No Beef Or Non Veg in Vedas And Why I don’t eat meat? Part-3


a. Vedas are completely against animal killing and violence on innocent creatures

b. Vedic Yajna is by definition non-violent and animal sacrifice is against Vedic precepts

c. Contrary to claims of beef consumption in Vedas, there are references that decision for cover of cows and destruction of these who kill this most efficient and harmless animal.

Thankfully after the publication of this work, the slanderous campaign against Vedas has lost its teeth significantly and no reasonable rebuttal to the content of the work ever surfaced. However, a couple of minor voices have continued to mislead people on this issue using splinter quotes from translations of Vedic literature by incompetent western indologists and juxtaposing them with their own agenda. during this work, we might plan to address a number of those allegations and make the 2 part work an inexpensive single point regard to counter any such misled campaign in future. For those desiring a more detailed exposition, we've already provided an inventory of references at the top of Part 1 of the work.

So lets begin:


It is well-known that animal sacrifice was necessary in Yajna. Vedas are filled with praise of Yajnas.


Yajna word springs from root ‘Yaj’ by adding Nan pratyaya. Yaj root has three meanings : Devapuja (behaving appropriately with the entities around- worshipping Eeshvar, respecting parents, keeping the environment clean etc are few examples), Sangatikaran (Unity) and Daan (Charity). As per Vedas, these form the first duty of citizenry and hence Yajna is so emphasized not only in Vedas but in almost entire Indian literature of ancient era.

What is important however is that the incontrovertible fact that Yajna has no regard to animal killing whatsoever. In fact, Nirukta (Vedic vocabulary) clearly states in 2.7 that Yajna is named Adhwara. Dhwara means violence and hence it's totally banned in Yajna.

In other words, ditch animal killing, any quite violence – through mind, body or voice – is totally banned in Yajna.

Adhwara is employed to imply Yajna during a sizable amount of mantras within the Vedas. for instance , Rigveda 1.1.4, 1.1.8, 1.14.21, 1.128.4, 1.19.1, Atharvaveda 4.24.3, 18.2.2, 1.4.2, 5.12.2, 19.42.4. Around 43 mantras in Yajurveda ask Adhwara.

In fact Yajurveda 36.18 clearly states that “May I think of everyone – Sarvaani Bhootani (and not only human beings) with friendly eyes.”

Thus, Vedas, nowhere justify animal sacrifice and on contrary condemn any sort of violence on innocent beings.

Historically, there may are prevalence of animal sacrifice, but that has nothing to try to to with content of Vedas. Many Muslim girls and boys are working as vulgar models and actresses in movie industry . actually in Bollywood, most top actors and actresses are Muslims. This doesn't necessarily mean Quran justifies vulgarity. Similarly, adultery and pre-marital sex is widespread in Christian countries. This doesn't mean Bible demands them to enjoys these vices.

In same vein, while animal sacrifice may are an historical phenomenon thanks to decadence of Vedic values, we openly challenge anyone to cite even one single reference from Vedas that talk about animal sacrifice in Yajna.


If that be so, what about Ashwamedha, Naramedha, Ajamedha, Gomedha yajnas? Medha means killing and Vedas even justify Naramedha (human sacrifice).

We have already discussed partially 1 that the word medha doesn't necessarily mean slaughter. It denotes an act wiped out accordance to the intellect. Alternatively it could mean consolidation or nurturing, as evident from the basis meaning of medha i.e. medhru san-ga-me (refer Dhatupath)

When we already know that Yajnas are alleged to be Adhwara or non-violent, why should we take Medha to mean violence? Don’t we call an intelligent person – Medhaavi or name our daughters Medhaa. can we imply they're violent people or intelligent persons?

Shatpath and clearly states that:

A Yajna dedicated to the glory, wellbeing and prosperity of the Rashtra the state or empire is understood because the Ashwamedh yajna. Thus likes of Ram Prasad Bismil, Ashfaq, Netaji, Shivaji, Tilak etc performed Ashwamedha Yajna.

To keep the food pure or to stay the senses in check , or to form an honest use of the rays of Sun or keep the world free from impurities[clean] is named Gomedha Yajna. The word Gau also means the world and therefore the yajna dedicated to stay the world the environment clean is named Gomedha Yajna. (refer Nighantu 1.1, and Shatpath 13.15.3).

The cremation of the body of a dead soul in accordance with the principles laid down within the Vedas is named Naramedha Yajna. Dedicated efforts for training and productivity of individuals is additionally Naramedha Yajna or Purushmedha Yajna or Nriyajna.

Aja means grains. So Ajamedha Yajna refers to increasing agricultural productivity or during a very narrow sense : using grains in Agnihotra. Refer Shantiparva 337.4-5.

Vishnu Sharma in Panchatantra (Kakoliyam) clearly states that those that perform animal sacrifice in Yajna are fools because they are doing not understand Vedas properly. If one goes to Heaven by animal sacrifice, what might be the trail to travel to Hell!

Mahabharat Shantiparva has two shlokas in Shantiparva that those that state that Yajna contain alcohol, fish or meat are frauds, atheists and barren of knowledge of Shastras. (263.6, 265.9)


What about Yajurveda 24.29 which uses words ‘Hastina Aalambhate’ meaning sacrifice of elephants?


Who told you that Alambha derived from Labha root means sacrifice or killing? Labha means to accumulate or gain. While Hastina features a deeper meaning beyond elephant, albeit we take it to mean elephant during this mantra, it only says that the king should acquire elephants for nurture of his kingdom. what's so violent about it?

Alambha is employed in several places to mean ‘acquire’ or ‘gain’. for instance , Manusmriti prohibits indulging in women for Brahmacharis by saying ” Varjayet Streenam Alambham”.

Thus this conjecture is totally out of place. could also be those that concocted Aalambhate to mean killing in Vedic mantras were themselves addicted to killing animals for food and hence their first instinct of deriving benefits from animals was to imply killing them.


But what about ‘Sanjyapan’ utilized in Brahmana and Shraut texts to mean sacrifice?


Refer Atharvaveda which says that we should always do Sanjyapan of mind, body and heart. Does it mean we should always commit suicide! Sanjyapan simply means unity and nurture. The mantra says that we should always strengthen our mind, body and heart and ensure they add unity. Sanjyapan also means ‘to inform’.


You are escaping whenever from being trapped. But no more. What does one need to say about Yajurveda 25.34-35 / Rigveda 1.162.11-12 which states that:

“What from thy body which with fire is roasted, when thou art beset the spit, distilleth,— Let not that lie on earth or grass neglected, but to the longing Gods let all be offered.”

“They who, observing that the Horse is prepared , call out and say, The smell is good; remove it; And, craving meat, await the distribution,—may their approving help promote our labour.”

Very clearly there's explicit description of horse sacrifice.


We believe you've got quoted from the trash works of Griffith.

The first has no regard to horse. It simply means when people are suffering thanks to high temperatures/ fever, the doctors should look after them and supply them treatment.

In second mantra, all he did was to assume that Vaajinam word means ‘horse’. However, ‘Vajinam’ means a brave/strong/ dynamic/ fast entity. Thus horse is additionally referred to as Vaajinam. There are often many interpretations of the mantras, however none cause horse sacrifice.

In fact, albeit we mean that Vaajinam means horse, still the very verse actually means those that plan to kill horses (Vajinam) should be prevented from doing so. We strongly recommend reviewing the interpretation by Swami Dayanand Saraswati for these mantras.

Also, ask huge number of mantras provided partially 1 of the article ( ) that explicitly prohibit animal killing and severe punishment for animal killers – especially killers of horses and cows.


What about regard to Goghna or killing of cows in Vedas? What about Atithigva/ Atithigna or an individual who served beef to guests?


In Part 1, we gave ample references of cow being Aghnya or Aditi – undeserving of being killed. We also gave references of strict punishment in Vedas for those that destroy cows.

Gam root means ‘to go’. that's why planets also are called ‘Go’ because they move. Atithigna/ Atithigva means one who goes towards the guest or serves his guests sincerely.

Goghna has several meanings. albeit we take ‘Go’ to mean cow, Goghna means Go+Han : Approaching cow. (Han root means Movement and Knowledge aside from Violence).

There are many references in Vedas where Han is employed for approaching and not killing, for instance , Atharvaveda states “Husband should Han-approach the wife.”

Thus these allegations are equally baseless.


Vedas talk about not killing young cows. But old barren cows (Vashaa) are alleged to be killed. Similarly, Uksha or bulls should be killed as per Vedas.


This hypothesis was popularized in recent times by yet one more pseudo-scholar D N Jha to defend his assertion of beef-eating in Vedas despite obvious contradictions that come up due to verses in Vedas that state the precise opposite. With home-grown defective pieces, who needs enemies from outside!

The fact is that Uksha refers to a medicinal herb, also referred to as Soma. Even someone like Monier Williams in his Sanskrit-English Dictionary states an equivalent .

Vashaa refers to controlling powers of God and not a barren cow. If Vasha is employed to mean a barren cow, then many Vedic verses will make no sense.

For example, Atharvaveda 10.10.4 uses Sahasradhara or Thousand flows in relation with Vasha. How can a barren cow be compared with Sahasradhara wont to denote ample food, milk and water.

Atharvaveda 10.190 states that Vashi means controlling power of God and is recited twice daily in Vedic Sandhya.

In other verses, Vashaa is employed also as productive land or an honest wife with children (Atharvaveda 20.103.15) or a medicinal herb. Monier Williams also uses the word to mean a herb in his dictionary.

We fail to know which divine inspiration prompted these pseudo-scholars to concoct that Vashaa means a barren cow.


Brihadaranyak Upanishad 6.4.18 clearly states that if a few desires a noble son, they ought to eat Meat with rice (Mansodanam) or Bull (Arshabh) or Calf (Uksha).


1. Now that there's nothing to point out in Vedas, focus of allegation has shifted to Upanishads. But albeit one is in a position to prove beef eating in Upanishads, that also doesn't prove that there's beef in Vedas. and therefore the foundation of Hinduism is that Vedas are supreme. Refer Purva Meemansa 1.3.3, Manusmriti 2.13, Manusmriti 12.95, Jabalasmriti, Bhavishya Puran etc which clearly state that if there's discrepancy between Vedas and other Shastras, then Vedas are considered supreme and therefore the rest is rejected.

2. Having said this, we'll show that the actual references from Brihadaranyak has been misinterpreted.

3. allow us to take Mansodanam first. There are 4 more verses just before this verse that recommend eating particular edibles with rice for having a toddler with Vedic wisdom of various types. the opposite edibles are: Ksheerodanam (Milk with rice), Dadhyodanam (Yogurt with rice), Water with rice and Tila (a pulse) with rice for experts in other Vedas. Thus it's just for mastery of Atharvaveda that Mansodanam or meat with rice is suggested . This itself shows that the actual reference is an anomaly.

4. actually , the proper word is Mashodanam and NOT Mansodanam. Masha means a sort of pulse. Hence there's nothing fleshy about it. In fact, for pregnant women, meat is totally prohibited as per Ayurveda. Refer Sushruta Samhita. there's also a verse in Sushrut Samhita that recommends Masha for husband and wife for an honest son. Thus it's obvious that Brihadaranyaka has also explained an equivalent concept as elucidated in Sushruta Samhita. there's no reason why the 2 texts would differ in Masha and Mansa.

5. albeit someone asserts that it's not Masha but Mansa, still Mansa means pulp and not necessarily meat. There are ample usages of Mansa as pulp in ancient texts. Thus Amramansam means pulp of mango. Khajuramansam means pulp of date. Refer Charak Samhita for such examples. Taittriya Samhita 2.32.8 uses Mansa for curd, honey and corn.

6. we've already seen that Uksha means a herb or Soma, whilst per Monier Williams Dictionary. an equivalent dictionary also lists Rishabh (from which Arshabh is derived) to mean a sort of medicinal plant (Carpopogan pruriens). Charak Samhita 1.4-13 lists Rishabh as a medicinal plant. Same is mentioned in Sushrut Samhita 38 and Bhavaprakash Purna Khanda.

7. Further both Arshabh (Rishabh) and Uksha mean bull and none means ‘calf’. So why were synonyms wont to mention an equivalent thing within the shloka from Brihadaranyak. this is often like saying, one should eat either curd or yogurt! Thus, obviously the 2 words mean two various things . And considering that each one the opposite verses mention herbs and pulses, these words also mean an equivalent .


What about Mahabharat Vana Parva 207 that explicitly states that King Rantideva wont to have Yajnas where huge number of cows wont to be killed?


Again, as mentioned previously, if there's dispute between Vedas and the other text, then Vedas are considered supreme. Further, Mahabharat may be a grossly interpolated and adulterated text and hence not considered authority in itself.

The allegation of cow-killing at Rantideva’s palace may be a fraud allegation refuted decades ago by several scholars.

1. Anushasan Parva 115 lists Rantideva together of the kings who never consumed meat. How can that be possible if beef was amply available at his palace?

2. we've already proven that Mansa doesn't necessarily mean meat.

3. the actual shloka alleges that every day 2000 cows were killed. this suggests quite 720,000 cows were killed annually . Is it logical to require such a shloka seriously?

4. Mahabharat Shantiparva 262.47 asserts that one who kills cows or bulls may be a great sinner. an equivalent Mahabharat calls King Rantideva an excellent saint and pious person. How can there be such a blatant contradiction in same text?

5. actually , the shlokas are distorted by misled scholars like Rahul Sankrityayana who are known for his or her Vedas bashing. Rahul Sankrityayana deliberately quoted only 3 lines of the verse and left 1 line from Dronaparva Chapter 67 first two shlokas. He misinterpreted Dwishatsahasra to mean 2000 when it actually means 200 thousand. This itself shows his competence in Sanskrit.

None of those lines have any regard to beef. And when combined with 4th line that he deliberately missed, it means Rantideva had 200,000 cooks in his kingdom who wont to serve good food (rice, pulses, cooked food, sweets etc) day and night to guests and students .

Then the word ‘Masha’ from subsequent shloka was changed to ‘Mansa’ to imply that it talked of beef.

6. On contrary there are ample verses in Mahabharat which talk about non-violence and condemn beef eating. Further they praise charity of cows and their nurture.

7. Fools have interpreted Badhyate to mean killing. However this is often not so as per any Sanskrit text on grammar or usage. Badhyate means to regulate .

Thus, there's no way that one can prove that King Rantideva wont to have cows killed.

To conclude, all allegations of beef or meat in Vedas or Vedic texts are merely desperate attempts by perverted minds to project their own vices on the foremost noble texts of the planet .

May the sunshine of wisdom enlighten their minds and should we all at once make the planet a wise place.

Post a Comment