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.
Advertisements

9 Responses

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

    http://is1.mum.edu/vedicreserve/kalpa/grihya/ashvalayana_grihya_sutra.pdf

    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.

  2. 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!

  3. And regarding sushruta samhita:

    http://www.archive.org/stream/englishtranslati01susruoft/englishtranslati01susruoft_djvu.txt

    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!

  4. 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.

    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.

    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.

    It goes to tell you why you must always go to primary sources and get information directly.

    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 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?

    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.

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

    4) About Trishanku situation, I have absolutely no idea what you are talking about. All I can with absolute certainity (without any need of logic) is: Someone killed a cow, and he was cursed for that.

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

    My reponse:
    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!

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

  5. 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.

    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 🙂

    and when we are done with this, let us move on to your assertion that “vedic people ate cats and dogs, since they are mentioned in shushtruta samhita as well.

  6. 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.

  7. Hi.

    It appears that you have moved on to other issues on your blog. Also, my last comment has not appeared anywhere on your blog. It is still awaiting moderation.

    Does that mean that you admit that the word “immolate” does NOT occur in I-24 of AsvalAyana gruhyasUtra?

  8. 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 🙂

  9. Hi

    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:
    https://share.acrobat.com/adc/document.do?docid=cf731f23-8dd2-4bde-bbc6-74f6755de579

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: