Is bull meat permissible in emergency situation?

[Gustav]

Share:

Facebook Twitter WhatsApp Email Share Link

Namaskaram brothers and sisters according to the flesh.

I come from a North Indian Yajurvedi Brahmin family of temple priests and scholars (both the modern and sanskritic kinds of scholars in my family).
But perhaps the most scholarly of them all was my late grandfather, who was reputed for hundreds of miles around as a first class jyotishi and sanskrit academic.

However, out of his four sons only two (my dad and uncle) survived to adulthood, to carry his legacy forward, and to understand and make use of his personal Sanskrit works which he wrote for posterity.
Unfortunately, my dad grew up to be a much more modern and scientifically-oriented kind of academic, pursuing his PhD in quantum physics, a subject which continues to take up basically all his time. And my uncle, well, he turned out too stupid (non-gifted) to be any kind of scholar.

Both of them had two kids each, all four male.
My brother and I are quite gifted but unfortunately, stand disqualified for an acharya's training (having voluntarily left hinduism and converted to Islam and Christianity respectively). And my parents are not going to have more kids anymore (done contraception)
And as for my 2 cousin brothers, well they're both endowed with insufficient IQ, just like their dad.

The only way this could work now, is that my uncle and aunt, dumb as they both are, produce a genius child.
And where to look for such wisdom and guidance except in the timeless Upanishads of our ancestors?

We did just that and found guidance in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

Verse 6.4.18 reads "And if a man wishes that a learned son should be born to him, famous, a public man, a popular speaker, that he should know all the Vedas, and that he should live to his full age, then, after having prepared boiled rice with meat and butter, they should both eat, being fit to have offspring. The meat should be of a young or of an old bull."

Sounds exactly the kind of son my uncle wants, but as you must have read, it requires both my uncle and aunt to eat an old bull's meat.
Although of course, we are all supposed to be vegetarians, and they intend to stay so all the rest of their lives, can they be allowed to have boiled rice and bull meat just once in their lives as it's an emergency situation for we want to carry our patriarch's legacy forward, and for the conservation and transmission of his secret superpowers to the coming generations of Bharatiyas??

Thank you and God bless you all .

 

[renuka]

Namaskaram brothers and sisters according to the flesh.

I come from a North Indian Yajurvedi Brahmin family of temple priests and scholars (both the modern and sanskritic kinds of scholars in my family).
But perhaps the most scholarly of them all was my late grandfather, who was reputed for hundreds of miles around as a first class jyotishi and sanskrit academic.

However, out of his four sons only two (my dad and uncle) survived to adulthood, to carry his legacy forward, and to understand and make use of his personal Sanskrit works which he wrote for posterity.
Unfortunately, my dad grew up to be a much more modern and scientifically-oriented kind of academic, pursuing his PhD in quantum physics, a subject which continues to take up basically all his time. And my uncle, well, he turned out too stupid (non-gifted) to be any kind of scholar.

Both of them had two kids each, all four male.
My brother and I are quite gifted but unfortunately, stand disqualified for an acharya's training (having voluntarily left hinduism and converted to Islam and Christianity respectively). And my parents are not going to have more kids anymore (done contraception)
And as for my 2 cousin brothers, well they're both endowed with insufficient IQ, just like their dad.

The only way this could work now, is that my uncle and aunt, dumb as they both are, produce a genius child.
And where to look for such wisdom and guidance except in the timeless Upanishads of our ancestors?

We did just that and found guidance in the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad.

Verse 6.4.18 reads "And if a man wishes that a learned son should be born to him, famous, a public man, a popular speaker, that he should know all the Vedas, and that he should live to his full age, then, after having prepared boiled rice with meat and butter, they should both eat, being fit to have offspring. The meat should be of a young or of an old bull."

Sounds exactly the kind of son my uncle wants, but as you must have read, it requires both my uncle and aunt to eat an old bull's meat.
Although of course, we are all supposed to be vegetarians, and they intend to stay so all the rest of their lives, can they be allowed to have boiled rice and bull meat just once in their lives as it's an emergency situation for we want to carry our patriarch's legacy forward, and for the conservation and transmission of his secret superpowers to the coming generations of Bharatiyas??

Thank you and God bless you all .

Hi...
If you read the sanskrit text for the shloka you wrote the word we would note of the word मांसौदनं ( mAmsaudanam)

In Sanskrit to denote meat the word mAmsa is used मॉंस:
( mAmsaH) is used.
Note the presence of the chandra bindu nasalization sign above the letter mA (मा)

Etymology of मॉंस: means
mAm saH khadati iti mAmsah.
Which is denoted as I am eating now that which will eat me in the future...so its about meat.

Getting back to the shloka..since the chandrabindu sign is not seen..then the word mAnsaudanam could mean a lot of other things.
The word is a euphonic combination made up of two words mAnsa + odanam( rice) and we get mAnsaudanam.

mAnsa can also mean pulp or mashed pulse.

So now we have to see the last two words in the shloka.

auksheNa is an instrumentative derivative from the word uksha which again has multiple meanings

1)to sprinkle/to wet
2) large
3) ox or bull
4) consecrating
5)throw out
6)emit seed


The last word is vArshabhena is also in instrumentative mode..derived from vRshaba which can mean
1)mighty
2)vigrous
3)manly
4) a type of temple prasada classified under the group Sandhara.
5)bull


With so many meanings to choose from its highly unlikely its talking about meat because the chandrabindu sign over the word मॉंस : isnt there in the shloka to denote meat.

Its most probably talking about some type of mash pulp which is made into a type of prasada and consecrated by sprinkling water.

Also if you look at the shlokas preceeding this shloka ..all of it are only talking of vegetarian items to eat in order to beget a specific type of progeny...so it seems odd that suddenly a shloka shifts mode to meat.


Regards.

 

[sravna]

Renuka, a great response. Deciphering of intents of ancient texts needs to be properly done and it needs to be done in contexts. Always get the big picture first otherwise it is like blind men trying to figure out an elephant.

But all the best Shri Gustav. Your intent is noble.

 

[renuka]

Renuka, a great response. Deciphering of intents of ancient texts needs to be properly done and it needs to be done in contexts. Always get the big picture first otherwise it is like blind men trying to figure out an elephant.

But all the best Shri Gustav. Your intent is noble.

Thank you Sravna,
Many of the translations provided by many Swamijis do translate that shloka as eating beef but I usually prefer to look at all possible meanings and also observe the pattern of shlokas that preceed any shloka or even shlokas that follow it to arrive at any conclusion.

Also using my Sanskrit ability to decipher the shloka, I didnt prefer to go with the eating beef translation because to beget a child who is going to be a Vedic genius its going to be a Sattva guna mode ..meat is Rajas that too red meat is very Rajas as the biomemory of a bull is very high as it feels emotions and pain..studies have shown that cows and bulls feel depression too when facing stressful situations..all the biomemory of pain from slaughter is going to be in the meat..that would produce a high degree of Rajoguna in one who consumes it..so how can it lead to anyone mastering the Vedas which needs Sattva guna mode?

Also in the case of Parashurama, the payasam his mother consumed ( which was switched) was prepared to produce a son with Rajoguna.
Even that payasam was vegetarian and did not contain meat.

So I dont think the beef translation is accurate.

A lot of people tend to rely on translation by T.H.Griffith which mostly is fine just that he at times goes a bit too literal in translation.

I might not be a vidwan but I guess we need to take many points into consideration when translating..eg possible multiple meanings, context, time/era, comparison with other text and also dominant culture of a community.

 

[sravna]

Well said Renuka!

 

[Gustav]

Hi...
If you read the sanskrit text for the shloka you wrote the word we would note of the word मांसौदनं ( mAmsaudanam)

In Sanskrit to denote meat the word mAmsa is used मॉंस:
( mAmsaH) is used.
Note the presence of the chandra bindu nasalization sign above the letter mA (मा)

Etymology of मॉंस: means
mAm saH khadati iti mAmsah.
Which is denoted as I am eating now that which will eat me in the future...so its about meat.

Getting back to the shloka..since the chandrabindu sign is not seen..then the word mAnsaudanam could mean a lot of other things.
The word is a euphonic combination made up of two words mAnsa + odanam( rice) and we get mAnsaudanam.

mAnsa can also mean pulp or mashed pulse.

So now we have to see the last two words in the shloka.

auksheNa is an instrumentative derivative from the word uksha which again has multiple meanings

1)to sprinkle/to wet
2) large
3) ox or bull
4) consecrating
5)throw out
6)emit seed


The last word is vArshabhena is also in instrumentative mode..derived from vRshaba which can mean
1)mighty
2)vigrous
3)manly
4) a type of temple prasada classified under the group Sandhara.
5)bull


With so many meanings to choose from its highly unlikely its talking about meat because the chandrabindu sign over the word मॉंस : isnt there in the shloka to denote meat.

Its most probably talking about some type of mash pulp which is made into a type of prasada and consecrated by sprinkling water.

Also if you look at the shlokas preceeding this shloka ..all of it are only talking of vegetarian items to eat in order to beget a specific type of progeny...so it seems odd that suddenly a shloka shifts mode to meat.


Regards.

Tysm for the reply, sis.

Can u also perhaps supply the sources for each translation, as they seem pretty novel to me I'm afraid.

For मांसौदनं, everywhere I recall it being used and in every translation I have seen so far (not just Griffith's) it is just a generic word for meat-rice (as u can compare also in Śāṅkhāyana Āraṇyaka, xii. 8).

To add to that, the presence of the qualifying instruction "अउक्शेण वार्षभेण वा" (vigorous or old bull) strongly suggests that the traditional translation is in fact right.

Another powerful reason I am facing difficulty accepting the translation you provided (whose source also you will provide shortly, hopefully), is a commentary on this same verse by none other than Adi Shankaracharya himself.

He writes,
"Odan (rice) mixed with meat is called ‘Mansodan’. On being asked whose meat it should be, he answers ‘Uksha’. ‘Uksha’ is used for an ox, which is capable to produce semen. Or the meat should be of a ‘Rishabh’. ‘Rishabh’ is a bull more advanced in years than an ‘Uksha’."
-Adishankaracharya in his commentary on Brihadaranyak Upanishad 6.4.18 (attached)

Thanks once again.

 

[renuka]

Tysm for the reply, sis.

Can u also perhaps supply the sources for each translation, as they seem pretty novel to me I'm afraid.

For मांसौदनं, everywhere I recall it being used and in every translation I have seen so far (not just Griffith's) it is just a generic word for meat-rice (as u can compare also in Śāṅkhāyana Āraṇyaka, xii. 8).

To add to that, the presence of the qualifying instruction "अउक्शेण वार्षभेण वा" (vigorous or old bull) strongly suggests that the traditional translation is in fact right.

Another powerful reason I am facing difficulty accepting the translation you provided (whose source also you will provide shortly, hopefully), is a commentary on this same verse by none other than Adi Shankaracharya himself.

He writes,
"Odan (rice) mixed with meat is called ‘Mansodan’. On being asked whose meat it should be, he answers ‘Uksha’. ‘Uksha’ is used for an ox, which is capable to produce semen. Or the meat should be of a ‘Rishabh’. ‘Rishabh’ is a bull more advanced in years than an ‘Uksha’."
-Adishankaracharya in his commentary on Brihadaranyak Upanishad 6.4.18 (attached)

Thanks once again.

You could look up most Sanskrit dictionaries..the multiple meanings are found there especially in Vaman Apte.

in the snapshot you provided the candrabindu sign is there.
may be you could show the snap shot to your uncle and his wife.
best of luck.

 

[sravna]

The best thing to do is to follow ones instinct or intuition as the case may be.

 

[renuka]

Tysm for the reply, sis.

Can u also perhaps supply the sources for each translation, as they seem pretty novel to me I'm afraid.

For मांसौदनं, everywhere I recall it being used and in every translation I have seen so far (not just Griffith's) it is just a generic word for meat-rice (as u can compare also in Śāṅkhāyana Āraṇyaka, xii. 8).

To add to that, the presence of the qualifying instruction "अउक्शेण वार्षभेण वा" (vigorous or old bull) strongly suggests that the traditional translation is in fact right.

Another powerful reason I am facing difficulty accepting the translation you provided (whose source also you will provide shortly, hopefully), is a commentary on this same verse by none other than Adi Shankaracharya himself.

He writes,
"Odan (rice) mixed with meat is called ‘Mansodan’. On being asked whose meat it should be, he answers ‘Uksha’. ‘Uksha’ is used for an ox, which is capable to produce semen. Or the meat should be of a ‘Rishabh’. ‘Rishabh’ is a bull more advanced in years than an ‘Uksha’."
-Adishankaracharya in his commentary on Brihadaranyak Upanishad 6.4.18 (attached)

Thanks once again.

Btw I found a link with a similar question raised in a vedic hymn about bulls meat and it is explained that it talks about a medicinal plant.

This whole write up is in Hindi..you could take a look..it would easier for you since its your mother tongue.

ऋषभ कंद - ऋषभक का परिचय ।। वेद विशेष ।।

शाकाहार के प्रसार प्रचार को समर्पित ब्लॉग।

niraamish.blogspot.com

 

[sravna]

There are a number of factors that need to be considered before one takes a significant decision or action. Each person's situation is more or less unique and so in general advice or opinion of others can at best be a starting point. The extra caution is applied when prima facie the thing appears adharmic. If not able to come to a decision it is better to play it safe and be on the side of what is prima facie dharma.

 

[renuka]

अद्रिणा ते मन्दिन इन्द्र तूयान्त्सुन्वन्ति
सोमान् पिबसि त्वमेषाम्।
पचन्ति ते वृषभां अत्सि तेषां
पृक्षेण यन्मघवन् हूयमानः ॥
-ऋग्वेद, 10, 28, 3
लिखते हुये इसमें प्रयुक्त "वृषभां" का अर्थ बैल करते हुये कुअर्थी कहते हैं की इसमें बैल पकाने की बात कही गयी है । जिसका उचित निराकरण करते हुये बताया गया की नहीं ये बैल नहीं है ; इसका अर्थ है ------

-हे इंद्रदेव! आपके लिये जब यजमान जल्दी जल्दी पत्थर के टुकड़ों पर आनन्दप्रद सोमरस तैयार करते हैं तब आप उसे पीते हैं। हे ऐश्वर्य-सम्पन्न इन्द्रदेव! जब यजमान हविष्य के अन्न से यज्ञ करते हुए शक्तिसम्पन्न हव्य को अग्नि में डालते हैं तब आप उसका सेवन करते हैं।

इसमे शक्तिसंपन्न हव्य को स्पष्ट करते हुये बताया गया की वह शक्तिसम्पन्न हव्य "वृषभां" - "बैल" नहीं बल्कि बलकारक "ऋषभक" (ऋषभ कंद) नामक औषधि है ।

 

[renuka]

I am unable to edit my above post as an advertisment keeps blocking the post reply option.

The above post is taken from this blog

ऋषभ कंद - ऋषभक का परिचय ।। वेद विशेष ।।

शाकाहार के प्रसार प्रचार को समर्पित ब्लॉग।

niraamish.blogspot.com

 

[sravna]

The best high level advice that I can think of is, one should go by ones nature. The context is the other piece that needs to be considered.

 

[Gustav]

Btw I found a link with a similar question raised in a vedic hymn about bulls meat and it is explained that it talks about a medicinal plant.

This whole write up is in Hindi..you could take a look..it would easier for you since its your mother tongue.

ऋषभ कंद - ऋषभक का परिचय ।। वेद विशेष ।।

शाकाहार के प्रसार प्रचार को समर्पित ब्लॉग।

niraamish.blogspot.com

Thanks for this, but I mean the rigvedic text they are addressing says "वृषभां" not ऋषभकaam, so while rishabhAKaam could mean power-giving something (plant plausibly), वृषभां at first glance would seem to mean ox only, especially when considered in light of what Adi Shankaracharya says when describing the word.

Besides, when we consider other mantras from the same mandala, like RV 10.86.14 for instance (here ukshno is used), and notice the places and ways in which the words rishabhah and ukshah are used in general throughout the literature, Adi Shankaracharya's description seems pretty vindicated to be fair.

By the way, Renuka, this power giving plant the niraamish scholars describe sounds interesting to me but I am unable to find its description elsewhere except a post or two on facebook it seems.
So, in case you are aware, could you please give me the Latin taxonomic name for that plant so I could study it and if not could you perhaps give a description of the plant provided in sanskritic literature itself?

Thanks.

 

[Gustav]

The best high level advice that I can think of is, one should go by ones nature. The context is the other piece that needs to be considered.

Thanks sravana. I'm trying my best.

 

[renuka]

Thanks for this, but I mean the rigvedic text they are addressing says "वृषभां" not ऋषभकaam, so while rishabhAKaam could mean power-giving something (plant plausibly), वृषभां at first glance would seem to mean ox only, especially when considered in light of what Adi Shankaracharya says when describing the word.

Besides, when we consider other mantras from the same mandala, like RV 10.86.14 for instance (here ukshno is used), and notice the places and ways in which the words rishabhah and ukshah are used in general throughout the literature, Adi Shankaracharya's description seems pretty vindicated to be fair.

By the way, Renuka, this power giving plant the niraamish scholars describe sounds interesting to me but I am unable to find its description elsewhere except a post or two on facebook it seems.
So, in case you are aware, could you please give me the Latin taxonomic name for that plant so I could study it and if not could you perhaps give a description of the plant provided in sanskritic literature itself?

Thanks.

Rishabaka (Malaxis muscifera) Uses, Medicinal Qualities, Research

Rishabhaka is one among the Ashtavarga herbs. It is a good antioxidant, rejuvenating, aphrodisiac and used in the treatment of fatigue, bleeding disorders

www.easyayurveda.com

It is an aphrodisiac and increases the sperm count.

Also note its various other sanskrit synomyms..
Vrishabho and Uksha are its synoyms.

When we convert these names into instrumentative derivative, we get the words written in the shloka..
vArshabhena and auksheNa....so it could just be a mashed pulp of this herbal plant to increase the sperm count to get a progeny.

 

[Gustav]

Rishabaka (Malaxis muscifera) Uses, Medicinal Qualities, Research

Rishabhaka is one among the Ashtavarga herbs. It is a good antioxidant, rejuvenating, aphrodisiac and used in the treatment of fatigue, bleeding disorders

www.easyayurveda.com

It is an aphrodisiac and increases the sperm count.

Also note its various other sanskrit synomyms..
Vrishabho and Uksha its synoyms.

When we convert these names into instrumentative derivative, we get the words written in the shloka..
vArshabhena and auksheNa.

I see, I see.
But Rig Veda 10.91.14 sure sounds like an odd place to mention it doesn't it?

“To whom horses and bulls and oxen and barren cows and sheep are consigned as burnt offerings. I offer graceful praise with all my heart to Agni, the drinker of water, whose back is sprinkled with Soma, the ordainer (of the rite)."

"यस्मिन्नश्वास ऋषभास उक्षणो वशा मेषा अवसृष्टास आहुताः । कीलालपे सोमपृष्ठाय वेधसे हृदा मतिं जनये चारुमग्नये ॥"

The only plant out of the list of animals?
Strange?

 

[renuka]

Anyway, the best person to make the decision is your uncle and aunt.
If you feel the shloka means beef, you have to explain it to them.

The other option is to look for an ayurvedin expert to find that herb.
The shloka is so sure about getting a male progeny..may be this herb increases the number of sperms carrying the Y chromosome to increase chances of getting a male...who knows?
Cos just increasing the sperm count, need not always equals to begetting a male child.

May be try discussing with an Ayurvedin expert.

Even if you feel its beef and not the herb..there is no guarentee that only a male child will be produced...that way not all beef eaters have only sons.

Also the species of bulls were not specified..then it would be like Moses( a.s) and the Jews in Surah Al Baqarah where Moses( a.s) had to go back to God to ask for which type of bovine to be sacrificied. .each time the Jews kept on asking what type of bovine..age..color etc.

Also if your uncle and aunty were vegetarians all their lives and from a pure veg lineage, then eating meat could trigger a severe allergic reaction for some people cos the body is not used to bovine protein.

So be watchful of potential side effects, not to mention guilt of eating meat and if other relatives come to know they could face problems too.
So decide carefully..its safer to go with the herbal option.

Best of luck anyway.

 

[Gustav]

Anyway, the best person to make the decision is your uncle and aunt.
If you feel the shloka means beef, you have to explain it to them.

The other option is to look for an ayurvedin expert to find that herb.
The shloka is so sure about getting a male progeny..may be this herb increases the number of sperms carrying the Y chromosome to increase chances of getting a male...who knows?
Cos just increasing the sperm count, need not always equals to begetting a male child.

May be try discussing with an Ayurvedin expert.

Even if you feel its beef and not the herb..there is no guarentee that only a male child will be produced...that way not all beef eaters have only sons.

Also the species of bulls were not specified..then it would be like Moses( pbuh) and the Jews where he had to go back to God to ask for which type of bovine to be sacrificied. .each time the Jews kept on asking what type of bovine..age..color etc.

Also if your uncle and aunty were vegetarians all their lives and from a pure veg lineage, then eating meat could trigger a severe allergic reaction for some people cos the body is not used to bovine protein.

So be watchful of potential side effects, not to mention guilt of eating meat and if other relatives come to know they could face problems too.
So decide carefully..its safer to go with the herbal option.

Best of luck anyway.

But Adi Shankaracharya does say that the word uksah itself means a sechan samarth pungavah when commenting upon the verse, so why would they need further explanation?

And which biblical passage/s u have in mind, if I may ask?

 

[Gustav]

Anyway, the best person to make the decision is your uncle and aunt.
If you feel the shloka means beef, you have to explain it to them.

The other option is to look for an ayurvedin expert to find that herb.
The shloka is so sure about getting a male progeny..may be this herb increases the number of sperms carrying the Y chromosome to increase chances of getting a male...who knows?
Cos just increasing the sperm count, need not always equals to begetting a male child.

May be try discussing with an Ayurvedin expert.

Even if you feel its beef and not the herb..there is no guarentee that only a male child will be produced...that way not all beef eaters have only sons.

Also the species of bulls were not specified..then it would be like Moses( a.s) and the Jews in Surah Al Baqarah where Moses( a.s) had to go back to God to ask for which type of bovine to be sacrificied. .each time the Jews kept on asking what type of bovine..age..color etc.

Also if your uncle and aunty were vegetarians all their lives and from a pure veg lineage, then eating meat could trigger a severe allergic reaction for some people cos the body is not used to bovine protein.

So be watchful of potential side effects, not to mention guilt of eating meat and if other relatives come to know they could face problems too.
So decide carefully..its safer to go with the herbal option.

Best of luck anyway.

>Best of luck anyway

Thanks but they've asked us all to look into this and I wanna be sure before I give them an answer.

 

[renuka]

>Best of luck anyway

Thanks but they've asked us all to look into this and I wanna be sure before I give them an answer.

Thats for them to decide..pray to God and let Him guide you to help them.

 

[renuka]

But Adi Shankaracharya does say that the word uksah itself means a sechan samarth pungavah when commenting upon the verse, so why would they need further explanation?

And which biblical passage/s u have in mind, if I may ask?

The story is from the Quran.
Surah Al Baqara

The Story of the Israelites' Cow​

(67) وَإِذْ قَالَ مُوسَى لِقَوْمِهِ إِنَّ اللّهَ يَأْمُرُكُمْ أَنْ تَذْبَحُواْ بَقَرَةً قَالُواْ أَتَتَّخِذُنَا هُزُواً قَالَ أَعُوذُ بِاللّهِ أَنْ أَكُونَ مِنَ الْجَاهِلِينَ
(68) قَالُواْ ادْعُ لَنَا رَبَّكَ يُبَيِّن لّنَا مَا هِيَ قَالَ إِنَّهُ يَقُولُ إِنَّهَا بَقَرَةٌ لاَّ فَارِضٌ وَلاَ بِكْرٌ عَوَانٌ بَيْنَ ذَلِكَ فَافْعَلُواْ مَا تُؤْمَرونَ
(69) قَالُواْ ادْعُ لَنَا رَبَّكَ يُبَيِّن لَّنَا مَا لَوْنُهَا قَالَ إِنَّهُ يَقُولُ إِنّهَا بَقَرَةٌ صَفْرَاء فَاقِعٌ لَّوْنُهَا تَسُرُّ النَّاظِرِينَ
(70) قَالُواْ ادْعُ لَنَا رَبَّكَ يُبَيِّن لَّنَا مَا هِيَ إِنَّ البَقَرَ تَشَابَهَ عَلَيْنَا وَإِنَّآ إِن شَاء اللَّهُ لَمُهْتَدُونَ
(71) قَالَ إِنَّهُ يَقُولُ إِنَّهَا بَقَرَةٌ لاَّ ذَلُولٌ تُثِيرُ الأَرْضَ وَلاَ تَسْقِي الْحَرْثَ مُسَلَّمَةٌ لاَّ شِيَةَ فِيهَا قَالُواْ الآنَ جِئْتَ بِالْحَقِّ فَذَبَحُوهَا وَمَا كَادُواْ يَفْعَلُونَ
(72) وَإِذْ قَتَلْتُمْ نَفْساً فَادَّارَأْتُمْ فِيهَا وَاللّهُ مُخْرِجٌ مَّا كُنتُمْ تَكْتُمُونَ
(73) فَقُلْنَا اضْرِبُوهُ بِبَعْضِهَا كَذَلِكَ يُحْيِي اللّهُ الْمَوْتَى وَيُرِيكُمْ آيَاتِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ
(74) ثُمَّ قَسَتْ قُلُوبُكُم مِّن بَعْدِ ذَلِكَ فَهِيَ كَالْحِجَارَةِ أَوْ أَشَدُّ قَسْوَةً وَإِنَّ مِنَ الْحِجَارَةِ لَمَا يَتَفَجَّرُ مِنْهُ الأَنْهَارُ وَإِنَّ مِنْهَا لَمَا يَشَّقَّقُ فَيَخْرُجُ مِنْهُ الْمَاء وَإِنَّ مِنْهَا لَمَا يَهْبِطُ مِنْ خَشْيَةِ اللّهِ وَمَا اللّهُ بِغَافِلٍ عَمَّا تَعْمَلُونَ
209
67." And (remember) when Moses said to his people:'Surely,Allah commands you that you should sacrifice a cow '. They said :
'Do you mock us ?'He said :'I take refuge with Allah from being one of the ignorant! ' "
68." They said 'Ask your Lord for us to make it clear to us what she is.' Moses said:'He says : Surely she is a cow neither old nor young, but of middle age; so do what you are commanded '."
69." They said:'Ask your Lord for us to make it clear to us what colour she should be.'Moses replied:'He says she should be a yellow cow,bright in colour, giving delight to the beholders '."
70." They said:'Ask your Lord for us to make it clear to us what kind of cow must it be, for surely to us the cows are all alike, and, if Allah wills, we shall surely be guided aright.' "
71."(Moses) said:' Verily, He says : Verily, she is a cow not (yet) trained to till the soil or to water the fields; sound and without blemish. '
They said : ' Now you have brought the truth.'
Then they offered her in sacrifice, though they had not the mind to do (it) ."
72." And (remember) when you killed a man and disputed thereon : but Allah was to bring forth what you were hiding."
73."So, We said : ' Strike him (the corpse) with a part of it (the sacrificed cow) '.
Thus, Allah gives life to the dead and shows you of His signs, so that you might understand."
74." Then your hearts hardened after that as stones or even worse in hardness; for verily, among stones there are some from which rivers gush forth, and others that split asunder and water issues out of them, and others tumble down through fear of Allah, and Allah is not heedless of what you do."
* * *

The Story of the Israelites' Cow

erfan.ir

 

[Gustav]

The story is from the Quran.
Surah Al Baqara

The Story of the Israelites' Cow​

(67) وَإِذْ قَالَ مُوسَى لِقَوْمِهِ إِنَّ اللّهَ يَأْمُرُكُمْ أَنْ تَذْبَحُواْ بَقَرَةً قَالُواْ أَتَتَّخِذُنَا هُزُواً قَالَ أَعُوذُ بِاللّهِ أَنْ أَكُونَ مِنَ الْجَاهِلِينَ
(68) قَالُواْ ادْعُ لَنَا رَبَّكَ يُبَيِّن لّنَا مَا هِيَ قَالَ إِنَّهُ يَقُولُ إِنَّهَا بَقَرَةٌ لاَّ فَارِضٌ وَلاَ بِكْرٌ عَوَانٌ بَيْنَ ذَلِكَ فَافْعَلُواْ مَا تُؤْمَرونَ
(69) قَالُواْ ادْعُ لَنَا رَبَّكَ يُبَيِّن لَّنَا مَا لَوْنُهَا قَالَ إِنَّهُ يَقُولُ إِنّهَا بَقَرَةٌ صَفْرَاء فَاقِعٌ لَّوْنُهَا تَسُرُّ النَّاظِرِينَ
(70) قَالُواْ ادْعُ لَنَا رَبَّكَ يُبَيِّن لَّنَا مَا هِيَ إِنَّ البَقَرَ تَشَابَهَ عَلَيْنَا وَإِنَّآ إِن شَاء اللَّهُ لَمُهْتَدُونَ
(71) قَالَ إِنَّهُ يَقُولُ إِنَّهَا بَقَرَةٌ لاَّ ذَلُولٌ تُثِيرُ الأَرْضَ وَلاَ تَسْقِي الْحَرْثَ مُسَلَّمَةٌ لاَّ شِيَةَ فِيهَا قَالُواْ الآنَ جِئْتَ بِالْحَقِّ فَذَبَحُوهَا وَمَا كَادُواْ يَفْعَلُونَ
(72) وَإِذْ قَتَلْتُمْ نَفْساً فَادَّارَأْتُمْ فِيهَا وَاللّهُ مُخْرِجٌ مَّا كُنتُمْ تَكْتُمُونَ
(73) فَقُلْنَا اضْرِبُوهُ بِبَعْضِهَا كَذَلِكَ يُحْيِي اللّهُ الْمَوْتَى وَيُرِيكُمْ آيَاتِهِ لَعَلَّكُمْ تَعْقِلُونَ
(74) ثُمَّ قَسَتْ قُلُوبُكُم مِّن بَعْدِ ذَلِكَ فَهِيَ كَالْحِجَارَةِ أَوْ أَشَدُّ قَسْوَةً وَإِنَّ مِنَ الْحِجَارَةِ لَمَا يَتَفَجَّرُ مِنْهُ الأَنْهَارُ وَإِنَّ مِنْهَا لَمَا يَشَّقَّقُ فَيَخْرُجُ مِنْهُ الْمَاء وَإِنَّ مِنْهَا لَمَا يَهْبِطُ مِنْ خَشْيَةِ اللّهِ وَمَا اللّهُ بِغَافِلٍ عَمَّا تَعْمَلُونَ
209
67." And (remember) when Moses said to his people:'Surely,Allah commands you that you should sacrifice a cow '. They said :
'Do you mock us ?'He said :'I take refuge with Allah from being one of the ignorant! ' "
68." They said 'Ask your Lord for us to make it clear to us what she is.' Moses said:'He says : Surely she is a cow neither old nor young, but of middle age; so do what you are commanded '."
69." They said:'Ask your Lord for us to make it clear to us what colour she should be.'Moses replied:'He says she should be a yellow cow,bright in colour, giving delight to the beholders '."
70." They said:'Ask your Lord for us to make it clear to us what kind of cow must it be, for surely to us the cows are all alike, and, if Allah wills, we shall surely be guided aright.' "
71."(Moses) said:' Verily, He says : Verily, she is a cow not (yet) trained to till the soil or to water the fields; sound and without blemish. '
They said : ' Now you have brought the truth.'
Then they offered her in sacrifice, though they had not the mind to do (it) ."
72." And (remember) when you killed a man and disputed thereon : but Allah was to bring forth what you were hiding."
73."So, We said : ' Strike him (the corpse) with a part of it (the sacrificed cow) '.
Thus, Allah gives life to the dead and shows you of His signs, so that you might understand."
74." Then your hearts hardened after that as stones or even worse in hardness; for verily, among stones there are some from which rivers gush forth, and others that split asunder and water issues out of them, and others tumble down through fear of Allah, and Allah is not heedless of what you do."
* * *

The Story of the Israelites' Cow

erfan.ir

I mean lol, I'm not so sure if we can trust 7th century bedouins when they narrate a thus far unattested tradition supposedly dating all the way to the Middle-Late Bronze age in a location thousands of miles away relating to a people with whom they have no more in common than Lurs have with Indians.

 

[renuka]

I mean lol, I'm not so sure if we can trust 7th century bedouins when they narrate a thus far unattested tradition supposedly dating all the way to the Middle-Late Bronze age in a location thousands of miles away relating to a people with whom they have no more in common than Lurs have with Indians.

Dear Gustav,
You do follow an Abrahamic faith yourself and you mentioned your brother is a Muslim...your bro would be knowing that Surah Al Baqarah is the biggest chapter in the Quran.
So all these are equally important to you along with the Upanishad cos your gotra is still valid and you on your own are trying to keep your vedic heritage alive by trying to help your uncle to continue the lineage.

Your vedic heritage still speaks so much through you.
In fact its through you bringing up the Upanishad shloka we got to know about the ayurvedic herb uksha and vrshaba and analysed the shloka to some extent.

At the same time we should not underestimate any tribe be it from India or from the Middle East.
We can learn from anything..anywhere...everything ..everywhere..all at once.

 

[Gustav]

Dear Gustav,
You do follow an Abrahamic faith yourself and you mentioned your brother is a Muslim...your bro would be knowing that Surah Al Baqarah is the biggest chapter in the Quran.
So all these are equally important to you along with the Upanishad cos your gotra is still valid and you on your own are trying to keep your vedic heritage alive by trying to help your uncle to continue the lineage.

Your vedic heritage still speaks so much through you.
In fact its through you bringing up the Upanishad shloka we got to know about the ayurvedic herb uksha and vrshaba and analysed the shloka to some extent.

At the same time we should not underestimate any tribe be it from India or from the Middle East.
We can learn from anything..anywhere...everything ..everywhere..all at once.

Yes I do revere my vedic heritage and honour my fathers of old.
I want to preserve our aryan genetics, our beloved ancestral language (sanskrit), our great philosophical treatises (I particularly like the school of Madhavacharya; and if we go farther back then Udayana et al, and much of the ancient ones too) and also the scientific, literary and artistic achievements of our race and the legacy thereof.
In fact, I am pretty nationalistic about it.

However, I also realize that the ethos of our people and therefore also of their pantheons (and the pantheons themselves) were constantly subject to change over time.
Therefore, it does not offend me one bit when I read upanishads declare and philosophers expound so openly that (at that point in history our people believed) beef is not tamsic or rajas (or more likely they had no such distinction yet but it is a later development).
For this reason, I don't try to read ayurvedic herbs into a text which clearly says an uksha is a *sechansamarth pungavah* and we need to use tadiyam maansam; and that a rishabh is older than it and we need to use tadiyam *aarshabham* maansam.

I just want to take the text for what it says, and help my family with full honesty.