killing and yajna's an article

[Guest guest]

To Kill or Not to Kill by Sadagopan Iyengar

 

 

 

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

AlabhEtaagnIshOmIyam 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: