Does Animal Sacrifice Reflect Bias Against Devi, and Women

[Guest guest]

RESPECTED LEARNED ONES.........

 

Before begining ny thoughts on subject , for some days i am unable to open any

while can surf any other site , thus writing directly from my email

if nebody can guide me to how overcome this problem i would be highl;y obliged)

 

well, though again i know there are uh uh highly learned ones here & i , would

be like a fool jumping in between of the learned ones. well am freee so thought

...lol. ok what max.. people would get some entertainment if my viws are wrong

 

truly , keeping straight to subject of ANIMAL SARIFICE being biased & used only

in DEVI worship, i personally donot agree to it , the learned columnist , if

perceives it as ritual only employed with DEVI rituals . Animal sacrifices are

used in case of most deities from LORD GANESH (& if i am sure then in one of

NEPAL TEMPLES it still is) to MAHALAXMI even . WELL later would fall in

category of DEVI o would keep to male forms from ganapati to bhairava to

mahakaal to narsimha . so , no we can't put it as gender bias , it simply apears

to be a very losed minded view.

 

moving a bit away from topic , as to animal sacrifice being right or wrong , its

a highly complex subject & well, simply all are right paths ,none can be judged

wrong , in a society where we have had siddhas from aghora puntha & surbhangis

who not only had eaten dead but at times done abhishek of LORD SHANKARA by their

faecus, though what worth noticing there is BHAAVA" also , what surprises me

when we talk of esoteric meanings of TANTRIC TEXTS we decide it by our

convinience , some things which we donot agree with we justify their ESOTERIC

MEANINGS .. well ,imho, either if we look for esoteric meanings then each &

every word shouldhave one or else its LITERAL. also, in most texts i have found

it being clearly mentioned that if you are opposed to blood/sacrifice/meat one

may use COONUT , JAIFUL,VEGETABLES etc. etc but nowhere oppsite of this (i

,mean nowhere have i read that if you are opposed to COCONUT etc you may use

MALEGOAT blah blah blah). o, somehow it appears that primary

was meat/animal etc & secondary (by choice) are the other things.

 

well, i am not saying my views are the only ight one nor am i denying others

views , but is'nt everything more dependent on ones personal beleifs/paths ? yes

, but most certainly i donot agree ANIMAL SACRIFICE to be a biased wards FEMALE

DEITIES ....

 

regards,

JAI AMBEY MAHAKALI SHREE KAAL BHAIRAVAYA NAMAH,

rajat

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I think it is possible, and desirable, to look at practices, such as

animal sacrifice, and sati, and make distinctions of whether the

practices necessarily need to continue ending animal or human

life in order to honor whatever it is they were or are meant to

honor. (I'm also distinguishing here between animal sacrifice

and killing to eat.) It's important to look at what the practices were

or are supposedly honoring, and determine whether that is truly

what the practices do, or whether there may be another way to

show honor. If each life is a direct expression of God/dess, then

the celebration of that life, not the forced ending of it in sacrifice,

might be more honorific. This requires not just following rules of

the past, but examining them, and making new choices. I

disagree that all practices are good.

 

About the Chalice & the Blade, to refer to another post along this

thread, Minoan Crete and/or Gnossos was said to be beautiful,

creative,and egalitarian, more freely sexual, more openly loving

societies. There was something mentioned about the sleep

areas of females being larger than sleeping areas of males,

however, and I wondered about that as connoting some kind of

power differential. I can't shake the notion that unconsciousness

and oppression were happening therein, too, contributing to their

overthrow.

 

Maybe the "fierceness" of the fe/male now means that

life-affirming cultures, that is, partnership-oriented peoples, can

learn how to support their life-affirming ways so that they will not

be felled by the dominators as they have been in the past.

 

, rajat-neha

<younghornycpl> wrote:

> RESPECTED LEARNED ONES.........

>

> Before begining ny thoughts on subject , for some days i am

unable to open any while can surf any other site ,

thus writing directly from my email if nebody can guide me to

how overcome this problem i would be highl;y obliged)

>

> well, though again i know there are uh uh highly learned ones

here & i , would be like a fool jumping in between of the learned

ones. well am freee so thought ..lol. ok what max.. people would

get some entertainment if my viws are wrong

>

> truly , keeping straight to subject of ANIMAL SARIFICE being

biased & used only in DEVI worship, i personally donot agree to

it , the learned columnist , if perceives it as ritual only employed

with DEVI rituals . Animal sacrifices are used in case of most

deities from LORD GANESH (& if i am sure then in one of NEPAL

TEMPLES it still is) to MAHALAXMI even . WELL later would fall

in category of DEVI o would keep to male forms from ganapati to

bhairava to mahakaal to narsimha . so , no we can't put it as

gender bias , it simply apears to be a very losed minded view.

>

> moving a bit away from topic , as to animal sacrifice being right

or wrong , its a highly complex subject & well, simply all are right

paths ,none can be judged wrong , in a society where we have

had siddhas from aghora puntha & surbhangis who not only had

eaten dead but at times done abhishek of LORD SHANKARA by

their faecus, though what worth noticing there is BHAAVA" also ,

what surprises me when we talk of esoteric meanings of

TANTRIC TEXTS we decide it by our convinience , some things

which we donot agree with we justify their ESOTERIC

MEANINGS .. well ,imho, either if we look for esoteric meanings

then each & every word shouldhave one or else its LITERAL.

also, in most texts i have found it being clearly mentioned that if

you are opposed to blood/sacrifice/meat one may use COONUT

, JAIFUL,VEGETABLES etc. etc but nowhere oppsite of this (i

,mean nowhere have i read that if you are opposed to COCONUT

etc you may use MALEGOAT blah blah blah). o, somehow it

appears that primary

> was meat/animal etc & secondary (by choice) are the other

things.

>

> well, i am not saying my views are the only ight one nor am i

denying others views , but is'nt everything more dependent on

ones personal beleifs/paths ? yes , but most certainly i donot

agree ANIMAL SACRIFICE to be a biased wards FEMALE

DEITIES ....

>

> regards,

> JAI AMBEY MAHAKALI SHREE KAAL BHAIRAVAYA NAMAH,

> rajat

>

>

>

>

> SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design

software

>

>