Beef in Vedic Times

There are certain people who consider that Vedic people ate cow’s flesh. ‘Beef’ refers to the meat of any bovine in general. We are not concerned whether Vedic people ate the flesh of bovines other than cow. Hence, we deal specifically with the point whether Vedic people ate cow’s flesh or not. Even in this, we are not concerned with the ritual sacrifice of cow as such sacrifice does not mean that cows were eaten on normal occasions. Because we see that Rg Veda (10-87-16) recommends capital punishment for those who kill human, horse or cow. We do know that humans were killed in wars but that does not amount to murder. Similarly, ritual sacrifice of cow does not mean that Vedic people ate cow’s flesh in normal life. That the word ‘goghna’ does not mean ‘killer of cow’ and that it means ‘receiver of cow’ (Maharshi Panini’s Astadhyaayi 3-4-73) is proved by Swami Prakashanand Saraswati in the book ‘The True History and the Religion of India, A Concise Encyclopedia of Authentic Hinduism’.
Now going back to the argument that Vedic people ate cow’s flesh, we argue that such a thing could not have happened. Cow is praised as ‘aditi’, ‘aghnyA’ etc in the Vedic Samhitas (‘aghnyA’ in Rg Veda 1-37-5, 1-164-27, 1-164-40, 4-1-6, 5-83-8, 7-68-8, 7-68-9, 7-87-4, 8-69-2, 8-75-8, 8-102-19, 9-1-9, 9-80-2, 9-93-3, 10-46-3, 10-60-11, 10-87-16, 10-102-7 & ‘aditi’ in Rg Veda 1-43-2, 1-153-3, 8-101-15 etc To be noted that RV 1-153-3 uses the word ‘dhenu’ along with ‘aditi’). As regards some ritual sacrifice of ‘go’ (cow/ox) as mentioned in Ashvalayana Grhyasutra, we do not deny the existence of those references. But they refer to some special circumstances and these sacrifices do not mean that people ate the flesh of cow in their daily life. Moreover, the word used is ‘go’ which refers to both ox and cow. Also, sutras have to be understood based on the practice and they cannot be interpreted independently. Therefore, we do not know for sure whether the word ‘go’ referred to cow/ox and based on the various references to cow as inviolable, it is probable that the word referred to ox (or a barren cow) and not cow. It must be remembered that severe punishment is recommended for those who kill a horse, human or cow (Rg Veda 10-87-16) but horses and humans were killed in war. These killings were not considered as murder. Similarly, any sacrifice of horse during the Ashvamedha sacrifice would be an exception. These cases do not mean that Vedic people killed/ate horses in their daily life or that doing such a thing was legal during that period. The case of cow is the same. Therefore, the case of ritual sacrifices can be kept out of this discussion. (Though we would like to know exactly on what occasions the cows were ritually sacrificed.)
Brhadaaranyaka Upanishad (6-4-18) does speak about eating ‘beef’ for the purpose of attaining a scholarly son but the animal is a ‘bull’ (Vrishabha) and not a cow. Therefore, it has nothing to do with eating of cow’s flesh. From the various injunctions against the killing of a cow in the Vedic Samhitas and the later Vedic texts like Apastambha sutras, Puranas etc, we can conclude that cow was considered inviolable by the Vedic people and that the only circumstance under which any cow was killed was ritual sacrifice. Finally, it must be remembered that Vedic people certainly did not eat cow’s flesh in their everyday life as they considered it a great sin to kill a cow (ritual sacrifice being a case of exception).
Some people consider the Apastambha Grhya Sutra (1-3-10) to be referring to the killing of cow during marriage, death rites and the arrival of guest. The words are ‘etAvad gorAlambanam atithiH pitaro vivAhaSca’. Apastambha makes it very clear that cow’s flesh shall not be eaten in his Dharma Sutras (1.5.17.29). [Of course, 1.5.17.30 states that there are some exceptions to the rule. While such exceptions may include Yagnas, feeding the guests will not form a part of such exceptions as the guests are supposed to eat only 'acceptable' items.] Therefore, no guest can eat a cow’s flesh as it is a prohibited item. Hence, the interpretation that a guest is offered cow’s flesh falls flat on face. The word ‘gorAlambanam’ is formed by ‘goH+Alambanam’ where ‘Alambanam’ is a word whose meaning is ‘to kill’. The word also means ‘taking hold of something’, ‘seizing’, ‘tearing off’/‘remove’ etc. The compound ‘gorAlambanam’ can mean ‘giving away of cows’ with the word ‘Alambanam’ used in the sense ‘tearing off/removal’. This interpretation suits with the meaning of ‘goghna’ (receiver of cow) as given by Maharshi Panini. The other way to interpret this sutra is to identify ‘go’ with an ox / a barren cow (which was definitely killed to entertain guests as seen from Aitareya Brahmana 1.15). Therefore, Apastambha Sutras advocating about killing a cow for entertaining a guest is completely ruled out. As such, even today 'go daan' is done by the Brahmins of Apasthambha Sutra during the 'apara' ceremonies following a person's death and there is no mentioning of any cow sacrifice during such ceremonies.
The claim made about Rg Veda (6-17-1) and (10-85-13) referring to killing/eating cow is also wrong. In (6-17-1), Indra captures the cattle of Panis and it has nothing to do with eating cows. In 10-85-13, the marriage is that of celestials (Surya) and not humans. Even then, the words are ‘aghAsu hanyante gAvo'rjunyoH pary uhyate’ – the word ‘gAvaH’ is in plural nominative case. ‘aghAsu’ means ‘in many aghAs (most probably referring to maghA days)’ and so ‘arjunyoH’ will mean ‘in two arjunIs (cows/some other nakSatra day)’. The words ‘aghAsu hanyante gAvah’ would most probably mean ‘cows/oxen! Kill (perhaps, killing evil is mentioned) in aghAs’ or ‘cows/oxen are killed in aghAs’. Griffith translates the verse as follows: ‘In Magha days are oxen slain, in Arjuris they wed the bride.’ Finally, as told above, it is a marriage of celestials and it is not a human wedding. If anyone insists that the example set by the celestials has to be followed, it will be foolish as there are some cases of incest (involving PrajApati) among the deities which are not advised for humans. Therefore, this verse is no proof for sacrifice of cows/oxen during human wedding.
Regretting for repetition, we would like to point out that it is important to take into consideration the fact that ‘gau’ refers to both cow and oxen. There are many verses in the Rg Veda which refer to ‘gau’ as inviolable. There may be some verses which might refer to ‘gau’ being killed. In practice, we see that cow is venerated but the ox is not treated at par with cow. Hence, we can say that where ‘go’ is called as ‘inviolable’, the word refers to cow and those places where references are made to ‘go’ being killed, the word refers to ox. This is the best way to reconcile the meanings of various verses (‘samAnAdhikaraNam’).
Aitareya Brahmana (1.15) does refer to the killing of an ox (ukSANam) or a ‘barren’ cow (vehatam) while welcoming a king. But the text is very clear in mentioning that only ‘barren cows’ (vehatam) are killed. Thus, the cow which could never attain the status of a ‘gomata’ is treated at par with an ox. This does not mean that normal cows (which are identified as ‘aghnyA’) were also killed by the Vedic Aryans in non-ritual circumstances.
Next, people claim that Mahabharata (Aranyaka Parva) says about killing of two thousand cows in King Rantideva’s kitchen. On verifying the verse (the version referred by us is available at the site ‘http://is1.mum.edu/vedicreserve/’), we find the following words: ‘dve sahasre tu vadhyete pashUnAm anvaham tadA’ (MBH: 3-199-7). The words ‘dve sahasre’ mean two-thousand. ‘Vadhyete’ means kill. ‘PashUnAm’ means animals. The word ‘anvaham’ means ‘day after day/everyday’. I can’t see where these people find ‘cows’ in this verse.
Next, we consider the Satapatha Brahmana. It is claimed that in 3.1.2.21, killing of cows is mentioned. In the very paragraph cited above, it is clearly stated that killing of cow is a sin. Normally the last sentence is translated that despite it being a sin, Yagnavalkya declares that he will eat the cow's flesh if it is 'amsala' (translated as 'tender' by many).Even here, it is clearly found that what Yagnavalkya commits is a sin and just because a Seer commits an act of sin does not mean that everyone commits the sin or that the particular sin is made legal. At the most, it is merely a statement of addiction made by Yagnavalkya.
In Bhavabhuti's 'Uttara Rama Charita' (Act 4), it is mentioned that a heifer('vatsatarI') or a fully grown bull/goat('mahoksham/mahAjam') must be offered with 'Madhuparka'. Here, only a heifer is mentioned and not a grown cow. The only explanation will be that a heifer might have been treated on par with a barren cow. Thus any cow which has given milk was given protection. This goes hand in hand with the epithet 'gomAtA' used by present day Hindus. I personally do not find any problem with the killing of a 'heifer' for madhuparka. Still, one must definitely consider the fact that some post-Buddhist writers did go overboard in their zeal to recover the ancient practices and such people could have misinterpreted the texts as they were simply trying to interpret the words without seeing the actual practice.
Kalidasa in 'MeghadUta'(2-45) mentions about 'daughters of Surabhi' sacrificed by King Rantideva. Here, 'surabhitanaya' may be heifer or any female animal. 'Surabhi' means both cow and earth. Hence, the word is open to interpretation. Still, the word does not refer to a cow in any sense.
From the ‘Kanhadade Prabandha’, we know that Hindus were very careful about not eating cow’s flesh that they preferred to die en masse than drink water from the lake which was made impure by the flesh of cow (Satala’s fort was captured by Alauddin Khilji in this fashion). In Madhura Vijayam, the Muslaman rulers of Madurai are decried for their heinous crime of killing the cows. It is very clear that the veneration of cow was very much present during the medieval period and that it was universal among the Brahminical Hindus.
We see that Vedic people did not kill cows except perhaps during some rituals. Cows were considered as ‘inviolable’ from period of Rg Veda. It is better to consider the word ‘gau’ as referring to ox when killing of ‘gau’ is mentioned as that gives a consistent meaning to the entire Vedic literature and also because such an interpretation is in keeping with the practices in vogue. When a word can be interpreted in a way which is in keeping with the traditional practice, there is no reason why an alternative, anti-traditional interpretation should be imposed upon that word.
We base our conclusions on the following facts:
1. Cow was considered as ‘inviolable’ from the earliest Vedic period.
2. Where cow is mentioned as being killed, only barren cow (vehatam) is mentioned. ‘dhenu’ is never mentioned as being killed for the purpose of entertaining guests.
3. The word ‘gau’ means ox as well.

Thus, we conclude that:
a. Vedic people did not eat cow’s flesh in their everyday life (they might have done so only during some rituals).
b. Cow was considered as an inviolable animal by the Vedic people and that practice is being followed by Hindus even today.
c. The killing of ‘gau’ in mentioned in various Brahmanas and Sutra texts generally refers to killing of ox.
d. Any mention made about killing of cows for entertaining guests by post-Buddhist Hindu writers must be based on their zeal, to recover the ancient practices from the texts (which could have been in the dark during the dominance of Buddhist and Jain philosophy), in which they could have misinterpreted the meaning of certain verses and words (like ‘goghna’).
e. The conclusions made in (c) & (d) are based on the ancient tradition of considering cow as ‘inviolable’ and the meaning of ‘goghna’ as given by Maharshi Panini and also the practice of killing oxen (or barren cows) to entertain guests as clearly mentioned in various texts.
This essay has been written in the form ‘musings’ and collection of thoughts. This was never meant to be a formal rebuttal. But the points mentioned in here are more than enough to disprove the hypothesis that Vedic people ate cow’s flesh in their everyday life.