Kingdecember

Lets not deviate, tell me why did he sanction meat eating in Pali Canon in the 1st place ?

In that article 'Buddhism & Vegetarianism', that monk is claiming the same, he has presented what he believes are words attributed to Buddha in Buddhist scriptures, now I really don't know & can't tell who's correct here, you or him ???? the only person who can 'SPOT THE NOT' is Buddha himself, wish he were around. but when someone says "I do not claim that every word in these scriptures is exactly the word of the Buddha" he obviously sounds more rational and dispassionate than you.

(about 2500 years after Buddha) there is no one here who can say, "I heard the Buddha say differently" (about 2500 years after Buddha) there is no one here who can say, "these are Buddha's words" (about 2500 years after Buddha) there is no one here who can say, "this is exactly what Buddha said / meant" Do you expect anyone to believe this , "I presented the Buddha's words directly" ? As if you are having a telepathic relationship with Buddha or may be his reincarnation.

lol...... Just as a single force in space can be mathematically conceived as having various spatial components, the Supreme Being or God, the personal form of the Ultimate Reality, is conceived by Hindus as having various aspects. A Hindu deity (god or goddess; note small g) represents a particular aspect of the Supreme Being. Just as sunlight cannot have a separate and independent existence from the sun itself, a Hindu deity does not have a separate and independent existence from the Supreme Being. Thus, Hindu worship of deities is monotheistic polytheism and not simple polytheism. Hindus declare that there is only one Supreme Being and He is the God of all religions. There is no "other God." Thus the Biblical Commandment "Thou shalt have no other God before me," really means, "Thou shalt not deny the Ultimate Reality or worship any power other than the Ultimate Reality." Hindus view cosmic activity of the Supreme Being as comprised of three tasks: creation, preservation, and dissolution and recreation. Hindus associate these three cosmic tasks with the three deities, Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva. Lord Brahma brings forth the creation and represents the creative principle of the Supreme Being. Lord Vishnu maintains the universe and represents the eternal principle of preservation. Lord Shiva represents the principle of dissolution and recreation. These three deities together form the Hindu Trinity. One must clearly understand that Brahma, Vishnu and Shiva are not three independent deities. They represent the same power (the Supreme Being), but in three different aspects. Just as a man may be called a doctor, father or husband based upon the tasks he performs, the Supreme Being is called Brahma, Vishnu or Shiva when conceived as performing the three different cosmic tasks of creation, preservation, and dissolution/recreation.

Ok so what if someone had asked you the same question when you presented your argument ? it seems you haven't read the entire article, If you have than read it again, the following answers your question: (about 2500 years after Buddha) there is no one here who can say, "I heard the Buddha say differently." Hope this helps.

I would like to share a rationale presented by a Buddhist Monk named Ajahn Jagaro on Buddhism & Vegetarianism : It is not my intention to sit here and tell you what the final word on Buddhism and vegetarianism is. That is neither my intention nor the Buddhist way. My understanding comes from my experience, from my perspective, from my contemplation. You may agree or you may not; it doesn't matter as long as you reflect clearly on the matter and come to your own conclusions. I take a neutral position because I do not feel that this particular topic can be seen simply in terms of black and white. I take the Buddhist position as I understand it. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> Let's begin with a fundamental question: Is it a prerequisite for a Buddhist to be a vegetarian according to the teachings of the Buddha, as far as we can assess? I would have to say, No, according to the Buddhist scriptures it is not a prerequisite for a person to be a vegetarian in order to be a Buddhist.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> People say, "Well how do you know what the Buddha taught, anyway?" It's true. I don't know from personal experience; if I was there, I don't remember it. So what do we have to rely on? We have to rely on these scriptures that have been handed down through the centuries. As to whether we can trust these scriptures depends on whether we accept them as accurate recordings of the Buddha's teaching or not. In the Theravada tradition we have what we call the Pali Canon, the Buddhist scriptures. There are many volumes, the Vinaya Pitaka, the discipline for monks and nuns, the Suttanta Pitaka, which contains the discourses or teachings given by the Buddha, and finally the Abhidhamma Pitaka, which is the system of philosophy and psychology developed from the basic texts. Most scholars agree that the Abhidhamma Pitaka, the 'higher teaching', was developed by teachers of later periods from the basic texts of the Suttas as a system of analysis for easier explanation and for use in debate.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> So there are three collections of scriptures. My research is limited to the Vinaya and the Suttas, the books of discipline and the books of discourses. From my studies I have great confidence that what is presented in these scriptures accurately represents what the Buddha taught. However, I do not claim that every word in these scriptures is exactly the word of the Buddha. There have been some changes, some additions and some alterations through the ages, but the essence is there. In essence the texts are a very true and accurate record of what the Buddha taught.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> My basis for this reasoning is simply the fact that the people who passed on these teachings and checked them were disciples, monks and nuns who had tremendous respect for the Buddha, just as monks today have, and I don't think that many monks would dare to intentionally change the teachings of the Buddha. Very few monks would be prepared to do that. Any alterations that have taken place were simply an expedient means for making recitation more convenient. There may have been accidental alterations, but I do not think that the texts were corrupted intentionally, certainly not in any serious or major way.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> This is verified in particular with regard to the Books of Discipline, which deal with the monastic discipline. Through the ages Buddhism slowly spread from the <?xml:namespace prefix = st1 ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:office:smarttags" /><st1:PlaceName w:st="on">Ganges</st1:PlaceName> <st1:PlaceType w:st="on">Valley</st1:PlaceType> throughout <st1:country-region w:st="on">India</st1:country-region>, moving south to <st1:country-region w:st="on">Sri Lanka</st1:country-region>, across to <st1:country-region w:st="on">Burma</st1:country-region> and <st1:country-region w:st="on">Thailand</st1:country-region>, then north towards <st1:country-region w:st="on">Tibet</st1:country-region> and eventually <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">China</st1:place></st1:country-region>. Over the centuries it began to fragment into various schools. Some of these schools flourished in different parts of <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region> and more distant locations, and so had very little or no contact with each other. When we compare the Books of Discipline, however, there's remarkable similarity between these different schools. They are so similar that they must have originally come from the same source.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> So there is good reason for confidence in what we call the Pali Canon and to accept that it does represent the teachings of the Buddha. In any case, this is the evidence we have to deal with, because there is no one here who can say, "I heard the Buddha say differently." These scriptures are the most authoritative or the most definitive representation of the Buddha's teachings.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> If we study these scriptures very carefully we will find that nowhere is there any injunction to either lay people or to monks with regard to vegetarianism. There is not a single mention of it as a Buddhist injunction on either the monks and nuns or lay people. If the Buddha had made vegetarianism a prerequisite it would have to be somewhere in the scriptures. Quite to the contrary, one does find a number of instances where the Buddha speaks about food, especially on the rules pertaining to the monks, indicating that, during the time of the Buddha, the monks did sometimes eat meat.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> If you'll bear with me I would first like to present to you some of this historical evidence. In these scriptures, particularly in the Books of Discipline, there are many references to what monks are and are not allowed to do. A lot of these rules have to do with food; there are rules about all sorts of things pertaining to food, some of them very unusual. If the monks had to be vegetarian then these rules would seem to be completely useless or irrelevant.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> For instance there is one rule which forbids monks from eating the meat of certain types of animals, such as horse, elephant, dog, snake, tiger, leopard and bear. There are about a dozen different types of meat specified by the Buddha which are not allowed for monks. That he made a rule that certain types of meat were not to be eaten by monks would indicate that other types of meat were allowable.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> There is another rule: a monk was ill, and as he was quite sick a devout female disciple asked him if he had ever had this illness before and what did he take to cure it? It was some sort of stomach problem, and he said that he'd had it before and last time he had some meat broth which helped to relieve the symptoms. So this woman went off looking for meat to prepare a meat broth for the sick monk. However it was an uposatha (observance) day, so there was no meat available anywhere. It was a tradition in <st1:country-region w:st="on"><st1:place w:st="on">India</st1:place></st1:country-region> not to slaughter animals on such days. Out of great devotion this lady decided that the monk could not be left to suffer, so she cut a piece of her own flesh and made a meat broth. She took it to the monk, offered it to him, and apparently he drank it and recovered. When the Buddha heard about this, he made a rule that monks are not allowed to eat human flesh. Thank goodness for that!<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> So here is another strange rule that would be completely pointless if there had been a stipulation that the monks never eat meat. There are many similar instances both in the Rules of Discipline and in the Discourses. When the Buddha heard a charge that Buddhist monks caused the killing of animals by eating meat, he stated that this was not so. He then declared three conditions under which monks were not to eat meat: if they have seen, heard or they suspect that the animal was killed specifically to feed them, then the monks should refuse to accept that food. At other times, when the monks go on almsround, they are supposed to look into their bowls and accept whatever is given with gratitude, without showing pleasure or displeasure. However, if a monk knows, has heard or suspects that the animal has been killed specifically to feed the monks, he should refuse to receive it.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> There are many more examples than I have given here, scattered throughout the scriptures, indicating that it was not a requirement that either the monks or the lay people be vegetarian.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Furthermore, we can see that throughout the history of Buddhism there has not been one Buddhist country were vegetarianism was the common practice of the Buddhist people. This would indicate that it hasn't been the practice right from the very beginning. Although some Mahayana monks, in particular the Chinese, Vietnamese and some of the Japanese, are vegetarian, the majority of lay people are not. Historically, right up to the present day, Buddhist people in general haven't been strictly vegetarian. This would seem to support the conclusion drawn from an examination of the scriptures, that it has never been a prerequisite for people who want to be Buddhists to be vegetarian.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> Of course it can be argued, and it often is argued, by vegetarian monks in particular, but also by lay people, that the scriptures were altered. They argue that the Buddha did teach vegetarianism, but those monks who wanted to eat meat went and changed every reference to it in all the texts. They didn't have a computer to just punch in 'reference to meat' and get a whole list. The scriptures were initially handed down by word of mouth and many monks were involved. No one had it on a disk so that it could be changed in half an hour. It would have been very difficult to change as there are many references to it throughout the scriptures. You could change it in one place but then it would be inconsistent with other references. It is highly unlikely that the monks could have achieved consistency in changing so many references throughout the scriptures, so I think the claim of corruption of the scriptures by meat-loving monks is a bit far-fetched. I think the scriptures are accurate. I think that the Buddha did not make it a prerequisite for people, nor do I think that it was laid down as a rule of training for monks.<o:p></o:p> <o:p> </o:p> <o:p></o:p>

Here's another article I would like to share. First lets look at the deeper meaning of ashva and then the spiritual, psychological interpretation of the Ashvamedha. <?xml:namespace prefix = o ns = "urn:schemas-microsoft-com:" /><o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Ashva or Horse: “It is an image of the great dynamic force of Life, of the vital and nervous energy. It is a force -- a figure of Prana, the universal Life-energy. Originally it must have implied strength or speed or both, before it came to be applied to a horse. In the first or root significance, it means, “to exist pervadingly'' and so, “to possess'', “have'', “obtain'' or “energy''. Besides this original sense inherent in the roots of this family, it has its own peculiar significance, existence in force, of strength, solidity, sharpness, speed, in ashma, stone, ashani, a thunderbolt, ashri, a sharp edge or corner and finally ashva, the strong, swift horse.'' As explained by Sri Aurobindo in 'Hymns to the Mystic Fire' & 'The Secret of the Vedas' <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> The symbolism of the horse is quite evident in the hymns of Dirghatamas to the Horse of the Sacrifice, Rig Veda (1.162) and Rig Veda (1.163), the hymns of the various rishis to the Horse Dadhikravan and opening of the Brihadaraņyaka Upanishad in which usha va ashvasya medhyasya shiraĥ, (“Dawn is the head of the sacrificial horse'') is the first phrase of a very elaborate figure. (Sri Aurobindo) <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Ashvamedha: The Horse-sacrifice is the offering of the Life-power with all its impulses, desires, enjoyments to the divine existence. The life-soul (Dwita) (Rig Veda 5.18.2) is itself the giver of the sacrifice. Dwita is the god or ŗşhi of the second plane of human ascent. Trita is the God or ŗşhi of the third plane, full of luminous mental kingdoms unknown to the physical mind.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> All the horse-sacrifice mantras in the RV (Rig Veda) are in RV (1.162) (22 mantras) and RV (1.163) (13 mantras)., both RV (1.162) and RV (1.163) are revealed to the ŗşhi Dirghatamas, all of whose sūktas RV (1.140) through RV (1.164) are full of deep symbolism. Also recall the mantras, ‘yajamana is yajna', ‘yajna is Vişhņu' occurring in many mantras in the TS (Taittiriya Samhita of the Krishņa Yajur Veda). We can easily understand the deeper meanings of these mantras by paying careful attention to every word in them and by not being carried away by the meanings assigned by commentators and translators. Ashva the steed is the standard symbol for Life-energy or Life-power Prana both inside the human and in the cosmos, Medha means both ‘offering' and ‘intelligence'. Ashvamedha means offering of the life-power with all its impulses, desires, enjoyments, frustrations and also its material counterpart. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> There are naturally three questions: To whom is it offered? Who offers it? What is the goal or purpose in the offering?<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> We will begin with the third question. The life-power or Pranashakti is continuously varying in us; when we are enthusiastic it is more; when the Pranashakti is low, the immunity to diseases is affected and we get diseases formally ascribed to external agents like bacteria. Bacteria are there all the time, but they can easily enter the body when the immunity is low. In the realm of Haţha Yoga and Praņayama, there are several methods for recharging the Prana. What is given in the Veda is the basic method of rejuvenating the life-force and the associated physical body.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> As an answer to the first question, the Life-force in its imperfect condition is offered to the divine existence in general and the Gods Indra, Puşhaņ and Tvaşhţŗ. Puşhaņ is the nourisher who nourishes all the aspects of Prana. Tvaşhţŗ, the divine architect, perfects the forms which have deteriorated. Indra, the lord of Divine Mind, leads the Prana. Indra gives the intelligence for the Prana to prosecute its activities. Using the power of discrimination svadhiti, the different aspects of life-force which need rejuvenation are pointed out. There is no physical cutting of the body, only the recognition of the different aspects needing healing.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Finally we answer the second question ‘who offers'. A key idea in the Veda is that behind the changing life-force there is the fixed and eternal life-soul, the soul of the life energies, Dwita, mentioned in Rig Veda. It presides over the progress of the life-power. The life-soul, also called as aja, the unborn, leads the life-power as mentioned in many mantras.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Once the life-soul offers the life power to the deities, the life-force becomes perfected and it returns to the human being. There is no question of killing or dismemberment.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> TS (4.6.8.2) (same as RV (1.162.2)) gives the secret of the Ashvamedha. The actual words in the mantra are in parenthesis.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> “The life force with universal form (vishvarupa) and golden lustre (rekņasa) on being purified and completely covered by the physical body is held and lead (nayanti) in front by the unborn life-soul (aja) with easy gait (suprang) and with the appropriate mantra-sound''.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> TS (4.6.8.3) (or RV (1.162.3)) (second half): Tvaşhţŗ (the divine architect) accepts the life-force (arvata) with love and makes it full of delight (abhijinvati) and ready for the happy revelations (saushra vasaya).<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Both these verses indicate that the physical steed of Ashvamedha symbolises the life-force only. There is no killing of steed.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> The description of Ashva-Dadhikravaņ in TS (1.5.11.11,12) (same as RV (4.39.6, 10)) (p. 299, volume 1) is also relevant.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> We accept that RV mantras were recited during immolation than the primary question is whether the mantras themselves support unambiguously the ritual killing ? <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> To answer this question, we have to pay attention to every word of the 35 mantras in the two suktas and their meanings.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> The commentator Sayana and translator Arthur Berriedale Keith assign meanings to the words so as to emphasize the idea of ritual killing. We should ascertain the basis for the assigned meanings. I will give here only 4 examples; there are many more.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> ikshamaņa RV (1.162.13), TS (4.6.9.2): iksha is connected with ‘Sight’. But Sayana renders it as a wooden rod to check whether the meat has been cooked. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> sunah (RV 1.162.13): It occurs in numerous mantras with the meaning of ‘Sons’ or ‘Successors’. Here Sayana translates it as a knife for cutting meat.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> aja: Appears in RV (1.162.2), TS (4.6.8.2), RV (1.163.12), TS (4.6.7.12): It has the natural meaning of ‘Unborn' or the ‘Life-soul’ which leads the life-force to the higher worlds. Sayana renders it as the goat which is slaughtered first before the killing of horse. Now does it makes sense to read Sayana stating, “the (dead) goat leads the (slaughtered) horse to heaven''. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> shamita: Occurring in (RV 1.162.9) and shamitara in RV (1.162.10) are rendered as ‘slaughter' & ’shamita' in RV (10.110.10) is rendered as God or fire by Sayana. ’shamita' is translated by Sri Aurobindo as the achiever of works. This meaning is used by Sayana in RV (3.4.10) as, ‘one who polishes or improves'. ’shamita' can also mean ‘to calm' or ‘to quicken'; but to translate this word as ‘slaughtering' is really far-fetched.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> We reproduce below the translation of the famous Ashvastomiya hymn RV (1.163) which is reproduced completely in TS (4.6.7). The hymn has 13 mantras. Not even one of the mantras seems to refer to the four-legged animal. But all of them refer to the life-energy, the Prana imaged in various ways.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> TS (4.6.7): Ashvastomiya mantras<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Born with wings of eagle: RV (1.163.1)<o:p></o:p> (O Horse), when on being born you first arose from the Sun or from the waters;<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> With the wings of an eagle and limbs of swift gazelle;<o:p></o:p> O Arvat, your superb birth is worthy of praise. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Yama gave it: RV (1.163.2)<o:p></o:p> God Yama (he who controls) gave (men) this Horse, and Trita harnessed it, Indra was the first to mount him; <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> The Gandharvas grasped its reins;<o:p></o:p> Vasus fashioned the steed from the Sun (or light of the Sun). <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> You are Yama: RV (1.163.3)<o:p></o:p> O Arvan, you are Yama, you are Aditya;<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> You are Trita in the secret law of your action, by only a little are you distinguished from Soma; <o:p></o:p> They say that three are your connections to the heaven.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Supreme Birth: RV (1.163.4)<o:p></o:p> Your bonds in the heaven is three;<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Three in the Waters, three in the Oceans;<o:p></o:p> O Steed, Varuņa has told me the place of your Supreme birth. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Bridles of Truth: RV (1.163.5)<o:p></o:p> O Swift one, these are your haunts for bathing;<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Here are the foundation for your conquering hooves;<o:p></o:p> Here are seen the auspicious bridles of Right action (ŗta);<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> That protect the rider and the knowledge.<o:p></o:p> Perceive the soul (the bird): RV (1.163.6)<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> I perceive with my mind your innermost soul and it protects;<o:p></o:p> (Your soul) is like a bird from the heaven swooping down;<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> O bird, I saw your head speeding with wings on dust-free paths, fair and easy to travel, going higher and higher.<o:p></o:p> Highest form: RV (1.163.7)<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Here I see your highest form, move towards the plane of impulsion of Rays;<o:p></o:p> When a mortal man pleases your taste;<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Then most greedily do you consume the growths of earth. <o:p></o:p> Law of action: RV (1.163.8)<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> They who follow your law of action become friendly to you;<o:p></o:p> The Gods have measured their power following you.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Inferior Indra: RV (1.163.9) <o:p></o:p> With his Golden horns, feet of steel, with the speed of mind, he was an inferior Indra.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> For the enjoyment of offerings came the Gods;<o:p></o:p> Who first did master the steed.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Hamsa (swan): RV (1.163.10)<o:p></o:p> With their backs full of impulsion and their middle part well-knit;<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> The heroic and divine gallopers, speed in companies like swans; <o:p></o:p> And are eager (to reach) the divine goal.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Body & mind: RV (1.163.11)<o:p></o:p> O Steed, your body swoops downwards, your thought is like the tempestuous wind;<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Your horns are placed in many places, move quickly in the woods (amidst foes). <o:p></o:p> Discernment: RV (1.163.12)<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>The place of discernment has neared and is in your mind;<o:p></o:p> (You are) meditating with the mind and wishing to the reach the Gods.<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Its source is the unborn (the life-soul) which leads in front the life-force; <o:p></o:p> After whom the seers and those that chant walk. <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> Highest abode: RV (1.163.13) <o:p></o:p> To his highest abode has the steed come, to his father and his mother;<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> To-day do you go to the Gods with Supreme joy;<o:p></o:p> For the giver, disperse all desirable qualities. propaganda For an excellent overview of the rite, its logic and its relation to the Sun, the King and Kingdom, see the book “Ashvamedha: The Rite and the Logic'' by Subhash Kak<o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p> <o:p></o:p>

I'm not completely ruling out that Brahmins killed animals, but to hold Vedas responsible for it is completely wrong. I still believe if anyone thinks Vedas sanctioned animal killing, be it Jayadeva Goswami or anyone else, than he/she is definitely not in his/her senses or misinterpreted the Vedas. May this article helps, I would request the readers to go through it thoroughly: Vedas contain the seeds of all knowledge. Even the very way of right living is distinctly proved in Vedas. But the core and crust of Veda lurk in each verse. The verses are the face of Veda which deal with the art of life. For them life must be peaceful and the whole world will be delighted. In Yajurveda a pertinent verse declare its outlook `O dispeller of all pangs and ignorance, strengthen me, May all beings regard me with the eye of a friend. May all of us regard each other with the eye of a friend.' Here friendliness is the passion highlighted. So how can any friend kill anybody is the question we have to face when source historians propagate meat eating or killing animals for yajna is being advised in Vedas. Of course, European indologists had a bad intention while interpreting Vedas. They clearly exposed their aim which was and is the propagation of their religion. Many indologists were even ignorant as far as Vedic language and lexicon was concerned. Prof. Max Minter, the so called Vedic scholar was not able to comprehend Sanskrit. He was not able to speak in the language nor could he understand it. Nirad. C. Chowdhari sheds an ample good light on this fact. 1[c says' One day in 1854 Mullarwas sitting in his room at Oxford copying his MSS, when an Indian dressed in a long black coat shown in. lie addressed Mullar in a language which he did not understand a single word. Max Mullar replied in English and asked in what language he was speaking. The visitor was surprised: Do you not understand Sanskrit.' Max Mullar said `No, f have not heard it spoken', but in India Max Mullar is considered as a celebrated Vedic scholar. Even his followers carne to wrong conclusions. R.C. Majumdar is the best example. lie even indesout meat eating in Vedic verses. lie writes `Scarcely less debased than the lean status and the April hymns manufactured artificially for employment in animal sacrifices there is no reason to doubt that these hymns were actually now at the animal sacrifices as tradition maintains". So, the prime question arises whether Veda propagates meat eating'? To know the culture, the life style, perceptiveness, etc. we musthave historical sense. Our research must be scientific, critical and reasonable. First, let us see what Vedas say on meat eating and animal killing. 1) May I be dear to all animals (Atharva 16.71.4) 2) May you eat rice (Vrihi); may you eat barley (Yava), also black beans (Mdsa) and Sesamum (Tila). This is the share aloted to both of you for happy results, 0 you two teeth (dantau), may you not injure the father and mother. (Atharva - 6-140-2) 3) Do not kill any of the Creatures. (Yaju. L 1) 4) Do not kill the horse. (Yaju. 13.42) 5) Do not kill quadrupeds. (Yak. 13.44) 6) Do not kill wool-giving animals. (Yak. 13.47) 7) Not kill human beings (Yak. 16.3) 8) May you be illumined by the mighty rags of knowledge and may you not kill the cow, the aditi (Yaju.13.43) 9) Do not kill a cow but treat her as Mother. (Yaju.12.32) But, still so called historians say Vedas propagate meat eating & animal killing for Yajna. But Veda's stand is very clear. At this stage, we shall have to handle only two things. Firstly, if Vedas condemn meat eating how slaughter came into being in the Yajnas? Secondly, if any body points out meat eating in Vedic verses what is the real meaning of the mantras. First of all we can analyse how the Yajna turned as an act of slaughter. In the Vedic period, all the Vedic verses were undcrstood so easily. But in the course of time, many of the scholars lost the original values of the Vedic language and grammar. Some priests also out of their selfish motives interpreted Veda in their own ways. This mistake registered into life and style of the future generations. This is very explicitly explained by Caraka in his Samhita. According to him :`At the declining of the Krtayuga, due to over-receiving there arose heaviness in bodies of these wealthy persons; heaviness of the body led to fatigue, lassitude, hoarding, holding and greed in successive order (all this happened) in Krtayuga itself. In Treta, greed gave rise to malice, speaking lie, passion, anger, conceit, dislike, roughness, violence, fear, infliction, greed, anxity, excitement etc, successively. Thus during Treta a charter of righteousness disappeared due to which there was reduction of a charter in the yearly duration of the Yugas (Time cycle) '. 4) Yuga is nothing but a particular period. In the first phase of Vedic period, there wasn't any type of malice. But the fall in mind and in study the people to misunderstanding. Once again we have to depend on Caraka. He says, `In ancient days the animals were only touched in the Yajnas and not killed'. 66 Vedic Science July-Sept., 2002, Vol. 4, No. 3 5) But in this statement Caraka used two Sanskrit words. Alabhana and Alambhane;. What are the difference and the relevance of these two words? Alabhanam means touching Alamhbanam means killing. Only a slight change in the words made all the atrocities on. Every aspects of this is very clearly explained by Caraka in his Samhita. The synonymous term for Yajna in the Nighantu is 'adhvara' which is explained by Yaskacarya, an ancient Vedic etymologist as : adhvara is the name of Yajna, dhyarati is the act of killing, that is to be prohibited (Nirukta -1.7) The word adhvara exists in all the Vedas hundred and one times clearly Suggesting that there is no sanction to animal sacrifices in the Vedas. To take care of animals is an act for spiritual progress. According to Atharva Veda. `These noble souls who practice meditation and are careful about all beings, who protect all animals; they also care for our spiritual progress. They always take care that our behaviour does not afflict any animal' (Atharva Veda, 19.28.5) To conclude, I shall quote from Manusmrti. Manu strictly says: `He who advises the killing of an animal, he who shops it, he who kills animals, he who sells or buys them for such a purpose, he who cooks the flesh, he who serves it for eating and he who eats flesh are all eight of them butchers and destroyers, or in other words, are all sinners. It is a grievous sin to kill or get an animal killed and eat its flesh in honour of Bhairon etc.' Now it is the responsibility of the readers to decide whether Vedas propagate animal killing or not.

Even if brahmins killed animals it doesn't mean that it is sanctioned in 'Vedas'. If Jayadeva Goswami is of the opinion that animals should be sacrificed as per Vedas, than I think he was not in his senses. I would like to share this article with all those who think that killing of animals is sanctioned in Vedas. Scriptures Against Killing and Meat-Eating Hindu scripture speaks clearly and forcefully on nonkilling and vegetarianism. In the ancient Rig Veda, we read: "O vegetable, be succulent, wholesome, strengthening; and thus, body, be fully grown." The Yajur Veda summarily dictates: "Do not injure the beings living on the earth, in the air and in the water." The beautiful Tirukural, a widely-read 2,000-year-old masterpiece of ethics, speaks of conscience: "When a man realizes that meat is the butchered flesh of another creature, he must abstain from eating it." The Manu Samhita advises: "Having well considered the origin of flesh and the cruelty of fettering and slaying of corporeal beings, let one entirely abstain from eating flesh." In the yoga-infused verses of the Tirumantiram, warning is given of how meat-eating holds the mind in gross, adharmic states: "The ignoble ones who eat flesh, death's agents bind them fast and push them quick into the fiery jaws of hell (Naraka, lower consciousness)." The roots of noninjury, nonkilling and nonconsumption of meat are found in the Vedas, agamas, Upanishads, Dharma Shastras, Tirumurai, Yoga Sutras and dozens of other sacred texts of Hinduism. Here is a select collection. Vedas and agamas, Hinduism's Revealed Scriptures LET YOUR AIMS BE COMMON, and your hearts be of one accord, and all of you be of one mind, so you may live well together. Rig Veda Samhita 10.191 Protect both our species, two-legged and four-legged. Both food and water for their needs supply. May they with us increase in stature and strength. Save us from hurt all our days, O Powers! Rig Veda Samhita 10.37.11. VE, 319 One who partakes of human flesh, the flesh of a horse or of another animal, and deprives others of milk by slaughtering cows, O King, if such a fiend does not desist by other means, then you should not hesitate to punish such a person. Rig Veda Samhita, 10.87.16, FS 90 Peaceful be the earth, peaceful the ether, peaceful heaven, peaceful the waters, peaceful the herbs, peaceful the trees. May all Gods bring me peace. May there be peace through these invocations of peace. With these invocations of peace which appease everything, I render peaceful whatever here is terrible, whatever here is cruel, whatever here is sinful. Let it become auspicious, let everything be beneficial to us. Atharva Veda Samhita 10. 191. 4 Those noble souls who practice meditation and other yogic ways, who are ever careful about all beings, who protect all animals, are the ones who are actually serious about spiritual practices. Atharva Veda Samhita 19.48.5. FS, 90 If we have injured space, the earth or heaven, or if we have offended mother or father, from that may Agni, fire of the house, absolve us and guide us safely to the world of goodness. Atharva Veda Samhita 6.120.1. VE, 636 You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever. Yajur Veda Samhita 12.32. FS, 90 May all beings look at me with a friendly eye. May I do likewise, and may we all look on each other with the eyes of a friend. Yajur Veda 36.18. Nonviolence is all the offerings. Renunciation is the priestly honorarium. The final purification is death. Thus all the Divinities are established in this body. Krishna Yajur Veda, Prana Upanishad 46-8. VE, 413-14 To the heavens be peace, to the sky and the earth; to the waters be peace, to plants and all trees; to the Gods be peace, to Brahman be peace, to all men be peace, again and again-peace also to me! O earthen vessel, strengthen me. May all beings regard me with friendly eyes! May I look upon all creatures with friendly eyes! With a friend's eye may we regard each other! Shukla Yajur Veda Samhita 36.17-18. VE, 306; 342 No pain should be caused to any created being or thing. Devikalottara agama, JAV 69-79. RM, 116