Does Sanathana Dharma support eating meat? (Part-1)

Part 2:- Does Sanathana Dharma support eating meat? (Part 2)

From

Excerpted from Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva – chapter 113.

http://ancientvoice.wikidot.com/src-mbh-13:section-113

Yudhishthira said, Abstention from injury, the observance of the Vedic ritual, meditation, subjugation of the senses, penances, and obedient services rendered to the preceptors, which amongst these is fraught with the greatest merit with respect to a person' Vrihaspati said, All these six are fraught with merit. They are different doors of piety. I shall discourse upon them presently. Do thou listen to them, O chief of the Bharatas! I shall tell thee what constitutes the highest good of a human being. That man who practises the Dharma of universal compassion achieves his highest good.

That man who keeps under control the three faults, viz, lust, wrath, and cupidity, by throwing them upon all creatures and practises the virtue of compassion, attains to success. He who, from motives of his own happiness, slays other harmless creatures with the rod of chastisement, never attains to happiness, in the next world. 

That man who regards all creatures as his own self, and behaves towards them as towards his own self, laying aside the rod of chastisement and completely subjugating his wrath, succeeds in attaining to happiness. The very deities, who are desirous of a fixed abode, become stupefied in ascertaining the track of that person who constitutes himself the soul of all creatures and looks upon them all as his own self, for such a person leaves no track behind. One should never do that to another which one regards as injurious to one's own self. This, in brief, is the rule of Righteousness. One by acting in a different way by yielding to desire, becomes guilty of unrighteousness. In refusals and gifts, in happiness and misery, in the agreeable, and the disagreeable, one should judge of their effects by a reference to one's own self. When One injures another, the injured turns round and injures the injurer. Similarly, when one cherishes another, that other cherishes the cherisher.

One should frame one's rule of conduct according to this. I have told thee what Righteousness is even by this subtile way' Vaisampayana continued, The preceptor of the deities, possessed of great intelligence, having said this unto king Yudhishthira the just, ascended upwards for proceeding to Heaven, before our eyes.

**************

Excerpted from Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva – chapter 114.

Full text at http://ancientvoice.wikidot.com/src-mbh-13:section-114

Bhishma tells Yudhishtra:-

A person becomes guilty of injury through acts, words and thoughts. Discarding it mentally at the outset, one should next discard in word and thought. He who, according to this rule, abstains from eating meat is said to be cleansed in a threefold way. It is heard that utterers of Brahma ascribe to three causes the sin of eating meat. That sin may attach to the mind, to words, and to acts. It is for this reason that men of wisdom who are endued with penances refrain from eating meat. Listen to me, O king, as I tell thee what the faults are that attach to the eating of meat. The meat of other animals is like the flesh of one's son. That foolish person, stupefied by folly, who eats meat is regarded as the vilest of human beings.

The union of father and mother produces an offspring. After the same manner, the cruelty that a helpless and sinful wretch commits, produces its progeny of repeated rebirths fraught with great misery. As the tongue is the cause of the knowledge or sensation of taste, so the scriptures declare, attachment proceeds from taste. Well-dressed, cooked with salt or without salt, meat, in whatever form one may take it, gradually attracts the mind and enslaves it. How will those foolish men that subsist upon meat succeed in listening to the sweet music of celestial drums and cymbals and lyres and harps? 

They who eat meat applaud it highly, suffering themselves to be stupefied by its taste which they pronounce to be something inconceivable, undescribable, and unimaginable. Such praise even of meat is fraught with demerit. In former days, many righteous men, by giving the flesh of their own bodies, protected the flesh of other creatures and as a consequence of such acts of merit, have proceeded to heaven. In this way, O monarch the Religion of compassion is surrounded by four considerations. I have thus declared to thee that DHARMA which comprises all other Dharma within it.

*********************

Excerpted from Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva – chapter 115.

Full text at http://ancientvoice.wikidot.com/src-mbh-13:section-115

Bhishma continued:-

“The merit acquired by that person, O Yudhishthira, who, with the steadiness of a vow, adores the deities every month in horse-sacrifices, is equal to his who discards honey and meat. The seven celestial Rishis, the Valakhilyas, and those Rishis who drink the rays of the sun, endued with great wisdom, applaud abstention from meat. The Self-born Manu has said that that man who does not eat meat, or who does not slay living creatures, or who does not cause them to be slain, is a friend of all creatures. Such a man is incapable of being oppressed by any creature. He enjoys the confidence of all living beings. He always enjoys, besides, the approbation and commendation of the righteous. The righteous-souled Narada has said that that man who wishes to increase his own flesh by eating the flesh of other creatures, meets with calamity. Vrihaspati has said that that man who abstains from honey and meat acquires the merit of gifts and sacrifices and penances. In my estimation, these two persons are equal, viz, he who adores the deities every month in a horse-sacrifice for a space of hundred years and he who abstains from honey and meat.

In consequence of abstention from meat one comes to be regarded as one who always adores the deities in sacrifices, or as one who always makes gifts to others, or as one who always undergoes the severest austerities. That man who having eaten meat gives it up afterwards, acquires merit by such an act that is so great that a study of all the Vedas or a performance, O Bharata, of all the sacrifices, cannot bestow its like. It is exceedingly difficult to give up meat after one has become acquainted with its taste. Indeed, it is exceedingly difficult for such a person to observe the high vow of abstention from meat, a vow that assures every creature by dispelling all fear. That learned person who giveth to all living creatures the Dakshina of complete assurance comes to be regarded, without doubt, as the giver of life-breaths in this world. Even this is the high religion which men of wisdom applaud.

The life-breaths of other creatures are as dear to them as those of one's to one's own self. Men endued with intelligence and cleansed souls should always behave towards other creatures after the manner of that behaviour which they like others to observe towards themselves. It is seen that even those men who are possessed of learning and who seek to achieve the highest good in the form of Emancipation, are not free from the fear of death. What need there be said of those innocent and healthy creatures endued with love of life, when they are sought to be slain by sinful wretches subsisting by slaughter?

For this reason, O monarch, know that the discarding of meat is the highest refuge of religion, of heaven, and of happiness. 

Abstention from injury is the highest Dharma. 

It is, again, the highest penance. 

It is also the highest truths from which all duty proceeds. 

Flesh cannot be had from grass or wood or stone. 

Unless a living creature is slain, it cannot be had. Hence is the fault in eating flesh. 

The deities who subsist upon Swaha, Swadha, and nectar, are devoted to truth and sincerity. Those persons, however, who are for gratifying the sensation of taste, should be known as Rakshasas wedded to the attribute of Passion. 

That man who abstains from meat, is never put in fear, O king, by any creature, wherever he may be, viz, in terrible wildernesses or inaccessible fastnesses, by day or by night, or at the two twilights, in the open squares of towns or in assemblies of men, from upraised weapons or in places where there is great fright from wild animals or snakes.

All creatures seek his protection. He is an object of confidence with all creatures. 

He never causes any anxiety in others, and himself has never to become anxious. 

If there were nobody who ate flesh there would then be nobody to kill living creatures. 

The man who kills living creatures kill them for the sake of the person who eats flesh. 

If flesh were regarded as inedible, there would then be no slaughter of living creatures. 

It is for the sake of the eater that the slaughter of living creatures goes on in the world. Since, O thou of great splendour, the period of life is shortened of persons who slaughter living creatures or cause them to be slaughtered, it is clear that the person who wishes his own good should give up meat entirely. Those fierce persons who are engaged in slaughter of living creatures, never find protectors when they are in need. Such persons should always be molested and persecuted even as beasts of prey.

Through cupidity or stupefaction of the understanding, for the sake of strength and energy, or through association with the sinful, the disposition manifests itself in men for sinning. That man who seeks to increase his own flesh by eating the flesh of others, has to live in this world in great anxiety and after death has to take birth in indifferent races and families. 

High Rishis devoted to the observance of vows and self-restraint have said that abstention from meat is worthy of every praise, productive of fame and Heaven, and a great propitiation by itself. This I heard in days of old, O son of Kunti, from Markandeya when that Rishi discoursed on the demerits of eating flesh. 

He who eats the flesh of animals that are desirous of living but that have been killed by either himself or others, incurs the sin that attaches to the slaughter for his this act of cruelty. 

He who purchases flesh slays living creatures through his wealth. 

He who eats flesh slays living creatures through such act of eating. 

He who binds or seizes and actually kills living creatures is the slaughterer. 

Those are the three kinds of slaughter, each of these three acts being so. 

He who does not himself eat flesh but approves of an act of slaughter becomes stained with the sin of slaughter.

********************************

Excerpted from Mahabharata, Anusasana Parva – chapter 116

Full text at http://ancientvoice.wikidot.com/src-mbh-13:section-116

 Yudhishthira said, 

Alas, those cruel men, who, discarding diverse kinds of food, covet only flesh, are really like great Rakshasas! Alas, they do not relish diverse kinds of cakes and diverse sorts of potherbs and various species of Khanda with juicy flavour so much as they do flesh! My understanding, for this reason, becomes stupefied in this matter. I think, when such is the case, that, there is nothing which can compare with flesh in the matter of taste, I desire, therefore, O puissant one, to hear what the merits are of abstention from flesh, and the demerits that attach to the eating of flesh, O chief of Bharata's race. Thou art conversant with every duty. Do thou discourse to me in full agreeably to the ordinances on duty, on this subject. Do tell me what, indeed, is edible and what inedible.

Tell me, O grandsire, what is flesh, of what substances it is, the merits that attach to abstention from it, and what the demerits are that attach to the eating of flesh' Bhishma said, It is even so, O mighty-armed one, as thou sayest. There is nothing on earth that is superior to flesh in point of taste. There is nothing that is more beneficial then flesh to persons that are lean, or weak, or afflicted with disease, or addicted to sexual congress or exhausted with travel. Flesh speedily increases strength. It produces great development. There is no food, O scorcher of foes, that is superior to flesh. But, O delighter of the Kurus, the merits are great that attach to men that abstain from it. Listen to me as I discourse to thee on it. That man who wished to increase his own flesh by the flesh of another living creature is such that there is none meaner and more cruel than he.

In this world there is nothing that is dearer to a creature than his life. Hence instead of taking that valuable possession, one should show compassion to the lives of others as one does to one's own life. Without doubt, O son, flesh has its origin in the vital seed. There is great demerit attaching to its eating, as, indeed, there is merit in abstaining from it. One does not, however, incur any fault by eating flesh sanctified according to the ordinances of the Vedas. The audition is heard that animals were created for sacrifice. They who eat flesh in any other way are said to follow the Rakshasa practice. Listen to me as I tell thee what the ordinance is that has been laid down for the Kshatriyas. They do not incur any fault by eating flesh that has been acquired by expenditure of prowess. All deer of the wilderness were dedicated to the deities and the Pitris in days of old, O king, by Agastya.

Hence, the hunting of deer is not censured. There can be no hunting without risk of one's own life. There is equality of risk between the slayer and the slain. Either the animal is killed or it kills the hunter. Hence, O Bharata, even royal sages betake themselves to the practice of hunting. By such conduct they do not become stained with sin. Indeed, the practice is not regarded as sinful. There is nothing, O delighter of the Kurus, that is equal in point of merit, either here or hereafter, to the practice of compassion to all living creatures. The man of compassion has no fear. Those harmless men that are endued with compassion have both this world and the next.

Persons conversant with duty say that that DHARMA is worthy of being called Dharma which has abstention from cruelty for its indication. The man of cleansed soul should do only such acts as have compassion for their soul. That flesh which is dedicated in sacrifices performed in honour of the deities and the Pitris is called Havi and, as such, is worthy of being eaten. That man who is devoted to compassion and who behaves with compassion towards others, has no fear to entertain from any creature. It is heard that all creatures abstain from causing any fear unto such a creature. Whether he is wounded or fallen down or prostrated or weakened or bruised, in whatever state he may be, all creatures protect him. Indeed, they do so, under all circumstances, whether he is on even or uneven ground. Neither snakes nor wild animals, neither Pisachas norRakshasas, ever slay him. When circumstances of fear arise, he becomes freed from fear who frees others from situations of fear. There has never been, nor will there ever be, a gift that is superior to the gift of life.

It is certain that there is nothing dearer to oneself than one's life. Death, O Bharata, is a calamity or evil unto all creatures. When the time comes for Death, a trembling of the whole frame is seen in all creatures. Enduring birth in the uterus, decrepitude and afflictions of diverse kinds, in this ocean of the world, living creatures may be seen to be continually going forward and coming back. Every creature is afflicted by death. While dwelling in the uterus, all creatures are cooked in the fluid juices that are alkaline and sour and bitter, of urine and phlegm and faeces, juices that produce painful sensations and are difficult to bear. There in the uterus, they have to dwell in a state of helplessness and are even repeatedly torn and pierced. They that are covetous of meat are seen to be repeatedly cooked in the uterus in such a state of helplessness. Attaining to diverse kinds of birth, they are cooked in the hell called Kumbhipaka. They are assailed and slain, and in this way have to travel repeatedly.

There is nothing so dear to one as one's life when one comes to this world. Hence, a person of cleansed soul should be compassionate to all living creatures. That man, O king, who abstains from every kind of meat from his birth, without doubt, acquires a large space in Heaven, They who eat the flesh of animals who are desirous of life, are themselves eaten by the animals they eat, without doubt. Even this is my opinion. Since he hath eaten me, I shall eat him in return, even this, O Bharata, constitutes the character as Mansa of Mansa The slayer is always slain. After him the eater meets with the same fate. He who acts with hostility towards another in this life becomes the victim of similar acts done by that other. Whatever acts one does in whatever bodies, one has to suffer the consequences thereof in those bodies. 

Abstention from cruelty is the highest Dharma.

Abstention from cruelty is the highest self-control. 

Abstention from cruelty is the highest gift. 

Abstention from cruelty is the highest penance.

Abstention from cruelty is the highest sacrifice. 

Abstention from cruelty is the highest puissance. 

Abstention from cruelty is the highest friend. Abstention from cruelty is the highest happiness. 

Abstention from cruelty is the highest truth. 

Abstention from cruelty is the highest Sruti. 

Gifts made in all sacrifices, ablutions performed in all sacred waters, and the merit that one acquires from making all kinds of gifts mentioned in the scriptures, all these do not come up to abstention from cruelty in point of the merit that attaches to it.

The penances of a man that abstains from cruelty are inexhaustible. The man that abstains from cruelty is regarded as always performing sacrifices. The man that abstains from cruelty is the father and mother of all creatures. Even these, O chief of Kuru's race, are some of the merits of abstention from cruelty. Altogether, the merits that attach to it are so many that they are incapable of being exhausted even if one were to speak for a hundred years.

******************

Related articles:-

(1) Bheeshma upholds killing animals in yajnas and for Pitrs in the above passages. How it must be viewed is discussed in this article and its comment section:- Animal sacrifice – how Veda Dharma views it?

(2) There was a time sage Vishwamitra ate dog’s meat. The intricacies in that episode are discussed in this article:- What is ‘Aryan’ morality? – as told by a Chandala to Vishwamitra.

Comparison between meat eating man and meat eating animal!

From  

http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg3.htm

How humans are not physically created to eat meat

Although some historians and anthropologists say that man is historically omnivorous, our anatomical equipment ­ teeth, jaws, and digestive system favors a fleshless diet. The American Dietetic Association notes that "most of mankind for most of human history has lived on vegetarian or near-vegetarian diets."

And much of the world still lives that way. Even on most industrialized countries, the love affair with meat is less than a hundred years old. It started with the refrigerator car and the twentieth-century consumer society. But even with the twentieth century, man's body hasn't adapted to eating meat. The prominent Swedish scientist Karl von Linne states, "Man's structure, external and internal, compared with that of the other animals, shows that fruit and succulent vegetables constitute his natural food." The chart below compares the anatomy of man with that of carnivorous and herbivorous animals.

When you look at the comparison between herbivores and humans, we compare much more closely to herbivores than meat eating animals. Humans are clearly not designed to digest and ingest meat.

Meat-eaters: have claws

Herbivores: no claws

Humans: no claws

Meat-eaters: have no skin pores and perspire through the tongue

Herbivores: perspire through skin pores

Humans: perspire through skin pores

Meat-eaters: have sharp front teeth for tearing, with no flat molar teeth for grinding

Herbivores: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding

Humans: no sharp front teeth, but flat rear molars for grinding

Meat-eaters: have intestinal tract that is only 3 times their body length so that rapidly decaying meat can pass through quickly

Herbivores: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.

Humans: have intestinal tract 10-12 times their body length.

Meat-eaters: have strong hydrochloric acid in stomach to digest meat

Herbivores: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater

Humans: have stomach acid that is 20 times weaker than that of a meat-eater

Meat-eaters: salivary glands in mouth not needed to pre-digest grains and fruits.

Herbivores: well-developed salivary glands which are necessary to pre-digest grains and fruits

Humans: well-developed salivary glands, which are necessary to pre-digest, grains and fruits

Meat-eaters: have acid saliva with no enzyme ptyalin to pre-digest grains

Herbivores: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains

Humans: have alkaline saliva with ptyalin to pre-digest grains

Based on a chart by A.D. Andrews, Fit Food for Men, (Chicago: American Hygiene Society, 1970)

“The point is this: Thousands of years ago, when we were hunter-gatherers, we may have eaten a bit of meat in our diets in times of scarcity, but we don’t need it now. Says Dr William C. Roberts, Editor of the American Journal of Cardiology, 

“Although we think we are, and act as if we are, human beings are not natural carnivores. When we kill animals to eat them, they end up killing us, because their flesh which contains cholesterol and saturated fat, was never intended for human beings, who are natural herbivores.”  

(From the book, Food For Thought: An Epigenetic Guide to Wellness, By George J. Febish; Jo Anne Oxley)

Does Charak Samhitha support eating beef?

From

http://www.hindujagruti.org/news/63761.html?utm_source=feedburner&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=Feed%3A+hindu_news+%28Hindu+News+Daily+%28Hindujagruti.org%29%29

Beef prohibited by ‘Charak samhita’ !

Countering statement of scientist P. M. Bhargava regarding beef

Scientist (?) P. M. Bhargava’s statement that ‘Beef is a remedy on many ailments as per Ayurveda’ is half truth. Characteristics of beef are given in ‘Charak Samhita’ and its use in ailments is also given. We shall see these references as they are; but before that, it is necessary to understand the condition prevailing during the ancient times. 

·         During ancient times, a student studied ‘Dharma-shastra’ before Ayurveda’, therefore, he knew that beef was not to be consumed : Earlier in ancient times, ‘Ayurveda’ used to be taught in Gurukul. Before taking admission to study Ayurveda, a student had to study ‘Dharma-shastra’ and Hindu Dharma-shastra teaches that ‘Killing a cow was a big sin and consumption of beef was prohibited’ in different contexts.

·         Ayurveda is a science and it has reference of characteristics of every substance: Why characteristics of beef were mentioned in ‘Charak-samhita’ should be thought about with context to the then period. ‘Ayurveda’ is a science and it is said ‘Sarvam Dravyam Pancha-Bhautikam Asmin Arthe’ (Charak-Samhita, Sutra-sthan, Adhyay 26, Shloka 10) which means even substance made of ‘Pancha-Bhautika’ is a medicine. It is the principle of Ayurveda and science based on it explains characteristics of every substance; therefore, characteristics of beef are also explained.

·         Bhargava has told half facts misguiding people which is vicious on his part : A Saint has said in his discourse , “If you want to go to hell, drink liquor !” Now, if someone says that the Saint advised to have liquor, it would be vicious. Similarly, Bhargava’s statement is misleading.

·         Bhargava’s statement is illogical : Few ailments, which have been stated to be cured by consumption of beef, have several alternate remedies explained in ‘Charak-Samhita’; therefore, will anyone advise to consume beef instead of other medicines as prescribed in ‘Charak-Samhita’ ? So, those making statements for cheap publicity based on half knowledge of ‘Charak-Samhita’ will only consume beef’ and should be treated as an exception. 

·         It is first explained that beef is not good for health and then the exceptions are explained as beef curing certain ailments. It is like the saying in English ‘Exception proves the rule’. Bhargava stated exception; proving that beef should not be eaten which is the rule.

Read the full article HERE.

Related article:- An open letter to Dr P.M.Bhargava on his return of Padma Bhushan award.

Sign the petition as a concerned Indian to question the hypocrisy of the “Leftist Intellectuals”

.

On 26 October, 53 Indian historians voiced alarm at what they perceived to be the country’s “highly vitiated atmosphere” and protested against attempts to impose “legislated history, a manufactured image of the past, glorifying certain aspects of it and denigrating others....” This was soon followed by an “Open letter from overseas historians and social scientists”, 176 of them, warning against “a dangerously pervasive atmosphere of narrowness, intolerance and bigotry” and “a monolithic and flattened view of India's history.”

Such closely-linked statements appearing with clockwork regularity in India and abroad — there have been several more from various “intellectual” circles — are a well-orchestrated campaign to create a bogeyman and cry wolf. They are neither intellectual nor academic in substance, but ideological and, much more so, political.

In response to it, a group of eminent historians and scholars of Indian civilisation have issued a statement which is expected to be carried by many News papers tomorrow.

Their statement highlights the fact that these "leftist school of historians"  who are speaking of the "values and traditions of plurality that India had always cherished in the past"   never practiced them all these decades when they have been in charge of all the elite institutions and bodies such as ICHR. The statement also notes that it is these historians who had imposed a "legislated history" which has presented an alienating and debilitating self-image to generations of Indian students, and promoted contempt for their civilisational heritage. It calls for an unbiased and new historiography of India

An online statement has been posted as a petition for those who would like to register their support for the statement of these intellectuals. Started by Michel Danino, this petition along with the statement of the intellectuals can be accessed in https://www.change.org/p/concerned-indians-statement-on-hypocrisy-and-indian-history

I request the readers to read it and sign it as a mark of voicing our disapproval for the orchestrated campaign by the Leftist historians who are out to destroy the true history of our country and spread malicious propaganda against the nationalistic people.   

An open letter to Dr P.M.Bhargava on his return of Padma Bhushan award.

Respected Dr Bhargava,

This letter comes from an ordinary citizen of this country who thinks that Padma awards are given to those Indians who are regarded as jewels in the crown of India and who have added glory to the Nation by their exceptional contribution in some fields that make India a great nation. When I read the news reports that you have returned it, I wondered what you were trying to convey. Is it because you no longer consider your contribution as a worthy something or you consider that India is not a worthy nation to have you honored?

In your letter of return to the President you have cited the reason as “an expression of my concern at the currently prevailing socio-politico situation in the country.” (The news report that I read is produced at the end of this letter). So you think that the prevailing conditions in the country are not good; in other words you think our country is not doing great. By returning the award do you mean to convey that India is not a worthy nation to have you as a jewel of honor? Or you don’t want  an honor from a country that is “divisive, unreasonable and unscientific” – the description you have given to the RSS for which the BJP is the political front, to quote your words.

According to the news report you go on to quote Mr Mohan Bhagawat on what he thinks on the role of woman (‘that marriage is a contract according to which the woman is supposed to be only a housewife and not work outside’). I don’t know in what context Mt Bhagawat had said that, because technically speaking ‘Vivaha’ is a contract of complementary roles for the partners to run a household while fulfilling their Purusharthas. If one works outside, the other works at home. But what struck me was that you have taken objection to this as a reason for returning the Padma award!

Looking back in time when you received this award, Dr Bhargava, there was a huge controversy raging on Shah Banu case. You received the award in 1986 and in the same year the Rajiv Gandhi Government overturned the Supreme Court verdict on alimony to the hapless Muslim housewife and enacted a new act that was divisive, autocratic and yielding to religious bigotry. The same President who conferred the award on you sanctioned that act. I don’t know which happened first, you receiving the award or the act that changed the fate of Muslim women.

My question is where were you and your sensibilities when such a draconian act was enacted purely based on the tenets of a religion? Why didn’t you refuse the award then or return the award at that time itself? After all, Mr Bhagawat’s comment is not going to change the life of an average Hindu housewife. But the Shah Banu act did spell doom on countless Muslim women and for all the years since then. Where was your humanism and spirit of inquiry at that time? Or was it developed by you only later and has woken up now on hearing Mr Bhagawat speak?

The Hindu report then quotes you calling the Dadri incident as a plan controlled by the BJP. May I ask you the proof you have in hand to make this accusation? You are a person steeped in scientific temper and rational thinking and therefore you cannot be expected to make claims without proof. What is the proof you have for this that made you take an extreme step of returning the award which was not returned even in 1986 despite the more provocative Shah Banu case?   

I have another question for you in this connection. If the ruling Governments are responsible for the incidents like the Dadri one, would you in the same breath take the Congress party and the Government in Karnataka to task for the lynching of Prashanth Poojary? Have you at least expressed your displeasure over the killing of Poojary? Why this hypocrisy for you and your fellow intellectuals and awardees?

Quoting the Dadri case you have lamented that the BJP wants to control what we eat, what we read and so on. But your attention must in fact turn to those places where even naming one’s child is controlled by the Government. Dodn’t you know that one cannot name one’s child as Rama in Saudi? (Read here). But In India there are many Hindus who voluntarily name their kids with Christian and Muslim names. But you won’t come across an Indian Muslim or Christian naming his child as Rama or Krishna or any Hindu name. Such is the level of tolerance among them – the minorities for whom your heart was bleeding when you returned the award.

You said, ‘Minorities are made to feel that they are second class citizens of the country’. You invoke the clause ‘intolerance’ in this context. I know that you are a pioneering head of the Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) of Hyderabad. CCMB has earned an eternal name in having discovered the ANI and ASI genes (excuse me for the colloquial terms) as mother of all Indian population. An ordinary citizen that I am, this kind of researches led me to know more about the genesis of minorities in India. You as one engaged in such studies must have very well known that the Muslims of India whom you call as minorities were indeed culturally transformed ones and not genetically different from the Hindus.

A reserach study published in 2006 by Ramana Gutala^, Denise R. Carvalho-Silva, Li Jin,  Bryndis Yngvadottir, Vasanthi Avadhanula,  Khaja Nanne, Lalji Singh, Ranajit Chakraborty and Chris Tyler-Smith did show that Muslims of India were indigenous people culturally changed into their present religion. It was found out that “Islamization in India did not involve large-scale replacement of Hindu Y chromosomes”.

Similar results were published in the Journal of Human Genetics in June 2009  by another group of researchers consisting of Muthukrishnan Eaaswarkhanth, Bhawna Dubey, Poorlin Ramakodi Meganathan, Zeinab Ravesh, Faizan Ahmed Khan, Lalji Singh, Kumarasamy Thangaraj and Ikramul Haque who said that ‘the spread of Islamic faith in the Indian subcontinent was predominantly cultural transformation associated with minor gene flow from West Asia’ and that they are closest to the geographical neighbors of the Hindu communities – implying that these Muslims were originally Hindus and were converts later.

Yet another study by the Department of Biological Sciences, Florida International University, University Park, Miami, done on the mtDNA of Sunni and Shia Muslims of  Uttar Pradesh showed that they are of Indian origin and when integrated with Y chromosome results showed the Indo Hindu to Islamic conversion in those two populations of UP (abstract here).

All these information, known to me from news paper publications must have been known to you as one in the related scientific field. What is the message these studies convey? Are they not a proof of integrated India where Muslims are not minorities but are natural sons of this soil whose ancestors were not as fortunate as the Hindus in their surroundings in having escaped from the atrocities heaped on them by the invaders? Why your scientific temper and urge for things scientific failed you to understand the cultural history of Muslims? If I were in your place I would have striven for unifying Hindus and Muslims as one stock using more and more of such studies and have truly lived up to the Padma honour given by the country.

You are known for the spirit of inquiry and humanism. Where were they when you quoted Charaka Samhitha? You attributed the following to Charaka Samhitha: “The flesh of the cow is beneficial for those suffering from the loss of flesh due to disorders caused by an excess of vayu, rhinitis, irregular fever, dry cough, fatigue and also in cases of excessive appetite resulting from hard manual work” How many Hindus, do you think subscribe to this remedy? The spirit of inquiry taught by Krishna is not to accept even his teaching verbatim but to think and act. Even if it is true that Charaka Samhitha gave this prescription, don’t you think that this sounds too general and not specific as a medicine for the said diseases? I never heard of anyone who ate beef for getting relief from dry cough and nor have known any Ayurvedic doctor prescribe beef for rhinitis or fever. The spirit of inquiry must teach us what to follow and what to discard.

More than the spirit of inquiry, it is compassionate humanism that must dominate our thinking if something like eating beef is prescribed by the scriptures. Ahimsa is the supreme Dharma declared by Hindu scriptures. The Swasti Vachan of Vedas wishes good will for all plants, bipeds and quadrupeds besides wishing peace at all levels of existence. Such being the compassion and care for all beings in our surroundings, how can a Hindu medical scripture subscribe a cure that can be got through violence? I expected you to condemn and not concur with this passage from Charaka Samhitha –as one known for reformist and humanist tendencies – and denounce beef on compassionate grounds.

Your thirst for scientific inquiry also seems to have taken a back seat, as you seem to have ignored the many research findings on harmful and adverse effects of beef on human health and environment. Just before you returned the award, WHO and UNEP published their findings on need to avoid eating beef. How come you failed to take note of them?

From your comment that the present government is least knowledgeable and least concerned about science, it is known that this government is not up to your level of knowledge. Let it be so. But couldn’t you have exhibited the knowledge of the highest order by recognizing the right to life for the cows and other animals who share most of our genes? Why couldn’t your knowledge of biology infuse a sense of love and respect for the fellow living things with which we share our space? You must have been in the forefront of promoting compassion for other lives.

That four lettered word b… was a bad word even to utter for the Hindus not because the Hindus were less knowledgeable or low in scientific temper. It is because they have a heart full of compassion and gratitude for the animal that gives them food and livelihood. Knowledge makes one powerful, but compassion makes one Godly. Knowledge that does not teach compassion is a waste. Don’t you agree Dr Bhargava?

With respects,

Jayasree Saranathan.

****

The article from The Hindu that made me write to you:-

http://www.thehindu.com/news/cities/Hyderabad/bhargava-sends-padma-bhushan-award-to-president/article7869422.ece

P.M. Bhargava sends back Padma Bhushan award to President

By

Y. MALLIKARJUN

Well-known scientist and founder-director of Centre for Cellular and Molecular Biology (CCMB) P.M. Bhargava has returned the Padma Bhushan award, received by him in 1986, to President Pranab Mukherjee in protest against the direction in which “today’s Government run by the BJP is driving the country”.

Mr. Bhargava sent the award to the President on November 6. Explaining the reasons for his decision to return the award, he said in a letter to Mr. Mukherjee: “it is with much regret that I am, with this letter, returning the award of Padma Bhushan that I had the privilege of receiving in 1986 from the then President of India, Shri Giani Zail Singh. This award has been very dear to me. My returning it to you, for whom I have much respect and admiration, is an expression of my concern at the currently prevailing socio-politico situation in the country. I am deeply concerned that the Bharatiya Janata Party which is ruling at the Centre and several States, has deserted the road of democracy and is driving my beloved country on a path that would make the country a Hindu religious autocracy, somewhat like Pakistan with Islam replaced by Hinduism”.

He said “no one would be more aware than you that, de facto, BJP is the political front of Rashtriya Swayamsevak Sangh (RSS), and functions under the leadership of the RSS that is fully committed to the ideology of Hindutva, which I find divisive, unreasonable and unscientific”.

Referring to the Constitution (Article 51 a(h)), he said that one of the duties of citizens was to develop the scientific temper, humanism and the spirit of inquiry and reform. He said: “Steeped in superstition, unreason and irrationality, much of what RSS and BJP do goes against the grain of scientific temper. An example would be the recent statement of Shri Mohan Bhagwat, who heads the RSS, that marriage is a contract according to which the woman is supposed to be only a housewife and not work outside”.

Dr. Bhargava said “The Dadri incident in which Mohamed Akhlaq was lynched to death in a pre-planned manner (probably by fringe elements that are related to BJP) showed the control that BJP wants to have on what we may eat and what we may not, just as it wants to control what we may wear or whom we may love or what we may read."

“Incidentally, our scriptures put no bar on our eating beef. Charaka Samhita says: “The flesh of the cow is beneficial for those suffering from the loss of flesh due to disorders caused by an excess of vayu, rhinitis, irregular fever, dry cough, fatigue and also in cases of excessive appetite resulting from hard manual work”.

He also expressed his concern that the space for dissent, “which is the hallmark of a democracy is decreasing and intolerance increasing. Minorities are made to feel that they are second class citizens of the country. There are organised attempts to impose Hindutva agenda across the country. Cultural intolerance is a dominant element in the functioning of the present government”, he said.

Stating that he was a professional scientist with an experience of 65 years, he mentioned that he had the occasion of interacting on matters of science with the governments at the Centre since Independence. “I find the present government the least knowledgeable and least concerned about science. The climate of religious conservatism that we have today is a major obstacle in the functioning of science and thus in meeting developmental objectives”, he added.

  

Look at the cows that escaped from slaughter house - Respect their right to life!

Animals like man have thoughts, feelings and survival instincts. The animals that are eaten by man are hapless and helpless creatures and are solely at the mercy of man. It is said that saving a life is Godly. Not many get a chance to save a life. But shouldn't man be human by letting other lives to live?  

Look at the cows in the video below. They were rescued from being killed for man's food. Don't they have a life of their own and a right to that life?

Eating Meat is Internal Pollution!

From

http://www.celestialhealing.net/physicalveg.htm

The Disadvantages of Eating Meat

There are many physical disadvantages to eating meat. Some of these disadvantages are:

1. A meat-eater not only takes in the animal cells and fats, etc. but also the waste products, e.g. chemically treated food fed to the animals, drugs injected into the animal in the slaughter house, intoxicants, coloring and tenderizers sprayed on the dead animal by the market suppliers. By the way, hamburgers are made from Cow with the four D’s (Dead, Dying, Disabled, or Diseased) This is why so many children and young adults have died from eating hamburgers. It's also the reason why hamburgers have the highest recall of E-Coli.

2. It is also suspected that meat-eaters are prime candidates for degenerative diseases such as high blood pressure, arthritis, gout, etc. Meat is one of the major sources of internal pollution. When an animal is slaughtered, un-eliminated waste products remain in the tissue of the animal which often give the meat its stimulating flavor. Uric acid and adrenaline are secreted into the bloodstream, muscles of animals and stored. The fear and struggle to escape death stimulates the secretion of hormones like epinephrine and norepinephrine. Most animals (especially cows) are injected with steroids before they are slaughtered. No edible plant product has similar toxicity. The human body has to work 15 times more to get rid of these toxin.

3.A parasite known for inducing miscarriage, blindness, jaundice and nervous disorders in newborn babies was found in samples of animal meat from abattoirs and markets (particularly in third world countries). An article in the German Bunte magazine, entitled 'Karnka von Tiere' (Diseases from Animal) pointed out the diseases that arise from consumption of meat, apart from the reckless wastage of precious land and natural resources for livestock breeding.

The article also emphasized on the benefits of meatless diet and the current trend towards vegetarianism by an increasing number of Germans and other Europeans, especially amongst the younger generation. As a result of overall concern for health, meat consumption in the west is declining. According to the Vegetarian society in UK, 9% of the population in UK and US are complete vegetarians with the number constantly increasing.

4. To preserve fish and prawns and other crustaceans, boric acid is widely used by food manufacturers. It attacks the liver and the brain, causing fits and coma before the victim dies of liver damage. Fruits and vegetables, however heavily sprayed, don't grow hormones, antibiotics and other drugs common in meat products.

5. Pigs carry trichinosis bacteria that cling to the walls of the stomach and intestines, which can be fatal. Beef and pork are highly acid forming and release into the blood-stream toxic poisons and microbes. But the WBC in blood may not be sufficient to destroy these microbes and so the toxic reactions set in.

Dr. Gary Fraser a Professor of Epidemiology at Loma Linda University affirms that fruit, vegetables and fibre protect one against heart diseases. It has been clinically tested that because of less fat and zero cholesterol, vegetarian diets are much better. So, when you try a vegetarian diet, you will find yourself light, relaxed and spiritualized. Remember that you are what you eat. The food taken into your body is what gradually but surely forms your thought-patterns. Your thoughts, both conscious and subconscious are in total control of your body's health or lack of it. So keep this motto in mind................Choose health by choosing vegetarianism!

Meat - cause of increasing colon cancer cases in W.Bengal.

From

http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/home/science/Processed-meat-could-double-colon-cancer-cases-in-West-Bengal-Study/articleshow/49614339.cms

Processed meat could double colon cancer cases in West Bengal: Study

By

Prithvijit Mitra, TNN | Nov 1, 2015,

KOLKATA: Consumption of processed meat could double the number of colon cancer patients in Kolkata over the next five years, according to a projection based on a study conducted by researchers at NRS Hospital and the Netaji Subhas Chandra Bose Cancer Research Institute (NSCBCRI). With processed meat consumption growing at a rate 15% in Kolkata the threat is a real one, says the study, that reveals that 8.22% of all cancer patients in Kolkata suffer from colon cancer. Ninety per cent of them consumed red meat which is considered to be a major trigger for the disease. The eastern region has the highest number of colon cancer patients in the country.

The study analyzed 3627 cancer patients - their dietary patterns and family history. Patients who were originally from Bengal and eastern part of India were mainly red meat-eaters and those from other parts of India were mainly vegetarians. "The incidence of colon cancer was 8.22% (298 patients) which is alarmingly high. Ninety-four percent of them consumed red meat whereas only 6% were purely vegetarians. Ninety nine percent of the colon cancer patients were permanent residents of Bengal whereas just 1% was from other parts of the country. Those with colon cancer had a history of red meat intake which was greater than 500 gm/week," said Ashish Mukhopadhyay of NSCBCRI.

With processed meat consumption on the rise, more could be affected, feared experts. Preservatives like sodium phosphate and nitrate used in processed meat have been proved to be carcinogenic. Chemicals of the benzyne group and nitroso urea also acted as carcinogenic agents and were found even in processed lean meat like chicken. These have been found to damage the cells that line the bowel, so other cells in the bowel lining have to replicate more in order to heal. And it's this 'extra' replication that can increase the chance of errors developing in the cells' DNA - the first step on the road to cancer. 

"But those consuming ham, salami or bacon need to keep a watch on their diet. A daily consumption of 50 gms or more puts you at a risk. In fact, it is more harmful than unprocessed red meat," said Gautam Mukhopadhyay, oncologist. Red meat boiled has to be boiled at 180 degrees and the heat makes carbon particles break producing hydrocarbons. These accumulate in the intestine and turn carcinogenic over a period of time.

Epidemiological studies shows that there is co-relation of meat consumption and cancer of colorectal region. It has been shown that consumption of 80gm/day red meat (Beef, Lamb & Pork) or processed meat (Ham, Salami, Bacon) may increase colorectal cancer risk by 25% and 67% respectively. Several biological mechanisms are responsible for this. These include the influence of meat and fat consumption on the production and metabolism of bile salts and bile acids by gut flora.

Incidence of colon cancer is less than 1% in the south and west. Red meat and smoking were the reasons, said Gautam Mukhopadhyay. "Regular consumption of red meat is certainly a cause. But you must consume it in a substantial quantity and over a period of time. In India, the eastern region consumes it more than the rest of the country. This is why we come across more colorectal cancer patients here," said Mukhopadhyay. Colon cancer is third commonest in eastern part of India.

Meat and beef are carcinogenic – WHO says.

From

http://news.nationalpost.com/health/processed-meats-including-bacon-sorry-carcinogenic-to-humans-who-says-red-meat-probably-is-too

Processed meats, including bacon (sorry!), are cancer hazards, WHO says — and red meat probably is too

by

Angela Charlton, The Associated Press | October 26, 2015 

PARIS — It’s official: Bacon, ham, hot dogs and other processed meats can lead to colon, stomach and other cancers — and red meat is probably cancer-causing, too.

While doctors in rich countries have long warned against eating too much meat, the World Health Organization’s cancer agency gave the most definitive response yet on Monday about its relation to cancer — and put processed meats in the same danger category as smoking or asbestos.

The findings don’t say that a slice of salami is as dangerous as a cigarette, but they could weigh on public health policy and recommendations by medical groups amid a growing debate about how much meat is good for us. The meat industry protests the classification, arguing that cancer isn’t caused by a specific food but also involves lifestyle and environmental factors.

A group of 22 scientists from the WHO’s International Agency for Research on Cancer in Lyon, France evaluated more than 800 studies from several continents about meat and cancer. The studies looked at more than a dozen types of cancer in populations with diverse diets over the past 20 years.

Based on that evaluation, the IARC classified processed meat as “carcinogenic to humans,” noting links in particular to colon cancer. It said red meat contains some important nutrients, but still labeled it “probably carcinogenic,” with links to colon, prostate and pancreatic cancers.

Ian Johnson, a nutrition researcher with the Institute of Food Research who is unconnected to the IARC findings, cautioned that the classification doesn’t reflect “the actual size of the risk,” but said meat consumption is one of many factors contributing to high rates of bowel cancer in the U.S., western Europe and Australia.

“The mechanism is poorly understood, and the effect is much smaller than, for example, that of cigarette smoking on the risk of lung cancer,” he said.

The cancer agency noted research by the Global Burden of Disease Project suggesting that 34,000 cancer deaths per year worldwide are linked to diets heavy in processed meat — compared with one million deaths a year linked to smoking, 600,000 a year to alcohol consumption and 200,000 a year to air pollution.

The agency said it did not have enough data to define how much processed meat is too dangerous, but said the risk grows with the amount consumed. Analysis of 10 of the studies suggested that a 50-gram portion of processed meat daily increases the risk of colorectal cancer over a lifetime by about 18 per cent.

In view of the large number of people who consume processed meat, the global impact on cancer incidence is of public health importance

Doctors have warned that a diet loaded with red meat is linked to cancers, including those of the colon and pancreas. The American Cancer Society has long urged people to reduce consumption of red meat and processed meat.

“For an individual, the risk of developing colorectal cancer because of their consumption of processed meat remains small, but this risk increases with the amount of meat consumed,” Dr. Kurt Straif of the IARC said in a statement. “In view of the large number of people who consume processed meat, the global impact on cancer incidence is of public health importance.”

The North American Meat Institute argued in a statement that “cancer is a complex disease not caused by single foods” and stressed the importance of lifestyle and environmental factors.

The researchers defined processed meat as anything transformed to improve its flavour or to preserve it, including sausages, canned meat, beef jerky and anything smoked. They defined red meat as “all types of mammalian muscle meat, such as beef, veal, pork, lamb, mutton, horse and goat.”

The report said grilling, pan-frying or other high-temperature methods of cooking red meat produce the highest amounts of chemicals suspected to cause cancer.

Some random thoughts...

Lots of things happened these days kindling some reactions in my mind. The beef controversy was the worst thing of all that hurt me deeply and made me feel sick that I am surrounded by a society that has no regard for life - rather any life - be it the life of a cow or any other animal. Being at the top of the evolutionary ladder man has a greater responsibility towards all living and non- living things around him. We are not cave people who were killing other living things for survival or for food. We have come a long way as thinking beings and it is utterly barbaric to consider other living things as food for us. 

Most disgusting is the comment by Kamal Hasan that he would rather not bother about life of animals when it comes to feeding humans. He even declared that he does not eat any animal that is bigger in size. In an irony of sorts such a person was requested by Dalai Lama to propagate Ahimsa through his movies and Kamal agreed to it! Its sends my head veering that barely a couple of days after he mouthed his noxious support for beef and non vegetarianism, Kamal is expressing his faith in Ahimsa to Dalai Lama. What is happening to Kamal? Or is there anything happening to Kamal?

Well, the bottom line is that I very much wish to surge from my slumber to do something through my blog to discourage beef eating and even non-vegetarianism. I have a plan to write the karmic effects of eating beef or meat. But before I could do that, I think I can just start posting articles that discourage meat and beef eating. Readers are welcome to send such articles and I will post them.

The other thought that is disturbing my mind at the moment is the BJP debacle in Bihar that comes with the start of the 10 year long Moon dasa of India. Are we heading for a troubled period of sickular forces getting polarized and strengthened? Isn't my old article on Advani vs Modi more relevant now than ever before that the current trends are hurting Sanatan Dharma as seen in callous support for beef eating? The unjustifiable accusation on tolerance of Hindus is another matter that must be challenged. I think we bloggers and readers must become active once again on these issues. Let me see what I can do. If not detailed articles, let me post short ones or news items to highlight them.

Related articles:-

http://www.tamilhindu.com/2010/05/creation-theory-6/

Plants talk to each other and we can talk to the plants!

What is ‘Aryan’ morality? – as told by a Chandala to Vishwamitra.

Animal sacrifice – how Veda Dharma views it?