On Vedic Ritual, Animal Sacrifice.

December 29, 2009

Pranams.

What is immoral or unethical can only be determined based on the authority of

the VedAs. Humans with our limited scope of vision can never be in a position to

decide what is absolute dharma and what is absolute adharma - hence the endless

ethical debates with regards to capital punishment and the like. Some authority

that transcends human authorship alone can be a guide for do's and dont's.

It is amusing to hear you talk about Buddhism - Buddha did not prohibit any kind

of meat-eating and His own demise was on account of consuming infected pork. An

examination of food practices in Buddhist societies of South East Asia, Sri

Lanka, etc would be particularly illuminating to you in this regard.

Man is driven by his constituents and what man consumes in turn modifies his

constitients in a beginingless karmic cycle. Recognition of this Universal Order

where nothing is rejected but everything assimilated into a One that is beyond

and yet encompassing of dharma and adharma, is the true essence of Hinduism.

I would encourage anyone interested in this subject to read this excerpt from

the Sage of Kanchi's Hindu Dharma.

Is Sacrificial Killing Justified?

(HinduDharma: The Vedas)

A yaga or sacrifice takes shape with the chanting of the mantras, the invoking

of the deity and the offering of havis (oblation). The mantras are chanted

(orally) and the deity is meditated upon (mentally). The most important material

required for homa is the havis offered in the sacrificial fire-- in this " work "

the body is involved. So, altogether, in a sacrificial offering mind, speech and

body (mano-vak-kaya) are brought together.

Ghee (clarified butter) is an important ingredient of the oblation. While ghee

by itself is offered as an oblation, it is also used to purify other sacrificial

materials - in fact this is obligatory. In a number of sacrifices the vapa(fat

or marrow) of animals is offered.

Is the performance of a sacrifice sinful, or is it meritorius? Or is it both?

Madvacharya was against the killing of any pasu for a sacrifice. In his

compassion he said that a substitute for the vapa must be made with flour and

offered in the fire. ( " Pasu " does not necessarily mean a cow. In Sanskrit any

animal is called a " pasu " . )

In his Brahmasutra, Vyasa has expounded the nature of the Atman as found

expressed in the Upanishads which constitute the jnanakanda of the Vedas. The

actual conduct of sacrifices is dealt with in the Purvamimamsa which is the

karmakanda of the Vedas. The true purpose of sacrifices is explained in the

Uttaramimamsa, that is the jnanakanda. What is this purposse or goal? It is the

cleansing of the consciousness and such cleansing is essential to lead a man to

the path of jnana.

The Brahmasutra says: " Asuddhamiti cen na sabdat " . The performance of sacrifices

is based on scriptural authority and it is part of the quest for Self

realisation. So how can it be called an impure act? How do we determine whether

or not an object or an act is impure or whether it is good or bad? We do so by

judging it according to the authority of of the sastras. Vyasa goes on to state

in his Brahmasutra that animal sacrifice is not sinful since the act is

permeated by the sound of the Vedas. What is pure or impure is to be known by

the authority provided by the Vedas or rather their sound called Sabdapramana.

If sacrifices were impure acts according to the Vedas, they would not have

accepted them as part of the Atmic quest. Even if the sacrificial animal is made

of flour (the substitute according to Madhvacharya) it is imbued with life by

the chanting of the Vedic mantras. Would it not then be like a living animal and

would not offering it in a

sacrifice be taken as an act of violence?

Tiruvalluvar says in his Tirukkural that not to kill an animal and eat it is

better than performing a thousand sacrifices in which the oblation is consigned

to the fire. You should not take this to mean that the poet speaks ill of

sacrifices.

What is in accordance or in pursuance of dharma must be practised howsoever or

whatsoever it be. Here questions of violence must be disregarded. The Tirukkural

says that it is better not to kill an animal than perform a thousand sacrifices.

From this statement it is made out that Tiruvalluvar condemns sacrifices.

According to Manu himself conducting one asvamedha (horse sacrifice) is superior

to performing a thousand other sacrifices. At the same time, he declares that

higher than a thousand horse sacrifices is the fact of one truth. If we say that

one thing is better than another, the implication is that both are good. If the

performance of a sacrifice were sinful, would it be claimed that one meritorious

act is superior to a thousand sinful deeds? You may state that fasting on one

Sivaratri is superior to fasting on a hundred Ekadasis. But would you say that

the same is better than running a hundred butcheries? When you remark that " this

rite is better

than that rite or another " , it means that the comparison is among two or more

meritorious observances.

In the concluding passage of the Chandogya Upanishad whwre ahimsa or

non-violence is extolled you find these words, " Anyatra tirthebhyah " . It means

ahimsa must be practised except with regard to Vedic rites.

Considerations of violence have no place in sacrifices and the conduct of war.

If the ideal of non-violence were superior to the performance of sacrifices, it

would mean that " sacrifices are good but non-violence is better " . The

performance of a thousand sacrifices must be spoken of highly but the practice

of non-violence is to be regarded as even higher: It is in this sense that the

Kural stanza concerning sacrifices is to be interpreted. We must not also forget

that it occurs in the section on renunciation. What the poet want to convey is

that a sanyasin does better by abstaining from killing than a householder does

by conducting a thousand sacrifices. According to the sastras also a sanyasin

has no right to perform sacrifices.

There are several types of sacrifices. I shall speak about them later when I

deal with " Kalpa " (an Anga or limb of the Vedas) aaand " Grihasthasrama " (the

stage of the householder). What I wish to state here is that animals are not

killed in all sacrifices. There are a number of yagnas in which only ghee (ajya)

is offered in the fire. In some, havisyanna (rice mixed with ghee) is offered

and in some the cooked grains called " caru " or " purodasa " , a kind of baked cake.

In agnihotri milk is poured into the fire; in aupasana unbroken rice grains

(aksata) are used; and in samidadhana the sticks of the palasa (flame of the

forest). In sacrifices in which the vapa of animals is offered, only a tiny bit

of the remains of the burnt offering is partaken of - and of course in the form

of prasada.

One is enjoined to perform twenty-one sacrifices. These are of three

types:pakayajna, haviryajna and somayajna. In each category there are seven

subdivisions. In all the seven pakayajnas as well as in the first five

haviryajnas there is no animal sacrifice. It is only from the sixth haviryajna

onwards (it is called " nirudhapasubandha " ) that animals are sacrificed.

" Brahmins sacrificed herds and herds of animals and gorged themselves on their

meat. The Buddha saved such herds when they were being taken to the sacrificial

altar, " we often read such accounts in books. To tell the truth, there is no

sacrifice in which a large number of animals are killed. For vajapeya which is

the highest type of yajna performed by Brahmins, only twenty-three animals are

mentioned. For asvamedha (horse sacrifice), the biggest of the sacrifices

conducted by imperial rulers, one hundred animals are mentioned.

It is totally false to state that Brahmins performed sacrifices only to satisfy

their appetite for meat and that the talk of pleasing the deities was only a

pretext. There are rules regarding the meat to be carved out from a sacrificial

animal, the part of the body from which it is to be taken and the quantity each

rtvik can partake of as prasada (idavatarana). This is not more than the size of

a pigeon-pea and it is to be swallowed without anything added to taste. There

may be various reasons for you to attack the system of sacrifices but it would

be preposterous to do so on the score that Brahmins practised deception by

making them a pretext to eat meat.

Nowadays a large number of animals are slaughtered in the laboratories as

guinea-pigs. Animal sacrifices must be regarded as a little hurt caused in the

cause of a great ideal, the welfare of mankind. As a matter of fact there is no

hurt caused since the animal sacrificed attains to an elevated state.

There is another falsehood spread these days, that Brahmins performed the

somayajnas only as a pretext to drink somarasa (the essence of the soma plant).

Those who propagate this lie add that drinking somarasa is akin to imbibing

liquor or wine. As a matter of fact somarasa is not an intoxicating drink. There

is a reference in the Vedas to Indra killing his foe when he was " intoxicated "

with somarasa. People who spread the above falsehoods have recourse to "

arthavada " and base their perverse views on this passage.

The principle on which the physiology of deities is based is superior to that of

humans. That apart, to say that the priests drank bottle after bottle of

somarasa or pot after pot is to betray gross ignorance of the Vedic dharma. The

soma plant is pounded and crushed in a small mortar called " graha " . There are

rules with regard to the quantity of essence to be offered to the gods. The

small portion that remains after the oblation has been made, " huta-sesa " , which

is drunk drop by drop, does not add up to more than an ounce. No one has been

knocked out by such drinking. They say that somarasa is not very palatable. .

The preposterous suggestion is made that somarasa was the coffee of those times.

There are Vedic mantras which speak about the joy aroused by drinking it. This

has been misinterpreted. While coffee is injurious to the mind, somarasa

cleanses it. It is absurd to equate the two. The soma plant was available in

plenty in ancient times. Now it is becoming more and more scarce: this indeed is

in keeping with the decline of Vedic dharma. In recent years, the Raja of

Kollengode made it a point to supply the soma plant for the soma sacrifice

wherever it was held.

An argument runs thus: In the eons gone by mankind possessed high ideals and

noble character. Men could sacrifice animals for the well-being of the world

because they had great affection in their hearts and were selfless. They offered

even cows and horses in sacrifice and had meat for sraddha. As householders, in

their middle years, they followed the karmamarga (the path of works) and

performed rites to please the deities for the good of the world. But, in doing

so, they desired no rewards. Later, they renounced all works, all puja, all

observances, to become sannyasins delighting themselves in their Atman. They

were men of such refinement and noble character that, if their brother, a king,

died heirless they begot a son by his wife without any passion in their hearts

and without a bit detracting from their brahmacharya. Their only motive was that

the kingdom should not be plunged in anarchy for want of an heir to the throne.

In our own Kali age we do not have such men who are desireless in their actions,

who can subdue their minds and give up all works to become ascetics and who will

remain chaste at heart even in the company of women. So it is contended that the

following are to be eschewed in the Kali age: horse and cow sacrifices, meat in

the sraddha ceremony, sannyasa, begetting a son by the husband's brother. As

authority we have the following verse:

Asvalambham gavalambham sanyasam palapatrikam

Devarena sutotpattim kalau panca vivarjayet

According to one view " asvalambham " in this verse should be substituted with

" agniyadhanam " . If you accept this version it would mean that even those

sacrifices in which animals are not killed should not be performed. In other

words it would mean a total prohibition of all sacrifices. The very first in the

haviryajna category is agniyadhana. If that were to be prohibited it would mean

that, apart from small sacrifices called " pakayajnas " , no yajna can be

performed.

According to great men such a view is wrong. Sankara Bhagavatpada, whose mission

in life was the re-establishment of Vedic dharma, did not stop with the

admonishment that Vedas must be chanted every day ( " Vedo nityam adhiyatam " ). He

insisted that rites imposed on us by the Vedas must be performed: " " Taduditam

karma svanusthiyatam. " Of Vedic rites, sacrifices occupy the foremost place. If

they are to be eschewed what other Vedic rites are we to perform? It may be that

certain types of sacrifices need not be gone through in the age of Kali.

If, according to the verse, agniyadhana is interdicted, and no big sacrifice is

to be performed in the age of Kali, why should gavalambha (cow sacrifice) have

been mentioned in the prohibited category? If agniyadhana is not permissible, it

goes without saying that gavalambha also is prohibited. So, apart from certain

types, all sacrifices are to be performed at all times.

According to another verse quoted from the Dharmasastra, so long as the

varnasrama system is followed in the age of Kali, in however small a measure,

and so long as the sound of the Vedas pervades the air, works like agniyadhana

must be performed and the sannyasasrama followed, the stage of life in which

there is no karma. The prohibition in Kali applies to certain types of animal

sacrifices, meat in sraddha ceremonies and begetting a son by the husband's

brother.

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

--- On Tue, 12/29/09, mrfluffypuff <mrfluffypuff wrote:

> <<This brings me to my second area of discussion for today. Animal sacrifice

> in the Veda. It was literally performed by the brahmin's in those time

> periods, and still is today by a minority in India. However, when one looks

> at the Veda's as Allegory, one finds the Animal sacrifices to be symbolic of

> sacrificing the animalistic aspects most of us carry with us.>>

>

> Response: The symbolism of sacrifice has very little to do with sacrificing

> of " animalistic aspects " . It is part of a different understanding of the

> cosmos, centred around the interdependence of all life forms and the

> self-sustaining cycle of birth, death and re-birth. The ancients held

> considered all actions to be a kind of sacrifice, the universe itself is the

> product of a cosmic sacrifice, and so forth. The divinity is both the eater

> and the eaten.

If I ever find conclusive evidence that the original intent of the rishis was

literal animal sacrifices I will personally drop the vedas and any notion of

Hinduism as my guide and move on to Jainism or Buddhism, as they absolutely

reject such things as immoral, as do I.

December 30, 2009

I guess hinduism/Vedanta is not for me. Im sure I

offended some peoples beliefs, for that I do sincerely apologize. I wont

post anymore. And will leave this group in a couple of days.

praNAms Sri Ron prabhuji

Hare Krishna

I really pity you for hastening your

conclusion on hindu dharma. I am sure one day you would realize that

hindu dharma (rather sanAtana dharma) is NOT all about mere animal sacrifices!!

Sofar, what you have seen, read & heard is only one side of my

dharma!! which you being a mleccha (no offence is meant here pls.)

can easily ignore & concentrate on the other sublime & more important

part, i.e. vedAnta which is free from all these ritualistic obligations

& which is OPEN for ONE & ALLl !! When you realize this truth

one fine day, I hope you would come back prabhuji...and I am sure,

my dharma devata would always be ready to receive you with

her compassionate heart...Till then good bye prabhuji...May the almighty

bless you in your spiritual quest.

Hari Hari Hari Bol!!!

bhaskar

December 30, 2009

Dear Shri Shyamji:

Dandavat pranams!!!

Can you enlighten us as to where in our current times, based upon the authority of the VedAs, animal sacrifice is performed as part of rituals?

Respectfully,

Radhe

-

Shyam

advaitin

Tuesday, December 29, 2009 4:22 PM

Re: Re: On Vedic Ritual, Animal Sacrifice.

Pranams.What is immoral or unethical can only be determined based on the authority of the VedAs. Humans with our limited scope of vision can never be in a position to decide what is absolute dharma and what is absolute adharma - hence the endless ethical debates with regards to capital punishment and the like. Some authority that transcends human authorship alone can be a guide for do's and dont's.

January 4, 2010

--- On Tue, 12/29/09, mrfluffypuff <mrfluffypuff wrote:"The christian bible and the muslims Koran justifies violence by its scriptures as well. How absurd it is indeed for one to say that violence is justified because such and such a god or such and such a book says so! This is the problem in religion!"

Dear Shri Ron

I am not sure if you have already changed channels on your spirituality remote . At the very outset let me assure you that few here, if any, would bear any ill-will towards you on account of your comments - sanatana dharma is after all for mature audiences only. Let me also applaud wholeheartedly your views about animal killing.

Let me address a couple of points here for the benefit of any interested reader:

Every religion has a "bible" - Buddhism may have decried the Vedas as the authority, but now have their own set of texts which serve as a repository of the knowledge as imparted by the Buddha, and over interpretations of which schools of Buddhism emerge and so on and so forth. All the major religions of the world have complete validity for their followers - behaviors that their followers adopt is based on the latters' human tendencies and not on anything that is written or not written in the religious works. Whatever religion/region a person finds himself in is perhaps the best that the Supreme Lord has bequeathed as being the most likely to be of benefit for his or her spiritual progress. And a faithful, discplined, religious life - filled with faith and devotion to the precepts of that religion - is certain to get any sincere devotee to the thresholds of communion with the Lord. Changing or

converting into a different religion does not improve anyone's chances of gaining such communion. Every religion is grounded in strong ethical principles - a Mother Theresa does not need to convert into an Hindu to embrace karmayoga nor does a Martin Luther King convert into Buddhism to embrace ahimsa as a vehicle of change. Be it Francis of Assisi or Teresa of Avila, or Moinuddin of Chisti, there are hundreds of examples of Realized Masters in every religion who have forever preached the message of Universal Oneness and Love to anyone who cared to listen. And religion is never the problem - it is religion alone that lays norms that serve to curb man's innate negative tendencies and forces him to conform to certain basic principles of conduct and curb his instinctual tendencies for a licentious lifestyle. Asking a average common man to consume the diet of Advaita without first gaining some degree of maturity by a disciplinary

lifestyle is absurd, and a self-imposed disciplinary lifestyle is difficult for any person to adopt unless so guided by his Faith. And one man's faith is another man's superstition - which is why comparing and contrasting religions is an incorrect and ill-advised exercise.

What determines how you or any given person views vegetariasism, or the killing of animals in general, is dependent on who the person is - more specifically - what is the person constitutionally - in HInduism this is then said to be dependent or based on his gunas (no accurate English translation for this term). It is recognized that every human being is different, and that broadly humans fall into four distinct characteristics based on their guna compositions. The diet a person consumes in turn also influences his personality - diets that are sattvic promote more characteristics of sattva guna. And therefore, the do's and dont's, the allowances and prohibitions, the code of conduct that is laid our is also different for different categories. A warrior is called upon to defend his countty. He needs to be fierce, ruthless, brave and strong. What you dont want your warrior to be is kind, meek, humble and

contemplative. So it is incorrect to prohibit meat-eating for him. On the other hand, a person devoted to learning the scriptures and in turn imparting that knowledge has to be steeped in those very qualities. Consumption of foods that promote vigor and valor may in turn alter his personality in undesirable ways.

Let us look at this in another way - a butcher who uses a knife to kill animals every day and a surgeon who uses a knife and saves lives every day - which of these is spiritually a more elevated person? The answer is there is insufficient information. If the butcher is a pious individual, and is doing his job in a spirit of dedication to the Lord, and to fulfil his duty of ensuring food and sustenance for his family and lets say the surgeon is trying to accomplish as many surgeries in a day so he can zip around in a new Porsche the answer becomes quite obvious - doesnt it?. Similarly if the soldier is willing to put his country before his self, while the brahmin's heart is filled with anger and hatred, then their respective dietary habits do not alter their respective stations of spiritual ascent.

It is wonderful to harbor a distaste for killing of animals, it is a blessing to have a heart that feels and empathizes with the pain of a helpless animal and considers it abhorrent to slay them for ANY reason - however it does not make one more pious than another individual whose views differ. And religion needs to cater to all individuals - so that none is shunned no matter what his stage of development and his constitutional traits. Those individuals who harbor tamasic traits, cannot be considered spiritual or religious outcastes. They need to be accomodated and embraced - this is the birth that was accorded to them by the Order, this is the upbringing that was fated for them - their beliefs and value systems are a product of that - if you or me had that same birth and that same environment and that same upbringing we would harbor very similar beliefs and practices. So every strata of society in Hinduisum is embraced,

and their respective code of conduct, their respective rituals, their respective prohibitions meticulously laid out. As an individual progresses along his karmic path, his own faith and actions are blessed with the rewards of a more sattvic outlook and constitution which in turn promote his own well-being and growth spiritually not only in this birth but in those to come as well.

My sincere unsolicited advice to anyone would be to not go window-shopping with religions - the "idiot's guides to" various religions are precisely what their names suggest. Understanding a religion takes a lifetime, at least one if not more. And the one particular characteristic of Hinduism is its incredible complexity.

My very best wishes to you.

Hari OM

Shri Gurubhyoh namah

Shyam

--- On Tue, 12/29/09, mrfluffypuff <mrfluffypuff wrote:

mrfluffypuff <mrfluffypuff Re: On Vedic Ritual, Animal Sacrifice.advaitin Date: Tuesday, December 29, 2009, 9:39 PM