You are here:

Hindus/Eating Beef ?


natasha wrote at 2008-10-28 03:47:12
No you are not more hindu b'coz beef is pure for us and a god according to hindu law if any hindu have eaten beef i is ot more hindu they should not be allow to come at temples do any religious activity

Julie wrote at 2009-04-01 21:33:05
Dear Rajiv,

I agree with you in the sense that if you eat one kind of meat why not beef? Still I believe that as hindus it is not in our custom to eat beef. You are from India I am guessing.I am a NZ born Indian, aged 37years. And all this time I have never eaten beef only because we in hindu religion and custom believe that the cow is sacred. We call the cow "gau Mata", which Im sure you are aware of.We call our mom's mata and will not do anything to harm her so why harm the cow just to fill out stomach? There are many things not written per say but that doesnt mean that one doesnt follow them.There are millions of books written about religions and not all have been read by one is not necessary that one person would have read it all. My point is that you would not do anything to harm your children and your parents would have done the same maybe thats why they didnt eat beef. it is said that every wrong deed we do, it will be punished, if not you then your family will suffer.I dont know if this is true but I believe it so for that reason I will not do anything that I have been taught is against our religion/custom. I get scared thinking that if I eat beef it may harm my family in some way.Every action has a reaction.You say that practicing good deeds is much superior than practicing the rites and rituals, which is fine as you are allowed to have your own opinion.It is written in our scriptures that you have to pray as well as do good deeds, dharma and karma.So it may not be written not to eat beef it is written that you have to pray.Not to sound rude but it seems you do not follow anything, written or not.So what difference should it make now?Example , there are the 10 commandments in christanity,one cannnot pick and choose which ones of the ten they would like to follow. you either do all or none.I dont mean to shoe disrespect and I only hope I have not done that, merely giving my thoughts. thanks


muski27 wrote at 2009-05-20 04:12:05
Br. William

Wow I must say that when we need approval we always choose the non-Indian Hindus for an answer. Vedic Hinduism never sanctioned the eating of beef, it never appears in any part of the text whatsoever. The notion that in vedic times Hindus ate beef is just a propoganda by protestant missionaries to make gullible HIndus convert or ideally be considered outcaste after eating beef and make them easier targets for conversion. Putting aside religions texts, I would appeal to you ethically to spare not only the cow but all the other animals that you so joyfully consume. Not only is meat unhealthy for you (red meat increases the chances of bowel cancer), you will spare the poor cute animals life and let it be. I personally think your beef consumption is disgusting and I dont think you deserve to call yourself a HIndu. If beef eating is more important to you than Hindu dharma then do the right thing and declare youself a Non-Hindu. The last thing Hinduism needs is hypocrites like you who eat beef and yet state they are commited to spirituality because any spiritual aspirant will never consider taking the life of creatures that knowingly sense the same kind of pain that we do when we get injured.


Rahul wrote at 2009-06-20 13:32:39
dear friend,

In India a place where lot of vegetables and friuts and grains were/are available, it could be the reason that people would have thought not to eat beef so that milk and milk products are available in abundant by giving it a religious touch.

Every religion is good. Religions are formed by the geographical conditions of that time when religion was getting invented. No religion teaches cruelty. For example Islam was formed at a place in middle-east which was very hostile and dry. Vegetation was not available for the humans but only for animals like goats,cows. So it could have been so that Islam had to include allowing of meat in food. But a place where Hinduism got formed it was a place where abundant quantity of vegetables, friuts,foodgrains were available and hence people did not feel to eat meat at all and so it became the religion as the time progressed.  

Sunny Sidar wrote at 2010-01-26 01:16:36

Interesting, A hindu born cow eater still holds on to the ethic background as hindu, but does not practise it.Cow eating is one of the worst things you can do being SO-Clled hindu, by the sonds of it, you have no clue for what hinduism stnds for hindu, this is very sad. just wondering, do your parent also eat cow. Hve they taught you anything about hinduism.

Do yo know if islamic do the same and have pig

plz send  reply HP

Farook wrote at 2010-04-03 07:20:58
If the Hindu religious book permits eating cow then why are the followers opposing? It is not the Hindu Law to not to eat beef. It does not say it is 'Gaw maata'. It is people's made up law. Read Rigved Book 10, Chapter 28 verse3....

CD wrote at 2010-05-28 18:45:43
To attribute any type of food to religion is a bit far fetched. Just because some clown decided that he had some reason for not eating beef, does not mean that it was right. It does not make one holier or a better Hindu by claiming that only if one refrains from eating beef, then one is a true Hindu.

In that case with a majority of the Indian population claiming that they are true Hindus, they should also claim that those same people should be touting why the country in so corrupt. I guess that is also part of their belief.

When it comes to food, keep religion out of it. There are millions of children starving across the world for want of food let alone beef.  

Hindu wrote at 2010-08-10 01:55:52
True, I agree. There are some hypocrites who does all the nuisance in life and at the end of the day they call themselves 'Hindu' by avoiding beef and telling fake words. I have seen many people those who ill-treat their parents, beat their wife, cheat their girl friend and back stab friends. If these guys start talking about 'Hinduism' then there is nothing to say about it. What I have learnt is Hinduism is not a mere religion it is a life style. The most comfortable way to lead life without boundaries. There is no central religious authority or a single prophet. Its all matter of mind. So to all Hindus dont listen to these illiterate mob just enjoy life. Do good and be good that should be the moto of an Hindu. All the best...

shashi wrote at 2010-10-12 20:38:55

This sounds utter disappointing to compare Cow which is holy to Hindu's with the Dog's.

Please be known that Hindu's treat Cow equivalent to mother since we drink their milk like our mother's.

Also lord Krishna prayed the mother cow while Govardhan mountain was showing arrogance.

Please don't compare our mother cow with Dog.

It's adorable for hindu's.

I think you are a muslim pretending to be Hindu.

Anand wrote at 2011-01-26 22:14:56
The answer here above shows utter lack of knowledge of Indian scriptures and spirituality. Food is the first important thing to be regulated if you want to progress spiritually. If you eat thaamasic non-vegetarian food on one hand and try to meditate on the other, it is never going to happen. The reason for prohibiting onion, garlic, mushrooms etc is to attain saatvika mind and body.

No one of course stops anyone else from eating meat etc. Only that you are earning bad karma and are going to be born for millions of future births before attaining moksham.

Prem wrote at 2011-11-18 06:48:54
It is interesting to note that the cow used to be slaughtered by the ancient Hindus to enjoy its beef, entertain the guests and offer it as sacrifice to their Gods.(But now Cow eating punishable by Hindu Law ,passed against beef eating muslims,christians and majority Low castes) [Mahatma] Gandhi himself says, "I know there are scholars who tell us that cow-sacrifice is mentioned in the Vedas. I... read a sentence in our Sanskrit text-book to the effect that Brahmins of old [period] used to eat beef" [M.K. Gandhi, Hindu Dharma, New Delhi, 1991, p. 120]. He, however, refrained from showing enough courage in clearly speaking the truth, may be because he did not like to hurt the sentiments of the people who were the main source of his political strength. There are clear evidences in the Rig Veda, the most sacred Hindu scripture, that the cow used to be sacrificed by Hindus for religious purposes. For instance, Hymn CLXIX of the Rig Veda says: "May the wind blow upon our cows with healing; may they eat herbage ... Like-coloured various-hued or single- coloured whose names through sacrifice are known to Agni, Whom the Angirases produced by Ferbvour - vouschsafe to these, Parjanya, Those who have offered to the gods their bodies whose varied forms are all well known to Soma" [The Rig Veda (RV). In the Rig Veda (RV: VIII.43.11) Agni is described as "fed on ox and cow" suggesting that cattle were sacrificed and roasted in fire. Another hymn (RV: X.16.7) mentions the ritual enveloping of the corpse with cow flesh before applying the fire on it. In the Brahmanas at 1.15 in the Aiteriya Brahmana, the kindling of Agni on the arrival of King Some is compared to the slaughter of a bull or a barren cow on the arrival of a human king or other dignitary (But now punishable by the Laws passed by BJP. Similarly, at II.1.11.1 in the Taiteriya Brahmana and XXXI.14.5 in the Panchavinsha Brahmana, the rishi Agastya is credited with the slaughter of a hundred bulls. In verse III.1.2.21 in the Satapatha Brahmana, sage Yajnavalkaya asserts that even though the cow is the supporter of everyone, he would eat beef "if it is luscious." At IV.5-2.1 in the same Brahmana, it is said that a barren cow can be slaughtered in the Some sacrifice. Not only for religious purposes, but also for other purposes one could kill a cow and eat beef. Thus at II.4.2 of the same Brahmana, it is suggested that a fat bull or fat goat should be sacrificed in honour of an important guest. Similarly, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishada (VI.4.18) advises a couple to take an evening meal of beef or veal rice,and have bull and cow like sex if they desire to beget a son who is learned in the Vedas . Even Lord Rama took a Dowry(punishable by secular India's Laws) of thousands of Cows and Bullock in the marriage to Sita.

aryan 108 wrote at 2012-03-30 11:48:49
Author: Sandhya Jain

Publication: Deccan Herald

Date: December 20, 2001

Under the pretext of disseminating true knowledge about the past to young, impressionable school children, a perverse assault has been launched upon the religious sensitivities of the Hindu community. Marxist historians allege that ancient Hindus ate beef, that this is recorded in their sacred scriptures, and that this should be taught to school children. The Hindu prohibition on cow slaughter, they say, is a more recent development and Hindus are shying away from this truth because it is intimately linked with their sense of identity.

A Marxist specialist on ancient India, ignorant in both Vedic and Panini 's Sanskrit, claims that the Shatapatha Brahmana and Vasistha Dharmasutra clearly state that guests were honoured by serving beef. She also cites archaeological evidence as reported by H.D. Sankalia and B.B. Lal. While the lady thinks her evidence is irrefutable, I have decided to pick up the gauntlet.

To begin with, the Shatapatha Brahmana is Yajnavalkya's commentary on the Yajur Veda, and not a revealed text. As for the Vasistha Dharmasutra, the legendary Sanskritist, late P.V. Kane, said, "beyond the name Vasistha there is hardly anything special in the dharmasutra to connect it with the Rgveda." Kane also added, "grave doubts have been entertained about the authenticity of the whole of the text of the Vas.Dh.S. as the mss. (manuscripts) contain varying numbers of chapters from 6 to 30, and as the text is hopelessly corrupt in several places. many verses.bear the impress of a comparatively late age." Kane tentatively places this text between 300-100 B.C., that is, long after the end of the Vedic age.

According to archaeologists, the early Vedic age tentatively falls between the fourteen century BC to the first millennium BC. The later Vedic period lies between 1000 BC to 600-700 BC. But if we go by astronomical dating of some of the hymns, we get a period of 7000 BC for a portion of the Vedas.

The honest question, however, is whether the Vedas offer evidence about cow slaughter and beef-eating, and if not, how the controversy arose in the first place. A few clarifications are in order before we proceed. The word 'cow' (gau), for instance, is used throughout the Vedas in diverse senses, and, depending on the context of the verse, could mean the animal cow, waters, sun-rays, learned persons, Vedic verses, or Prithvi (earth as Divine Mother).

Then, Vedic society was heterogeneous, pluralistic, and non-vegetarian. In theory, it is possible that the cow was killed and eaten. The fact, however, is that throughout the Vedas the cow is called a non-killable animal, or "aghnya." According to "An Encyclopaedic Dictionary of Sanskrit on Historical Principles" (Vol. I, Deccan College, Poona), "aghnya" means "not to be killed or violated" and is used for cows and for waters in the presence of which oaths were taken.

The Rig and Sama Veda call the cow "aghnya" and "Aditi", ie. not to be murdered (Rig 1-64-27; 5-83-8; 7-68-9; 1-164-40; 8-69-2; 9-1-9; 9-93-3; 10-6-11; 10-87-16). They extol the cow as un-killable, un-murderable, whose milk purifies the mind and keeps it free from sin. Verse 10-87-16 prescribes severe punishment for the person who kills a cow. The Atharva Veda recommends beheading (8-3-16) for such a crime; the Rig Veda advocates expulsion from the kingdom (8-101-15).

Hence, it seems unlikely that the cow would be slaughtered to entertain guests, as claimed by Marxist historians. But before coming to any conclusion, the archaeological evidence should also be examined. Archaeologists have excavated bones of cattle in huge quantity, "cattle" is a collective noun which includes the cow, bull, buffalo, nilgai and all other bovine animals. Nowhere in the world can experts differentiate between the bones of cows and other cattle recovered from excavations.

There are good reasons for this difficulty. Most of the bones found are not whole carcasses, but large pieces of limbs. Experts feel that these could be the remains of animals that died naturally and were skinned for their hide and bones. Ancient man used bones to make knives and other tools; the splintered bones found could be part of the tool-making exercise. In all honesty, therefore, cattle bone finds do not prove cow slaughter or the eating of cow meat, especially when all literary evidence points in the opposite direction.

There has been talk about cut-marks on the bones. But apart from tool-making, even if a tanner skins dead cattle for the hide, he will inflict cut marks on the carcass. Scientifically, it is not possible to say if the marks on the bones are ante-mortem or post-mortem. This can be determined only where the body is intact (animal or human), by analyzing blood vessels, tissue, rigor mortis and other factors.

Fortunately, there is now clinching evidence why the Marxist claim on cow-flesh rests on false premises. As already stated, the allegation rests mainly on literary sources and their interpretation, and we are in a position to trace the source of the mischief - the Vachaspatyam of Pandit Taranath and his British mentors.

Pandit Taranath, a professor of grammar at the Calcutta Sanskrit College, compiled a six-volume Sanskrit-to-Sanskrit dictionary, which is used by scholars to this day. The Vachaspatyam is a valuable guide for scholars because there are certain words in the samhita (mantra) section of the Vedas that are not found later in the Puranas.

What most Sanskrit scholars have failed to notice is that Taranath artfully corrupted the meanings of a few crucial words of the Vedic samhita to endorse the meaning given by Max Muller in his translation of the Vedas. Swami Prakashanand Saraswati has exposed this beautifully in "The True History and the Religion of India, A Concise Encyclopedia of Authentic Hinduism" (Motilal Banarsidass).

The British idea was that Max Muller would translate the Rig Veda "in such a scornful manner that Hindus themselves should begin to reproach their own religion of the Vedas," while a Hindu pandit would "compile an elaborate Sanskrit dictionary that should exhibit disgraceful meanings of certain words of the Vedic mantras." As Hindus would not question a dictionary by a Hindu pandit, the British would be able to claim that whatever Max Muller wrote about the Vedas was according to the dictionary of the Hindus.

Swami Prakashanand Saraswati focuses on two words - goghn and ashvamedh. "Goghn" means a guest who receives a cow as gift. Panini created a special sutra to establish the rule that goghn will only mean the receiver of a cow (and will not be used in any other sense). But Taranath ignored Panini's injunction and wrote that "goghn" means "the killer of a cow." He similarly converted the ashvamedh yagna from 'ritual worship of the horse' to the "killing of the horse."

The Swami proves the British hand in this mischief through the patronage given to Taranath by the Government of Bengal in 1866, when Lt. Governor Sir Cecil Beadon sanctioned ten thousand rupees for two hundred copies of his dictionary. This was a king's ransom in those days, as even in the 1930s the headmaster of a vernacular primary school received a salary of twenty rupees a month. Today, ten thousand rupees is the equivalent of two million rupees.

When the basic premise upon which all modern translations rest is thus knocked off its pedestal, what beef is left in the theory that Vedic Hindus enjoyed the flesh of the cow? I rest my case.  

Ajay wrote at 2016-06-23 09:49:48
I will eat what i want! I don't care if someone else approves of it or not... as long as i am not asking them to eat something that is against their religion, they should not have a problem! India is a democratic and free nation with more than just Hindus...! just because BJP is in power now does not mean that everyone to live peacefully in India needs to be a or live like a Hindu!  


All Answers

Answers by Expert:

Ask Experts


William Schindler, a.k.a. Brother William


I can answer questions about Vedanta philosophy, Patanjali Yoga philosophy and practice, Tantra, Bhagavad-Gita, Upanishads, Vivekachudamani (Shankara`s Crest-jewel of Spritual Discrimination), Advaita (non-dualism), the Ramakrishna-Vivekananda tradition, Goddess worship, meditation practice, Hindu monasticism (sannyasa), and Sanskrit.


I've been studying and practicing Vedanta and Tantra since 1969.

I'm the founder and spiritual director of Ashram West, a gay spiritual community based on traditional Hindu Tantra. I have been a member of the Vedanta Society of Southern California since 1969.


I hold a B.A. in Sanskrit (UC Berkeley 1975) and an M.A. in clinical psychology (Antioch University 1986).

©2017 All rights reserved.

[an error occurred while processing this directive]