----- Original Message -----
From: "Amadeus Schmidt"

> If a hindu writes about beef eating it just *is* a justification.
> Which may be done in the *intention* to have a justification or not.

I think I follow your train of thought here (maybe), but what I can glean
from what little I've read, Jha's work is not a justification in that he is
not trying to argue with or to persuade anyone that it is "all right" to eat
beef, or "wrong" to eat or not eat it..  It's a historical overview of the
Hindu dietary past with regard to the evolution of beef-eating.

Jha's interest in researching the subject arose from the modern political
rhetoric of an ultra-conservative, right-wing faction that believes that
Muslims introduced beef-eating to India.  His thesis is that they didn't,
and he supports the thesis with extant Hindu texts that predate the influx
of the Muslim religion.

The (wrong) views of the above-mentioned agitating faction
are promulgated as a cause to outlaw all beef-eating throughout India which
they hope will
ultimately drive all Muslims out of the country.  Now, I would say that
group is the one with an agenda of justification, not Jha.  They have made
threats on his life because of the book.

As we know, and despite a religion that is touted as eschewing violence in
any
form, many Hindus do not peacefully co-exist with either their neighbors
or the groups within their own towns and borders.

> I think there are certain religious patterns of other people which
> should be respected by outsiders.

Agreement on my part and by practice.

But Jha is not an outsider.  He belongs to the Brahmin caste.

> If someone came up with a historical documentation how much and when the
> people of Israel *did* eat pigs - what should one think about that?

It would be a bestseller.  Not trying to be irreverent here--but I would
want to be one of the first in line to buy a copy.  That doesn't mean I
would serve pork rinds to Jewish or Muslim friends or expect them to join me
over a slab of ribs.  While out of curiosity I might ask their views on the
matter, I doubt seriously that I would ever challenge them to justify their
preferences.

Incidentally, not long ago I offered some of my grilled shrimp lunch to my
husband's secretary.  She informed me they were an unclean food.  I kept on
eating while we discussed the issue.  I knew she is Seventh-Day Adventist
(converted when she married and occasionally eats a little meat) but I
didn't know SDA's observe the Levitical laws or I wouldn't have offered it.
BTW, her mid-30's husband, raised as a vegetarian SDA, was diagnosed with
Crohn's not long ago.  His dr. told him to eat meat, but did not tell him
not to eat grains. And the dr. wrote him some prescriptions.  Their diet is
heavily, heavily grain-based.  When I told her her husband should not eat
any grains at all and why, she looked skeptical and said she'd never heard
that.  Why should she believe me--after all, I'm not a dr. who can "fix" her
husband with meds.  She told me Crohn's runs in his family, and one by one
they've all been diagnosed with it and expect it's their lot in life to have
to suffer. Religion is sometimes not very healthy for a person.

> Not eating cows, but milking them is a big productivity enhancement to a
> population, from about 8% to 75% of biomass.

Isn't it amazing how many lbs. of milk a cow can make in a day?!!  Actually,
we produce way too much here.  80-90 lbs a day from a single Holstein is
pretty common.  Milk is a very political issue that leads to price supports.
And it's the only non-paleo food I really miss. <moustacheless sigh>    But
I'm willing to forego it to see what results.

> There is also the problem that a given cow could harbor my grandfather's
> soul or even the incarnation of a goddess or god. I think we should leave
it up th the particular beleaves what to do.

This is not my particular cosmology, so my belief system does not accept
that your grandfather would or could ever be on my plate. (Good grief,
Amadeus, couldn't you have used an example other than your grandfather?!!)
As far as goddesses or god goes, the Christian doctrines of
transubstantiation & consubstantiation, however "real" or symbolic the acts
may be, are a form of ritualistic, religious, sanctioned cannibalism--"This
is my body, this is my blood," present in or with the unleavened bread and
wine.  Or grape juice for the tee-totaling denominations.

I agree--to each his own.

> I think *we* should be glad if not all Indian and Chinese (2,200 Million
> people) would start to eat beef and meat as the west does.
> If you consider the agricultural space and energy only the 250 million US
> citicen and the 360 millio Europeans use up.
> 2,200 million beef-eaters in asia would have the potential to end in a
> disaster.

I've read too many conflicting reports over too many decades.  The only
thing I know for sure from personal experience and direct observation is
that any given piece of land has a particular suitability, whether for
farming or raising animals, or for neither.  Unfortunately, technology (or
idiocy) allows us to ignore the obvious signs nature gives us and that makes
us poor stewards of the land.

Book reviews do not a book make, and it's next to impossible to discuss an
author's work without a close reading of it.  Jha's article that I posted
the link for was probably the core of the book in essay form.  However, like
you, I'm not a Indian/Hindu scholar, and my general knowledge isn't
sufficient for me to grasp the deep intricacies of the religious texts or
the times that Jha examines.  I think we should allow the Indians to argue
it out.  I remain peaceably hereafter your quiet friend........

Theola