[jaldhar]

If by "tenets" of Hinduism you mean texts which have not been considered imperative for at least two millennia then maybe but let me remind you that Hindus are not "people of the book". You can accuse Hindutva types of many things but in this case their view is completely mainstream.

As for the past instead of text-juggling let's look at archeology. Do excavations in India indicate people in ancient times ate more meat? Yes. Beef in particular? No they don't.

[srean]

> If by "tenets" of Hinduism you mean texts which have not been considered imperative for at least two millennia

That's a little disingenuous (not you in particular) because if anything is mentioned in those books they fall over themselves to mention them.

You indeed bring up an important point, there is no analogue of a Bible or Koran in Hinduism. I find Vedas/Upanishads to be more foundational while others might consider the much younger Gita more important. This grafting of the notion of a 'book' by British led to hilarious practices: swearing on the Gita in court. This means little to a Hindu although the British tried hard to evoke the response they wanted.

I am not claiming beef was a regular diet through Hinduism hinterland. I am saying that there is nothing in the religion that sanctions it. I think oral and written tradition are the more appropriate tool to use here (than archeology) and there is enough examples in that document beef as a part of diet (again not across the entire Hindu land).

[jaldhar]

> "if anything is mentioned in those books they fall over themselves to mention them."

As a Pandit whose education in Sanskrit was strictly on classical lines I definitely get a "Clowns to the left of me, jokers to the right" feeling in Indian cultural arguments.

> I find Vedas/Upanishads to be more foundational while others might consider the much younger Gita...

By much younger you are still talking about about atleast 2000 years even by the most conservative estimates. But anyway, I wouldn't consider any of those as foundational outside of specialists such as myself. For the man in the street, insofar as any books could make that claim, it would be the Puranas, Mahabharata, and Ramayana that guide him. Even as a Brahmana most of my activities are Puranic and Tantric. Vedic maybe 25%.

> I am saying that there is nothing in the religion that sanctions it.

Now we are back to defining what "the religion" is. Obviously there are a good number of people (including myself) who think it does prohibit it.

> I think oral and written tradition are the more appropriate tool

Again the problem is whose traditions and how are they recorded/interpreted. As a counter we can point out that Muslims considered throwing the corpse of a cow into a mandir a particularly good way of desecrating it. The Sikh Gurus considered cow protection a justification for rebelling against the Mughals. The sepoys rebelled against the British because of suspicions that beef fat was greasing their bullets. How much weight to give to each example? Archaeological objects are less susceptible to ideological manipulation.

[srean]

You raise good points to debate on and really appreciate the non politicized discussion. I cant speak for you but it seems that we might end up agreeing that the beef eating question has nuances and not a open and shut case.

Regarding the Puranas, Mahabharata, and Ramayana being guides, I have reasons to be cynical. People are guided by what people tell them what they are supposed to do and feel as a Hindu. Often by people who have axes to grind.

I am curious to know about your opinion on beef eating practices of Kerala Hindus including Brahmins (or Pandits if you like although that would be a rather unusual phrase to use in this context). Some start hyperventilating that its all Muslim influence, or the influence of European colonizers.

[jaldhar]

FWIW I'm Gujarati so I really couldn't say. All the Keralites I've met have been vegetarians but its a small sample.