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