Does Animal Sacrifice Reflect Bias Against Devi, and Women?

[Guest guest]

In Sunday's NewIndPress, columnist Nanditha Krishna raised her voice

against those who still employ animal sacrifice in religious

ritual. The column, entitled "Blood on our Hands," specifically

indicts certain Shakta cults.

 

Ms. Krishna perceives "a distinct gender bias in sacrifice," in

which "the female - a form of Shakti - is blood-thirsty, violent and

cruel." This perception of the Goddess, she says, colors perceptions

of human women: "The former is controlled by blood, the latter by

society."

 

Devi herself is also done a disservice, Ms. Krishna argues: "While

the temples to the male Gods are beautiful, majestic buildings that

inspire awe and serenity, Devi temples are small, dark and dingy,

situated outside the city in a sacred grove that is the haunt of

dead spirits. Thus supporting animal sacrifice is supporting both

gender inequity and perpetuating myths about the evil that is woman."

 

What do you think? Certainly Ms. Krishna's condemation of animal

sacrifice is sound; but is her characterization of female deities on

target as well? Here is the full text (link to original is below):

 

BLOOD ON OUR HANDS

 

The Tamil Nadu Animal and Bird Sacrifices Prohibition Act of 1950

clearly prohibits sacrifice in temples, as do similar laws in many

other states. The State Government wants to enforce the prohibition,

and rightly so.

 

The response has been shocking. One section of the media has opposed

the government directive because they oppose Chief Minister

Jayalalithaa. The opportunistic communists have come out in support

of animal sacrifice - whatever happened to Marxist rationalism and

atheism? Someone else has filed a PIL. A former minister, also a

well-known lawyer, has objected. Do we really want to go back to our

primitive past?

 

Blood sacrifice was common to all ancient cultures and religions.

Ancient Hindus and Jews did it; Muslims continue to do it (during

Id). There are scenes of human and animal sacrifice on Harappan

seals. The first to speak out against bloody sacrifices were the

rishis of the Upanishads. The chief message of the Buddha and

Mahavira was to stop the killing of innocent animals. In time, the

sacrifice of people and animals came to be regarded as primitive and

cruel. Interestingly, scenes of animal sacrifice are rare in

classical temple sculpture or painting.

 

Till the 20th century, human beings - especially the unwanted girl

child - were regularly sacrificed in India. Education resulted in a

public outcry against the practice and the government responded by

banning human sacrifice, although we still hear of occasional

lapses. But mere banning is never sufficient, and any change in

attitude and action owes much to individuals such as the late

Krishna Iyer in Tamil Nadu and Peela Ramakrishna in Andhra Pradesh.

The former went around persuading people to "break" a pumpkin

instead of killing an animal or bird. The latter took the police to

the remotest villages to stop sacrifices. Such was the commitment of

these men.

 

Animal sacrifice is particularly brutal. Buffaloes, goat and

roosters are queued up as in a slaughterhouse, crying as they watch

the others die and await their turn. Blood flows everywhere.

Sometimes the worshippers anoint themselves with it; most times,

they drink it even as it flows out. After the sacrifice, the priest

may garland himself with the entrails. After beheading the buffalo,

the chopped-off legs may be placed in its mouth, the fat spread over

its eyes. The worst form of sacrifice is live impalement. It is

altogether too gory. Is this what the Gods want?

 

Blood sacrifice was regarded as magic, a tool to propitiate or

please a god, to fulfil a vow and as a sacrament. The animal (and,

formerly, person) could be a scapegoat for human sins or

inexplicable natural phenomena, or a vehicle to carry away the

collected demons or ills of an entire community. It seems very

unfair that a little goat or a peaceful buffalo should be made

responsible for events beyond their comprehension or control.

Ancient peoples performed sacrifices to control negative forces,

particularly disease, in the belief that any blood would satisfy the

bloodthirsty spirit. The animal was sacrificed to "save" a human

life. Today, medicine performs the task more efficiently.

 

Animal sacrifices continue in villages all over India. The beginning

of the planting season and Navaratri are particularly bad periods,

when large numbers of animals, particularly buffaloes, are killed to

propitiate local goddesses and thus ensure fertility. In the

Himalayan states and the East, animals are sold by weight to be

sacrificed to Devi during Navaratri, to re-enact the killing of the

buffalo-demon Mahisha. The confrontation between the Goddess and the

buffalo goes back to a totemic period when the worshippers of the

former defeated the worshippers of the latter. Unfortunately the

memory of that confrontation lives on in the brutality of buffalo

sacrifice.

 

There is a distinct gender bias in sacrifice. The male god -

generally an aspect of Shiva or Vishnu - is regarded as benign and

peaceful, an austere yogi or a benevolent provider. The female - a

form of Shakti - is blood-thirsty, violent and cruel. She may be

Kali, with sharp, protruding canine teeth, or Mari, the smallpox

goddess, or anyone else. Every village in South and Eastern India,

has bloodthirsty village goddesses who reinforce the myth of the

wicked witch, always a woman. The former is controlled by blood, the

latter by society.

 

Women are potentially evil, according to this belief, and must be

kept under control. They are drinkers of blood and consumers of

human and animal flesh, and any insufficiency in their propitiation

will, it is believed, invite their wrath and inflame their cruel

natures. The Sapta Matrikas (seven mothers/sisters/virgins), the

various forms of Kali and Mari and all village goddesses have a

longing for blood and a reputation for cruelty. Their images are

ugly and frightening, both in appearance and behaviour.

 

What an awful image of women, which is ingrained in the Indian

psyche! Surely the mother who procreates and nurtures deserves a

better reputation? While the temples to the male Gods are beautiful,

majestic buildings that inspire awe and serenity, Devi temples are

small, dark and dingy, situated outside the city in a sacred grove

that is the haunt of dead spirits. Thus supporting animal sacrifice

is supporting both gender inequity and perpetuating myths about the

evil that is woman. Male spirits who demand sacrifice are generally

the Goddess' lieutenants, who have developed a taste for blood. This

image was created to justify the suppression of women.

 

Another little-known aspect is economic. Animal sacrifices are

promoted by moneylenders, who freely give loans for the occasion and

thus get illiterate villagers into their clutches. The wielders of

the knife are often butchers who officiate as priests and charge for

their services. The cost of a buffalo runs into thousands, a goat,

sheep or rooster into hundreds. Add the cost of the feast and the

poojari's fees, and the result is a hole in the pocket. There is a

mafia that benefits from the conduct of animal sacrifices, which

keeps the lower strata in permanent bondage. This becomes a vicious

cycle. The animal sacrifices purport to improve their situation. But

they tie the votaries, who generally belong to the lowest classes

and castes, in economic chains, where they remain forever.

Obviously, the gods are not pleased.

 

Sacrifice means giving up something precious to oneself. Thus

Abraham was asked by God to sacrifice his son, while Shunahshepas

offered himself to be sacrificed. Buying and killing an innocent

animal does not fit the bill. The sacrifice probably originated

among totemic tribes who sacrificed the animal totem to acquire its

strength or wisdom. Conquering tribes would sacrifice the animal

totem of the defeated tribe to signify victory. In the choice of the

buffalo to be killed, there is an obvious racial message: that the

dark-coloured, slothful and ugly animal deserves to die.

 

Animal sacrifice is cruel, disgusting and primitive. Bloody

sacrifices brutalise the viewer, confusing the distinction between

right and wrong. If one man supports animal sacrifice, another will

support human sacrifice, the killing of children and sati. How can

any of these be permitted in a civilised society? All cultures and

religions evolve, discarding ugly practices. Over the years, we have

learned to identify and repudiate negative aspects of Hinduism, such

as sati and the caste system. Animal sacrifice is another cruelty

that must be rejected and discarded. It is surprising to hear

educated people talk of "customary practice". Religion should be

value-based and ennobling. Sacrifice is neither: It is cruel and

disgusting. We need to rise above petty political differences to

support the implementation of a good law.

 

Source: http://www.newindpress.com/sunday/sundayitems.asp?

id=SEC20030913051112&eTitle=Columns&rLink=0

[Guest guest]

I appreciate this article, and tend to agree with the author. I

wonder if the bloodthirsty scary representations of Devi are also

reflecting the rage of women in a society that oppresses them.

That would make sense. It would also mean that men fear the

"shadow" of women, so on some level, realize that their

oppression of the female (within and without) has a cost.

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

> In Sunday's NewIndPress, columnist Nanditha Krishna raised

her voice

> against those who still employ animal sacrifice in religious

> ritual. The column, entitled "Blood on our Hands," specifically

> indicts certain Shakta cults.

>

> Ms. Krishna perceives "a distinct gender bias in sacrifice," in

> which "the female - a form of Shakti - is blood-thirsty, violent

and

> cruel." This perception of the Goddess, she says, colors

perceptions

> of human women: "The former is controlled by blood, the latter

by

> society."

>

> Devi herself is also done a disservice, Ms. Krishna argues:

"While

> the temples to the male Gods are beautiful, majestic buildings

that

> inspire awe and serenity, Devi temples are small, dark and

dingy,

> situated outside the city in a sacred grove that is the haunt of

> dead spirits. Thus supporting animal sacrifice is supporting

both

> gender inequity and perpetuating myths about the evil that is

woman."

>

> What do you think? Certainly Ms. Krishna's condemation of

animal

> sacrifice is sound; but is her characterization of female deities

on

> target as well? Here is the full text (link to original is below):

>

> BLOOD ON OUR HANDS

>

> The Tamil Nadu Animal and Bird Sacrifices Prohibition Act of

1950

> clearly prohibits sacrifice in temples, as do similar laws in

many

> other states. The State Government wants to enforce the

prohibition,

> and rightly so.

>

> The response has been shocking. One section of the media

has opposed

> the government directive because they oppose Chief Minister

> Jayalalithaa. The opportunistic communists have come out in

support

> of animal sacrifice - whatever happened to Marxist rationalism

and

> atheism? Someone else has filed a PIL. A former minister,

also a

> well-known lawyer, has objected. Do we really want to go back

to our

> primitive past?

>

> Blood sacrifice was common to all ancient cultures and

religions.

> Ancient Hindus and Jews did it; Muslims continue to do it

(during

> Id). There are scenes of human and animal sacrifice on

Harappan

> seals. The first to speak out against bloody sacrifices were the

> rishis of the Upanishads. The chief message of the Buddha

and

> Mahavira was to stop the killing of innocent animals. In time,

the

> sacrifice of people and animals came to be regarded as

primitive and

> cruel. Interestingly, scenes of animal sacrifice are rare in

> classical temple sculpture or painting.

>

> Till the 20th century, human beings - especially the unwanted

girl

> child - were regularly sacrificed in India. Education resulted in

a

> public outcry against the practice and the government

responded by

> banning human sacrifice, although we still hear of occasional

> lapses. But mere banning is never sufficient, and any change

in

> attitude and action owes much to individuals such as the late

> Krishna Iyer in Tamil Nadu and Peela Ramakrishna in Andhra

Pradesh.

> The former went around persuading people to "break" a

pumpkin

> instead of killing an animal or bird. The latter took the police to

> the remotest villages to stop sacrifices. Such was the

commitment of

> these men.

>

> Animal sacrifice is particularly brutal. Buffaloes, goat and

> roosters are queued up as in a slaughterhouse, crying as they

watch

> the others die and await their turn. Blood flows everywhere.

> Sometimes the worshippers anoint themselves with it; most

times,

> they drink it even as it flows out. After the sacrifice, the priest

> may garland himself with the entrails. After beheading the

buffalo,

> the chopped-off legs may be placed in its mouth, the fat spread

over

> its eyes. The worst form of sacrifice is live impalement. It is

> altogether too gory. Is this what the Gods want?

>

> Blood sacrifice was regarded as magic, a tool to propitiate or

> please a god, to fulfil a vow and as a sacrament. The animal

(and,

> formerly, person) could be a scapegoat for human sins or

> inexplicable natural phenomena, or a vehicle to carry away the

> collected demons or ills of an entire community. It seems very

> unfair that a little goat or a peaceful buffalo should be made

> responsible for events beyond their comprehension or control.

> Ancient peoples performed sacrifices to control negative

forces,

> particularly disease, in the belief that any blood would satisfy

the

> bloodthirsty spirit. The animal was sacrificed to "save" a

human

> life. Today, medicine performs the task more efficiently.

>

> Animal sacrifices continue in villages all over India. The

beginning

> of the planting season and Navaratri are particularly bad

periods,

> when large numbers of animals, particularly buffaloes, are

killed to

> propitiate local goddesses and thus ensure fertility. In the

> Himalayan states and the East, animals are sold by weight to

be

> sacrificed to Devi during Navaratri, to re-enact the killing of the

> buffalo-demon Mahisha. The confrontation between the

Goddess and the

> buffalo goes back to a totemic period when the worshippers of

the

> former defeated the worshippers of the latter. Unfortunately the

> memory of that confrontation lives on in the brutality of buffalo

> sacrifice.

>

> There is a distinct gender bias in sacrifice. The male god -

> generally an aspect of Shiva or Vishnu - is regarded as benign

and

> peaceful, an austere yogi or a benevolent provider. The female

- a

> form of Shakti - is blood-thirsty, violent and cruel. She may be

> Kali, with sharp, protruding canine teeth, or Mari, the smallpox

> goddess, or anyone else. Every village in South and Eastern

India,

> has bloodthirsty village goddesses who reinforce the myth of

the

> wicked witch, always a woman. The former is controlled by

blood, the

> latter by society.

>

> Women are potentially evil, according to this belief, and must

be

> kept under control. They are drinkers of blood and consumers

of

> human and animal flesh, and any insufficiency in their

propitiation

> will, it is believed, invite their wrath and inflame their cruel

> natures. The Sapta Matrikas (seven mothers/sisters/virgins),

the

> various forms of Kali and Mari and all village goddesses have

a

> longing for blood and a reputation for cruelty. Their images are

> ugly and frightening, both in appearance and behaviour.

>

> What an awful image of women, which is ingrained in the

Indian

> psyche! Surely the mother who procreates and nurtures

deserves a

> better reputation? While the temples to the male Gods are

beautiful,

> majestic buildings that inspire awe and serenity, Devi temples

are

> small, dark and dingy, situated outside the city in a sacred

grove

> that is the haunt of dead spirits. Thus supporting animal

sacrifice

> is supporting both gender inequity and perpetuating myths

about the

> evil that is woman. Male spirits who demand sacrifice are

generally

> the Goddess' lieutenants, who have developed a taste for

blood. This

> image was created to justify the suppression of women.

>

> Another little-known aspect is economic. Animal sacrifices are

> promoted by moneylenders, who freely give loans for the

occasion and

> thus get illiterate villagers into their clutches. The wielders of

> the knife are often butchers who officiate as priests and charge

for

> their services. The cost of a buffalo runs into thousands, a

goat,

> sheep or rooster into hundreds. Add the cost of the feast and

the

> poojari's fees, and the result is a hole in the pocket. There is a

> mafia that benefits from the conduct of animal sacrifices, which

> keeps the lower strata in permanent bondage. This becomes

a vicious

> cycle. The animal sacrifices purport to improve their situation.

But

> they tie the votaries, who generally belong to the lowest

classes

> and castes, in economic chains, where they remain forever.

> Obviously, the gods are not pleased.

>

> Sacrifice means giving up something precious to oneself.

Thus

> Abraham was asked by God to sacrifice his son, while

Shunahshepas

> offered himself to be sacrificed. Buying and killing an innocent

> animal does not fit the bill. The sacrifice probably originated

> among totemic tribes who sacrificed the animal totem to

acquire its

> strength or wisdom. Conquering tribes would sacrifice the

animal

> totem of the defeated tribe to signify victory. In the choice of the

> buffalo to be killed, there is an obvious racial message: that

the

> dark-coloured, slothful and ugly animal deserves to die.

>

> Animal sacrifice is cruel, disgusting and primitive. Bloody

> sacrifices brutalise the viewer, confusing the distinction

between

> right and wrong. If one man supports animal sacrifice, another

will

> support human sacrifice, the killing of children and sati. How

can

> any of these be permitted in a civilised society? All cultures and

> religions evolve, discarding ugly practices. Over the years, we

have

> learned to identify and repudiate negative aspects of

Hinduism, such

> as sati and the caste system. Animal sacrifice is another

cruelty

> that must be rejected and discarded. It is surprising to hear

> educated people talk of "customary practice". Religion should

be

> value-based and ennobling. Sacrifice is neither: It is cruel and

> disgusting. We need to rise above petty political differences to

> support the implementation of a good law.

>

> Source:

http://www.newindpress.com/sunday/sundayitems.asp?

> id=SEC20030913051112&eTitle=Columns&rLink=0

[Guest guest]

As always, Devi Bhakta, you raise thought-provoking and vital

questions to examine our faith better. Bless you for this. Some

thoughts.

 

Devi shrines being outside the city, in sacred groves, reflects a

age-old pattern of the Feminine being marginalized, as the villagers

kept the old ways while the patriarchal male-dominated religion took

over the centers of worldly power. So what else is new? I would

love as much as anyone to see a return of the Goddess-centered

civilization of Minoan Crete, in which the gigantic palace of

Knossos was dedicated to the Great Mother Atana Potnia. However, we

are still getting over the patriarchal phase of religion, and even

though there has been a lot of rapid change in our lifetimes toward

restoring the Goddess in people's hearts and minds, still, this is a

process of the eons. Bob Dylan sang, "the order is rapidly

fading." No, Bob, the order is slowly fading. Slowly but surely.

 

Personally, I'm a vegan and renounced animal sacrifice years ago, I

have renounced it from the practice of Islam, and so completed the

Hajj nonviolently (little-known fact, there is a mode of Hajj

perfectly legitimate within Islamic law in which sacrifice is not

done and no animals are harmed). I chose veganism and nonviolence

consciously as a way to honor Devi, as a way to pay homage to the

feminine virtues I hold dearest: gentleness, love and caring for all

living things, renunciation of the violence, war, and hatred that

continue to plague humanity as a result of the brutality incited by

patriarchal religions and ideologies. One of my inspirations is

Minoan Crete, a Goddess-centered civilization where there was not a

huge gap between the rich and poor, where the cities were built

without walls because the people of the Goddess knew ways to settle

their differences without resorting to armies and warfare.

 

I'm not learned enough in the Shakta lore of India to fully delve

into the reasons for or against maintaining animal sacrifice at

Kalighat, but I do find in India's heritage a strong tradition of

ahimsa which I find consonant with the love and kindness that the

love of the Divine Mother has taught me.

 

, "Devi Bhakta"

<devi_bhakta> wrote:

> In Sunday's NewIndPress, columnist Nanditha Krishna raised her

voice

> against those who still employ animal sacrifice in religious

> ritual. The column, entitled "Blood on our Hands," specifically

> indicts certain Shakta cults.

>

> Ms. Krishna perceives "a distinct gender bias in sacrifice," in

> which "the female - a form of Shakti - is blood-thirsty, violent

and

> cruel." This perception of the Goddess, she says, colors

perceptions

> of human women: "The former is controlled by blood, the latter by

> society."

>

> Devi herself is also done a disservice, Ms. Krishna argues: "While

> the temples to the male Gods are beautiful, majestic buildings

that

> inspire awe and serenity, Devi temples are small, dark and dingy,

> situated outside the city in a sacred grove that is the haunt of

> dead spirits. Thus supporting animal sacrifice is supporting both

> gender inequity and perpetuating myths about the evil that is

woman."

>

> What do you think? Certainly Ms. Krishna's condemation of animal

> sacrifice is sound; but is her characterization of female deities

on

> target as well? Here is the full text (link to original is below):

>

> BLOOD ON OUR HANDS

>

> The Tamil Nadu Animal and Bird Sacrifices Prohibition Act of 1950

> clearly prohibits sacrifice in temples, as do similar laws in many

> other states. The State Government wants to enforce the

prohibition,

> and rightly so.

>

> The response has been shocking. One section of the media has

opposed

> the government directive because they oppose Chief Minister

> Jayalalithaa. The opportunistic communists have come out in

support

> of animal sacrifice - whatever happened to Marxist rationalism and

> atheism? Someone else has filed a PIL. A former minister, also a

> well-known lawyer, has objected. Do we really want to go back to

our

> primitive past?

>

> Blood sacrifice was common to all ancient cultures and religions.

> Ancient Hindus and Jews did it; Muslims continue to do it (during

> Id). There are scenes of human and animal sacrifice on Harappan

> seals. The first to speak out against bloody sacrifices were the

> rishis of the Upanishads. The chief message of the Buddha and

> Mahavira was to stop the killing of innocent animals. In time, the

> sacrifice of people and animals came to be regarded as primitive

and

> cruel. Interestingly, scenes of animal sacrifice are rare in

> classical temple sculpture or painting.

>

> Till the 20th century, human beings - especially the unwanted girl

> child - were regularly sacrificed in India. Education resulted in

a

> public outcry against the practice and the government responded by

> banning human sacrifice, although we still hear of occasional

> lapses. But mere banning is never sufficient, and any change in

> attitude and action owes much to individuals such as the late

> Krishna Iyer in Tamil Nadu and Peela Ramakrishna in Andhra

Pradesh.

> The former went around persuading people to "break" a pumpkin

> instead of killing an animal or bird. The latter took the police

to

> the remotest villages to stop sacrifices. Such was the commitment

of

> these men.

>

> Animal sacrifice is particularly brutal. Buffaloes, goat and

> roosters are queued up as in a slaughterhouse, crying as they

watch

> the others die and await their turn. Blood flows everywhere.

> Sometimes the worshippers anoint themselves with it; most times,

> they drink it even as it flows out. After the sacrifice, the

priest

> may garland himself with the entrails. After beheading the

buffalo,

> the chopped-off legs may be placed in its mouth, the fat spread

over

> its eyes. The worst form of sacrifice is live impalement. It is

> altogether too gory. Is this what the Gods want?

>

> Blood sacrifice was regarded as magic, a tool to propitiate or

> please a god, to fulfil a vow and as a sacrament. The animal (and,

> formerly, person) could be a scapegoat for human sins or

> inexplicable natural phenomena, or a vehicle to carry away the

> collected demons or ills of an entire community. It seems very

> unfair that a little goat or a peaceful buffalo should be made

> responsible for events beyond their comprehension or control.

> Ancient peoples performed sacrifices to control negative forces,

> particularly disease, in the belief that any blood would satisfy

the

> bloodthirsty spirit. The animal was sacrificed to "save" a human

> life. Today, medicine performs the task more efficiently.

>

> Animal sacrifices continue in villages all over India. The

beginning

> of the planting season and Navaratri are particularly bad periods,

> when large numbers of animals, particularly buffaloes, are killed

to

> propitiate local goddesses and thus ensure fertility. In the

> Himalayan states and the East, animals are sold by weight to be

> sacrificed to Devi during Navaratri, to re-enact the killing of

the

> buffalo-demon Mahisha. The confrontation between the Goddess and

the

> buffalo goes back to a totemic period when the worshippers of the

> former defeated the worshippers of the latter. Unfortunately the

> memory of that confrontation lives on in the brutality of buffalo

> sacrifice.

>

> There is a distinct gender bias in sacrifice. The male god -

> generally an aspect of Shiva or Vishnu - is regarded as benign and

> peaceful, an austere yogi or a benevolent provider. The female - a

> form of Shakti - is blood-thirsty, violent and cruel. She may be

> Kali, with sharp, protruding canine teeth, or Mari, the smallpox

> goddess, or anyone else. Every village in South and Eastern India,

> has bloodthirsty village goddesses who reinforce the myth of the

> wicked witch, always a woman. The former is controlled by blood,

the

> latter by society.

>

> Women are potentially evil, according to this belief, and must be

> kept under control. They are drinkers of blood and consumers of

> human and animal flesh, and any insufficiency in their

propitiation

> will, it is believed, invite their wrath and inflame their cruel

> natures. The Sapta Matrikas (seven mothers/sisters/virgins), the

> various forms of Kali and Mari and all village goddesses have a

> longing for blood and a reputation for cruelty. Their images are

> ugly and frightening, both in appearance and behaviour.

>

> What an awful image of women, which is ingrained in the Indian

> psyche! Surely the mother who procreates and nurtures deserves a

> better reputation? While the temples to the male Gods are

beautiful,

> majestic buildings that inspire awe and serenity, Devi temples are

> small, dark and dingy, situated outside the city in a sacred grove

> that is the haunt of dead spirits. Thus supporting animal

sacrifice

> is supporting both gender inequity and perpetuating myths about

the

> evil that is woman. Male spirits who demand sacrifice are

generally

> the Goddess' lieutenants, who have developed a taste for blood.

This

> image was created to justify the suppression of women.

>

> Another little-known aspect is economic. Animal sacrifices are

> promoted by moneylenders, who freely give loans for the occasion

and

> thus get illiterate villagers into their clutches. The wielders of

> the knife are often butchers who officiate as priests and charge

for

> their services. The cost of a buffalo runs into thousands, a goat,

> sheep or rooster into hundreds. Add the cost of the feast and the

> poojari's fees, and the result is a hole in the pocket. There is a

> mafia that benefits from the conduct of animal sacrifices, which

> keeps the lower strata in permanent bondage. This becomes a

vicious

> cycle. The animal sacrifices purport to improve their situation.

But

> they tie the votaries, who generally belong to the lowest classes

> and castes, in economic chains, where they remain forever.

> Obviously, the gods are not pleased.

>

> Sacrifice means giving up something precious to oneself. Thus

> Abraham was asked by God to sacrifice his son, while Shunahshepas

> offered himself to be sacrificed. Buying and killing an innocent

> animal does not fit the bill. The sacrifice probably originated

> among totemic tribes who sacrificed the animal totem to acquire

its

> strength or wisdom. Conquering tribes would sacrifice the animal

> totem of the defeated tribe to signify victory. In the choice of

the

> buffalo to be killed, there is an obvious racial message: that the

> dark-coloured, slothful and ugly animal deserves to die.

>

> Animal sacrifice is cruel, disgusting and primitive. Bloody

> sacrifices brutalise the viewer, confusing the distinction between

> right and wrong. If one man supports animal sacrifice, another

will

> support human sacrifice, the killing of children and sati. How can

> any of these be permitted in a civilised society? All cultures and

> religions evolve, discarding ugly practices. Over the years, we

have

> learned to identify and repudiate negative aspects of Hinduism,

such

> as sati and the caste system. Animal sacrifice is another cruelty

> that must be rejected and discarded. It is surprising to hear

> educated people talk of "customary practice". Religion should be

> value-based and ennobling. Sacrifice is neither: It is cruel and

> disgusting. We need to rise above petty political differences to

> support the implementation of a good law.

>

> Source: http://www.newindpress.com/sunday/sundayitems.asp?

> id=SEC20030913051112&eTitle=Columns&rLink=0

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

I must agree we benefit greatly from these thought provoking entries.

 

This article pulls at both sides of my heart.

 

I would love to go back in time and visit Minoan Crete. In the Chalice

and the Blade much is made of the fact that the great artworks of that

civilization were not signed, given to signify a situation of great

equality and community. The further implication that in the more

masculine societies to arise in that region the signing of artwork

signified a more strongly developed differentiation of self,

associated with patriarchal forms of society and religion. Would that

be true?

 

I'd love to go to Turkey now and see the ruins of the temples to the

Goddess there, referred to in the Christian bible in the Acts of the

Apostles when the devout followers of the Goddess Diana threw Paul out

of Ephysus. What might I be able to imagine standing there among the

ruins of a temple to Her? Could I hear the chants? The echoes of a

society that revolved around Her temple? Her worship?

 

Further back I would love to visit ancient Sumeria where civilization

arose and temples to Inanna were so numerous. I read translations of

the ancient writings to the Goddess Inanna that discribe the parades

in Her honor, the look of Her star (the planet Venus) in the sky at

sunset or at sunrise when people slept out on their roofs under the

open sky to escape the heat. The images are so vivid and so moving.

But I cannot escape the evidence that their civilization was plagued

by war, and of the problems that still trouble urban areas. They blew

out their water table with by over farming, ran into the salt water so

close to the surface. The problems that confront high population

density and a loss of the wisdom of the wilderness were born there

alongside the siblings of writing, building, accounting.

 

That brings me back to the other side, that other heartstring. I don't

want to lose that aspect of our great Goddess that renews our

connection to the wildness, to the death that is the balance to birth,

to sacrifice that is the balance to growth. I love the peaceful mother

images of the Goddess, but I don't want Her image shorn of Her

unrivaled power. To present the Goddess as a very cleaned up

"feminine" image actually limits the positive choices for the women of

that society.

 

The fierce Goddess doesn't hold us back. It is the society that fears

that fierceness.

 

And organized criminals taking advantage of the poor and their fears

will crop up any where...sometimes even in the highest echelons of

government.

 

That kind of behavior is independent of the images that the devoted

revere.

 

Which, by the way, is what I remind myself when I get too nostalgic

about the ancient "golden" age. They still had ignorant bores then,

too. We just haven't changed that much.

 

Blessings,

 

pr

 

, peNkaLai kâtalikkiRên

<penkatali> wrote:

> As always, Devi Bhakta, you raise thought-provoking and vital

> questions to examine our faith better. Bless you for this. Some

> thoughts.

>

> Devi shrines being outside the city, in sacred groves, reflects a

> age-old pattern of the Feminine being marginalized, as the villagers

> kept the old ways while the patriarchal male-dominated religion took

> over the centers of worldly power. So what else is new? I would

> love as much as anyone to see a return of the Goddess-centered

> civilization of Minoan Crete, in which the gigantic palace of

> Knossos was dedicated to the Great Mother Atana Potnia. However, we

> are still getting over the patriarchal phase of religion, and even

> though there has been a lot of rapid change in our lifetimes toward

> restoring the Goddess in people's hearts and minds, still, this is a

> process of the eons. Bob Dylan sang, "the order is rapidly

> fading." No, Bob, the order is slowly fading. Slowly but surely.

>

> Personally, I'm a vegan and renounced animal sacrifice years ago, I

> have renounced it from the practice of Islam, and so completed the

> Hajj nonviolently (little-known fact, there is a mode of Hajj

> perfectly legitimate within Islamic law in which sacrifice is not

> done and no animals are harmed). I chose veganism and nonviolence

> consciously as a way to honor Devi, as a way to pay homage to the

> feminine virtues I hold dearest: gentleness, love and caring for all

> living things, renunciation of the violence, war, and hatred that

> continue to plague humanity as a result of the brutality incited by

> patriarchal religions and ideologies. One of my inspirations is

> Minoan Crete, a Goddess-centered civilization where there was not a

> huge gap between the rich and poor, where the cities were built

> without walls because the people of the Goddess knew ways to settle

> their differences without resorting to armies and warfare.

>

> I'm not learned enough in the Shakta lore of India to fully delve

> into the reasons for or against maintaining animal sacrifice at

> Kalighat, but I do find in India's heritage a strong tradition of

> ahimsa which I find consonant with the love and kindness that the

> love of the Divine Mother has taught me.

>

> , "Devi Bhakta"

> <devi_bhakta> wrote:

> > In Sunday's NewIndPress, columnist Nanditha Krishna raised her

> voice

> > against those who still employ animal sacrifice in religious

> > ritual. The column, entitled "Blood on our Hands," specifically

> > indicts certain Shakta cults.

> >

> > Ms. Krishna perceives "a distinct gender bias in sacrifice," in

> > which "the female - a form of Shakti - is blood-thirsty, violent

> and

> > cruel." This perception of the Goddess, she says, colors

> perceptions

> > of human women: "The former is controlled by blood, the latter by

> > society."

> >

> > Devi herself is also done a disservice, Ms. Krishna argues: "While

> > the temples to the male Gods are beautiful, majestic buildings

> that

> > inspire awe and serenity, Devi temples are small, dark and dingy,

> > situated outside the city in a sacred grove that is the haunt of

> > dead spirits. Thus supporting animal sacrifice is supporting both

> > gender inequity and perpetuating myths about the evil that is

> woman."

> >

> > What do you think? Certainly Ms. Krishna's condemation of animal

> > sacrifice is sound; but is her characterization of female deities

> on

> > target as well? Here is the full text (link to original is below):

> >

> > BLOOD ON OUR HANDS

> >

> > The Tamil Nadu Animal and Bird Sacrifices Prohibition Act of 1950

> > clearly prohibits sacrifice in temples, as do similar laws in many

> > other states. The State Government wants to enforce the

> prohibition,

> > and rightly so.

> >

> > The response has been shocking. One section of the media has

> opposed

> > the government directive because they oppose Chief Minister

> > Jayalalithaa. The opportunistic communists have come out in

> support

> > of animal sacrifice - whatever happened to Marxist rationalism and

> > atheism? Someone else has filed a PIL. A former minister, also a

> > well-known lawyer, has objected. Do we really want to go back to

> our

> > primitive past?

> >

> > Blood sacrifice was common to all ancient cultures and religions.

> > Ancient Hindus and Jews did it; Muslims continue to do it (during

> > Id). There are scenes of human and animal sacrifice on Harappan

> > seals. The first to speak out against bloody sacrifices were the

> > rishis of the Upanishads. The chief message of the Buddha and

> > Mahavira was to stop the killing of innocent animals. In time, the

> > sacrifice of people and animals came to be regarded as primitive

> and

> > cruel. Interestingly, scenes of animal sacrifice are rare in

> > classical temple sculpture or painting.

> >

> > Till the 20th century, human beings - especially the unwanted girl

> > child - were regularly sacrificed in India. Education resulted in

> a

> > public outcry against the practice and the government responded by

> > banning human sacrifice, although we still hear of occasional

> > lapses. But mere banning is never sufficient, and any change in

> > attitude and action owes much to individuals such as the late

> > Krishna Iyer in Tamil Nadu and Peela Ramakrishna in Andhra

> Pradesh.

> > The former went around persuading people to "break" a pumpkin

> > instead of killing an animal or bird. The latter took the police

> to

> > the remotest villages to stop sacrifices. Such was the commitment

> of

> > these men.

> >

> > Animal sacrifice is particularly brutal. Buffaloes, goat and

> > roosters are queued up as in a slaughterhouse, crying as they

> watch

> > the others die and await their turn. Blood flows everywhere.

> > Sometimes the worshippers anoint themselves with it; most times,

> > they drink it even as it flows out. After the sacrifice, the

> priest

> > may garland himself with the entrails. After beheading the

> buffalo,

> > the chopped-off legs may be placed in its mouth, the fat spread

> over

> > its eyes. The worst form of sacrifice is live impalement. It is

> > altogether too gory. Is this what the Gods want?

> >

> > Blood sacrifice was regarded as magic, a tool to propitiate or

> > please a god, to fulfil a vow and as a sacrament. The animal (and,

> > formerly, person) could be a scapegoat for human sins or

> > inexplicable natural phenomena, or a vehicle to carry away the

> > collected demons or ills of an entire community. It seems very

> > unfair that a little goat or a peaceful buffalo should be made

> > responsible for events beyond their comprehension or control.

> > Ancient peoples performed sacrifices to control negative forces,

> > particularly disease, in the belief that any blood would satisfy

> the

> > bloodthirsty spirit. The animal was sacrificed to "save" a human

> > life. Today, medicine performs the task more efficiently.

> >

> > Animal sacrifices continue in villages all over India. The

> beginning

> > of the planting season and Navaratri are particularly bad periods,

> > when large numbers of animals, particularly buffaloes, are killed

> to

> > propitiate local goddesses and thus ensure fertility. In the

> > Himalayan states and the East, animals are sold by weight to be

> > sacrificed to Devi during Navaratri, to re-enact the killing of

> the

> > buffalo-demon Mahisha. The confrontation between the Goddess and

> the

> > buffalo goes back to a totemic period when the worshippers of the

> > former defeated the worshippers of the latter. Unfortunately the

> > memory of that confrontation lives on in the brutality of buffalo

> > sacrifice.

> >

> > There is a distinct gender bias in sacrifice. The male god -

> > generally an aspect of Shiva or Vishnu - is regarded as benign and

> > peaceful, an austere yogi or a benevolent provider. The female - a

> > form of Shakti - is blood-thirsty, violent and cruel. She may be

> > Kali, with sharp, protruding canine teeth, or Mari, the smallpox

> > goddess, or anyone else. Every village in South and Eastern India,

> > has bloodthirsty village goddesses who reinforce the myth of the

> > wicked witch, always a woman. The former is controlled by blood,

> the

> > latter by society.

> >

> > Women are potentially evil, according to this belief, and must be

> > kept under control. They are drinkers of blood and consumers of

> > human and animal flesh, and any insufficiency in their

> propitiation

> > will, it is believed, invite their wrath and inflame their cruel

> > natures. The Sapta Matrikas (seven mothers/sisters/virgins), the

> > various forms of Kali and Mari and all village goddesses have a

> > longing for blood and a reputation for cruelty. Their images are

> > ugly and frightening, both in appearance and behaviour.

> >

> > What an awful image of women, which is ingrained in the Indian

> > psyche! Surely the mother who procreates and nurtures deserves a

> > better reputation? While the temples to the male Gods are

> beautiful,

> > majestic buildings that inspire awe and serenity, Devi temples are

> > small, dark and dingy, situated outside the city in a sacred grove

> > that is the haunt of dead spirits. Thus supporting animal

> sacrifice

> > is supporting both gender inequity and perpetuating myths about

> the

> > evil that is woman. Male spirits who demand sacrifice are

> generally

> > the Goddess' lieutenants, who have developed a taste for blood.

> This

> > image was created to justify the suppression of women.

> >

> > Another little-known aspect is economic. Animal sacrifices are

> > promoted by moneylenders, who freely give loans for the occasion

> and

> > thus get illiterate villagers into their clutches. The wielders of

> > the knife are often butchers who officiate as priests and charge

> for

> > their services. The cost of a buffalo runs into thousands, a goat,

> > sheep or rooster into hundreds. Add the cost of the feast and the

> > poojari's fees, and the result is a hole in the pocket. There is a

> > mafia that benefits from the conduct of animal sacrifices, which

> > keeps the lower strata in permanent bondage. This becomes a

> vicious

> > cycle. The animal sacrifices purport to improve their situation.

> But

> > they tie the votaries, who generally belong to the lowest classes

> > and castes, in economic chains, where they remain forever.

> > Obviously, the gods are not pleased.

> >

> > Sacrifice means giving up something precious to oneself. Thus

> > Abraham was asked by God to sacrifice his son, while Shunahshepas

> > offered himself to be sacrificed. Buying and killing an innocent

> > animal does not fit the bill. The sacrifice probably originated

> > among totemic tribes who sacrificed the animal totem to acquire

> its

> > strength or wisdom. Conquering tribes would sacrifice the animal

> > totem of the defeated tribe to signify victory. In the choice of

> the

> > buffalo to be killed, there is an obvious racial message: that the

> > dark-coloured, slothful and ugly animal deserves to die.

> >

> > Animal sacrifice is cruel, disgusting and primitive. Bloody

> > sacrifices brutalise the viewer, confusing the distinction between

> > right and wrong. If one man supports animal sacrifice, another

> will

> > support human sacrifice, the killing of children and sati. How can

> > any of these be permitted in a civilised society? All cultures and

> > religions evolve, discarding ugly practices. Over the years, we

> have

> > learned to identify and repudiate negative aspects of Hinduism,

> such

> > as sati and the caste system. Animal sacrifice is another cruelty

> > that must be rejected and discarded. It is surprising to hear

> > educated people talk of "customary practice". Religion should be

> > value-based and ennobling. Sacrifice is neither: It is cruel and

> > disgusting. We need to rise above petty political differences to

> > support the implementation of a good law.

> >

> > Source: http://www.newindpress.com/sunday/sundayitems.asp?

> > id=SEC20030913051112&eTitle=Columns&rLink=0

[Guest guest]

Thank you, Prainbow and Penkatali for your wonderful comments on this

thread; I appreciate the compliments, but posting the discussion idea

is the easy part. It's highly informed, heartfelt posts like yours

the bring such ideas to life, and fully employ the potential of a

forum like this

 

Since it's late here and I'm about to keel over from exhaustion, I

would simply offer a tiebreaker at this time:

 

Citing Bob Dylan, Penkatali said, "the order is slowly fading. Slowly

but surely."

 

Prainbow, on the other hand, said, "We just haven't changed that

much."

 

I'm going to go with Penkatali on this one. Having discussed the

matter which knowledgable individuals whose spiritual judgment I

trust implicitly, I have come to believe that humankind has come

through the worst of the Kaliyuga. I think we're on our way out now;

that -- in all the strife and hatred that wracks the world at the

meoment -- we're seeing the last angry gasps of the old order.

 

In the company of such souls as I've met in the Group, I cannot help

but believe that, beneath it all, I am hearing the first, infant

breaths of the new. Devi grant that it be so.

 

Aum Maatangyai Namahe

[Guest guest]

Dear pr, your beautiful thoughts are inspiring and welcome. Like

you, I would like to practice time travel, if only on the astral

plane, by visiting the historical Goddess sites and becoming

immersed in Her barakah that may still linger there.

 

Your point about the fierce Feminine is well taken. I would never

forget or devalue the very important fierceness of Durga/Kali or the

Maenads. The mother's fierceness in protecting her young is a very

essential aspect of the Feminine which holds us in awe of Her.

You're totally right about that. I was just addressing the reason

for my choosing ahimsa in light of the insane levels of hyper-macho

violence that the world is being subjected to by fundamentalists

like Bush, al-Qa`idah, the jihadists, and the RSS. To oppose these

haters with more hatred would only feed their hatred and insanity.

Instead, the Goddess inspires me to heal and love as a remedy of

profound sanity, deriving from the Great Mother's unconditional love

for Her children.

> the great artworks of that

> civilization were not signed, given to signify a situation of great

> equality and community. The further implication that in the more

> masculine societies to arise in that region the signing of artwork

> signified a more strongly developed differentiation of self,

> associated with patriarchal forms of society and religion. Would

that

> be true?

 

Actually, all traditional art was unsigned until the cult of the

individual artist arose in the Renaissance. We don't know the names

of most of the great Islamic, Hindu, or Buddhist artists before the

modern era. Individual artists didn't begin attaching their name

and fame to works of art until around the time of Giotto. Prior to

Fra Angelico, you won't find many individually known artists in the

European Middle Ages.