthan Army, Navy, Air Force and other special forces have a representative sprinkling of civil societal diversities? The answer is no.

From my reading the following can be cited as reasons for the “non-representative” quality of our armed forces with particular reference to Muslims :

1. Historical reasons

- The concept of martial races introduced by the British. The British seemed to favor those groups in Hindusthan that were least susceptible to sedition, especially after 1857.

- The fight for and formation of Pakistan. This phase denuded the British-Hindusthan armed forces of close to 30% of it’s Muslim soldiery, especially in the Officer Corp.

2. Post – Partition reasons

- Wars and unrest with neighboring Islamic countries

- Even though there have been instances of individual Muslim gallantry in the Hindusthan army’s field operations, the willingness to trust Muslim soldiers or even Muslim civilians at the borders, do not seem to be at the same levels as with non-Muslims

3. Economic and Social reasons

- Typically, a lack of adequate education amongst Muslims

So there is a real “trust deficit” when it comes to Muslims. Some people compare this with the position of Sikhs and the fact that there was Khalistani terrorism against Hindus and dissenting fellow Sikhs; and ask how come the Sikhs are more than represented in the forces.

These people miss the entire point of historical processes and how societies bind themselves with each other. In fact the case of Sikh over-representation in the Hindusthan armed forces is the strongest case in favor of my proposed argument. Additionally the fact that no Hindu objects or has objected (except in the short phase right after Smt Gandhi’s assassination) to such a demographic ”imbalance” in the forces proves beyond doubt that not-withstanding flux, some societies are meant to live with and protect each other. The Sikhs btw have also been in the fore-front of wars against various Muslim invaders and conquerors. Their conferred role as the “sword-arm” of Hindudom may seem a bit exaggerated but this is more indicative of the trust this community retains in this country and with Hindus. A similar role can never be played by the Muslims, no matter how gallant individuals amongst them are.

My basic argument is that societies and it’s protectors have intrinsic and emotional linkages with each other. It is not possible, otherwise, for the protector to protect his society. This reasoning may seem to be at variance with the liberal idea of a “professional” armed force, where soldiers are expected to do their duty, period, without any emotional investment toward the society they protect; but there are reasons why liberals assume ”professionalism” implies a lack of “emotional attachment”. These reasons, academically dry in nature and thoroughly devoid of the processes of natural social bonding are akin to liberal reductionism. An illustration might suffice to make my point clearer:

In any article about Hindusthan’s army, it’s professionalism comes in for most admiration. It is contrasted sharply and favorably too, against the record of armed forces in our neighborhood – Bangladesh and Pakistan in particular. However there is one other comparison that stands out – behavior during religious conflict. It is said and perhaps this opinion is consensual; that Hindusthan’s armed forces act in a highly professional and impartial manner whilst dealing with rioters and therefore command greater credibility amongst Muslims, the assumed under-dog in any such conflict.

Some possibly mischievous implications may be borne in mind -

1. That Hindus do not see our armed forces as impartial during religious conflict.

2. That the armed forces who act more impartially when contrasted with police and paramilitary forces (the two are normally deployed first in cases of riots) do so because they (armed forces) are not communalized or religiously *influenced* to the extent the police and paramilitary forces are.

Now let us assume the argument that the armed forces are indeed impartial and that the police and paramilitary forces are partial towards Hindus – why then have we never witnessed Hindu resentment against armed forces when they intervene in riots? (Bear in mind “impartiality” implies proportionate Hindu dead bodies to Muslims killed). This is in sharp contrast to Muslim resentment against any police or paramilitary intervention.

The only sensible and rational deduction that can be made is that Hindus trust their forces – be they the army or the police and paramilitary personnel, to do the right thing. The Muslims seem only to trust those who cannot have known them closely. Army soldiers live in secluded barracks quite unlike the police etc. who go home daily to families and normal social lives.

The intrinsic and natural link between the Hindus and Hindusthan’s armed forces is clear.

Please consider the fact that in most historical societies, soldiery has been a tradition. This means that there have been families of soldiers. Members of such families choose to join the forces out of a sense of tradition and therefore are prepared likewise from an early age. In the case of Hindu society, such a tradition was carried on by various Kshatriya or like groups. I’m not here referring only to purely traditional warrior castes, even though that is how they developed but to people who knew they had it in them to take up the role of protectors.  The Kodavas for instance have not been nominally seen as Kshatriyas and there is no reason why they should not rightfully claim that title, but they are Hindu and are largely and traditionally dedicated to soldiery. This was how the warrior classes developed largely until the advent of the British and their acts of omission and commission wrt Empire inspired “Martial Races”. Still even the British limited themselves to those classes that were traditional warriors.

Now the reason why some groups and classes of Hindu society developed themselves as protectors was simple. The larger society trusted them to take up that role. A case of natural selection if you please. Why should such selection be natural and not be made a matter of academics and mere physical prowess – as is being suggested these days to “correct” the representational imbalance wrt Muslims? The reason is that “trust” cannot be academically manufactured. Nor can trust be generated by a show of strength. If the latter were the case, the Muslims would have been accepted quite easily given the fact of their military dominance the last 600 odd years in our history. This very fact, ironically, is working against them now.

- Namaste

–Varta–

Palahalli S – So a proportional representation in our armed forces – in order to better mirror the “diversity” in society should never be attempted. This of course flies in the face of any liberal agenda that would take my proposed inaction as somehow repressive of the Muslim minority.

So be it.

There are two sources I reviewed to write this article.

1. Muslims In The Forces

2. Ongoing discussion of the Fort Hood massacre at VFR.

I will strongly recommend Hindu readers follow the VFR discussions because they constantly refer to arguments in the US media, that Hindusthan’s liberals and communists use to bolster their case for proportionate representation. In many many cases, we are on the same plane.

Ku. Kavitha writes –

Palahalli,

Isn’t it ironic that even the Pakistani army are distrusting the devout, beard sporting Muslims to be their soldiers these days…LOL so also the Bangladesh Army after the failed coup attempt against Begum Khaleed Zia’s fledgeling government.

It is just a matter of time, before you see a backlash against the Muslims in the US army if the trend continues.

Palahalli S replies –

Your information may well be accurate Kavitha but what can this change in attitude to Islamic beards really change? The Fort Hood killer Nidal for instance never sported a beard.

It is excellent that Hindusthan keeps Muslim representation in the forces at round 2%. It must never get higher. Lower it can, but not higher.

In fact I’m finding that Hindus are mighty more realistic about Muslims than when compared with White Westerners.

 

Fatwas issued by Darul Uloom, Deoband

This Islamic institution is not just *popular* for it’s fatwa against the singing of Vande Mataram by Muslims, but for various other fatwas including the one purportedly against terrorism.

On the sidebar of this site (under I’m reading) is linked the database that holds all the fatwas issued by the school. It’s a useful read.

- Namaste

 

Shri Anil Dharker and the liberal’s analysis

There are several reasons why silly liberal views must not be ignored but analysed. Amongst them;

1. Because they are the prevailing viewpoint of our times

2. By prevailing I mean the view largely held by the elite

3. That when not challenged and ignored such views gain even more legitimacy

4. Because they win newsprint space

 But first, this man’s liberal credentials from Wikipedia;

Anil Dharker is an Indian columnist. His articles appear in several Indian newspapers such as the Times of India, Mid-Day, The Hindu, Gulf News, and other similar publications. He has been editor of The Illustrated Weekly of India, The Independent, MidDay, Sunday MidDay. He has also been a producer, anchor and interviewer, head of a TV Channel and critic on The Sunday Times of India and The Sunday Observer. In addition, he has also written a book on state television broadcaster Doordarshan — “Sorry, Not Ready”, published by Harper Collins. He is the father of actress Ayesha Dharker.

Next, his article in DNA;

For Muslims, the enemy lies within

Who are Islam’s worst enemies? Not the west, not the United States of America, not Jews, not extremist Hindus…. Islam’s worst enemies are Muslims.  (Pala S – It is important to remember that for Shri Dharker (D), the Muslim is completely innocent. He (the Muslim) cannot have any legitimate enemy. He can have only aggressors. So this question is actually rhetorical, not factual. Let’s move on)I am not a religious scholar, but people whose opinions I respect and who have studied the Koran and Islam, talk of it being an enlightened religion, and also speak highly of its reiteration of  universal human values. (Pala S – Unfortunately for Shri D the unanimity amongst Muslim scholars about Islam’s innocence is well-known. Unless he starts to reveal the identity of his “opinion formers”, there is little value in dissecting this point)

Yet Islam is constantly being misinterpreted in the most grotesque way. First, there are the extremists who themselves are safely ensconced in hiding places in Afghanistan, Pakistan, Saudi Arabia and Iraq but brainwash poor young men into ‘martyring’ themselves in the cause of Islam  and while doing so take a huge toll of innocent lives (many of them Muslim). (Pala S – Misinterpreted how? Shri D never says. This worthy cares to remind us that there are extremists ensconced in amongst other places, Saudi Arabia too. But of course the rest of Saudi Arabia is liberal to the bone! This apart, what one encounters whilst dealing with non-Muslim liberals, about Islam, is this constant and consistent contradiction in their stances – there is always a minority of majority Muslim extremists)

Read the chilling conversations between Kasab and his fellow terrorists with their Pakistani handlers: “Allah ke pyare ho jao” the handlers cynically tell the young terrorists sending them to their doom. (Pala S – That this should surprise Shri D and make him speechless is understandable given the quality of his liberal conscience. However my bewilderment is with the fact that he calls Kasab’s “handlers” cynical. Does he not think that they actually believed these “martyrs” will be Allah’s favorites? There is only one reason why Islamists have never run out of Muslim jihadis – that’s because they (the various handlers) have retained their credibility and commitment to their “cause”)

Their terrorism has reached such a scale worldwide that the ordinary non-political Muslim has felt compelled to come out in the open to voice their protests. This was particularly evident after 26/11, when every march denouncing the atrocities always contained a sizeable number of Muslims, and every television discussion featured prominent Muslims expressing their denunciations as angrily and vehemently as everyone else. (Pala S – Who is this “ordinary non-political Muslim”? Did such a Muslim keep quite when the Babri Masjid was destroyed? Or did he scream bloody murder when lakhs of truly innocent Kashmiri Hindus were ethnically cleansed by Muslims, and driven from their own homeland in Hindusthan? Why was the occasion of the uber-recent slaughter of Hindus in Mumbai “particularly evident” in terms of Muslim reactions against Islamic terror? 

Someone recently pointed out to me that Muslims in Mumbai never agreed to bury Kasab’s dead jihadi comrades in their local cemeteries. I asked this friend what had happened to the thousands of dead jihadis killed before and since, Mumbai? Where were they all buried or were they not buried at all?!)

A very important voice that was added to these was the voice of the cleric culminating in the Darul  Uloom at Deoband, issuing a fatwa against terrorism on February 25, 2008. (“Islam rejects all kinds of unwarranted violence, breach of peace, bloodshed, killing and plunder and does not allow it in any form”). (Pala S – I will advise readers to dwell upon this fatwa. “(Islam rejects all kinds of unwarranted violence..)”. Now, what is “unwarranted” violence can be decided only by Muslims and not non-Muslims. For instances the ongoing killings of Israelis is not “unwarranted violence”. Islamic terror in Kashmir and the rest of Hindusthan is not “unwarranted violence”, Xinjiang is not “unwarranted violence” and so is not Chechnya - this is why we cannot find fatwas against such violence. This Deoband fatwa serves a political purpose like all others. It helps put liberals like Shri D to sleep)

Then comes the Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind’s 30th General Assembly at Deoband last week held to usher in social and educational reforms. But for some reason, the  conference reiterated a resolution it had passed in 2006, saying that Muslims should not recite Vande Mataram as “parts of the song are against the tenets of Islam”. (Pala S – It should be remembered that the secular State of Hindusthan recognized only the first two stanzas of Vande Mataram. The remainder were deemed unfit for Muslim tongues. Now Islamic gangsters, true to their calling, push the envelope further and say the entire song is blasphemy – and this surprises Shri D. Liberals are constantly surprised with the obvious)

Why did they do it? Three years ago the resolution had caused a furore and given the Hindutva brigade something to shout about.  Was there a compelling reason to bring up the question again? Or are the Deobandis deliberately making life difficult for the ordinary Muslim by bringing up provocative resolutions?  As it happens, the 10,000 clerics gathered there, gave even more evidence to the rest of the nation that they are determined to keep India’s Muslim population as backward as possible. They opposed the women’s reservation bill, advocated a special syllabus for girl students, made it compulsory for even young girls to wear the purdah, opposed the government’s effort to reform the madrasa system of education, etcetera, etcetera. (Pala S – A sleight of hand should be recognized here. There would have been no furore if the “Hindutva brigade” had not shouted about it. It was/is beneath liberal conscience to fight for National honor. As for the rest, my position is that if Muslims want to live in Islamic splendor, let them.  Inspite of all the liberal angst Shri D displays here, no Muslim will really oppose the Deoband school)

In short, they made it clear that they want to ghettoise Muslims and make it impossible for them to join the mainstream life of  a modern vibrant India. (Pala S – The mainstream is non-Islamic. How can Muslims join it?)

What are the credentials of these clerics?  What gives them the authority to speak for all Muslims? They have been described as ‘scholars’ but have they studied  any of the subjects that a 21st century citizen of the world must know? How many women are there in that 10,000 strong gathering? If none, what empowers these men to speak about what women should do? (Pala S – Fool! Bloody fool! Sorry, couldn’t resist. The Deoband school is an Islamic school. Their scholars are scholars of Islam. No wonder liberals carry zilch credibility amongst Islamists even though they are such useful idiots (for them))

The Muslim community which came out in such strength against terrorism must now publicly distance itself from the reactionary fatwas of the Deoband conclave. They have already made it amply clear that they belong to India,  something they did not have to do. Now they must make it equally clear that they want to belong to a modern India. (Pala S – A word about the Muslim “protest” against Islamists. The massacre at Mumbai was the most televised and prolonged event in Hindusthan’s modern history. The killers employed, were Muslims. They were killing for a Muslim cause. Their targets were non-Islamic.

To cite Muslim victims of these killers and say the killers were against “Indians” as a whole, is a liberal spin and perversity. But such is the use of the *useful liberal idiots* that Muslim organizations dramatized their “strong protests” against Muslim killers and additionally, refused to bury their dead bodies.

This now is bandied about as “proof of patriotism” and other assorted unknown Muslim virtues)

–Varta–

Palahalli S - Why do liberals indulge in such subterfuge? It’s because they are given the space to do it. More, much of their propaganda is ignored by Hindu nationalists as “ever flowing water” they cannot be expected to waste their time with.

However, it is necessary that each such instance is challenged as best as one can – and spoken about.

 

The scorpion and the Rishi

Many many years ago someone narrated to me this simple tale but I forget where he stopped :

A great Rishi was meditating along the banks of a river,

When a slight splash in the water disturbed his deep sense.

He opened his eyes and looked just beyond the bank,

And found the cause, a scorpion had dropped off a tree.

Deeply imbued as he was, this Rishi, with a sense of Dharma,

Stretching out his hand reached the witless struggling scorpion and picked it up.

Ah! The pain! Perhaps missed by the blessed one..immersed in his Dharmic duty,

He nevertheless places the innocent scorpion on safe land and returns to his state.

Many minutes pass and the great one hears the little splash again,

Without a thought adverse, he does his good deed …Ahh! Pain!

Ignored and returned to his inner self.

A curious passersby, also a keen observer quickly goes up to the Rishi and asks,

Tell me Sire, I have been watching what you do to help the scorpion.

It stung you twice and I think you will bring it out of the river again, if it fell,

Why?

The great one looks up from his mat and smiles a slight smile.

“The scorpion is not at fault my good friend, it is after-all it’s Dharma to sting when touched by strange hands. And,

It is my Dharma to bring it out of the water and save it.”

The observer, who is listening intently and watching the scorpion climb up the tree again,

Asks a simple question.

Is it?

- Namaste

 

Should Hindus be angry about Muslims not singing Vande Mataram?

I think this is a question, an issue, that is larger than it’s creators. It speaks about what Hindus think of who they are. Its speaks of a confusion that persists about our own National Identity and who might share in it. It speaks also of a lack of recognition of those that do not share in this National Identity and the reasons thereof and what we should do about it, if at all.

On Tuesday, Deobandi organisation Jamiat Ulema-e-Hind asked members of the community not to sing Vande Mataram and supported the Darul Uloom opposing any recitation involving the song.

“The fatwa of Darul Uloom [opposing the recitation of Vande Mataram] is correct,” said one of the 25 resolutions passed at its 30th general session, in the presence of Union home minister P Chidambaram. Darul Uloom issued the edict in 2006, describing the recitation of Vande Mataram as anti-Islamic.

The BJP was quick to attack the home minister, with party vice-president Mukhtar Abbas Naqvi accusing Chidambaram of providing legitimacy to the fatwa. The minister, however, claimed innocence. A statement issued by his office said he was not present in Deoband when the resolution was adopted.

Shiv Sena executive president Uddhav Thackeray also hit out against the Jamiat-Ulema-e-Hind for issuing the fatwa, saying those who oppose the national song should go to Pakistan.

The fatwa drew mixed reactions from Muslim leaders, with one section voicing disapproval against the raising of a “dead issue” at a time when the community has more serious matters to address, and another noting that singing the Vande Mataram (or not) should not be the criteria to define patriotism.

Are people who choose not to sing India’s national song unpatriotic? Or is it against the nature of democracy for leaders to lash out at those who peacefully express their opinion?

–Varta–

Palahalli S - This is what Shri Gandhi said, at various times:

On 2 December, 1905, in Indian Opinion, he wrote:

“The song, it is said, has proved so popular that it has come to be our National Anthem… Just as we worship our mother, so is this song a passionate prayer to India.”

On 27 April, 1915, at a meeting in Madras, which began with the song, he said:

“You have sung that beautiful song, on hearing which all of us sprang to our feet. The poet has lavished all the adjectives we possibly could to describe Mother India … it is for you and me to make good the claim that the poet has advanced on behalf of his Motherland.”

In January 1939, after the continuing criticism of the stance adopted by Congress in its 1937 CWC statement, Gandhi placed before the CWC at its meeting in Wardha, a draft statement which was marked ‘Strictly Confidential. Not for publication’:

“As for the singing of the long-established national song, Vande Mataram, the Congress, anticipating objections, has retained as national song only those stanzas to which no possible objection could be taken on religious or other grounds. But except at purely Congress gatherings it should be left open to individuals whether they will stand up when the stanzas are sung. In the present state of things, in local Board and Assembly meetings which their members [are] obliged to attend, the singing of Vande Mataram should be discontinued.”

On 1 July 1939, in Harijan, he published an essay in which he said that “Vande Mataram was a powerful battle cry” and that he himself “as a lad” was enthralled by it:

“It never occurred to me that it was a Hindu song or meant only for Hindus. Unfortunately, now we have fallen on evil days. All that was pure gold has become base metal today. In such times, it is wisdom not to market pure gold and let it be sold as base metal. I would not risk a single quarrel over singing Vande Mataram at a mixed gathering. It will never suffer from disuse. It is enthroned in the hearts of millions.”

On 23 August, 1947, at a prayer meeting in Alipore, Calcutta, he said, “That was no religious cry. It was a political cry … It should never be a chant to insult or offend the Muslims” and asked Muslims to appreciate the historic association of Vande Matram with the freedom movement. But, needless to say, he counselled against any imposition. Every act, he characteristically said, must be purely voluntary.

And here is the one mistake we Hindus continue to make -

Nathuram Godse :

“It is notorious that some Muslims disliked the celebrated song of Vande Mataram and the Mahatma forthwith stopped its singing or recital wherever he could… It continued to be sung at all Congress and other national gatherings but as soon as one Muslim objected to it, Gandhiji utterly disregarded the national sentiment behind it and persuaded the Congress also not to insist upon the singing as the national song. We are now asked to adopt Rabindranath Tagore’s Jana Gana Mana as a substitute of Vande Mataram. Could anything be more demoralising or pitiful…?”

I continue - Without making it an academic discourse, what I would like to ask is who are the people in Hindusthan who might take no offense to Vande Mataram and what it means? What if we call them Nationals of Hindusthan?

Would it be far from the truth?

Now, who are those people who will take offense? Shall we call them Muslims? I know of no other minority that resists, if at all, Vande Mataram as much as the Muslims do. So let’s call the dissenters Muslims – the Minority.

Is a Minority expected to share in the National life? If yes, on what grounds? If no, then is that a problem?

If Hindus expect Muslims to share in their National life, then will the Muslim remain one? Especially since he knows that a Hindu oriented National life is not his; cannot be his? Isn’t that what this entire issue about?

I believe Hindu organizations like the VHP make the fundamental mistake that was made by Shriman Godse in his statement – To protest righteous Muslim intransigence while not protesting their (Muslim)*involvement* in our national life. If we do the latter, the former becomes redundant.

Why do Hindus forget that Muslims as minority, need not be part of this country’s National life? There is no reason for Hindus to be surprised with Muslims protesting Vande Mataram when they, the Muslims, are asked to sing it. What else is expected of them?

But when we do protest such dissent against our Hindu National life, we tend to otherwise crave for Muslim acceptance of it. So much like wooing a lover who is simply not interested.

The perfect thing to do is to ignore the bitch and get on with our National life.

There is always the matter of dalals like Shri Chidambaram who try their filthy hands at match-making. They should be told in no uncertain terms that Hindus can find their own companions in life. To that extent, Hindu anger is justified.

Hindu nationalists who protest Muslim isolationism must never forget Veer Savarkar’s mantra -

“If you come, with you – if you don’t, without you – if you oppose, inspite of you!”

 

Do we really recognize the issue?

Who is shocked by this report? Anyone? Is there anybody perceptive enough, who has missed these signals? I mean, is even the constituency as limited as “teens” or has the trap spread wider?

Before reading further let us recall the theme of our times : Liberalism that incubates Individual Rights and Equality of the Sexes. Are we as a society that is slowly slipping down the slippery slope, willing to touch these two major causes of our society’s impending decay? I say impending because the decay can be arrested today.

However, it can only be arrested if we start to recognize that with Individual Rights come responsibility toward the wellbeing of our society. If such wellbeing is threatened, then society and it’s institutions must overrule Individual Rights.

That Equality of the Sexes is a modern myth that has led societies elsewhere and will lead us, toward untold suffering and pain. That women and men have their own special roles and responsibilities toward each other and toward their families.  That nothing that endangers family and society is really worth keeping and nurturing.

Are we urban folks in Hindusthan prepared to recognize the issues involved? I have my doubts.

- Namaste

Help, Bangalore’s teens need you

K Brindaa Lakshmi / DNA

Bangalore’s weakest underbelly is its vulnerable teen population. Alcohol and drugs are breaking the age barrier as young students turn into addicts. 

Just 16 years old, Rajesh is being treated for alcohol addiction. He still goes to a PU college and attends classes regularly. He joined a recovery programme when Alcoholics Anonymous (AA) began its formalised campus awareness modules for the first time on a large scale this academic year.

AA campus programmes are aimed at young adults, students from standards 8-10 and PUC students in the age group 15-18. The programmes are being offered as part of value-education classes.

While this was just an informal exercise on a few campuses earlier, this year five institutions have been covered under the programme. Earlier, the programme covered only one hour per college. This year the programme has taken a new avatar with one-hour programmes for each PU class in the campus.

Some colleges have covered up to 22 hours. Experts warn that teen alcoholism and substance abuse is a growing and worrying trend. As part of the programme, former alcoholics and family members of alcoholics interact with students talking to them about their experiences and AA’s role in their recovery. Programmes like Alateen (for teens) and Al-anon (for family members of alcoholics) are also held.

“Students are into substance abuse at a younger age now due to problems they face at home: Stress is high, parent-child interaction is low and peer pressure is immense,” says Nisha Mehta, a value education teacher from a PU college that has completed the programme. “Parents often use money to make up for their absence; children misuse the money.” (Pala S – With more fathers and mothers working, there seems to be no support for the child. “Nuclear” families have already distanced the caring hands of grandparents)

AA members say city teenagers are extremely vulnerable to substance and alcohol abuse. “I started drinking when I was 13 years old. I went into recovery at 18. Peer pressure is high during early college years. Awareness is vital to let them know that recovery is available and possible at any age,” says Pradeep, public information officer, AA.

“Awareness is important to differentiate between (alcohol) addiction and substance abuse. Addiction is a brain disease that is caused with anything, not just alcohol and drugs. Only 5% of the male population and an even smaller percentage of female population are addicts. Several problems arise as byproducts of substance abuse like drink-driving and unsafe sex,” says Vivek Benegal, associate professor of psychiatry, NIMHANS, Bangalore. (Pala S – So here’s the catch. This doctor cannot recognize a fish when he catches one. Why is it important to differentiate between addiction and abuse? Let the doctors do that.

Is casual sex fine as long as you are “protected”? Our unearning youngsters drinking is fine as long as they “know their limits”?

Some Hindu nationalists believe speaking about such dangers is being prudish and “Victorian”. I don’t think so. I believe Hindu tradition speaks of responsibilities of the individual. The individual exercises Rights in proportion to the Responsibility he accepts toward himself and society.

Students’ names changed to protect identities.

 

Shri Chidambaram and the Jamiat Ulema-i-Hind

The issue of the rejection of Vande Mataram by Hindusthan’s Muslim minority is an old one; almost as old as the composition of the song itself. I think that to express surprise and disgust over the summary rejection of Hindusthan’s national song par excellence is a waste of time and a display of Hindu naivety.

The big point is not the Muslim attitude to Vande Mataram but Shri Chidambaram and his ilk, the attitude of Hindusthan’s elite who will accept invitations from organizations like the Jamiat and make supplicant speeches in their gatherings.

The passing of provocative and in many cases anti-national resolutions was the third item on the program and Shri Chidambaram’s speech was the eighth. There was no way this minister could have been ignorant of what had already transpired.  And yet he went ahead and made a wholly unnecessary and idiotic speech praising to high heavens his guests for the day. Perhaps it is too much to expect any assertion of self-respect from our politicians – be they of the Congress or the BJP – he could have cited the resolutions and made a graceful exit on point of order.

Shri Chidambaram unfailingly insists he is an intelligent man who should be taken seriously. Yet his stances on the Ishrat Jahan & Co. affidavit, anti-Naxalite flip-flops and now this episode seem to put paid to any such claim to high IQ, let alone prioritising national security, which as Home Minister, is his prime and sacred duty.

- Namaste

–Varta–

A reader, Pharoah, observes -

Pala,

This is the same guy who ridicules Arun Shourie as the only person with a above 60 IQ in the BJP and is always drafted to do any work that requires an IQ more than 60

Be that as it may, PC’s chicanery and flipflops are legendary. He ran down the gains made by NDA in the economic/finance arena, after he took over as the FM. Now he is the Home Minister after 26/11 bombay mayhem. Luckily there is nothing left by his predecessor (either LKA or Shivraj Patil) to run down by PC. That is a saving grace for us.

Palahalli S responds -

Well, always in a tragic replay just when we think a depth cannot be reached it gets crossed by these worthies. Is real defeat the only medicine that can cure such behavior?

 

Beef and the Hindus – Shri Kedar’s summation

I’d like to present, unmolested by my annoying asides, Shri Kedar’s passionate summation of his case as we approach the final stages of this debate -

He writes -

About sushruta samhita, Bhandarkar says that it recommends beef for certain patients and pregnant women. Let us see if that is the case.

Here are the relevant verses:

sutra sthaanam, adhyaya 46, verse 89:
svaasa-kaasa pratishyaaya vishamajvara-naashanam |
shrama-atyaagni-hitam gavyam pavitram-anilaapaham ||

The translation that is found here  is correct:

“Beef is holy and refrigerant, proves curative in dyspnoea, catarrh, cough, chronic fever and in cases of a morbid craving for food (Atyagni), and destroys the deranged Vayu.

My observations:

1) Sushruta was not just a doctor, he was more importantly, a rishi.

2) This verse merely states the medicinal properties of the flesh of cow.

3) Also, there is no recommendation here. Just plain simple fact, in a long line of medicinal properties of other animals’ flesh. A hindu like me cannot imagine that vedic people who inspired people like Aurobindo were busy treating themselves with cats, dogs, mice, birds, etc. for common ailments.

4) At the beginning of every chapter, Sushruta states “athovaacha bhagavaan dhanvantarih”. Dhanvantari Himself dictated the entire text to him. Now whether it is taken to mean that Lord Dhanvantari himself wants us to eat beef, or that he has simply told the characteristics of the flesh of every single animal to sushruta to be used when necessary depends on the sabhyata (civility) of the reader.

sharira sthaanam, adhyaya 3, verse 25, line-ii:
gavaam maamse tu balinam sarvakleshsaham tathaa ||

This line translates to: “A pregnant woman who craves to eat the flesh of a cow shall have a son who is strong and capable of withstanding all difficulties”.

1) Again, this is an observation, in a list of what sort of craving on the part of a pregnant woman produces what sort of result.

2) This is not a recommendation as stated by bhandarkar.

3) One cannot give any logical reasoning why a pregnant woman would want to eat the flesh of a cow. This topic is extremely subjective and I would just bow down to Dhanvatari and sushruta and accept it as it is.

Conclusion:

My effort in this debate, though begun as an impulsive and emotional response, has later been thoroughly guided by the learned in the process. No amount of thanks would suffice in this regard. My head is at their feet for their help.

I realise that a lot more work needs to be done in this regard to rid the commonly circulated myths about Indic texts supporting beef consumption of the German “Aryan” and “Eurocentrist” malignant tumours. Most of the english translations have been done by people who had no idea about our past. These translations are being eagerly lapped up by India’s internet savvy citizens. The explanations of the learned are being viewed with suspicion and openly denied. Instead, people are preferring peer-reviewed books and articles, though they are reviewed by the same kind of people who translated them. There is a complete disconnect between the kind of people who wrote our texts, and the kind of people who peer-review the books. The assumption is that there are no direct descendants of the vedic seers currently. The learned are being denied their rightful status as the direct heirs of the vedic seers by our own people.

But I have indeed shown that with a little help from these few resplendent gems who still live in the vedic age unaffected by the advent and passing of jina, buddha, christ, and muhammad, we can go a long way in countering these myths with the light of reality. Another important aspect of why I took up this debate even in the light of overwhelming body of evidence stacked up since the past 25 years against me on the internet is that I would like any readers who stumble on this page to know what exactly do our ancient texts say in this regard, and to advise them to learn samskrtam so that they can lend their hand in this struggle to become ourselves again.

A word of grudging thanks:

A Ravana was needed for Rama to take birth on this earth;
A Kamsa was needed for Krishna to be born.
A Palahalli was required for me to know what Asvalayana Gruhya Sutra says.

I end with a shloka from Bhartruhari’s Neeti shatakam:

अज्ञः सुखामाराध्यः सुखतरमाराध्यते विशेषज्ञः |
ज्ञानलवदुर्विदाग्धम् ब्रह्मापि नरम् न रंजयति ||   

“It is easy to convince an ignorant person. It is even easier to convince a learned person. But a person with half knowledge cannot be convinced by even Brahma himself”

srirastu. subhamastu. kalyanamastu.

 

What has the Paramacharya of Kanchi Kamakoti said about Vedic sacrifices

In my last post in the ongoing Beef and the Hindus debate, I had referred to the Paramacharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham’s observations on the subject -

I have taken two excerpts from his published work Hindu Dharma - these excerpts refer to his views on animal sacrifice in Vedic Dharma.

As asserted many times before, I concur with these views with pride in respect to the unambiguous assertion of the fact of animal sacrifice, including the sacrifice of the Cow in the Vedas.

- Namaste

 

Beef and the Hindus – Closing arguments and rejoinders

The debate so far – here

This continuing debate has been the longest on this website. I’m deeply thankful to all who have participated and continue to participate in the discussions.

I would like to take this opportunity to reiterate that no comment has been moderated and if at all I have thought a comment unworthy of the participant’s stature; due to it’s flippancy – I have merely struck it out, not deleted it.

I am under no false illusion about this website’s popularity and so have avoided any airs about my own supposed debating skills and other such prowess. I’m humbly thankful that knowledgeable readers have thought it worthwhile to debate on this forum. It is my hope that they will share their insights on other topics that are published here from time to time.

Let us now continue :

Since I was travelling today, I could not help but respond to some comments via email. I will treat these comments and the responses they have elicited as part of the ongoing discussions.

Post my last comment on the 2nd Nov, Shri Kedar responded – (The interjections in my name are the ones I responded by email)

1) “There is also the stipulation that there should be no copulation with a woman until the sacrifice ends. This does not mean the yajamana and his priest were bachelors. More likely this was the discipline.”

If it means there should be no copulation until the sacrifice ends, it means exactly that. People can hold their urge for a few hours (or even a few days), you know. In the same manner, if it says na maamsam ashneeyuh, it means exactly that– No meat until the ritual ends.

(Pala S – Precisely. It does NOT mean no meat at all. No one has heard of prasada being received during a sacrifice. It is only after)

2) Regarding madhuparka, I proved that there is no word in either Asvalayana Asvalayana gruhya sutra or its very first bhashya that says kill/immolate the cow. If Asvalayana wanted to say immolate/kill, he would have said it directly as in other instances. If cow sacrifice was so common in those days, where was the need to hide it using another word?

(Pala S – I think you are making an untenable assumption here. Please show me which other pashu was employed in sacrifices? Where else has Asvalayana spoken about sacrificing some other animal? Or are you saying no animal was sacrificed?)

2) “however, it is more likely that the term utsarga can mean “gifting” in many ways.” utsarga = setting free, causing to go, liberate, presenting, giving daana to a brahmana.

I will say this: Our vedic rishis have never lied or hid behind euphemisms.

(Pala S – I at least am not saying they have lied or hidden behind euphemisms. However they seem to have employed styles of language to get across their intent. Therefore “utsarga” can be said to mean liberating through sacrifice?)

3) “That’s the ritual. It does not necessarily mean the pashu had to agree to being sacrificed”

I am a Hindu. To me, the vedas are apourusheyas–eternal truths revealved to tapasvi rishis after ardent japa, tapa, yama, niyama, indriya parigraha, etc. When they say that a samjnaapana is made with an animal, to me, it suggests more than just a euphemism by dishonest priests wanting to sink their teeth into the animal’s innards.

(Pala S – I cannot understand why your bent on assuming the worst of intentions. Why should the priests have cooked up something like this? It is perfectly possible that they were convinced of the pact. This does not however, change the fact of the act)

You are questioning a core belief of my faith. If you do not believe that there was an agreement between the pashu and the priest, then please end this debate and claim victory. It is your blog and you have your compulsions of not daring to lose ever. I understand that. I am happy in believing that the rishis that gave our country the vedas were capable of certain siddhis. On any given day, shraddha, aasthaa, and bhakti carry more importance for a Hindu like me.

(Pala S - This is no argument. Anything can become possible with such  “truths”.

Moreover you have not explained how less of a Hindu were Shri Shastri and Shri Sharma. Why should I not trust their proven scholarship the same way you seem to insist on yours? Surely you do not suggest that they were incompetent or malicious?

It’s like I said earlier, why would a (non-beef eating)traditional Hindu consciously place a Cow where it simply is not, in the original?

We have indeed travelled far from MUM accepting Shri Sharma’s thesis as one of three main reference points. Were they also non-Hindu in their impulse?

I wonder what you would say against the Paramacharya of Kanchi’s “blunders” with Sanskrit grammar and interpretation?)

Swayamsevak writes – (My interjections as detailed, were on email)

Hi Palahalli

With all due regards to your vast knowledge and references, if you do not understand samskrit or cannot yourself translate the verses yourself, then at least be open to listen to what Shri Kedar is saying.

(Pala S - I’m a lay Hindu trying to understand better this phenomenon of sacred Cow leading to non-slaughter of the animal. The Cow protectors often claim that our scriptures have been mis-understood or have been mis-interpreted in a malicious manner, to prove that Cow sacrifice took place, where there was none. This seems to be Shri Kedar’s position and his is not a unique instance.

Now, I don’t have anything against Shri Kedar’s grasp of Sanskrit and his manner of textual interpretations. I’m sure they are excellent. However what should be done when Shri Kedar’s opinion is pitted against traditional scholars of Sanskrit? Even against his own references (MUM)?  What side should I take?

Therefore I use my common sense and logic)

In the Devaswamin bhashya I have provided, which is the basis for the Narayana Vritti bhashya, it explicitly states in simple samskrit (as Shri Kedar has clearly put it) above – “na ityuchyatE”.

Do you think there is any specific reason that a commentator should emphatically deny any ‘misinterpretation’? Yes, when there is a ‘possibility’ of misinterpretation. This is exactly what has happened when “nAmAmsa” was conveniently substituted with “namAmsa” omitting one negation out of a double negation!

(Pala S – On your query I believe I have already made my reasoning clear in my response to Shri Kedar)
—-
Also, if you could explain your thought train that took you from:
“reference of meat is present in this text (Grhya Sutra) and its properties are discussed (like in the Susruta Samhita reference)”

to

“cow meat was surely a part of hindu DAILY DIET”

(Pala S – If you could kindly point me to where I have said this, I might be able to show context and reason)

Shri Kedar summarises via email – (My interjections are made along-side)

Regarding Madhuparka, I have provided all the information that I have. I have nothing to add and all I can do now is summarise my observations:

1) I have shown that there is no word that says kill/slaughter the cow in the  Madhuparka context of either Asvalayana Gruhya Sutra, or its very first bhashya.

(Pala S – And yet there are references to pashu bali during yagnas. It is not my argument that all yagnas involved pashu bali, however those that did, involved the sacrifice of animals. Wrt animals, there is no mention of the types or kinds of animals that may be sacrified. Perhaps we need to look more closely; but what is glaring is the constant mention of cattle including the Cow. The stipulation that madhuparka may be taken with or without meat is besides the point and procedural. The point is the meat that is eaten)

2) I have shown that meat was not to be consumed during Madhuparka ritual. Prasadam is an integral part of any Hindu ritual.

(Pala S – Absolutely. Prasada is certainly integral to sacrifice and ritual. However, my point was that prasada is a ritual end-product and not given or accepted during or at the beginning of a ritual or sacrifice. Therefore the fact that prasada meat was not consumed *during* madhuparka ritual is only proper)
 
3) Not every yajna needs pashu-bali. I have already provided previously two other instances where Asvalayana talks about pashu-bali.

(Pala S – I agree)

4) You have not presented a single evidence that either my translation or my grammatical analysis of original samskrta texts is wrong.

(Pala S – I don’t need to disagree with your Sanskrit translation or grammar. I have shown my case stands even with your interpretations)
 
5) Regarding my analysis disagreeing with those of N.N.Sharma’s and Satya Vrat Shastri’s, it doesnt matter at all. Bhashya-karas often disagree too. Dharmasastras often disagree with one another. Simply disagreeing doesnt make anybody a communist. Just to make it clear: I have the highest regard for N.N.Sharma and Satya Vrat Shastri.

(Pala S – That’s good to know. What is more difficult to understand is that a Mahapataka, as you called Cow slaughter, can be referred to by traditional Hindus without more search and an observation that this was indeed aDharmic. Why did they not do this? I cannot believe it was a slip. So, was it a Mahapataka at all?)
 
6) Talking of disagreements, you would find yourself in perfect disagreement with everyone among Asvalayana, Devasvami, Naidhruva Narayana, Oldenberg, Satya Vrat Shastri, N.N.Sharma, and myself in one context: All of us assign the meaning of utsarga in this context as giving away the cow in daana “alive”.

(Pala S - That’s not a problem to the well being of my main argument)
 
7) Finally, like crores of other Indians, my belief in the capabilities and siddhis of my nation’s munis, rishis, raja-rishis, maharshis and brahma-rshis in unshakeable. Every country in this world has had some great kings and emperors. But no other country in this world has equivalents of my nation’s great tapasvi, mantra-drashta, vishva-kalyaana-kaami rishis. If you do not have faith in this one unique aspect about our country, I do not want to say anything about it.

(Pala S – I mentioned to you another great seer. You seem to have missed my reference to the  the Paramacharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Peetham. I shall post his speech on the subject right after this)

Since I have presented my closing arguments on Madhuparka, I will not talk about it anymore. The blog is yours, the debate is unmoderated, the conclusions will obviously be yours, and so it will not be surprising if you have the last laugh in this matter.

(Pala S – What will always matter is how the debate was conducted and the quality of argumentation. When anybody will laugh seems less important)
 
I will now move on to sushruta samhita to summarise my observations on that as well.

(Pala S – I shall wait eagerly. Thank you Shri Kedar)

 

Beef and the Hindus – Closing arguments

The debate so far – here

Palahalli S writes -

Let me start by quoting Shri Kedar’s last post:

A final word:

I want you to look at an original samskrta edition and compare with them MUM’s pdf since you were not convinced about the authenticity of MUM’s samskram pdf, and thats where we stopped.

Even though the original is in samskrtam, it is just one small paragraph and should not take long to compare syllable by syllable, letter by letter.

A hint by the way: The learned that I speak of, have their own original samskrta hardcopies with them, and I already compared the MUM pdf with their hardcopies and confirmed that paragraph I-24 is 100% accurate.

But you wouldnt want to believe me, so its best if you confirm on your own.(End Quote)

The material Shri Kedar refers to is wholly in Sanskrit; unattested in itself. (Shri Kedar himself did not provide any reference pointing to an “original source” or reliable translator for me to verify, except to cite some “learned” folks)

However, there is another .pdf that consolidates within  it’s body all the Grhyasutras including the Asvalayana and additionally provides references wherefrom MUM has borrowed for it’s own text.

Given below on page 843 of this consolidated text are the references:

I would like readers to please note the last reference i.e. Shri N.N. Sharma. His book contains both the Sanskrit as well as it’s English translation.

I have scanned relevant copies and placed them in a folder named “Asvalayana Grhyasutra_Debate Evidence”. The same unfortunately cannot be linked but these may be accessed from Kone Nakshatra’s “Box” library.

Shortly, Shri N.N. Sharma the author of one of the three books MUM has referred to and as the enclosed evidence shows; agrees with the view that has been cited by me in support of Cow sacrifice as found in the Grhyasutras. Additionally, this is in line with Shri Hermann Oldenberg’s translation of the text.

Interestingly, Shri N.N. Sharma, in his preface to the book tells us that he has relied on the “Sacred Books of the East” – SBE (Shri Oldenberg) series in some areas while differing with it (the series) in others.

As evidenced, he has not differed from the SBE when it comes to I – 24 at all!

Whilst resting my case and while awaiting Shri Kedar’s own closing arguments in this prolonged debate, I would like to reiterate some important points I made during the course – These may be seen as Religious, Economic and Social pointers:

1. The fact of Cow sacrifice and consequent “beef-eating” amongst Hindus did not and does not diminish the sacredness of the Cow wrt the Hindus. Therefore the taboo against beef-eating should be broken.

2. As shown earlier, through the arguments of Shri Anil Chawla, there are serious socio-economic repercussions arising out of the ban on beef in Hindusthan.

3. The taboo against beef amongst Hindus is not intrinsic and relevant to their tradition. It has in fact had a wholly perverse effect wrt the notions of untouchability that came about as a consequence of it. Therefore to banish this taboo is a very important element in the Hindu battle against untouchability.

Thank you

Shri Kedar responds with what I presume is his closing argument -

“As evidenced, he has not differed from the SBE when it comes to I – 24 at all!”

Please find me the single samskrtam word that means “immolate” from chapter 1, kandika 24 from your source.

Since I have already closed my part of the debate, I can only say in rejoinder -

Shri Bhandharkar uses “immolate”

Shri Oldenberg uses “killed”

Shri Sharma uses “slain”

Yes, all three of these authors/scholars seem to have understood this verse of the Asvalayana Grhyasutra differently.

A reader (Swayamsevak) who is following this debate writes -

This is a very good and very relevant debate. I have been following it very diligently. Keep it up.

If you are looking for another source of the Ashvalayana Grhya Sutra, here is one that I had. The document shows the title and publisher pages and the other pages relevant to this debate. Please let me know if you need any other excerpts from the same book. I will be happy to upload.

View/Download it here.

2nd Nov ‘09

Shri Kedar has raised a point of order –

“Since I have already closed my part of the debate, I can only say in rejoinder…”

Yes. You can only say that. Especially because you didnt even have the courtesy to inform me (like to you used to when you thought you were winning) that you closed the debate. Your blog is not world famous, you know.

The book you are following is not exactly Asvalayana Gruhya sutram. A person by name Gargya Gargya Narayana has written a commentary on the book. All these translations are based on Gargya Narayana’s version.

Asvalayana’s original, appearing in bold in your reference, has NO word that says kill/immolate/slay etc.

Gargya Narayana himself acknowledges that his bhashya is based on the bhashya of an earlier commentator by name Devasvami. The Devasvami bhashya (provided to you by svayamsevak) also has NO reference to killing of a Cow.

Even Gargya Narayana openly says that if he understands a word (which you still need to find) as something else, then perhaps it “might mean” killing. He is honest enough to declare that he is not sure.

My point:

Both Asvalayana gruhya sutram, and the very first commentary on it, did not mention killing/immolating/slaying a cow.

Palahalli S replies -

I believe Shri Kedar has confused Gargya Narayana of the Asvalayana Srauta Sutra with Naidhruva Narayana of Asvalayana Grhya Sutra.

In his forward to Shri N.N. Sharma’s book, Shri Satya Vrat Shastri acknowledges the early contribution of  Devatrata Devasvamin but tells us that this work received practical utility only with Naidhruva Narayana’s commentary, Narayana Vritti. It is this text that Shri N.N. Sharma reproduces in his book. There is no mention of Gargya Narayana.

Looking at how much Shri Kedar depends on the possible absence of The Word (Immolate etc), it is reasonable for him to explain what he understands by references to apportioning of meat (and references to cattle including Cows – Not goats, chicken or fish) during the sacrifice. I don’t believe he can say there are no references to meat itself! And if there is meat, there must be killing too.

Shri Kedar responds – (My responses are alongside)

“I believe Shri Kedar has confused Gargya Narayana of the Asvalayana Asvalayana Srauta Sutra with Naidhruva Narayana of Asvalayana Grhya Sutra.”

You are correct. The book is indeed Narayana Vrtti.

“this work received practical utility only with Naidhruva Narayana’s commentary, Narayana Vritti.”

It is only an opinion of N.N.Sharma. (Pala S – No, actually it’s the opinion of Shri Satya Vrat Shastri, a Hindu and a professor of Sanskrit with Delhi University; in his forward to Shri N.N. Sharma’s book, btw, another Hindu)

“I don’t believe he can say there are no references to meat itself! And if there is meat, there must be killing too.”

Allow me to present my case:

1) Asvalayana has unambiguously said in the preceding khandika (23rd one), sutra 20:

namaamsamashneeyuh… (na + maamsam + ashneeyuh)
[The participants] Shall not have meat (during the ceremony)

(Pala S – There is also the stipulation that there should be no copulation with a woman until the sacrifice ends. This does not mean the yajamana and his priest were bachelors. More likely this was the discipline)

2) Further, Devasvami has categorically said: “tatra uchyate kim madhuparke maamsam deyam iti?”
>>Does it say there that meat must be given in madhuparka (either the bowl, or the procedure)?

netyutchyate (na + iti + uchyate)
>> does NOT say that.

(Pala S – So meat is not supposed to be given in madhuparka. Alright. How does this translate into “there is no meat”? In all likelihood what is being discussed is the manner of serving madhuparka – with or without meat. Btw, even your translation is acknowledging the presence of meat)

iha madhuparke bhojanam amaamsam na bhavati iti arthah.
>> here, the meal that is accompanied after madhuparka ritual, “is not without” without meat.

(Pala S – Again, same deduction. This does not amount to “no meat”)

This is NOT a directive. A directive is, at all times accompanied by imperative verbs like “bhavet” (must be this way), or “deyam” (must be given). The presence of the word “bhavati” clearly says that this is an observation made by Asvalayana that people who do eat meat generally tend to have their favourite meat dish after the ceremony. There is nothing here that links this meat to the cow.

(Pala S – I think you are trying to read Asvalayana’s mind with this analysis; forgetting what is quite simply there for all to see. I’d like to know what other animal is mentioned – goats, chicken, fish?)

But unfortunately, every single english translation says “Let madhuparka not be without meat!” Thats what happens when those who translate are unaware of our maryadas.

(Pala S – This is the reason I pointed out to the two Hindus involved with the book being discussed. I find it impossible to believe that Shri Shastri and Shri Sharma, in all probability, strict vegetarian Brahmins would wilfully ignore a truth and accept something so ”shameful” as Cow sacrifice if there was no case for it in the scripture they were translating. Unless of course you can prove to me they were communists)

3) Now since you have shirked off the responsibility of finding the actual word, let me go ahead, for the purposes of the readers:

There are two other references to ritual slaughter in Asvalayana Gruhya Sutra:

adhyaya-1, kandika 11:
… pratyakshirasam vodakpaadam samjnaapya…

adhyaya-2, kandika 4:
pashu pashu kalpena pashu samjnaapya…

As you can see, the common word is “samjnaapya”, a verb form of “samjnaapana”. It means reaching an agreement with the pashu that is being offered as bali. It effectively means that the pashu has agreed to be offered for the devata of the yajna. (Pala S – That’s the ritual. It does not necessarily mean the pashu had to agree to being sacrificed)

The word samjnaapya, does NOT occur in Asvalayana gruhya sutra I-24. Nor does any other word that means kill/immolate/slaughter etc. Devasvami bhashya is also innocent- it doesnt know anything about killing a cow. It mostly talks about giving the cow as a gift (utsarga) to the person in whose honour the madhuparka ceremony is being performed. (Pala S – Please explain the meanings of “utsarga”. Also, how many different ways can a gift be made)

Observations –

1. I do not think Shri Kedar is denying animal sacrifice

2. I do not think Shri Kedar can say there was no meat to be consumed with or without madhuparka

3. Shri Kedar might deny that the Cow was not sacrificed but gifted nee utsarga; however, it is more likely that the term utsarga can mean “gifting” in many ways.

Since I am not familiar with Sanskrit I will only try to logically understand Shri Kedar’s interpretations. This is only natural because even Hindu Sanskrit scholars have failed to convince Shri Kedar.

 

Is Hindusthan destined to plough a lonely furrow?

In a recent analysis of Shri Jagannathan’s article on Hindusthan’s friendless foreign policy, I had made the point that this country never commits itself to friendship with like nations in a manner that would create a bond.

The following report in The Hindu confirms this view yet again.

Those policy makers who advise incompetent ministers who cannot think for themselves – must realize the kind of corner they are painting Hindusthan into. If they think they are being clever in avoiding certain obvious costs today then it will be well if they realize that multiples of such costs will come back to haunt us and then the probable odd ally will play safe – just like how we do today.

We labor under the terrible illusion that the US is stuck in our neighborhood and needs us to deal with the likes of China and Russia. This is not true as is evident when it comes to US relations with Pakistan. If we really want to be something more than a pawn on this board of chess, we must take greater risks, stick out our necks more and stick with allies in a manner that makes sense to them too.

There is no denying the fact that the US has mishandled it’s Hindusthan relationship due to false perceptions. However those perceptions will not be changed if we continue to twiddle our thumbs when the need is for action.

The best way to start would be by committing our forces in theaters of war.

- Namaste

 

US praises UPA govt for its commitment to religious freedom

Washington, Oct 27, (PTI):

India’s UPA-led government at the centre is quite committed to religious freedom, but it has “concerns” on this issues at the local level, specially those States ruled by the Bharatiya Janata Party (BJP), Obama Administration’s first Annual Report on International Religions Freedom, between July 2008 and June 2009 has said.

(Pala S – This instance is one where a Democratic regime under the left-liberal President Shri Barack Hussein Obama meddles, Neo-Conservative style, in Hindusthan’s internal affairs. Not just this, it doubts the ability of Hindusthan’s government – Union and State, to deal with situations at the “local level” fairly. If Hindus may forgive this trespass as an American malady; it is more difficult to reconcile it with Shri Obama’s home-grown anti-Christian, left-liberal persona. I’ll explain under varta)

“The Government at the central level is quite committed and it’s also, as you know, a very diverse– religiously diverse society, where, in fact, a lot of religions were born and nurtured. I think at a local level we have some concerns, and there are some specific instances mentioned in the report,” Assistant Secretary of State for Democracy, Human Rights and Labour, Michael H Posner, told reporters after the release of the Congressionally mandated annual report.

(Pala S – The observation wrt religious diversity is quite correct. Sanatana Dharma is intrinsically very diverse and that is the reason “a lot of religions were born and nurtured”. This has very little or nothing at all to do with how committed the “Government at the central level is” to this diversity. It has everything to do with how Hindus have conducted themselves throughout history)

“The response to violence, for example, in one case where a Hindu religious leader was killed and there was a spate of violence that affected mainly a Christian population and 40-some people killed.” “So we are very mindful that there are still inner religious tensions within the society, and I think our focus would be on the lack of response at a local level rather than a national – the national policy is good. It’s a question of how it’s implemented at a local level,” Posner said.

(Pala S – I think here’s where this (Obama) administration starts to take a typically liberal line. It has mentioned the Hindu Swamiji being killed. It has also noted that a *mainly* Christian populace was effected and a number of them killed. Then it speaks of a “lack of response at a local level” and certifies the “national policy” as good.

Well then, how do we connect the dots? If this report is to be given any credence (in my opinion, giving it any will retard our sense of National self-respect), but for the sake of argument let’s say we take it seriously, what should be our response? I think we simply have to talk facts. This Wikipedia submission is pretty comprehensive and well attested. I have linked to information on the assassination of Swami Lakshmanananda and information on violence in the state of Orissa.

So given this background how does the US “religious freedom” ensuring department think things will get any better at the “local level”? Is this department prepared to address or use it’s influence to address issues arising out of Christian evangelism? If not, what does it think is the solution? Suppression of legitimate Hindu rights?)

In its section on India which is spread over 30 pages, the report gives UPA-led Union Government the highest mark, but goes on to say that some state and local governments limited this freedom by enacting or amending “anti-conversion” legislation and by not efficiently or effectively prosecuting those who attacked religious minorities.

(Pala S – The convenient and shall we say, self-serving assumption being; there have been attacks on religious minorities, period. Just like that. Hindus are basically mad brutes and on any good day they just up and at ‘em! I’m beginning to wonder if the ultra-liberal UPA regime is being given brownie points because this is the image of Hindus it projects internationally. The fact that Shri MM Singh, this unfortunate country’s Prime Minister, called the violence in Orissa a “national shame” without even pretending to be even-handed, let alone speaking the whole truth, proves it)

The report refers to the allegations of non-governmental organisations that BJP stoked communally sensitive matter as State elections grew near. While there was no report of any religious violence during the general elections held early this year, the report did mention the alleged inflammatory speech of the young BJP leader Varun Gandhi.

(Pala S – In Hindusthan, “stoking communally sensitive matters” and especially when Hindus tend to do it, should translate into speaking the harsh truth or calling a spade and bloody shovel. This position is never admitted to by this country’s liberals and communists though; because they see it as something that can cause hate against minorities. How can anybody speak the truth when it causes hate against “vulnerable” sections of our society? Huh? Readers may see details on the Varun Gandhi related issue here)

The State Department in its report also mentions the anti-conversion bills in the BJP-ruled States of Gujarat, Chhattisgarh, Madhya Pradesh an Himachal Pradesh; besides the BJD-ruled Orissa. The BJP continued to advocate contentious measures, such as the passage of “anticonversion” legislation in all states, the construction of a Hindu temple on the Ayodhya site, and the enactment of a uniform civil code. “During the reporting period, the government of Maharashtra took no action on regional Shiv Sena party chief Bal Thackeray for his June 2008 remarks advocating creation of “Hindu suicide squads” to fight “Islamic terrorism.”, it said. 

(Pala S – For this foreign “State Department” and our own anti-national UPA regime, protecting Hindus in Hindusthan from predatory evangelists, building a Temple to Sri Rama in Ayodhya - very much a part of Hindusthan’s State of Uttar Pradesh and an enactment of a secular Civil Code (This is indeed an uber-irony! Liberals (national and foreign) rejecting a secular legal proposition – a proposition I have previously rejected totally) And what of a Hindu leader’s call for Hindu “suicide squads” against Islamic terror? How can such fight-back ever make sense to liberals?)

According to the report, Christian church groups in Karnataka alleged attempts by state police to gather information on their pastorates under the guise of providing official sanction to function in their local areas. “For example, on September 26, 2008, a police notice asked Christian prayer groups in Moodabidri police station’s jurisdiction in Mangalore for documentation pertaining to building ownership, activities, and membership.

(Pala S – How can this be wrong? Unless of course we automatically assume religious minorities are somehow special and above the law)

Christian groups feared the information would be passed to Hindu extremist groups planning to organise anti-Christian violence, it said. “In general, India’s democratic system, open society, independent legal institutions, vibrant civil society, and press all provided mechanisms to address violations of religious freedom when they did occur,” the State Department said.

(Pala S - Isn’t this marvelous? Christian groups do not oblige the law with required information on the pretext that these will be mis-used by Hindu groups. Hindu groups are constantly watchful of their rights and this makes Christian groups paranoid. There is a way out of all this – end evangelical conversion. There is no need for it in Hindusthan)

The Annual Report on International Religions Freedom, which records status of respect for religious freedom in all countries during the period from July 1, 2008 to June 30, 2009, was released by the Secretary of State, Hillary Clinton, at the Foggy Bottom headquarters of the State Department, on Monday afternoon. “Although the vast majority of citizens of every religious group lived in peaceful co-existence, some organised societal attacks against minority religious groups occurred,” the report said in its section related to India, adding that State police and enforcement agencies often did not act swiftly to effectively counter such attacks.

(Pala S – Enough said)

–Varta–

Palahalli S – The first point I raised bothers me somewhat. I can see that US neo-cons have a *freedom and democracy* spreading agenda. They also speak of/or are not against spreading Christianity amongst non-Christians. It’s understandable if such folk wield the “The Annual Report on International Religions Freedom”. What I cannot understand nor reconcile with is when a left-liberal regime that purportedly does not believe in the afore-mentioned neo-con agenda wields The Report. Why or how does that happen?

I think the impulse may lie in the fact that there’s a basic conviction that any restriction on evangelism is denial of religious freedom. This is argued so from the point of view that evangelism to a Christian is *religion* and *religious duty*. Therefore any kind of restriction is also deemed oppressive of his religion and his freedom to practice it. It is this last element that the liberal grain fights for. The freedom of it all. Any responsibility for adverse fall-out is of course and typically not taken seriously.

Interestingly, I had argued the point of restriction on evangelism at VFR and the responses I drew were along the lines of The Report. It’s interesting because the commenters who opposed were conservative Christian Traditionalists – not neo-conservatives or liberals.

As Christian traditionalists, they seem to assert the freedom to practice Christianity including evangelism everywhere in the world. I just don’t think they take the peculiar problems it generates in Hindusthan seriously enough.

I could be wrong though and therefore the need is to create greater awareness.

 

Think about it !

If to be conservative is also to be less reliant on the government – can we start by abolishing garbage collection in our cities?

Think a little more. A city like Bengaluru produces in excess of 2300 tons of garbage a day. Methinks this is measly when compared with bigger cities – but the local government cannot handle this load properly.

Let’s forget the local government and stay focused on the garbage.

What if?

What if one day the announcement was made to abolish the practice of garbage collection? What would citizens do?

Produce less garbage right? And process what they produce right? In other words start thinking for themselves and act accordingly.

Ok, should organizations spend time teaching citizens the obvious? This is like asking if one can change minds of sufficient numbers of people? The answer to this is pretty obvious – Need makes Way. No garbage collectors – huge pile at my door – I would work hard to reduce and eliminate that pile. No coaxing and teaching required.

Here’s another thought. At the office cafeteria they post a daily sign that tells us how much food got wasted - MTD. Apparently this is supposed to coax  *wasters* into not wasting food they pile onto plates themselves.

What if?

What if the cafeteria charged against the amount wasted? Would folks still waste food?

Now, what about all those folks employed in the garbage collection departments? I’d suggest they be trained at higher occupations. Gardening perhaps? Instead of taking out garbage from homes, they can now gain employment as gardeners in the neighborhood and help households use their processed garbage better. People tend to pay more for a service like garden-tending than for garbage-collecting.

Think about it!

- Namaste

–Varta–

Kum. Kavitha writes -

Hi Pala,

You are not talking about the gardens that people grow in front of their houses encroaching footpaths…right?

LOL you have some futuristic ideas

Palahalli S replies -

 

Well no. The thing I had in mind was skill enhancement. The closest skill upward would look like that of a gardener, I don’t know for sure though. Also, there must be plenty of ways to grow a garden of sorts without encroaching public spaces – roof gardens etc?

 

But I think this idea would solve our garbage collection and disposal problems to a great extent apart from making people think for themselves and take responsibility for their own waste.

 

Arundhati Roy – Again

Is she worth the attention? Just as much as the Naxalites are.

They all have their own intrinsic value and responsible folk must never ignore them.

So Kum. Roy is in the news again, here and here. One may also read this insightful post at Barbarindians.

All I want to point to is the second last question this lady answered in an interview with Tehelka. I think this simply says it all.

- Namaste

The Maoists want to bring down the State. Given the autocratic ideology they take their inspiration from, what alternative would they set up? Wouldn’t their regime be an exploitative, autocratic, violent one as well? Isn’t their action already exploitative of ordinary people? Do they really have the support of ordinary people?

I think it’s important for us to acknowledge that both Mao and Stalin are dubious heroes with murderous pasts. Tens of millions of people were killed under their regimes. Apart from what happened in China and the Soviet Union, Pol Pot, with the support of the Chinese Communist Party (while the West looked discreetly away), wiped out two million people in Cambodia and brought millions of people to the brink of extinction from disease and starvation. Can we pretend that China’s cultural revolution didn’t happen? Or that millions of people in the Soviet Union and Eastern Europe were not victims of labour camps, torture chambers, the network of spies and informers, the secret police. The history of these regimes is just as dark as the history of Western imperialism, except for the fact that they had a shorter life-span. We cannot condemn the occupation of Iraq, Palestine and Kashmir while we remain silent about Tibet and Chechnya. I would imagine that for the Maoists, the Naxalites, as well as the mainstream Left, being honest about the past is important to strengthen people’s faith in the future. One hopes the past will not be repeated, but denying that it ever happened doesn’t help inspire confidence… Nevertheless, the Maoists in Nepal have waged a brave and successful struggle against the monarchy. Right now, in India, the Maoists and the various Marxist-Leninist groups are leading the fight against immense injustice here. They are fighting not just the State, but feudal landlords and their armed militias. They are the only people who are making a dent. And I admire that. It may well be that when they come to power, they will, as you say, be brutal, unjust and autocratic, or even worse than the present government. Maybe, but I’m not prepared to assume that in advance. If they are, we’ll have to fight them too. And most likely someone like myself will be the first person they’ll string up from the nearest tree — but right now, it is important to acknowledge that they are bearing the brunt of being at the forefront of resistance. Many of us are in a position where we are beginning to align ourselves on the side of those who we know have no place for us in their religious or ideological imagination. It’s true that everybody changes radically when they come to power — look at Mandela’s ANC. Corrupt, capitalist, bowing to the IMF driving the poor out of their homes — honouring Suharto, the killer of hundreds of thousands of Indonesian Communists, with South Africa’s highest civilian award. Who would have thought it could happen? But does this mean South Africans should have backed away from the struggle against apartheid? Or that they should regret it now? Does it mean Algeria should have remained a French colony, that Kashmiris, Iraqis and Palestinians should accept military occupation? That people whose dignity is being assaulted should give up the fight because they can’t find saints to lead them into battle?

–Varta–

Palahalli S writes - “It may well be that when they come to power, they will, as you say, be brutal, unjust and autocratic, or even worse than the present government.”

I say let’s just take her word for it.

 

Beef and the Hindus – Were chandalas untouchables?

The debate can be read here.

Shri Kedar provides references to prove his contention that Chandalas were pre-Buddhist untouchables -

One more pre-buddhist chAnDAla (untouchables) as well as cow-slaughter reference: (Pala S – I think the question of beef as part of Hindu diet in pre-Buddhist Hindusthan is moot when viewed through evidences shared by me thus far. Shri Kedar would have to conclusively prove that texts such as Sushrutha Samhita, Rg Veda, the Grihyasutras etc do not in fact speak of Cow sacrifice and beef; in order to assert beef was in fact adharmic and frowned upon – In so far as the question of Chandalas as untouchables is concerned, I am faced with a strange situation wherein one of the greatest of Hindu scholars, born into the untouchables, Shri Ambedkar asserts Chandalas were not untouchables and Shri Kedar insists they are)

From Brahma-vaivarta purANa:

9.9 Trishanku
From Dridashva was descended a king named Trayaruni. Trayaruni was a righteous king and followed all the religious dictates. But Trayarun’s son Satyavrata was quite the opposite and refused to follow the righteous path. King  pre=”">Trayaruni’s chief priest was the great sage Vashishtha. Vashishtha advised the king that his evil son should be banished from the kingdom. Trayaruni accepted the sage’s advice. Consequently, Satyavrata started to live with outcasts (chandalas) outside the kingdom.

After some time, Trayaruni relinquished his kingship and went away to the forest. The kingdom had no king and degenerated into anarchy. The absence of a king is also frowned upon by the gods and for twelve years there was a terrible drought.

Vishvamitra was another great sage. While all this was going on, Vishvamitra was not present in the kingdom. He had gone away to perform tapasya on the shores of the ocean, having left his wife and children in a hermitage (ashrama) that was in the kingdom. But because there was such a long spell of drought, there was also famine in the kingdom. People started to starve. Vishvamitra’s wife decided to sell her son so that she might have some food to eat. She tied a rope round the son’s neck and took him to the market-place. There, she sold him in exchange for a thousand cows. Since a rope had been tied around the son’s neck (gala), he came to be known as Galava.

But Satyavrata discovered what terrible straits Vishvamitra’s family was in. He freed Galava and started to take care of Vishvamitra’s wife and children.

Satyavrata had not been terribly fond of Vashishtha. He blamed the sage for his banishment. When thee was famine everywhere, Satyavrata stole Vashishtha’s cow. He killed the cow and served the meat to Vishvamitra’s sons, apart from eating it himself.

Vashishtha was in a terrible rage when he got to know about this incident. He cursed Satyavrata.

“You have committed three sins ( class=”hiddenSpellError” pre=”">shanku),” Vashishtha told Satyavrata. “Firstly, you have angered your father Trayaruni. Secondly, you have stolen and killed a cow. Thirdly, you have eaten beef, a forbidden meat. Because of these three sins, you will henceforth be known as Trishanku and be eternally cursed.” (The word tri means three.)

Here is what Shri Ambedkar tells us -

Let us take the case of the Chandalas as an illustration of the class called Asprashya. In the first place, it should be remembered that the word Chandala does not denote one single homogenous class of people. It is one word for many classes of people, all different from one another. There are altogether five different classes of Chandalas who are referred to in the Shastras. They are (i) the offspring of a Shudra father and a Brahmin mother (ii) the offspring of an unmarried woman (iii) the offspring of union with a sagotra woman (iv) the offspring of a person who after becoming an ascetic turns back to the householder’s life and (v) the offspring of a barber father and a Brahmin mother. 

It is difficult to say which Chandala calls for purification. We shall assume that purification is necessary in the case of all the Chandalas. What is the rule of purification prescribed by the Shastas?

Gautama in his Dharma Sutra (Chapter XIV, Verse 30) also refers to it in the following terms :-

“On touching an  outcaste, a Chandala, a woman impure on account of her confinement a woman in her courses, or a corpse and on touching persons who have touched them, he shall purify himself by bathing dressed in his clothes.”

Below is the text of the rule given by the Vasishta Dharma Sutra (Chapter IV. Verse 37) -

“When he has touched a sacrificial post, a pyre, a burial ground, a menstruating or a lately confined woman, impure men or Chandalas and so forth, he shall bathe, submerging both his body and his head.”

Baudhayana agrees with Vasishta for he too in his Dharma Sutra (Prasna 1, Adhyaya 5, Khanda 6, Verse 5) says :-

“On touching a tree standing on a sacred spot, a funeral pyre, a sacrificial post, a Chandala or a person who sells the Veda, a Brahmin shall bathe dressed in his clothes.”

The following are the rules contained in Manu :- 

V. 85 : When he (the Brahmin) has touched a Chandala, a menstruating woman, an outcaste, a woman in childbed, a corpse, or one who has touched a (corpse), he becomes pure by bathing.

V. 131 : Manu has declared that the flesh of an animal killed by dogs is pure, likewise (that) of a (beast) slain by carnivorous (animals) or by men of low caste (Dasya) such as Chandalas.

V. 143: He who, while carrying anything in any manner, is touched by an impure (person or thing), shall become pure, if he performs an ablution, without pulling down that object.

From these texts drawn from the Dharma Sutras as well as Manu, the following points are clear :-

(1)    That the pollution by the touch of the Chandala was observed by the Brahmin only.

(2)    That the pollution was probably observed on ceremonial occassions only.

IV

If these conclusions are right then this is a case of Impurity as distinguished from Untouchability. The distinction between the Impure and the Untouchable is very clear. The Untouchable pollutes all while the Impure pollutes only the Brahmin. The touch of the Impure causes pollution only on a ceremonial occasion. The touch of the Untouchable causes pollution at all times.

There is another argument to which so far no reference has been made which completely disproves the theory that the communities mentioned in the Dharma Sutras were Untouchables. That argument emerges out of a comparison of the list of communities given in the Order-in-Council (which is reproduced in Chapter II) with the list given in this chapter prepared from the Smritis. What does the comparison show? As anyone can see, it shows :-

Firstly :     The maximum number of communities mentioned in the Smritis is only 12, while the number of communities mentioned in the Order-in-Council comes to 429.

Secondly : There are communities which find a place in the Order-in-Council but which do not find a place in the Smritis. Out of the total of 429 there are nearly 427 which are unknown to the Smritis.

Thirdly :      There are communities mentioned in the Smritis which do not find a place in the Order-in-Council at all.

Fourthly :  There is only one community which finds a place in both. It is the Charmakar community

Those who do not admit that the Impure are different from the Untouchables do not seem to be aware of these facts. But they will have to reckon with them. These facts are so significant and so telling that they cannot but force the conclusion that the two are different.

26th Oct ‘09

Shri Kedar responds – (Pala S – I have taken the liberty to strike out what I thought were *unworthy remarks* in any serious debate and does no good to my opponent’s considerable stature)

1) Alright, take consider the AsvalAyana gruhyasutra, that thou art so proud of:

(Please) go to 1st chapter paragraph 24 as told by your bhAndArkar saar. Now tell me, which word in that paragraph means “immolation”?

Now, I know you havent got a clue whats written in there. So, I would like to play with you a little to build up the mood if you dont mind.

2) And I was not talking about Dr.Ambedkar when I asked about the Aryan invasion. Thanks for falling for it. Please check the e-book of your bhAndArkar saar– the guy has totally into the AIT and is openly saying that aryans came from the middle-east. But dont worry. Even then, these references will be taken care of one, by one… like the one from AsvalAyana gruhyasutra.

3) You said:

“This is getting childish. Do you mean to say folks who eat beef cannot sell milk, curd, ghee and butter?? I must now take it that Shri Krishna was also a pure vegetarian since there is no mention that he ate meat at all, let alone beef. At least not in the stories we tell our children”

En ri! Golden Shtaar Ganesha! Please try to see what my point waaas!!

I wanted to illustrate that having a cow entailed literally no expense and full profit. They got the milk, butter, ghee, etc for literally nothing at all…

In case you forget: NO EXPENSE.

Shri Kedar adds –

I did not read this sentence so you can ignore point no. 3 in my last reply.

“It is not my case that ancient Hindus ate beef because they could not maintain the Cow into it’s old age.”

But then, I had asked this question before: How did our people maintain cows a thousand years ago in south India when nobody ate beef?

And you said something like only those who could “afford” cows were given cows. Not anyone was given a gOdAna.

Now you see, anyone with pair of hands and legs could afford cows– no expense, full profit!

And regarding Sushruta Samhita:

Sushruta was committed to finding uses of anything and everything– all sorts of herbs, minerals, vegetables, fruits, and get this: FLESH OF ALMOST ALL KNOWN ANIMALS! He has listed the uses of the flesh of animals like elephant, boar, rhinoceros, snake, cat, dog, and even lion! He has not left a single animal I know of.. and many many animals I have no idea of.

He was definitely not talking about what were the remedies commonly employed. He just says “this meat is good for that ailment” and leaves it there for emergency.

Again, remember Apaddharma: rules are different in emergency. Remember vishvAmitrA’s dog-eating?

It is just unimaginably foolish to even consider what is written in there as something that was followed in common usage. If you are bent upon arguing that these remedies were indeed followed in his day, you really must be Upendra!

I respond to Shri Kedar -

1. With respect to the Asvalayana Grihyasutra please see – 1 Adhyaya, 24 Kandika – Page 199

2. On Aryan race et al, here’s what you said – “I had a brief glance at the Ambedkar link you provided, and I saw words like ‘aryan tribes’ and ‘dasas’ and ‘invasions’– First the Dravidian invasion of India, then Aryan invasion of Dravidians!” – Shri Kedar, do you still maintain that you never referred to Shri Ambedkar’s writings? This is what I disputed.

Shri Bhandarkar may have other views on Aryan race et al and those do not concern my point of argument.

3. On Cow maintainance coming cheap or free, I feel you miss the difference between a pastoral society and an industrialized/urbanized one. In our villages, it may still be “cheap” or “free” to maintain Cows and cattle but farmers also are dependent on greater farm produce to sell in the market. This is because they have needs that cannot be met through an economy of self-reliance. For instance, how can they raise more money from their land? By producing more. How can they produce more? Through mobilization of modern implements. What happens to the Cow/Ox? Depends.

4. Please re-read your story about Trishanku and let me know why no one was willing to simply donate Cows to Vishvamitra’s wife? According to your narration, she was forced to sell her son in exchange for Cows. Why is that? What if she did not have anything to exchange? I think she must have searched high and low to get something of value in exchange for Cows (?) How do you explain this situation?

5. I don’t know if I should be perturbed by your exclamations of shock wrt Sushruta’s prescription. All the animals you listed were in fact hunted and killed for meat – “elephant, boar, rhinoceros, snake, cat, dog, and even lion”. 

Another point; why would Sushruta write a treatise that was completely impractical in it’s prescriptions? There is no evidence that he was a shallow man prone to bombast. He was very practical and there are records of him conducting surgery etc.

27th Oct ‘09

Shri Kedar replies – (My responses alongside)

1) regarding AsvalAyana gruhyasutra:

bhAndArkar and you have referred to the same source: Hermann Oldenberg from his 1888 book (incidentally, Herr Witzel loves Herr Oldenberg). It is not surprising that you will get the same translation. (Pala S – Obviously. But I don’t understand the connexion between Shri Witzel and Shri Oldenberg and why it should impact my references to the latter’s works)

Nevertheless, I cant open the e-book here in office and my laptop at home has crashed. Please post the passage here ONLY if it has a word-to-word translation of I-24. Otherwise, dont even bother talking about this reference. (Pala S – Well, Shri Oldenberg’s is a commentary on the Grihyasutras. I have browsed Maharishi Mahesh Yogi’s MUM site and it’s attendant pdf literature. That’s quite something. Here’s my take – Given Shri Mahesh Yogi’s propensity for vegetarianism and controversy, how can I be sure that the Grihyasutra texts on the website is unmolested? You may say the same thing about Shri Oldenberg, but in defense, I say he’s had greater peer review amongst scholars. So can you tell me who typed in the Grihyasutras for MUM?)

And by the way, kumAriLabhaTTa (a mImAmsaka contemporary of srI Adi Shankara) who was dead against buddhism (he was one of the chief destroyers of buddhism in India) and followed the vedas as literally as anyone can, has written a commentary on AsvalAyana gruhyasutras. The learned opine that there is nothing written about a cow-immolation in that as well. Please let me know if you come by it. (Pala S – My experience with the *learned* has been that they avoid all references that point toward beef. Your own position prior to this debate was that beef was not eaten, period. No iffs and buts. Until I pointed out references and so your current position has changed to - it’s all *ApaDharma*)

It goes to tell you why you must always go to primary sources and get information directly. (Pala S – MUM is primary source? Why? Because it’s written in Sanskrit?)

2) regarding shushruta samhita:

I had an idea you would say something like that. Bandhu! please try to understand Indic texts from Indic perspective. To  pre=”To “>shushruta, cow was a means of curing some disease, not an industry to be run. If shushruta says cow’s meat is good for some ailment, it means just that. Why should it mean anything else at all? Why do we need to tamper with scriptures? Also, I see nothing wrong if cow’s meat is used as a medicine. Apaddharma… remember? (Pala S – I don’t know if there is a way to consume beef-as-medicine without consuming beef. I also don’t know what Sushrutha would have done if he was running a 500 bed hospital)

3)You said:

” I feel you miss the difference between a pastoral society and an industrialized/urbanized one.”

My response:

That is an excellent point sirji! Hats off!

So you do realise that things have changed. Good!

Can you now present argument against this statement:

A pastoral society “does not need to” run a beef industry. (Pala S – It’s pretty simple. Population is key. For instance, what would Sushrutha do if he had to treat his 500 odd patients with beef based medicine? We haven’t even touched upon sacrifices yet)

By the way, can I assume that all of your explanations about how gOdAna was given only to those who can afford as trash? (Pala S – Nope)

4) About Trishanku situation, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. All I can with absolute certainly (without any need of logic) is: Someone killed a cow, and he was cursed for that. (Pala S – You surprise me. How can you forget Vishvamitra’s wife selling her son in exchange for Cows? Btw, you still haven’t said what happened to the sons who also partook of the beef)

5) You said:

“Shri Bhandarkar may have other views on Aryan race et al and those do not concern my point of argument.”

My response:

Thats sneaky! As long as bhAndArkar gives you your much-touted (though misunderstood, mistranslated, etc) references, you wouldnt care what motives he has, right? He calls himself heterodox ( you say, so what? ok…fair enough!), constantly mentions Hillebrandt and Oldenberg and even Muller… and never ever ever even once has he mentioned a bhAratIya shAstra-jnAtA, and if he has, it has been simply copy-pasted from his German masters’ books. He just lapped up whatever has been thrown at him by his German err… shepherds! (Pala S – Unwarranted and distracting hysteria. The point remains. Also, Shri Bhandarkar’s personal *motives* have no bearing on this discussion)

This bhAndArkar sounds a lot like a best buddy of yours online: Larissa!

Palahalli S adds – Here’s what I propose. Can the Cow-protection folks reconcile with the logic of ApaDharma wrt to beef and meat in general? Isn’t this a reasonable position to take? This way there is a rational case based in tradition (that’s my point) and still *industrialization* of beef can be prevented by allowing for local needs to be met.

Shri Kedar replies to my response -

Let us concentrate exclusively on AsvalAyana gruhya sutra:

1) So now, you are saying that Maharishi might have sneakily edited AsvalAyana gruhyasutra? Hahahaha!!!!! I will not even ask you to prove it. (Pala S – Hmm, no. I reviewed a bunch of those .pdf files and observed that there were no attestations. There is of course a list of *references by page No.s* in the “all-in-one” .pdf file wrt Grihyasutras that still do not tell me who typed them all in. Don’t you see? I’m using your own logic here without denying your reasoning)

2) And what did he actually change? Why are you so scared? I didnt even tell you the word “immolation” is NOT present in that pdf (I only said its not there in the kumarilabhatta’s commentary, which you categorically deny even without glancing it ). For all purposes, “immolation” might still be present in that pdf and I might be just toying with you. (Pala S – I’m sorry but I think I missed your link to Kumarila Bhatta’s commentary. There is therefore no question of my denying anything)

and when we are done with this, let us move on to your assertion that “vedic people  class=”hiddenSpellError” pre=”people “>ate cats and dogs, since they are mentioned in shushtruta samhita as well. (Pala S – Let’s not. Let’s stick with the beef. In so far as cats and dogs are concerned – your reference to Sushrutha’s medicinal references are ample evidence already)

28th Oct ‘09

Shri Kedar responds – (Pala S – I must apologize for posting this late since I got slightly distracted with other issues)

But what are you complaining against? All I am asking you is find the one word that says “immolate”.

Find it and finish this debate.

If you want, you can print the relevant page from the pdf and compare it with an original hard-copy from “vedanta book house” in chamrajpet or “Motilal Banarsidass” in Jayanagar IIIrd block.

Palahalli S replies –

I have to admit this is a check-mate of sorts waiting to happen. The book publishers you mention are not unfamiliar to me. In fact I buy quite a few books from MB. Since these stores are quite a distance from where I live I called them this morning to find out if they had the relevant material. MB said they did not – however, their website is more helpful. Almost all are *Shri Oldenberg* titles though. Vedanta Book House was not very helpful on the phone – That’s still a possibility that remains. I shall visit them this weekend and take a look.

I guess we will have to hold-off till then.

29th Oct ‘09

Shri Kedar responds –

A final word:

I want you to look at an original samskrta edition and compare with them MUM’s pdf since you were not convinced about the autheticity of MUM’s samskram pdf, and thats where we stopped.

Eventhough the original is in samskrtam, it is just one small paragraph and should not take long to compare syllable by syllable, letter by letter.

A hint by the way: The learned that I speak of, have their own original samskrta hardcopies with them, and I already compared the MUM pdf with their hardcopies and confirmed that paragraph I-24 is 100% accurate.

But you wouldnt want to believe me, so its best if you confirm on your own

I find myself asserting my previous point again -

 

What is the original text? If you share with me the name of the publication – that would help.

 

Beef and Hindus – the debate is still on

The story so far.

Shri Kedar replied to my response - My notes are alongside -

I am right now in the process of searching and compiling shAstra-sammata vyAkhyAnas for every single vedic reference (Both from rigveda and brahmaNAs) you have provided till now. It will probably take a few days time.

Regarding *origins of untouchability*

i) Are you saying the Manusmriti reference is not right? (Pala S – I’m aware that the Manusmriti contains injunctions against certain behaviors of Shudras but there are none wrt “untouchables”)

ii) And even by Dr.Ambedkar’s own theory, 400 CE is like 900 years after Buddha’s time–too long to attribute the origin of untouchability to the rise of Buddhism. (Pala S – These are historical processes and effects need not have been automatically evident, let’s say, from the moment the Buddha achieved Nirvana. Even if Shri Ambedkar is not accurate about the time when untouchability commenced, he is at least clear that it was not Vedic in origin, certainly after the Buddha)

iii) I had a brief glance at the Ambedkar link you provided, and I saw words like ‘aryan tribes’ and ‘dasas’ and ‘invasions’– First the Dravidian invasion of India, then Aryan invasion of Dravidians! Tch! Tch! He was just another victim of the contemporary theories peddled by the Eurocentric west regarding the vedas. He can be forgiven if he thinks something of this sort, but we know better now. No need to give creed to these theories any longer. (Pala S – If there was one Hindu scholar of the time who explicitly rejected the Aryan = race theory, it was Shri Ambedkar. This is what he says in the same page I referred earlier -

“Starting with the Aryans it is beyond dispute that they were not a single homogeneous people. That they were divided into two sections is beyond dispute. It is also beyond dispute that the two had different cultures. One of them may becalled Rig Vedic Aryans and the other the Atharva Vedic Aryans. Their cultural cleavage appears to be complete. The Rig Vedic Aryans believed in Yajna. The Atharva Vedic Aryans believed the Magis. Their mythologies were different. The Rig Vedic Aryans believed in the Deluge and the creation of their race from Manu. The Atharva Vedic Aryans did not believe in Deluge but believed in the creation of their race from Brahma or Prajapati. Their literary developments also lay along different paths. The Rig Vedic Aryans produced Brahmanas, Sutras and Aranyakas. The Atharva Vedic Aryans produced the Upanishads. Their cultural conflict was so great that the Rig Vedic Aryans would not for a long time admit the sanctity of the Atharva Veda nor of the Upanishads and when they did recognize it they called it Vedanta which contrary to the current meaning of the word—namely, essence of the Vedas—originally meant something outside the boundary of the Vedas and, therefore, not so sacred as the Vedas and regarded its study as Anuloma. Whether these two sections of Aryans were two different races we do not know. We do not know whether the word Aryan is a term indicative of race. Historians have therefore made a mistake in proceeding on the assumption that the Aryans were a separate race.”(End Quote)

And Oh! I nearly forgot to congratulate you on your progress:

Regarding Mahabharata link:

Does that mean Cow shall not be slaughtered for everyday meal? (Pala S – Perhaps)

“Perhaps”? Nice! Thats progress. It’s not a “No” at the least.

And that was exactly my central argument: cows were not slaughtered for daily meals purposes. Perhaps for ritual, or medicinal purposes, but not for beef-biryani when somebody feels like eating it. (Pala S – Still I don’t see cause for any celebration of the point. At least in the tropics it is known that people are less prone to meat-eating on a daily basis. Therefore an interpretation of the verse to say it forbids daily slaughter is in itself far-fetched. But if that is accepted then the only reasonable response can be “perhaps true” because it is seen to be making an obvious point. On the other hand, your own usage of “perhaps” for sacrifice and “perhaps” for medicine, makes a mockery of scripture including the Sushruta Samhita)

27th Oct ‘09

Shri Kedar responds – my replies alongside

ooh!Nice! Let me pass some more time till I prepare some notes on your references (good fun actually)…

1) Since you took some effort to explain how important is the non-existence of Aryan invasion to you, does it also follow that if someone does indeed make an argument for aryan invasion, you would suspect the motives/knowledge of that person? (Pala S – I hope I don’t have to doubt your capacity for sustained argument and debate. It was you who doubted Shri Ambedkar’s scholarship based on your own (wrong) assumption that he supported the Aryan race and invasion theory. I think you should be consistent about the positions you take henceforth)

2) Also, whatever I said till now regarding sacrifice or medicine, my core contention was always that beef was not used as a daily-food item– something you can buy from a local slaughter-house to cook that nice beef-biryani you love, as and when you like. Do you agree or not? (Pala S – Speaking of lack of consistency, here’s another example – You started off disputing ANY use of beef by ancient Hindus. When faced with incontrovertible facts and references, you now turn around and claim it was all about “biryani” It is not material to me if the Hindus ate beef with relish on a daily basis or not. However, it’s a fact (you admit to however covertly), that they slaughtered Cows for medicine and/or sacrificial purposes. Of course the meat was eaten as prasada after the sacrifice)

3) Now lets focus a bit on pre-Buddhist cow-maintenance:

You must have come across the life of Lord Krishna (why was he called gOpAla.. and not gO-rakshaka ?) while he was in Nanda-grAm (not nandigram for Cow’s sake!). Even a child can tell you (well atleast they used to, a decade ago) 2 things:

1) The people of the village used to sell milk, curd, ghee, and butter (of course!), but not beef.

2) Lord Krishna and his playmates used to take the cows to the grasslands outside the village for grazing. All day long, the cows had no other work but to graze and the kids had no other work but to play and occasionally glance at the cows. And when the evening came, they brought the cows home. The next morning, they again used to take the cows to the forest…(Pala S – This is getting childish. Do you mean to say folks who eat beef cannot sell milk, curd, ghee and butter?? I must now take it that Shri Krishna was also a pure vegetarian since there is no mention that he ate meat at all, let alone beef. At least not in the stories we tell our children ))

illi kharchenide guru? (I hope it is correct!)

What is the expense to maintain a cow here? And this was the case before and after Buddha, Christ, Mohammad, Sri Adi Shankara, rAmAnuja, madhvAchArya, nimbArka, chaintanya mahAprabhu, and even rAmakrishna paramahamsa. (Pala S – It is not my case that ancient Hindus ate beef because they could not maintain the Cow into it’s old age. This is a modern argument based on sound economic reality and the actual fact of watching Cows suffer daily – ironically because some Hindus are too kind towards it)

And why is maintaing cows difficult today?

1)We have encroached the grazing areas of the cattle,

2)repeated failure of/less-than expected monsoons due to global warming,

3)lack of alternate irrigation facilities in villages, and lastly,

4)the well known anti-grAmasvarAj policies of kaangress.

(Pala S – That’s a long and hard list. Is it your position that until all of these are rectified (and how?), the Cows must eat plastic in our streets? Or be sold to non-Hindu butchers? I would much rather have them given over to Hindu butchers who will be more considerate in the process and feed Hindus with it’s meat. A sacrifice that would feed hungry Hindus) 

 

“Hindusthan’s lonely furrow” – observes DNA

This is an interesting article by Shri Jagannathan. I have of course commented on his writings before and my observations haven’t been too nice to the columnist. This latest too has it’s flaws but I find he’s somewhat on a good track. Or is he?

- Namaste

 

Beef and the Hindus – discussion underway

The debate so far – here

Shri Kedar replies -

So you DONT have an alternate plan to that of the VHP or gougram. OK. (Pala S – If the VHP’s plan entails research in the area of the Cow’s uses, then I can go with that. However, if it’s plan includes banning Cow slaughter and having the State enforce it with a “Ministry of Cow” then the most sensible thing anybody with Hindu interests at heart can do is to oppose it. That’s my stance. I think for the likes of me, Hindu interests come over the Cow’s – howsoever sacred. That’s my alternative plan)

1) You said:

“So, is the “VHP” guilty of keeping some Hindus economically impoverished?”

My response:

If you concede that the VHP is so powerful to keep 70-80 crores of Hindus impoverished, I am impressed. Perhaps I need to resign from my job and join VHP . Also, it just proves how helpless you are against this torrent of a massive organisation that wants to do exactly opposite to what you believe. That admission alone is enough to put things in perspective regd. what happens on the internet vs. what happens in the real world. (Pala S – I’m not conceding anything. I’m deducing from your assertion that only Muslims and Christians butcher the Cow. You have obviously left out some %age of Hindus.

Shall we keep all bravado aside please? I wouldn’t have a rational explanation for any supposed “torrent” in favor of the VHP’s *banning* program)

2) You said:
“Now we know that beef was part of ritual sacrifices, diet at homes and recommended for medicinal applications.”

My response:

No point in running away from facts, but I do want to make sure the reference is correctly translated and not misused. If it is found to be correct, I will definitely allow for that. At the same time,

i) there is no dhArmic sanction for what they did. Vaidhika dharma was not imposed like the “halal” aspect of Islam, so people were free. But your own reference states people (regardless of varNa) were constantly exhorted to eschew all kinds of meat. (Pala S – So now our ancient beef and meat eaters are Adharmic?? We seem to be disowning a lot of what we were in our haste to look like the Cow’s saviors)

ii)Just like the reference to Madhuparka and bull-slaughter, there are many stories from around the same time where people had to perform superhuman acts like bringing down Ganga (one version) from vaikunTha or perform a tapasya or risk carrying the gohatya sin to the next janma. Now which is right? (Pala S – A-ha! Confuse and confound the opponent? Yes, even these “superhuman” acts prove the fact that some Kedar and some Pala were fighting over what we are fighting today )

2) You said:

“what you have just said it does seem to me that the State used it’s resources to maintain old and (young?)”

My response:

I said what? Where did the State come from? My point was: most houses had a gOshAla a thousand years ago, though not all people were affluent. How did they manage to make ends meet without slaughtering the cows? (Pala S – Beats me. How could they manage to maintain unproductive Cows without the State pitching in? Or were citizens so rich that they could really splurge? Perhaps we should wait till we get that rich before we splurge)

3) You said:

i) “Ancient Hindus did NOT think that beef should be abhorred”

My response:

As I said above, there are both kinds of references. (Pala S – Yes. I heard that )

ii) You said:

“Ancient Hindus did not consider those handling meat and beef in specific, untouchable. It occured to me that ritual slaughter happened on the site of the Homa-kunda. So people who were given the job of slaughtering were on-site and interacting with the Yajamana and his officiating priest”

My response:

well… there you go again regarding the “net net” logic! But did they actually slaughter the animal for sacrifice? I came by this reference recently:

Rigveda I-162-22:
na vA u EtamriyasE na riShyasi devAnidEShi pathibhih sugebhih |

Meaning (translation is indeed from Griffith, but I confirmed it from the learned):
“No, here thou diest not, thou art not injured: by easy paths unto the Gods thou goest.”

This verse is from one of the suktas for aSvamEdha. The aSva was supposedly operated upon and a part was removed. Now thats new! it actually goes against even what I said before– that animals were actually killed during sacrifice. But yes, meat and beef was handled in some way on-site. (Pala S – Hmm..so will you be willing to allow for Cows to be “operated upon”? C’mon Kedar!)

4) You said:

“We’ll just have to see how lay Hindus react to such produce.”

My response:

Wherever the Vishwamangala gougram yAtra goes, people are turning up in huge numbers. (Pala S – Yes. So the Organizer says. Economics of the Cow is something different from it’s politics)

5)You said:

“As things stand, we know what beef meant to our ancients. They hold the key to Hindu cohesion and greater sense”

My response:

Hindus (excluding your minority) will not eat beef whatever you tell them. Now what do you do? (Pala S – Nothing. My argument is not to force Hindus to eat beef. It’s enough if the “Dharmicas” realize that our ancestors ate not just meat but beef too. I will be happy if thereby the opprobrium of untouchability is uprooted)

Finally:

Please dont forget to include your alternate plan for “Hindu cohesion” in your reply. (Pala S – It’s very simple. Back to being Hindus, I say! Back to what we left behind under such false notions)

Btw do you still believe Iran and Cuba have banned Cow slaughter and beef? That Muslim rulers were great caretakers of Hindus because they abolished Cow slaughter?? Just how are these guys different from our secular-liberal BJP wallahs?

If the owners of this website would like thinking Hindus to appreciate what they do, then we need to tell them that they need something more than tricks. I’m doing just that now. So should you.

23rd Oct ‘09

Shri Kedar replies – (My responses are beside)

1) About VHP: They are just implementers of the action items that spring from the thought that has been given to this issue by the  sAdhu-sants of bhArat. They dont get these ideas from nowhere. There is a deep connection between eminent saints of India like class=”mceItemHidden”> sant asaram bapu, jagadguru rAmabhadrAcharya, sAdhvi rithambharA, svAmI svAmI “>svAmI “>svAmI ”>paramAnanda, svAmI rAm dev baba and VHP janta ashok singhal and pravIn tOgaDia. (Pala S – I’m aware of how the VHP functions. I should know, since I was an active member)

And I am not the one saying there is a torrent. YOU are accusing them of being such a force that they have the capacity to impoverish 70-80 crore Hindus (Pala S – Around 16%, considering the majority of Hindus don’t butcher animals for meat. Of course even this number has reduced keeping in mind occupational changes. The point I was making was that we have ceded this industry to Muslims and Christians unthinkingly)

2) I dont vouch for anything said in the website. I mentioned it only because I wanted to show whats happening regd. Cow protection in India these days. (Pala S – Well it helps to be careful about what we cite for support. How does an organization build credibility by resorting to lies? Still, what about their citing Muslim rule for support? That’s positively tragic)

3) If you dont believe organiser, lets not argue about it. Lets wait and see. By the way, I got that news from one of the grass-roots kAryakartAs.. not the organiser website. (Pala S – I’m not necessarily disbelieving the Organiser. I’m questioning the project’s feasibility and my reading of the material tells me it’s heavily dependent on emotion and not much of practical sense. For poor farmers with Cows, this is simply not good enough unless of course, they sell for meat)

4)You said:

“so will you be willing to allow for Cows to be “operated upon”? C’mon Kedar!”

My response:

Are you saying the verse doesnt exist at all? Or that it is a wrong translation of the verse? Or are you trying to make fun of me because I quoted what is written there? Have you tried to confirm it from people who know these things? (Pala S – I’m not disputing any of your contentions. In fact, so far in this debate I have not once said your references are false. In this case all I’m saying is that if the Asvamedha involved “operating” on the horse, then please accept the same logic wrt the Cow. To me it sounds more like the sacrifice was made painless)

5) You said:

“It’s enough if the “Dharmicas” realize that our ancestors ate not just meat but beef too. I will be happy if thereby the opprobrium of untouchability is uprooted”

My response:

Current untouchability has nothing to do with beef. Its just based on birth in a particular caste (no longer a varNa). People are ready to get rid of untouchability even without this tehelka-ish “expose”. And those who are adamant, will never understand why untouchability is wrong. If you are looking for uprooting of untouchability, why are you talking about beef and cow-slaughter? (Pala S – The fact that we ate beef is hardly an expose’. Untouchability cannot be explained without taking into account it’s causes. You seem to be trying to cure without attacking the cause of the disease. I have already said why there was no untouchability pre-Buddhism. It’s for you to explain how it came about without the causes I mentioned – Cow/animal slaughter and beef, etc. Else, please show me that untouchability existed in pre-Buddhist times also)

6) You said:

“Confuse and confound the opponent? Yes, even these “superhuman” acts prove the fact that some Kedar and some Pala were fighting over what we are fighting today”

My response:

Are you saying there are no such stories? Are you saying ‘gOhatya’ was not treated as a sin in bhAratIya literature that was written around the same time as the shatapatha-brAhamaNA, or vashishTha dharma-sUtrAs? In fact, it now strikes me that shatapatha BrahmaNA was composed much much later than Rigveda, hence Rigveda must be much more comfortable with cow-slaughter according to you. It is strange that RV is so clearly against cow-slaughter, whereas later texts are ambivalent. How do you explain that? (Pala S – I have maintained that to injunct against something is indicative of it’s existence. The fact that none of the “beef” references in later texts are challenged as being against Vedic injunctions tells me that something is amiss in your argument. Can you show me references against the Grihyasutras, let’s say?)

7) you said:

“How could they manage to maintain unproductive Cows without the State pitching in?”

My response:

Exactly! You ought to think about it. Have you ever ever heard of any king in our past giving out svarNa mudrAs to the people so that cows can be maintained? In fact, there are many instances of gOdAna by kings and other affluent people to the comman man, the very thing that would (according to you) burden the common man even more. And this went on for more than 1000 years–from Buddha’s time of 500 BCE till medieval Islamic age, gOdAna was consistently done! How many years, decades or centuries do you think it should take for our affluent bhAratIyAs to realise that their dAna is actually burdening the recepient?

Something just doesnt fit in this Chawla-theory. (Pala S – I’m surprised you miss the simple point of capacity to maintain. Would person x donate a Cow to persons y and z if x thought y and z cannot maintain the Cow in good health? Did Cows not cost anything to maintain back then? Or cash (capacity) was proven. Can I know of anybody willing to donate Cows today to anybody else who has no capacity to maintain the animal, forget paying for it? There is a cost-sheet in that website you linked to. I’d like to know how many have thought even this plan feasible)

You said:

“So now our ancient beef and meat eaters are Adharmic?? We seem to be disowning a lot of what we were in our haste to look like the Cow’s saviors.”

My response:

I was talking only about the bull-slaughter (guests situation) from shatapatha brAhmaNa. It obviously didnt come out right, since I was (surreptitiously)typing from office. As it turns out, I am hoping for some more inputs regarding shatapatha brAhmaNa. Please hold off discussion on this reference till I ascertain that the translation is correct. (Pala S – Ok)

9) By the way, one more reference: This is from a text called mahAbhArata, which was composed not later than shatapatha brAhmaNa. The translation is by kisArI mOhan gAnguli.

MahabhArata AnuSasana parva, section-74:

Emperor YudhiSThira is taking advice from bhIshma lying on the bed of arrows–

“”Indra[actually, YudhiShThira] said, ‘I wish to know, O Grandsire, what the end is that is attained by him who consciously steals a cow or who sells one from motives of cupidity.”

“The Grandsire said, ‘Hear what the consequences are that overtake those persons that steal a cow for killing her for food or selling her for wealth, or making a gift of her unto a Brahmana. He, who, without being checked by the restraints of the scriptures, sells a cow, or kills one, or eats the flesh of a cow, or they, who, for the sake of wealth, suffer a person to kill kine,–all these, viz., he that kills, he that eats, and he that permits the slaughter,–rot in hell for as many years as there are hairs on the body of the cow so slain. O thou of great puissance, those faults and those kinds of faults that have been said to attach to one that obstructs a Brahmana’s sacrifice, are said to attach to the sale and the theft of kine.” – (Pala S – I have highlighted my argument)

Debate continues – 24th Oct ‘09