It is sad that these are the translated version of Foreign writers who do not know how sentence is made

in sanskrit and they are translated Our scriptures without having knowledge and understanding of Sanskrit.

This is their cunningness and I have seen that many of Indian scholars also use these translations in their sites.

These translators are Griffith, wilson etc. In which Griffth is most famous on internet.

For better understanding I am explaining each and every mantra mentioned by you here with comparison with Griffth Translation and actual translation:

Query: “Indra says theat, because, Indra was in desperate condition, therefore he cooked intestines of a dog.

[Rig Vda book 4: hymn 18 mantra or verse 13]

Answer : First thing is that there is nothing like Book, Hymn or verse.

For Rig Ved Foreign Translators used Book for Mandal, Hymn for Sukta and Verse for Mantra.

From this you can understand the condition what they have made with their translation.

Mantra in Sanskrit:

अवर्त्या शुन आन्त्राणि पेचे न देवेषु विविदे मर्डितारम |

अपश्यं जायाम अमहीयमानाम अधा मे शयेनो मध्व आ जभार ||

avartyā śuna āntrāṇi pece na deveṣu vivide marḍitāram |

apaśyaṃ jāyām amahīyamānām adhā me śyeno madhv ā jabhāra ||

Rigved Mandal 4, Sukta 18, Mantra 13

Griffth Translation: In deep distress I cooked a dog’s intestines. Among the Gods I found not one to comfort.

My consort I beheld in degradation. The Falcon then brought me the pleasant Soma.

Actual Translation:

word by Word:

avartya means to be free from cycle of life and Death

suna–>> This is the real conspirator, one meaning of suna is Dog but from Rigved 7.104.22 it is clear that suna means

to be happy. likely dog is used mainly as svaan not suna.

āntrāṇi means mode of Gyan or Knowledge

pece means to digest or mature. This is taken as cooked by griffth but it is to digest. This is same as

your teacher says to you digest your syllabus.

deveṣu means indriya i.e senses.

marḍitāram means the one that gives happines.

na Vivede means not found.

jayam means nature or prakriti

amahiyamanam means not equal to

apaśyaṃ means to see

syeno means Ishwar in form of Gyan or knowledge.

me means me

madhu means honey or very sweet

a jabhara means to give

So the actual translation of whole Mantra is:

Hrishi is saying I digest or mature all modes of knowledge of God to become happy and free from cycle of life and death.

In between my senses I do not found anyone to provide happiness or pleasure.

I do not saw Prakriti as same as God. Ishwar in the form of Knowledge gives me sweetest BrahmGyan.

Query: “Agni is a Vedic God and is described as fed on Ox and Cow”

[Rig Vda book 10: hymn 16 mantra or verse 7]

Mantra in Sanskrit:

अग्नेर्वर्म परि गोभिर्व्ययस्व सं परोर्णुष्व पीवसामेदसा च |

नेत तवा धर्ष्णुर्हरसा जर्ह्र्षाणो दध्र्ग्विधक्ष्यन पर्यङखयाते ||

aghnervarma pari ghobhirvyayasva saṃ prorṇuṣva pīvasāmedasā ca |

net tvā dhṛṣṇurharasā jarhṛṣāṇo dadhṛghvidhakṣyan paryaṅkhayāte ||

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 7

Griffth Translation: Shield thee with flesh against the flames of Agni, encompass thee about with fat and marrow,

So will the Bold One, eager to attack thee with fierce glow fail to girdle and consume thee.

Actual Translation:

aghne ghobhi means from the auspicious voice of knowledgeable person

varma means defensible shield, cloths etc

pari vyayasva to wear.

pivasamedasa ca means nutrient and loving body layer

saṃ prorṇuṣva means to cover properly

dhṛṣṇu means the fire created by rubbing, fire like Guru

jarhṛṣāṇo means to become very happy

dadhṛgh means to become very hard

vidhakṣyan means to burn opposite sin

net tva paryaṅkhayāte means do not cover you, do not punish you.

So the actual translation of whole Mantra is:

You wear defencable sheild, cloths etc from the auspicious voice of knowledgeble person or Guru and cover properly yourself

with nutrient and loving body layer. So that the fire created by rubbing like Guru to be very happy or to be very hard will

not punish you and burn your opposite sins.

Query: “A ritual enveloping dead body with Cow’s flesh before putting it on fire”.

[Rig Vda book 10: hymn 16 mantra or verse 7-10]

Mantra in Sanskrit:

अग्नेर्वर्म परि गोभिर्व्ययस्व सं परोर्णुष्व पीवसामेदसा च |

नेत तवा धर्ष्णुर्हरसा जर्ह्र्षाणो दध्र्ग्विधक्ष्यन पर्यङखयाते ||

aghnervarma pari ghobhirvyayasva saṃ prorṇuṣva pīvasāmedasā ca |

net tvā dhṛṣṇurharasā jarhṛṣāṇo dadhṛghvidhakṣyan paryaṅkhayāte ||

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 7

इममग्ने चमसं मा वि जिह्वरः परियो देवानामुतसोम्यानाम |

एष यश्चमसो देवपानस्तस्मिन देवा अम्र्तामादयन्ते ||

imamaghne camasaṃ mā vi jihvaraḥ priyo devānāmutasomyānām |

eṣa yaścamaso devapānastasmin devā amṛtāmādayante ||

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 8

करव्यादमग्निं पर हिणोमि दूरं यमराज्ञो गछतुरिप्रवाहः |

इहैवायमितरो जातवेदा देवेभ्यो हव्यंवहतु परजानन ||

kravyādamaghniṃ pra hiṇomi dūraṃ yamarājño ghachaturipravāhaḥ |

ihaivāyamitaro jātavedā devebhyo havyaṃvahatu prajānan ||

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 9

यो अग्निः करव्यात परविवेश वो गर्हमिमं पश्यन्नितरंजातवेदसम |

तं हरामि पित्र्यज्ञाय देवं स घर्ममिन्वात परमे सधस्थे ||

yo aghniḥ kravyāt praviveśa vo ghṛhamimaṃ paśyannitaraṃjātavedasam |

taṃ harāmi pitṛyajñāya devaṃ sa gharmaminvāt parame sadhasthe ||

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 10

Griffith Translation:

Shield thee with flesh against the flames of Agni, encompass thee about with fat and marrow,

So will the Bold One, eager to attack thee with fierce glow fail to girdle and consume thee.

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 7

Forbear, O Agni, to upset this ladle: the Gods and they who merit Soma love it.

This ladle, this which serves the Gods to drink from, in this the Immortal Deities rejoice them.

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 8

1 send afar flesh eating Agni, bearing off stains may he depart to Yama’s subjects.

But let this other Jatavedas carry oblation to the Gods, for he is skilful.

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 9

I choose as God for Father-worship Agni, flesh-eater, who hath past within your dwelling,

While looking on this other Jatavedas. Let him light flames in the supreme assembly.

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 10

Now not giving word by word Translation I am giving you full translation of these Mantras.

You wear defensible shield, cloths etc from the auspicious voice of knowledgeable person or Guru and cover properly yourself with nutrient and loving body layer. So that the fire created by rubbing like Guru to be very happy or to be very hard will not punish you and burn your opposite sins.

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 7

Hey Tejasvin (Agni)! You do not let make these favored people wicked in every way or direction. He

is loving to the one who give knowledge and Money and parents of disciple like son.all the wise persons and old man are happy on the one who is calm like receptacle humble person, he is preserver of wise persons and drink nectar of knowledge.

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 8

From The system of Guru-Disciple explained above, May I able to eliminate the meat eaters, dangerous

wild animals and even death from myself and wicked persons should go to man of law savior King.

and from him other innocent people, knowledgeable person will get money and knowledge and in here in ashram provide knowledge, money and food etc. the Guru provide food of knowledge to disciples

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 9

Cruel meat eater who are like anguish giver as Agni should not come to my home in the dress of wise person. Householders should go to BrahamGyani person and not go to person who feed on money.

because they are like wolf and fire of cemetery or Shamshyan.

Rigved Mandal 10, Sukta 16 Mantra 10

Query : “Indra eats bulls”

[Rig Vda book 10: hymn 85 mantra or verse 13]

Mantra in Sanskrit:

सूर्याया वहतुः परागात सविता यमवास्र्जत |

अघासुहन्यन्ते गावो.अर्जुन्योः पर्युह्यते ||

sūryāyā vahatuḥ prāghāt savitā yamavāsṛjat |

aghāsuhanyante ghāvo.arjunyoḥ paryuhyate ||

RigVed Mandal 10: Sukta 85 mantra 13

Griffith Translation : The bridal pomp of Surya, which Savitar started, moved along.

In Magha days are oxen slain, in Arjuris they wed the bride.

Truth:

Devta of this mantra 10/85/13 is “SURYA VIVAHA” So, this mantra relates to marriage. Mantra asks as to why the marriage is performed .Though, the marriage is performed for maintaining number of good qualities but in this mantra, it is stated that marriage is performed to obtain sons.

So, how why and under whose influence/pressure Mr. D. N. Jha has stated to slaughter the cow on the pious occasion of marriage is not understood. Mr. D. N. Jha’s interpretation of Rigveda Mantra 10/86/14 underlines practice of eating beef, which is absolutely wrong according to Vedas. Devta of this Sukta is ‘VARUNN’ the above mantra relates to the knowledge of celestial bodies/comprising of planets, stars etc.

So it has no concern with eating beef or any non-vegetarian food.

Meaning of above mantra :

SOORYAAYAA VAHATUHU PRAAGAAT SAVITA YAMAVAASRIJAT.

AGHAASU HANYANTE GAAVORJUNYOHO PARYUHYATE.

The mantra states that in winter, the rays of sun get weakened and then get strong again in spring.

The word used for sun-rays in ‘Go’ which also means cow and hence the mantra can also be translated by

making ‘cow’ and not ‘sun-rays’ as the subject. The word used for ‘weakened’ is ‘Hanyate’ which can also

mean killing. But if that be so, why would the mantra go further and state in next line (which is deliberate

ly not translated) that in spring, they start regaining their original form. How can a cow killed in

winter regain its health in spring? This amply proves how ignorant and biased communists malign Vedas.

Query: “Indra says, “They have cooked for me fifteen bulls and twenty cows, so that I may eat the fats as well. Both sides of my belly are full.”

[Rig Vda book 10: hymn 86 mantra or verse 7]

Sanskrit Mantra:

उवे अम्ब सुलाभिके यथेवाङग भविष्यति |

भसन मे अम्बसक्थि मे शिरो मे वीव हर्ष्यति विश्वस्मादिन्द्र उत्तरः ||

uve amba sulābhike yathevāṅgha bhaviṣyati |

bhasan me ambasakthi me śiro me vīva hṛṣyati viśvasmādindra uttaraḥ ||

Rigved Mandal 10 Sukta 86 mantra 7

Griffith Translation:

Mother whose love is quickly wibn, I say what verily will be.

My,breast, O Mother, and my head and both my hips seem quivering. Supreme is Indra over all.

Now you can see

This is totally misquoted and self made verse even Griffith dont say to to kill cow in this Mantra. So

I am not explaining this Mantra.

Query: ACCORDING TO THE UPANISHAD

“He who wishes, “May as son born to me, who will e a reputed scholar, attend assemblies, speak words that one likes to hear, be versed in all the Vedas and attain full longevity” Should have rice cooked with beef that of a young mature bull and with his wife eat it mixed with ghee. Then they will be able to produce such a son.

[Brahadaranyaka Upanishad Ch 6 Sec 4 Mantar 18]

Answer:

Let us take Mansodanam first. There are 4 more verses just before this verse that recommend eating particular edibles with rice for having a child with Vedic wisdom of different types. The other edibles are: Ksheerodanam (Milk with rice), Dadhyodanam (Yogurt with rice), Water with rice and Tila (a pulse) with rice for experts in other Vedas. Thus it is ONLY for mastery of Atharvaveda that Mansodanam or meat with rice is recommended. This itself shows that the particular reference is an anomaly.

In reality, the right word is Mashodanam and NOT Mansodanam. Masha means a kind of pulse. Hence there is nothing fleshy about it. In fact, for pregnant women, meat is completely prohibited as per Ayurveda. Refer Sushruta Samhita. There is also a verse in Sushrut Samhita that recommends Masha for husband and wife for a good son. Thus it is obvious that Brihadaranyaka has also explained the same concept as elucidated in Sushruta Samhita. There is no reason why the two texts would differ in Masha and Mansa.

Even if someone asserts that it is not Masha but Mansa, still Mansa means pulp and not necessarily meat. There are ample usages of Mansa as pulp in ancient texts. Thus Amramansam means pulp of mango. Khajuramansam means pulp of date. Refer Charak Samhita for such examples. Taittriya Samhita 2.32.8 uses Mansa for curd, honey and corn.

The fact is that Uksha refers to a medicinal herb, also known as Soma. Even someone like Monier Williams in his Sanskrit-English Dictionary states the same.

Vashaa refers to controlling powers of God and not a barren cow. If Vasha is used to mean a barren cow, then many Vedic verses will make no sense.

For example, Atharvaveda 10.10.4 uses Sahasradhara or Thousand flows in relation with Vasha. How can a barren cow be compared with Sahasradhara used to denote ample food, milk and water.

Atharvaveda 10.190 states that Vashi means controlling power of God and is recited twice daily in Vedic Sandhya.

In other verses, Vashaa is used also as productive land or a good wife with children (Atharvaveda 20.103.15) or a medicinal herb. Monier Williams also uses the word to mean a herb in his dictionary.

Uksha means a herb or Soma, even as per Monier Williams Dictionary. The same dictionary also lists Rishabh (from which Arshabh is derived) to mean a kind of medicinal plant (Carpopogan pruriens). Charak Samhita 1.4-13 lists Rishabh as a medicinal plant. Same is mentioned in Sushrut Samhita 38 and Bhavaprakash Purna Khanda.

Further both Arshabh (Rishabh) and Uksha mean bull and none means ‘calf’. So why were synonyms used to mention the same thing in the shloka from Brihadaranyak. This is like saying, one should eat either curd or yogurt! Thus, obviously the two words mean two different things. And considering that all the other verses mention herbs and pulses, these words also mean the same

The word Mansodan is misquoted its Manshodhan which means purify Mind.

Uksha means Herb of Somaras. Ox is called Vrishabh in sanskrit not Uksha.

The quote simply means Rice mixed with herbs purify our mind.

I am giving Pictorial proof here…

Query : “”The eater who eats the flesh of those to be eaten does nothing bad, even if he does it day after day, for God himself created some to be eaten and some to be eater.”

[Manu Smruti, the law book of Hindus, in chapter 5 verse 30]

Answer: Actual Verse

The eater who daily even devours those destined to be his food, commits no sin; for the creator himself created both the eaters and those who are to be eaten (for those special purposes).

We know one living entity is dependent on another. This vesre is for all living entity that eats other animals for living not for human.

That is what we can see and that is what Vedas tell us jive jivese Bhojnam now we could easily use this as a licence to kill and enjoy and contrast this with thou shall not kill in the bible and yet we see the opposite, why, because we follow the higher doctrine of ahimsa.

What I find so sad of muslims is that they wish peace in their greating to one another yet they lack in their action

Query: “Eating meat is right for the sacrifice; this is traditionally known as a rule of the gods.”

[Manu Smruti, the law book of Hindus, in chapter 5 verse 31]

Answer: You conveniently omitted full verse, here it is

‘The consumption of meat is prohibited for yajnas,’ that is declared to be a rule made by the Gods; but to persist (in using it) on occasions is said to be a proceeding worthy of Rakshasas.

And then if we read further which our friend deliberately remains ignorant about for obvious reasons, makes it abundantly clear what we human should not eat.

Now see what Manusmiriti actually says about Eating meat:

Chapter 5

48. Meat can never be obtained without injury to living creatures, and injury to sentient beings is detrimental to (the attainment of) heavenly bliss; let him therefore shun (the use of) meat.

49. Having well considered the (disgusting) origin of flesh and the (cruelty of) fettering and slaying corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh.

50. He who, disregarding the rule (given above), does not eat meat like a Pisaka, becomes dear to men, and will not be tormented by diseases.

51. He who permits (the slaughter of an animal), he who cuts it up, he who kills it, he who buys or sells (meat), he who cooks it, he who serves it up, and he who eats it, (must all be considered as) the slayers (of the animal).

52. There is no greater sinner than that (man) who, though not worshipping the gods or the manes, seeks to increase (the bulk of) his own flesh by the flesh of other (beings).

Moreover, you would come accross some reference from adulterated Manusmriti, containing Violence against animals These are additional shlokas are either from adulterated Manu Smriti or misinterpreted by twisting of words. I recommend them to read Manu Smriti by Dr Surendra Kumar.

Query: “God himself created sacrificial animals for sacrifice… therefore killing in a sacrifice is not killing.”

[Manu Smruti, the law book of Hindus, in chapter 5 verse 39-40]

Answer: Correct verse is

Svayambhu (the Self-existent) himself created beasts for the sake of sacrifices; sacrifices (have been instituted) for the good of this whole (world); hence the slaughtering (of beasts) for sacrifices is not slaughtering (in the ordinary sense of the word).

point to be look at in this verse is that sacrifice is not for eating. Manu is talinkg about Beasts which become threat to mankind i.e man eater Tiger, lion etc.

Killing them with the purpose of saving life is not slaughtering but the sacrifice.

Query : Yudhishthira and Pitamah Bhishma about what food one should offer to Pitris (ancestors) during the Shraddha (ceremony of dead) to keep them satisfied. Paragraph reads as follows:

“Yudhishthira said, “O thou of great puissance, tell me what that object is which, if dedicated to the Pitiris (dead ancestors), become inexhaustible! What Havi, again, (if offered) lasts for all time? What, indeed, is that which (if presented) becomes eternal?”

“Bhishma said, “Listen to me, O Yudhishthira, what those Havis are which persons conversant with the rituals of the Shraddha (the ceremony of dead) regard as suitable in view of Shraddha and what the fruits are that attach to each. With sesame seeds and rice and barely and Masha and water and roots and fruits, if given at Shraddhas, the pitris, O king, remain gratified for the period of a month. With fishes offered at Shraddhas, the pitris remain gratified for a period of two months. With the mutton they remain gratified for three months and with the hare for four months, with the flesh of the goat for five months, with the bacon (meat of pig) for six months, and with the flesh of birds for seven. With venison obtained from those deer that are called Prishata, they remaingratified for eight months, and with that obtained from the Ruru for nine months, and with the meat of Gavaya for ten months, With the meat of the bufffalo their gratification lasts for eleven months. With beef presented at the Shraddha, their gratification, it is said , lasts for a full year.

Payasa mixed with ghee is as much acceptable to the pitris as beef. With the meat of Vadhrinasa (a large bull) the gratification of pitris lasts for twelve years. The flesh of rhinoceros, offered to the pitris on anniversaries of the lunar days on which they died, becomes inexhaustible. The potherb called Kalaska, the petals of kanchana flower, and meat of (red) goat also, thus offered, prove inexhaustible. So but natural if you want to keep your ancestors satisfied forever, you should serve them the meat of red goat.

[Mahabharata Anushashan Parva chapter 88]

Answer: this query made me laugh and sad at innocence of Hindus no where in this chapter says about

beef but it is saying about cows in donation and to give curd, cow milk and grains to eat.

I am giving whole chapter here in Sanskrit Translated to Hindi.

Query: SWAMI VIVEKANANDA

“You will be astonished if I tell you that, according to the old ceremonials, he is not a good Hindu who does not eat beef. On certain occasions he must sacrifice a bull and eat it.” [The complete works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume 3, Pg 536]

In the same volume he says,

“There was a time in this very India when, without eating beef, no Brahmin could remain a Brahmin;”

[The complete works of Swami Vivekananda, Volume 3, Pg 174]

Answer:

Many people quote those, who may be good though one subject (like Yoga) but may not have credible understanding of the Vedas. These quotations are widely used to prove that Vedas prescribe barbaric things like Violence against animals and women, etc but the users of these quotations are unable to provide real proofs (directly from the Vedas and Vedic Granth). Also, we are not sure that these people have really made such comments or not

You can quote Swami Vivekananda and other books to prove that eating beef

is part of the Hindus daily life in the past. However, you have not

considered the commentories written by prophets (empowered living beings

who are sent by God). Only the commentaries on Vedas, Puranas, upanishads,

etc written by prophets are valid. The problem is that most people quote

translation of verses done by famous people such as Swami Vivekananda but

they ignore the translation done by prophets listed below:

Adi Shankara (789-821) (also known as “Shankaracharya”), or Shankara

Bhagavatpaada: Founder of Advaita school of vedanta (incarnation of Lord

Shiva).

Shrimad Ramanujacharya: Wrote Sribhashya, commentary on Brahma Sutras. He

also established Vishistadvaita Siddhanta (incarnation of AdisEsha).

Shrimad Madhvacharya: Founder of the Dvaita school of vedanta (incarnation

of Vayu deva).

Shrimad Nimbarkacharya: Founder of Dvaitadvaita school of

vedanta (incarnation of Sudarshana Chakra of Lord Vishnu).

Shrimad Vallbhacharya: Founder of Shuddhadvaita school of vedanta and

established (incarnation of Agni deva).

These prophets are called prophets because if you read their history it is given that God ordained them to *incarnate* on the earth for uplifting us and enlightening on topics that people were confused. There are many instances in which demigods or absolute God have incarnated on earth and summarized the Hindu religion. You should read their commentaries first. I or you can write commentaries on Vedas, Puranas but it is not authorized one.

There are many great people who are subject to illusions and they have done small mistakes. Take for eg: Gandhiji. He is called mahatma but there are many controversies connected to it which many people refuse to be accept as true. I will not go into detail whether those allegations are true or not. When a sanskrit word ‘go’ is used in Sanskrit it has many meaning. It also has meaning called earth, river, etc. Also the word ‘offering’ doesn’t mean throwing it into fire. That is why we have depend less on translations done by non-prophets.

Some translators have fallen prey to wrong interpretation of the language. A typical example of foul play by some hell-bent on justifying their obsession with beef in ancient texts, is to translate Mansa as ‘meat’. In reality, ‘Mansa’ is a generic word used to denote pulp. Meat is called ‘Mansa’ because it is pulpy. So mere presence of ‘Mansa’ does not mean it refers to meat.