To Kill or not to Kill

[Guest guest]

Srimate SrivanSatakopa Sri Vedanta

Desika Yatindra Mahadesikaya nama:

 

To Kill or Not to Kill

 

One of the important reasons for the origins and spread of

Buddhism in India is said to be people’s disillusionment with

widespread animal sacrifices, as part of the various YagyAs. With his

emphasis on eschewing violence of any sort, especially to hapless

animals, Buddha was able to capture the imagination and hearts of

large masses who couldn’t stand the free flow of blood in the

various sacrifices. Ahimsa became the cornerstone of Buddhist

philosophy (it is quite a different thing that most of the Buddhists

today are not vegetarians) as also of the Jain tenet, where the

sAdhUs went to the extent of covering their mouths for fear of

insects getting into the apertures and meeting their end thereby.

 

All this gives rise to the logical question as to whether the

SanAtana Dharma, later on called Hinduism, did not believe in

non-violence. Was it a religion barbaric enough to espouse animal

sacrifices for the attainment of various goals, which may or may not

have been achieved? Was it a philosophy which preached ahimsa on the

one hand (“na himsyAt sarva bhootAni”) while callously

sanctioning violence against beings lesser than humans on the other,

in the name of propitiating various deities? What unspeakable agonies

would the sacrificed animals have undergone, what copious tears would

their little ones have shed at permanent separation from their

mothers and fathers! And were they really deities, which thirsted and

hungered for the blood and flesh of innocent animals? Was it really

worthwhile performing such sacrifices at the stupendous cost of

lives, whatever be the objective?

 

These and other questions do haunt our minds now and again,

especially when we are in a reflective mood, prompted by the company

of the “enlightened”. We are even ashamed at the thought

of our forefathers having been guilty of such bloody practices, with

scant regard for the value of life, be it human or otherwise. And we

are simultaneously puzzled, when we consider that such Yagas

involving bestial sacrifices have been ordained by no other body of

knowledge than the venerated Vedas. “VasantAya kapinjalAn

AlabhEta” “agnIshOmIyam pasum AlabhEta” etc. are

but a couple of Veda vAkyAs advocating animal/ bird sacrifice. Would

the Shruti, the embodiment of unblemished wisdom, with its

overwhelming concern for universal well-being, prescribe such painful

practices as means of attaining this objective or that, however

exalted? Do Shastras, touted to be kinder than a thousand parents

(“MAtA pitA sahasrEbhyOpi vatsalataram Shastram”), cater

to the welfare only of human beings and not of lower creatures? How

is it that the Lord too, glorified for His virtue of Samyam (equal

treatment of all beings, irrespective of distinctions based on birth,

caste, creed, economic or social status etc.), is oblivious to animals

being slaughtered right and left in the name of propitiation? Does He

reserve His KaruNyam or boundless Mercy for human beings, carefully

leaving out animals from its comforting ambit?

 

We know, based on the eternal immaculateness of the Shruti, its

abiding concern for all beings, the Lord’s enduring empathy for

all creatures human and otherwise, that the answer to all the

aforesaid questions has to be a resounding and

emphatic“No”. Neither is the Shruti uncaring towards

animals, nor the Lord blind to the sufferings of sacrificed animals.

If this is so, then how indeed do we reconcile these conflicting

positions?

 

Maharshi Manu is held out to be a great soul, even by the impartial

Shruti, which doesn’t believe in lavishing praise where none is

deserved. If such Shruti itself were to certify to Manu’s words

as the Gospel Truth and to term all His utterances as the best

medicine for all ills (“yat vai kincha Manu: avadat tat

bhEshajam”), physical and spiritual, we can certainly repose

faith in his prescriptions. Let us see what the venerable Maharshi

has to say about killing of animals in Yagyas.

 

In the fifth chapter of Manu Smriti, which serves till date as a code

book for righteous conduct, Manu says-

 

“YagyArttham pasava: srishtA: svayamEva SvayambhuvA

Yagyascha bhootyai sarvasya, tasmAt YagyE vadha: avadha:”

 

The glory of Yagyas is recorded in the Shruti and Smriti alike. The

Upanishad avers that all things have their basis in Yagyas

(“YagyE sarvam pratishttitam”), Yagyas are the sole means

for emancipation of the good (“YagyEna dEvA divam gataA:”)

and eradication of evil (“YagyEna asurA apAnudanta”). Is

it any wonder then that Yagyas are considered supreme, enquires the

Upanishad (“tasmAt Yagyam paramam vadanti”). In several

contexts, Yagyas are glorifed as being verily the Lord Himself-

”YagyO vai Vishnu:” Further, the Vishnu Sahasranama Stotra

too refers to the Lord by the various names of such

sacrifices-“Yagya: ijya: mahEjya: kratu: satram”.

 

Manu avers that Yagyas are the sole reason animals were

created-“YagyArttham pasava: srishtA:”. According to the

Maharshi, the raison de etre of these creatures was to be sacrificed

in Yagyas, for which specific purpose they were brought into being by

the Lord Himself-“svayamEva SvayambhuvA”. And since there

can be no life, no creation, no happiness or glory without the

Yagyas, the slaughter of animals at the altar of the Yagya is indeed

justified and correct. Therefore, concludes Manu, the slaughter of

sacrificial animals is no killing at all, but mere application of

resources to the use they were meant to be put to. Thus the

“vadham” or killing of animals for the purpose of Yagyas

is “avadham” or no killing at all.

 

The purport of the aforesaid remarkable statement, emanating from such

an impeccable source as Manu, is two-fold. One is that the sin that

attaches to anyone indulging in himsA, does not affect the performer

of Yagyas involving sacrifice of animals, though the act involves

violence, bloodshed and loss of life.

The second significant fact is that if truth were to be told, even

though it may appear prima facie that the animal is being condemned

to cruel death, after its sacrifice in the Yagya, the creature goes

straight to Svarga lOka, as a reward for giving up its life for the

exalted cause. As the sacrifice entails the animal receiving a much

better deal after death than it could ever dream of in life, its

slaughter is in fact an act of kindness, strange though it may sound.

We have it on the authority of the Shruti, which tells the sacrificial

goat that it is indeed blessed, for its fate is not miserable

slaughter at the hands of cruel priests: for, once it leaves its

wretched mortal coils, the animal goes straight to heaven, the

destination of denizens with magnificent merit. Following are the

relative Veda vAkyAs—“na vA u Etan mriasE, na rishyasi.

DEvAn idEshi pathibhi: sugEbhi:” etc.

 

Sri Ramanuja, dealing with the issue in his Gita Bhashya, tells us

that animals slaughtered for yagyas like agnIshOmIyam reach exalted

worlds and, as such, their sacrifice is really an act of kindness to

them. From the animals’ viewpoint, even if they were not

sacrificed, what big deal could they look forward to in their

continued bestial existence, bereft of the faculties of speech,

thought and contemplation which could lead them on to higher births

in future? Whereas their sacrifice, though prima facie violence to

their person, takes them straight to Svarga, with all its trappings

of bliss, ecstasy and enjoyment.

 

According to Sri Bhashyakara, himsa or violence is that which causes

pain to the being on whom or which it is inflicted, the acid test

being what flows out of the apparently unkind action—if it

results in suffering and misery, it is indeed himsA and if it does

not, and brings, to the contrary, a better deal for the being, then

obviously it is not violence or unkindness. The Shruti says that the

sacrificed animal assumes a golden form and ascends to the blissful

heavens—“HiraNya sharIra oordhva: Svargam lOkam

Eti”. Sri Ramanuja negates the idea(of animal sacrifice being

sinful) in the Sri Bhashya too (in the commentary to the Brahma

Sutra—“ashuddham it chEt na, shabdAt”). For our

comprehension, Sri Ramanuja cites the example of a doctor using a

sharp knife or painful needles on his patient, as a part of

treatment. Would anyone call a surgery himsA? We don’t, because

it results in our being cured from the malady and enjoying better

health than before. Sri KulasekharAzhwar attests that all that a

patient has for the surgeon wielding the cruel knife is undying

grattitude and love-“VALAl arutthu sudinum marutthuvan pAl

mALAda kAdal nOyALan”. Similarly, says the Bhashyakara, the

sacrifice of animals in Yagyas cannot be equated with and condemned

as mere senseless slaughter for pleasure or for eating. Expanding on

the Master’s lines, Swami Desikan concludes that it is only the

uninitiated who would consider such sacrifices to be acts of cruelty

and brutality to living beings-“vadha: iti pAmara drishtya

anuvada: avadha iti tatva kathanam”.

 

Srimad Ramayana talks about the killing of a horse, the sacrificial

animal in the asvamEdha yAga performed by Sri Dasarata. Sri Valmiki

says that Kousalya killed the animal with a knife, “quite

gladly”—

 

“KousalyA tam hayam tatra paricharya samantata:

KripANai: vishasAsa Enam tribhi: paramayA mudA”

 

Had animal sacrifice been a sinful act, resulting in the ultimate

atrocity being inflicted on an innocent living thing, Sri Valmiki

would hardly have described the act vividly in a work born to portray

righteous conduct.

 

 

 

In the secular world too, the raging controversy about euthanasia or

mercy killing, (resorted to for putting out of suffering people

afflicted by incurable and extremely painful ailments) highlights

death being better than continued living, in some cases. Several

courts have ruled in favour of such killings, which are really acts

of kindness rather than mere murders. Society also tolerates, rightly

or wrongly, the practice of putting to death race horses which sustain

incurable injuries. And there are socially-sanctioned killings like

capital punishment for grave offences and wars fought between

nations, when it is considered patriotic to take as many enemy lives

as possible. The point here is that killing doesn’t appear to

be regarded as wrong per se, but acquires appropriate shades of right

and wrong, depending upon the underlying motive, with secular conduct

buttressing the standpoint of the Shastras.

 

Interestingly, and striking a contrary note, Sri Mahabharata narrates

the tale of Maharaja Uparishravasu, who was called upon to mediate in

a dispute between Rishis (who were against animal sacrifice and

preferred to perform the same with the aid of a creature made of

flour, instead of an actual living being) and Devas (who were adamant

that sacrifice in the Yagyas should be of actual animals and not mere

dolls of flour). After listening at length and with great care to

both sides, the Raja decided in favour of the Devas, holding animal

sacrifice to be correct in view of the overwhelming evidence therefor

found in the Shruti and Smriti. The enraged Rishis, convinced of their

correctness, cursed Uparishravasu to a condemned existence in the

bowels of the earth, if his ruling was incorrect, and offered to

undergo similar punishment, if they were in the wrong. The moment the

curse was voiced, the Maharaja fell to the PAtAla lOka, proving the

Rishis to have been right, establishing thereby that Pasu vadham or

animal sacrifice should not involve an actual living creature.

 

However, on overall consideration, we find that himsa, as permitted

by Shastras, is not himsa at all in view of its wholly beneficial

effects on the so-called victim. Despite such points and

counter-points, we are left with the question as to whether we ought

to indulge in such practices, merely because they bear the sanction

of Shastras, as the very thought of killing, whether it be of a

housefly or a sacrificial horse, is unbearable anathema to us.

Trained as we are in the ways of absolute non-violence right from

childhood, we cannot bring ourselves to harm an animal, however low

on the totem pole of creation it may figure. The animal’s death

may not be of earth-shaking consequence nor would it would leave

behind inconsolable and mourning relatives. And the sacrificed animal

does go straight to heaven, destined for an infinitely superior

existence compared to its present one. Even with all these mitigating

factors, we still cannot consider with any courage the possibility of

deliberately harming a living being, however altruistic be the

motive.

 

Another significant fact strikes us on contemplation—none of our

revered Poorvacharyas has been known to have performed such Yagyas

requiring animal sacrifices. Though the blessed fathers of both Sri

Ramanuja and Swami Desikan had performed yagyas, as is evident from

their tirunAmam, we do not come across accounts of Acharyas as such

conducting Yagyas. Swami Desikan does mention Sri Peria Nambi having

performed Yagyas, without, however, any mention of their involving

sacrifices. Though they did insist upon flawless and timely

performance of vaidika karmAs and were themselves strict adherents to

the same, Poorvacharyas do not appear to have laid emphasis on Yagyas

involving sacrificial offerings of live creatures. In fact, they

appear to have felt that even if ordained by Vedas, only those karmAs

are to be observed by an aspirant for liberation, as would assist in

his ascent to Paramapadam. This is what Sri Ramanuja says in the Gita

Bhashya—“”SarvEshu cha VEdEshu brAhmaNasya vijAnata:

vaidikasya mumukshO: yadEva mOksha sAdhanam, tadEva upAdEyam,

nAnyat”. According to this definition, Yagas and Yagyas mostly

being performed with some specific prayer in mind (KAmya karmAs), do

not come under the vaidika karmas which are a must-do for PrapannAs.

Even if engaged in as a form of worshipping the Lord (Bhagavat

kainkarya roopam), there are indeed any number of ways to please and

serve the Lord, other than sacrificing innocent lives.

 

We therefore arrive at the tentative conclusion that though

sacrificing an animal as part of Yagya involves no sin to us nor any

detriment to the creature, and in fact, confers upon it the

distinction of ascent to higher worlds, it is not incumbent upon us

to perform each and every such karma prescribed by the Vedas, our

principal aim and prayer being liberation from this samsara, for

which purpose such karmas are of absolutely no assistance. Sri

Nammazhwar too perhaps hints at this when he chides people making

offerings of flesh and blood of animals to demi-gods, for attaining

various objectives-“kaLLum iraicchiyum toovEnmin”.

 

Srimate Sri LakshmINrsimha divya paduka sevaka SrivanSatakopa Sri

Narayana Yatindra Mahadesikaya nama:

Dasan, sadagopan