Vicks57 Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 (edited) Source: The Untouchables by ambedkar Did Brahmins eat beef? Yes Did Brahmins sacrifice cattle to do their yagnas ? Yes Why did they shift to vegetarianism? To one up Buddhists - possible rationale given by B.R. Ambedkar. Btw, Brahmins were skillful butchers as well. Source: The decline and fall of Buddhism by jamnadas "At one time even the Brahmins must have had the skill of skinning the animals, when, as Ambedkar puts it, "For the Brahmin every day was a beef-steak day". Ambedkar has discussed this topic in great detail with quotations from Atreya Brahmana and concludes: "Brahmins were not merely beef-eaters but they were also butchers". But they lost this skill when they became vegetarians in order to outsmart the Buddhists. [W&S, 7, 335 ff.] Therefore, during the days of decline of Buddhism, as a part of Kalivarjya changes in laws during the so called Rajput period, say from 900 - 1200 A.D., we find a restriction on the Brahmins, not to kill the animals themselves, and they were prohibited from becoming a "shyamitra", i.e. one who kills animals by strangling or suffocating, during a yajnya. [Kane: 1965: 1002] " Read the answer given by historian on "slaughter" https://www.google.com/amp/s/frontline.thehindu.com/cover-story/the-cow-was-neither-unslayable-nor-sacred-in-the-vedic-period/article23593282.ece/amp/ Book of the same historian: https://sanskritdocuments.org/sites/gomAtA/The-Myth-of-the-Holy-Cow.pdf Literally the first chapter talks about animal sacrifice. Another excerpt from ambedkar's books: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thehindu.com/books/why-did-the-brahmins-become-vegetarian-br-ambedkar-asks-in-this-excerpt-from-beef-brahmins-and-broken-men-an-annotated-critical-selection-from-the-untouchables/article30208983.ece/amp/ Book : Riddles of Hinduism by ambedkar page: 158 Among the ancient Aryans there was well established procedure of reception to be given to a guest which is known as Madhuparka the detailed descriptions regarding which will be found in the various Grihya Sutras. According to most of the Grihya Sutras there are six persons who deserve Madhuparka. Namely (1) Ritvij or the Brahmin called to perform a sacrifice, (2) Acharya, the teacher, (3) the Bridegroom, (4) The King, (5) The Snatak, the student who has just finished his studies at the Gurukul and (6) Any person who is dear to the host. Some add Atithi to this list. Except in the case of the Ritvij, King and Acharya, Madhuparka is to be offered to the rest once in a year. To the Ritvij, King and Acharya it is to be offered each time they come. The procedure consisted first in washing by the host the feet of his guest, then the offer of the Madhuparka and the drinking of it by the quest accompanied by certain Mantras. Edited April 16 by Vicks57 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 2 hours ago, Vicks57 said: Source: The Untouchables by ambedkar Did Brahmins eat beef? Yes Did Brahmins sacrifice cattle to do their yagnas ? Yes Why did they shift to vegetarianism? To one up Buddhists - possible rationale given by B.R. Ambedkar. Btw, Brahmins were skillful butchers as well. Source: The decline and fall of Buddhism by jamnadas "At one time even the Brahmins must have had the skill of skinning the animals, when, as Ambedkar puts it, "For the Brahmin every day was a beef-steak day". Ambedkar has discussed this topic in great detail with quotations from Atreya Brahmana and concludes: "Brahmins were not merely beef-eaters but they were also butchers". But they lost this skill when they became vegetarians in order to outsmart the Buddhists. [W&S, 7, 335 ff.] Therefore, during the days of decline of Buddhism, as a part of Kalivarjya changes in laws during the so called Rajput period, say from 900 - 1200 A.D., we find a restriction on the Brahmins, not to kill the animals themselves, and they were prohibited from becoming a "shyamitra", i.e. one who kills animals by strangling or suffocating, during a yajnya. [Kane: 1965: 1002] " Read the answer given by historian on "slaughter" https://www.google.com/amp/s/frontline.thehindu.com/cover-story/the-cow-was-neither-unslayable-nor-sacred-in-the-vedic-period/article23593282.ece/amp/ Book of the same historian: https://sanskritdocuments.org/sites/gomAtA/The-Myth-of-the-Holy-Cow.pdf Literally the first chapter talks about animal sacrifice. Another excerpt from ambedkar's books: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thehindu.com/books/why-did-the-brahmins-become-vegetarian-br-ambedkar-asks-in-this-excerpt-from-beef-brahmins-and-broken-men-an-annotated-critical-selection-from-the-untouchables/article30208983.ece/amp/ Book : Riddles of Hinduism by ambedkar page: 158 Among the ancient Aryans there was well established procedure of reception to be given to a guest which is known as Madhuparka the detailed descriptions regarding which will be found in the various Grihya Sutras. According to most of the Grihya Sutras there are six persons who deserve Madhuparka. Namely (1) Ritvij or the Brahmin called to perform a sacrifice, (2) Acharya, the teacher, (3) the Bridegroom, (4) The King, (5) The Snatak, the student who has just finished his studies at the Gurukul and (6) Any person who is dear to the host. Some add Atithi to this list. Except in the case of the Ritvij, King and Acharya, Madhuparka is to be offered to the rest once in a year. To the Ritvij, King and Acharya it is to be offered each time they come. The procedure consisted first in washing by the host the feet of his guest, then the offer of the Madhuparka and the drinking of it by the quest accompanied by certain Mantras. The chronology of Ambedkar is wrong. 1. Buddhism isn't obligate vegetarianism, Jainism is. IF the brahmins shifted from bali-omnivory to vegetarianism, it'd be under jain influence,not buddhist. 2. Decline of buddhism happens in three stages : stagnation, decline & extinction. The stagnation period comes after Kushan empire falls, as it is replaced by hindu kingdoms and empire, first the nagas and then the Guptas - all of whom were patrons of hinduism primarily. The decline comes at the end of the Gupta period, where traditional strongholds of buddhism in India - gandhara and pataliputra - were completely destroyed by the Huns. Xuanzong, coming to india about 100 years after the devastation by Huns, records this. Buddhism undergoes a brief revival under the Pal empire of Bengal but enters its extinction phase when Bhaktiyar khilji destroys pretty much every single buddhist university and mass murders tens of thousands of buddhist professors in a span of 10-15 years. This event is actually how Tibet became buddhist, as the few scholars who managed to evade the turks fled to Tibet - this is also why tibetan script is directly derived from bengali script and their form of buddhism- vajrayana- is the buddhism that was sponsored by the Pal empires ( prior to this, Indian empires like Kushan & Gupta supported mahayana buddhism). coffee_rules and Gollum 1 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Wolf Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 12 minutes ago, Muloghonto said: The chronology of Ambedkar is wrong. 1. Buddhism isn't obligate vegetarianism, Jainism is. IF the brahmins shifted from bali-omnivory to vegetarianism, it'd be under jain influence,not buddhist. 2. Decline of buddhism happens in three stages : stagnation, decline & extinction. The stagnation period comes after Kushan empire falls, as it is replaced by hindu kingdoms and empire, first the nagas and then the Guptas - all of whom were patrons of hinduism primarily. The decline comes at the end of the Gupta period, where traditional strongholds of buddhism in India - gandhara and pataliputra - were completely destroyed by the Huns. Xuanzong, coming to india about 100 years after the devastation by Huns, records this. Buddhism undergoes a brief revival under the Pal empire of Bengal but enters its extinction phase when Bhaktiyar khilji destroys pretty much every single buddhist university and mass murders tens of thousands of buddhist professors in a span of 10-15 years. This event is actually how Tibet became buddhist, as the few scholars who managed to evade the turks fled to Tibet - this is also why tibetan script is directly derived from bengali script and their form of buddhism- vajrayana- is the buddhism that was sponsored by the Pal empires ( prior to this, Indian empires like Kushan & Gupta supported mahayana buddhism). Mihirkula the Hun King completely destroyed Buddhism in North India.... He probably was the most devastating Emperor India had ever seen in Ancient times... Built a huge number of Shiv Temples in Kashmir though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 On 4/15/2024 at 12:16 PM, Real McCoy said: @Vilander come on down Hey fella how are you Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 On 4/15/2024 at 11:18 AM, Real McCoy said: PS – I'm also inviting @New guy for comic relief. He is as woke as woke can be, furiously typing on the keyboard fighting for social justice like a male feminist in the neighborhood writer's cafe. That made me lol with coffee yes new guy lol god he was woke is he still around my two cents right I remember his article got me into this site.. coffee_rules and Real McCoy 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 10 minutes ago, Lone Wolf said: Mihirkula the Hun King completely destroyed Buddhism in North India.... He probably was the most devastating Emperor India had ever seen in Ancient times... Built a huge number of Shiv Temples in Kashmir though. MIhirkul was a hun, he is not addressed as an Indian emperor anywhere except by his own edicts and every single other inscription mentioning him mentions him being a mlechcha. So calling mihirkul an indian emperor is like calling Queen victoria an Indian empress. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vilander Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 On topic unfortunately people are so clannish, caste group creed linguistic origin , same villager, countrymen etc will always be there till humans are around. Clan meant safety survival during human evolution so we are naturally inclined it’s pretty primal and base human instinct. People with some ammount of intelligence normally get out of this, but when they lack it they normally give importance to caste etc. so don’t expect to have intelligent conversations with someone that believes in this.. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted April 16 Share Posted April 16 (edited) 7 hours ago, Vicks57 said: Source: The Untouchables by ambedkar Did Brahmins eat beef? Yes Did Brahmins sacrifice cattle to do their yagnas ? Yes Why did they shift to vegetarianism? To one up Buddhists - possible rationale given by B.R. Ambedkar. Btw, Brahmins were skillful butchers as well. Source: The decline and fall of Buddhism by jamnadas "At one time even the Brahmins must have had the skill of skinning the animals, when, as Ambedkar puts it, "For the Brahmin every day was a beef-steak day". Ambedkar has discussed this topic in great detail with quotations from Atreya Brahmana and concludes: "Brahmins were not merely beef-eaters but they were also butchers". But they lost this skill when they became vegetarians in order to outsmart the Buddhists. [W&S, 7, 335 ff.] Therefore, during the days of decline of Buddhism, as a part of Kalivarjya changes in laws during the so called Rajput period, say from 900 - 1200 A.D., we find a restriction on the Brahmins, not to kill the animals themselves, and they were prohibited from becoming a "shyamitra", i.e. one who kills animals by strangling or suffocating, during a yajnya. [Kane: 1965: 1002] " Read the answer given by historian on "slaughter" https://www.google.com/amp/s/frontline.thehindu.com/cover-story/the-cow-was-neither-unslayable-nor-sacred-in-the-vedic-period/article23593282.ece/amp/ Book of the same historian: https://sanskritdocuments.org/sites/gomAtA/The-Myth-of-the-Holy-Cow.pdf Literally the first chapter talks about animal sacrifice. Another excerpt from ambedkar's books: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thehindu.com/books/why-did-the-brahmins-become-vegetarian-br-ambedkar-asks-in-this-excerpt-from-beef-brahmins-and-broken-men-an-annotated-critical-selection-from-the-untouchables/article30208983.ece/amp/ Book : Riddles of Hinduism by ambedkar page: 158 Among the ancient Aryans there was well established procedure of reception to be given to a guest which is known as Madhuparka the detailed descriptions regarding which will be found in the various Grihya Sutras. According to most of the Grihya Sutras there are six persons who deserve Madhuparka. Namely (1) Ritvij or the Brahmin called to perform a sacrifice, (2) Acharya, the teacher, (3) the Bridegroom, (4) The King, (5) The Snatak, the student who has just finished his studies at the Gurukul and (6) Any person who is dear to the host. Some add Atithi to this list. Except in the case of the Ritvij, King and Acharya, Madhuparka is to be offered to the rest once in a year. To the Ritvij, King and Acharya it is to be offered each time they come. The procedure consisted first in washing by the host the feet of his guest, then the offer of the Madhuparka and the drinking of it by the quest accompanied by certain Mantras. Ambedkar is NOT an authority On ancient or even medieval history let alone Vedic. He is very much influenced by faulty translations of Vedas by western indologists. Marxist historians target Hinduism and all wrongs and they think Buddhism is anti-thesis of Hindu philosophy. While Buddha himself a kshatriya , a proud one at that, believed in varnashram and also ate meat. Buddhists as pronounced originally by Buddha also was very ritualistic. Vedas preaching eating beef or sacrifices of Cow or Horse is highly misinterpreted by all esp early Marxists. Stop reading Periyar or DMK paper pushers. Nobody can be better than Panini in Sanskrit grammar and meaning of words. Read this article: https://www.firstpost.com/india/why-eminent-historians-claim-cow-flesh-was-consumed-in-vedic-times-despite-no-evidence-to-back-it-10387301.html/amp ”The rule of the Vedas that a cow is Aghnya has been reiterated again and again in Sanskrit literature. The Mahabharata (15.39) says, “The one who himself doesn’t eat meat but even if he gives his consent to eat meat or kill animals, he becomes equally sinful as them”. The meat eaters who kill an animal in the name of yajna or tell that it is a requirement of the yanja is a sinner and he will go to hell (15.43). “The one who brings an animal to be killed, the one who buys the animal to be killed, the one who kills the animal, and the one who sells, buys, cooks and eats the meat are all sinners (15.45).” This shows that the Vedic yajnas did not involve any animal sacrifice. … Goghna” is one such word. Taranath interpreted it as “the killer of a cow” ignoring the meaning given by 8th century B.C. grammarian, Panini. Panini explained the meaning of this word as “the donee guest who receives a cow.” By changing the meaning, Taranath imposed the suggestive meaning on Hindus that they ate cows, in order to provide legitimacy to those who were and are eating cows. There is no reason, whatsoever, to accept Taranath’s interpretation of “goghna” in place of the meaning given by Panini, unless someone proves that Taranath of the late 19th century was closer in his understanding of Vedic Sanskrit and was greater Sanskrit scholar than Panini. Taranath did precisely the same with the word ‘Ashwamedha’. It is wrong to think that the Ashwamedha horse was meant for killing and eating at the end of yajna. Even if what Marxists and Ambedkarites say is true, sanatanis have always believed in reform, introspection. Hence the longevity and antiquity. Smritis are only time bound and applies only to the societies of that time. Early humans ate raw meat until fire was invented. If early Brahmins ate beef, there is no justification or compulsion that modern day Brahmins have to eat it too. They have reformed and moved on. Edited April 17 by coffee_rules Real McCoy and rollingstoned 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
coffee_rules Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 Ontopic: It’s become open season to demean a caste for over representation. Power hitting or pace bowling is not a caste or race thing, esp in Cricket where it is purely and has to be based on merit. Asians can’t play victim card and do RR because they’re underrepresented in NFL . Caste abuse is normalized in India and it can’t be or shouldn’t be tolerated in ICF!! Gollum 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Lone Wolf Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 6 hours ago, Muloghonto said: MIhirkul was a hun, he is not addressed as an Indian emperor anywhere except by his own edicts and every single other inscription mentioning him mentions him being a mlechcha. So calling mihirkul an indian emperor is like calling Queen victoria an Indian empress. Similar like Kushans who were not Indians or Sakas but as they established massive empires in Into India and kinda assimilated with locals so they technically became Indian.... All these tribes were earliest of Gurjar communities to settle into India. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Real McCoy Posted April 17 Author Share Posted April 17 6 hours ago, Vilander said: Hey fella how are you Fine buddy its been a long time how are you? Vilander 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Real McCoy Posted April 17 Author Share Posted April 17 9 hours ago, Vicks57 said: Source: The Untouchables by ambedkar Did Brahmins eat beef? Yes Did Brahmins sacrifice cattle to do their yagnas ? Yes Why did they shift to vegetarianism? To one up Buddhists - possible rationale given by B.R. Ambedkar. Btw, Brahmins were skillful butchers as well. Source: The decline and fall of Buddhism by jamnadas "At one time even the Brahmins must have had the skill of skinning the animals, when, as Ambedkar puts it, "For the Brahmin every day was a beef-steak day". Ambedkar has discussed this topic in great detail with quotations from Atreya Brahmana and concludes: "Brahmins were not merely beef-eaters but they were also butchers". But they lost this skill when they became vegetarians in order to outsmart the Buddhists. [W&S, 7, 335 ff.] Therefore, during the days of decline of Buddhism, as a part of Kalivarjya changes in laws during the so called Rajput period, say from 900 - 1200 A.D., we find a restriction on the Brahmins, not to kill the animals themselves, and they were prohibited from becoming a "shyamitra", i.e. one who kills animals by strangling or suffocating, during a yajnya. [Kane: 1965: 1002] " Read the answer given by historian on "slaughter" https://www.google.com/amp/s/frontline.thehindu.com/cover-story/the-cow-was-neither-unslayable-nor-sacred-in-the-vedic-period/article23593282.ece/amp/ Book of the same historian: https://sanskritdocuments.org/sites/gomAtA/The-Myth-of-the-Holy-Cow.pdf Literally the first chapter talks about animal sacrifice. Another excerpt from ambedkar's books: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thehindu.com/books/why-did-the-brahmins-become-vegetarian-br-ambedkar-asks-in-this-excerpt-from-beef-brahmins-and-broken-men-an-annotated-critical-selection-from-the-untouchables/article30208983.ece/amp/ Book : Riddles of Hinduism by ambedkar page: 158 Among the ancient Aryans there was well established procedure of reception to be given to a guest which is known as Madhuparka the detailed descriptions regarding which will be found in the various Grihya Sutras. According to most of the Grihya Sutras there are six persons who deserve Madhuparka. Namely (1) Ritvij or the Brahmin called to perform a sacrifice, (2) Acharya, the teacher, (3) the Bridegroom, (4) The King, (5) The Snatak, the student who has just finished his studies at the Gurukul and (6) Any person who is dear to the host. Some add Atithi to this list. Except in the case of the Ritvij, King and Acharya, Madhuparka is to be offered to the rest once in a year. To the Ritvij, King and Acharya it is to be offered each time they come. The procedure consisted first in washing by the host the feet of his guest, then the offer of the Madhuparka and the drinking of it by the quest accompanied by certain Mantras. Ambedker was not a specialist in Vedic studies or Sanskrit. Even among Indian Sanskrit scholars, there is multiple interpretations of the same text. Ambedkar himself was indocrtinated by colonial propagandists and western Indologists. I asked this question because I encountered these passages in my "youth" as well. I was naive and trusted the written words by Europeans just like you and even Ambedkar. That gave me the "license" (look up the definition of this word and you will be surprised) to eat beef. If brahmins ate beef then I should eat some as well. That was my thinking. I was a full blown carnivore in my time in the US even ate alligators . I live right now in a state of regret and have turned vegetarian. I was also an agnostic for a short period. Atheism was still too radical pour moi I'm not tooting my horn here when I say I'm quite an intelligent guy. Its only to warn others that even intelligent people can be fooled. Intelligence without wisdom of well versed mentors and elders is not helpful in fighting propaganda. How many of the general public was fooled into taking vaccines. I'm not questioning their intelligence. Its the sheer weight of propaganda and distortion of history. coffee_rules, rollingstoned and Gollum 3 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
diga Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 10 hours ago, Vicks57 said: Source: The Untouchables by ambedkar Did Brahmins eat beef? Yes Did Brahmins sacrifice cattle to do their yagnas ? Yes Why did they shift to vegetarianism? To one up Buddhists - possible rationale given by B.R. Ambedkar. Btw, Brahmins were skillful butchers as well. Source: The decline and fall of Buddhism by jamnadas "At one time even the Brahmins must have had the skill of skinning the animals, when, as Ambedkar puts it, "For the Brahmin every day was a beef-steak day". Ambedkar has discussed this topic in great detail with quotations from Atreya Brahmana and concludes: "Brahmins were not merely beef-eaters but they were also butchers". But they lost this skill when they became vegetarians in order to outsmart the Buddhists. [W&S, 7, 335 ff.] Therefore, during the days of decline of Buddhism, as a part of Kalivarjya changes in laws during the so called Rajput period, say from 900 - 1200 A.D., we find a restriction on the Brahmins, not to kill the animals themselves, and they were prohibited from becoming a "shyamitra", i.e. one who kills animals by strangling or suffocating, during a yajnya. [Kane: 1965: 1002] " Read the answer given by historian on "slaughter" https://www.google.com/amp/s/frontline.thehindu.com/cover-story/the-cow-was-neither-unslayable-nor-sacred-in-the-vedic-period/article23593282.ece/amp/ Book of the same historian: https://sanskritdocuments.org/sites/gomAtA/The-Myth-of-the-Holy-Cow.pdf Literally the first chapter talks about animal sacrifice. Another excerpt from ambedkar's books: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.thehindu.com/books/why-did-the-brahmins-become-vegetarian-br-ambedkar-asks-in-this-excerpt-from-beef-brahmins-and-broken-men-an-annotated-critical-selection-from-the-untouchables/article30208983.ece/amp/ Book : Riddles of Hinduism by ambedkar page: 158 Among the ancient Aryans there was well established procedure of reception to be given to a guest which is known as Madhuparka the detailed descriptions regarding which will be found in the various Grihya Sutras. According to most of the Grihya Sutras there are six persons who deserve Madhuparka. Namely (1) Ritvij or the Brahmin called to perform a sacrifice, (2) Acharya, the teacher, (3) the Bridegroom, (4) The King, (5) The Snatak, the student who has just finished his studies at the Gurukul and (6) Any person who is dear to the host. Some add Atithi to this list. Except in the case of the Ritvij, King and Acharya, Madhuparka is to be offered to the rest once in a year. To the Ritvij, King and Acharya it is to be offered each time they come. The procedure consisted first in washing by the host the feet of his guest, then the offer of the Madhuparka and the drinking of it by the quest accompanied by certain Mantras. Circle jerk continues.. rollingstoned 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Real McCoy Posted April 17 Author Share Posted April 17 4 hours ago, coffee_rules said: Ambedkar is NOT an authority On ancient or even medieval history let alone Vedic. He is very much influenced by faulty translations of Vedas by western indologists. Marxist historians target Hinduism and all wrongs and they think Buddhism is anti-thesis of Hindu philosophy. While Buddha himself a kshatriya , a proud one at that, believed in varnashram and also ate meat. Buddhists as pronounced originally by Buddha also was very ritualistic. Vedas preaching eating beef or sacrifices of Cow or Horse is highly misinterpreted by all esp early Marxists. Stop reading Periyar or DMK paper pushers. Nobody can be better than Panini in Sanskrit grammar and meaning of words. Read this article: https://www.firstpost.com/india/why-eminent-historians-claim-cow-flesh-was-consumed-in-vedic-times-despite-no-evidence-to-back-it-10387301.html/amp ” The rule of the Vedas that a cow is Aghnya has been reiterated again and again in Sanskrit literature. The Mahabharata (15.39) says, “The one who himself doesn’t eat meat but even if he gives his consent to eat meat or kill animals, he becomes equally sinful as them”. The meat eaters who kill an animal in the name of yajna or tell that it is a requirement of the yanja is a sinner and he will go to hell (15.43). “The one who brings an animal to be killed, the one who buys the animal to be killed, the one who kills the animal, and the one who sells, buys, cooks and eats the meat are all sinners (15.45).” This shows that the Vedic yajnas did not involve any animal sacrifice. … Goghna” is one such word. Taranath interpreted it as “the killer of a cow” ignoring the meaning given by 8th century B.C. grammarian, Panini. Panini explained the meaning of this word as “the donee guest who receives a cow.” By changing the meaning, Taranath imposed the suggestive meaning on Hindus that they ate cows, in order to provide legitimacy to those who were and are eating cows. There is no reason, whatsoever, to accept Taranath’s interpretation of “goghna” in place of the meaning given by Panini, unless someone proves that Taranath of the late 19th century was closer in his understanding of Vedic Sanskrit and was greater Sanskrit scholar than Panini. Taranath did precisely the same with the word ‘Ashwamedha’. It is wrong to think that the Ashwamedha horse was meant for killing and eating at the end of yajna. Even if what Marxists and Ambedkarites say is true, sanatanis have always believed in reform, introspection. Hence the longevity and antiquity. Smritis are only time bound and applies only to the societies of that time. Early humans ate raw meat until fire was invented. If early Brahmins ate beef, there is no justification or compulsion that modern day Brahmins have to eat it too. They have reformed and moved on. You are right mostly. But I have to point out that vedic culture of old didn't have meat eating. The introduction of varnashrama only started with the Vedic period. So brahmins are forbidden to eat meat. You could even say even the other varnas were not eating meat. Sacrifices were made only right before wars to get the army started and not be taken aback by the blood letting. Its only pre vedic people and those who stuck with it and not merge with the vedic movement who ate meat especially beef. This is probably why persians have similar but opposite paradigms. They venerate the asuras and devas are considered to be bad guys This is only my opinion and I'm happy to be proven wrong with quotes from actual scriptures. coffee_rules 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Muloghonto Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 1 hour ago, Lone Wolf said: Similar like Kushans who were not Indians or Sakas but as they established massive empires in Into India and kinda assimilated with locals so they technically became Indian.... All these tribes were earliest of Gurjar communities to settle into India. kushans and shakas were referenced in indian sources as indians -probably because they'd assimilated and while that happened with the huns eventually, it didnt happen under the reign of Mihirkula and by the time it did, the Huns had lost their ethnic identity. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollingstoned Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 22 minutes ago, Real McCoy said: You are right mostly. But I have to point out that vedic culture of old didn't have meat eating. The introduction of varnashrama only started with the Vedic period. So brahmins are forbidden to eat meat. You could even say even the other varnas were not eating meat. Sacrifices were made only right before wars to get the army started and not be taken aback by the blood letting. Its only pre vedic people and those who stuck with it and not merge with the vedic movement who ate meat especially beef. This is probably why persians have similar but opposite paradigms. They venerate the asuras and devas are considered to be bad guys This is only my opinion and I'm happy to be proven wrong with quotes from actual scriptures. Western Indologist circle jerk is the only one which tries to concoct ex nihilo the 'muh Hindus had steak parties every day' part with the aid of tortured translations and extremely liberal interpretations of the former. You can include frauds like devdutt Pattnaik in this category along with every shade of lumpen Marxist jhollachhap anti intellectual. Closest thing to blasphemy in Hinduism has injunctions against cow slaughter which has direct Smriti pramanas, the other being Brahmahatya and devninda. Ambedkar is not an authority on even Buddhism, as evidenced by the desire to concoct his own religion all based on his own arbitrary interpretation of Buddha and his precepts which all other Buddhists reject, let alone Sanskrit and thus Hinduism or any of its scriptures. The whole issue was just a matter of soft targets and a chance to appear virtuous by riding on the coat tails of stale and oft repeated narratives of 'oppression' which can allow you to claim anything was a result of 'caste based chauvinism', indulge in wanton double speak and basically transfer the responsibility to prove any non-culpability on the one being accused, a process which has been fine tuned like an algorithm and which no one else is subjected to. Apart from the Hindi heartland Savarnas, Brahmins throught India are notoriously atomised with negligible land holdings or political power other than their ability to function as a reliable tax base in most of India which was why they mananaged to blackmail even the BJP to bring in an EWS quota in response to the draconian Sc/St act after the 2019 MP elections which they lost. Cho ramaswamy, Subbu and Gurumurthy types from the Mylapore lobby are the exception rather than the norm in TN landscape. You hear Annamalai and JSD talking and they will tell you why many of the community left TN like both sides of my family in the 30s and 40s to go to other parts of India and attempt to build a new life, Mumbai and Calcutta most prominently. singhvivek141, Gollum, Real McCoy and 1 other 2 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Vicks57 Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 (edited) 1 hour ago, Real McCoy said: Ambedker was not a specialist in Vedic studies or Sanskrit. Even among Indian Sanskrit scholars, there is multiple interpretations of the same text. Ambedkar himself was indocrtinated by colonial propagandists and western Indologists. I asked this question because I encountered these passages in my "youth" as well. I was naive and trusted the written words by Europeans just like you and even Ambedkar. That gave me the "license" (look up the definition of this word and you will be surprised) to eat beef. If brahmins ate beef then I should eat some as well. That was my thinking. I was a full blown carnivore in my time in the US even ate alligators . I live right now in a state of regret and have turned vegetarian. I was also an agnostic for a short period. Atheism was still too radical pour moi I'm not tooting my horn here when I say I'm quite an intelligent guy. Its only to warn others that even intelligent people can be fooled. Intelligence without wisdom of well versed mentors and elders is not helpful in fighting propaganda. How many of the general public was fooled into taking vaccines. I'm not questioning their intelligence. Its the sheer weight of propaganda and distortion of history. Clearly you haven't come to terms with your inferiority complex. If Brahmins do something, I will do it. Clearly, you accept that Brahmins have some superior moral sense to you on some level. Vedas give me license to eat beef. So I will do it. The worst form of idolatry is the idolatry of the book. This kind of thinking itself speaks volume about the position of Brahmins in warped view of Hindu/Indian Society. Maybe you have changed or maybe you haven't because you say everything in past tense. This Brahmin superiority complex must be crushed. Edited April 17 by Vicks57 coffee_rules 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Real McCoy Posted April 17 Author Share Posted April 17 8 minutes ago, rollingstoned said: Western Indologist circle jerk is the only one which tries to concoct ex nihilo the 'muh Hindus had steak parties every day' part with the aid of tortured translations and extremely liberal interpretations of the former. You can include frauds like devdutt Pattnaik in this category along with every shade of lumpen Marxist jhollachhap anti intellectual. Closest thing to blasphemy in Hinduism has injunctions against cow slaughter which has direct Smriti pramanas, the other being Brahmahatya and devninda. Ambedkar is not an authority on even Buddhism, as evidenced by the desire to concoct his own religion all based on his own arbitrary interpretation of Buddha and his precepts which all other Buddhists reject, let alone Sanskrit and thus Hinduism or any of its scriptures. The whole issue was just a matter of soft targets and a chance to appear virtuous by riding on the coat tails of stale and oft repeated narratives of 'oppression' which can allow you to claim anything was a result of 'caste based chauvinism', indulge in wanton double speak and basically transfer the responsibility to prove any non-culpability on the one being accused, a process which has been fine tuned like an algorithm and which no one else is subjected to. Apart from the Hindi heartland Savarnas, Brahmins throught India are notoriously atomised with negligible land holdings or political power other than their ability to function as a reliable tax base in most of India which was why they mananaged to blackmail even the BJP to bring in an EWS quota in response to the draconian Sc/St act after the 2019 MP elections which they lost. Cho ramaswamy, Subbu and Gurumurthy types from the Mylapore lobby are the exception rather than the norm in TN landscape. You hear Annamalai and JSD talking and they will tell you why many of the community left TN like both sides of my family in the 30s and 40s to go to other parts of India and attempt to build a new life, Mumbai and Calcutta most prominently. By "they", do you mean leftists or Brahmins? I ask because its not clear the way you typed. Your forebears left in the 30s? How do you retain your Tamil identity after such a long time? Can you understand Tamil or is it as foreign to you as Indian languages are to Indian Americans. I had a college mate who was a brahmin who is not the type of guy who looks to go abroad started looking to go abroad. I asked him why the change and based on my stay in US, I told him living in America will not assist in retaining our culture. He said that its not different here anyways. I was shocked that he came to the conclusion. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Real McCoy Posted April 17 Author Share Posted April 17 2 minutes ago, Vicks57 said: Clearly you haven't come to terms with your inferiority complex. If Brahmins do something, I will do it. Clearly, you accept that Brahmins have some superior moral sense to you on some level. Vedas give me license to eat beef. So I will do it. The worst form of idolatry is the idolatry of the book. This kind of thinking itself speaks volume about the position of Brahmins in warped view of Hindu/Indian Society. Maybe you have changed or maybe you haven't because you say everything in past tense. This Brahmin superiority complex must be crushed. How do you figure my "inferiority complex"? I never said anything about following after Brahmins nor did any Brahmin tell me to do so. Are you talking about my recent vegetarian habits. You sound very judgemental in this post while I was not. This doesn't speak volumes of Brahmins position in our society but speaks of your ignorance of the poison that goes into your "learning". I gave an opportunity for you to do some critical thinking and not rely on someone who is not a scholar on vedic studies. Now I know its futile to make any sense to you. Adios Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
rollingstoned Posted April 17 Share Posted April 17 9 minutes ago, Real McCoy said: By "they", do you mean leftists or Brahmins? I ask because its not clear the way you typed. Your forebears left in the 30s? How do you retain your Tamil identity after such a long time? Can you understand Tamil or is it as foreign to you as Indian languages are to Indian Americans. I had a college mate who was a brahmin who is not the type of guy who looks to go abroad started looking to go abroad. I asked him why the change and based on my stay in US, I told him living in America will not assist in retaining our culture. He said that its not different here anyways. I was shocked that he came to the conclusion. By they I meant combined vote bank of Upper castes there. Obviously not leftists. My Tamils suck but I can speak and understand it and I can't read it. I spent large part of my childhood in a predominantly Iyer locality in Mumbai and was exposed to every community ritual and event so it's not like I feel like some complete foreigner when I go to T Nadu lol. Mom's side owns some land in Coimbatore and we started going every year to the Trichy area which is where my dad's side is from. I conducted his 60th bday over there last year and quite enjoyed going to several temples in that area all of which were quite grand and majestic esp Srirangam. Gollum, Real McCoy and coffee_rules 2 1 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts