animal sacrifice

[Guest guest]

The following came from Sriram.... we had to edit out the tail part of

the full earlier message. When responding delete unwanted tail end.

......jay

--

" Sriram Popuri " <popsriram

<Ramakrishna >

Wednesday, October 01, 2003 02:28

Re: Is Animal Sacrifice Bonafide?

 

 

> Bhagavan Ramakrishna says in vachanamrita " sacrificing animals was

> done by a person in a particular state of mind only.. " ..animal

> sacrifice like all actions has to produce its results. The results

> however mainly depend on the attitude of mind with which the action

> was done. So it does not seem unreasonable that animal sacrifice

> could produce spiritual benefits if done in the correct manner. This

> knowledge seems to be lost in centuries. But more important is the

> sacrifice of the " animal " within our minds which impedes our

> spiritual growth. Going to sacrificial extremes - in a path called

> khanda-manda yoga in tantra the culmination happens when the

> practitioner actually cuts his whole body part by part and

> eventually cuts of his head as a sacrifice to the Divine Mother.

> Such dreadful practices are however not suited for the weak souls of

> modern age. Our hearts have lost such strength and minds have lost

> such subtlety to perform any such practices. But the Lord himself

> has provided a heavy discount for kali-yuga where in by merely

> chanting his name would produce the immense spiritual growth -

> " Harer Nama Harer Nama Harer Nama Kevalam Kalau Nasti Kalau Nasti

> Gatirev anyatha " - " Hari's name Hari's name Hari's Name only, in

> this modern age none other escape exists "

> Jai Shri Ramakrishna!

> Sriram.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Sriram,

 

I know animal sacrifice has been practiced in Hinduism and is practiced

today.

 

Though I respect the beliefs of others.

 

I find it difficult that there can be any desirable results in killing

animals, on the contrary the suffering of the animal is more like a curse on

us. I

cannot imagine it ever give anyone any peace of mind.

 

Vijay

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Namaste,

 

For the authentic interpretation, one can read Kanchi

Paramacharya's discourse:

 

http://kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap23.htm

 

 

Regards,

 

Sunder

 

 

 

Ramakrishna , VijayHirani99@a... wrote:

I

> cannot imagine it ever give anyone any peace of mind.

>

[Guest guest]

Hi Vijay,

Pain and Pleasure are actually subjective than

objective. This seems to be a very hard fact to

digest.I can understand the difficulty in

comprehending when one says that animal sacrifice

might produce any good!! An example could be - if

someone does wrong on me. He does accrue a sin. What

do you think is the reason for this? The most obvious

answer is " because he gave me pain " . But I think thats

a completely wrong answer. I udnerstand it as - the

pain I am suffering is because of my own ignorance and

illusion of " I am " . If I were in no such illusion of

mind no such pain can ever be felt by me. On the other

hand " he " has to bear the results of the action he did

- " not " just because of the type of action he

performed but because of the " attitude " or " state of

mind " he has performed that action. Every subject has

to bear the results of his action as long as even

particle of 'I' exists in the subject. 99% of cases

actions causing pain to others gives pain back to the

subject - why?- Because 99% cases both the " doer " and

" bearer " are in the illusion of " I " . Hence the general

law that " do not give pain for you will have the

same " . But Einstien's law is not just for physics.

Every thing/action is actually " relative " . The general

law of " give pain - recieve pain " is not true at every

time. At a certain state of mind where there is no

" attachment " to the " action " or " results " but a state

of total " disattached attention " - in this state the

ego vanishes. Any action done in that state would be a

" Nishkaama-karma " . Such actions do not inflcit any

results on the subject. That is why Krishna murdered

so many rakshashas (that also should be a sin!) and

did so huge actions in Mahabharata for which even a

100 rebirths would not suffice! - yet - he says in

Gita " I do all actions unattached so none of the

results can touch me " . So did also J.Krishnamurthy and

Shankaracharya when they say of " Observerer and

Observed " " Dik Drishya Viveka " . In such a state the

there is no " doer " of action so the sacrifice of the

animal would bear no " sin " on the doer. Yet as you

said the pain and misery of animal is so visible!!

this is because the animal is also in the illusion of

" I " and so are all the persons who " percieve " its

" pain " . So Buddha and every other saint has forbidden

such action for us - " the ego-centered mankind " .

Do enlighten me if I am incorrect.

Jai Ramakrishna.

Sriram.

 

 

--- VijayHirani99 wrote:

> Hi Sriram,

>

> I know animal sacrifice has been practiced in

> Hinduism and is practiced

> today.

>

> Though I respect the beliefs of others.

>

> I find it difficult that there can be any desirable

> results in killing

> animals, on the contrary the suffering of the

> animal is more like a curse on us. I

> cannot imagine it ever give anyone any peace of

> mind.

>

> Vijay

>

>

> [Non-text portions of this message have been

> removed]

>

>

>

 

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

[Guest guest]

--- Sriram Popuri <popsriram wrote:

> Hi Vijay,

> Pain and Pleasure are actually subjective than

> objective. This seems to be a very hard fact to

> digest.I can understand the difficulty in

> comprehending when one says that animal sacrifice

> might produce any good!! An example could be - if

> someone does wrong on me. He does accrue a sin. What

> do you think is the reason for this? The most

> obvious

> answer is " because he gave me pain " . But I think

> thats

> a completely wrong answer. I udnerstand it as - the

> pain I am suffering is because of my own ignorance

> and

> illusion of " I am " . If I were in no such illusion of

> mind no such pain can ever be felt by me. On the

> other

> hand " he " has to bear the results of the action he

> did

> - " not " just because of the type of action he

> performed but because of the " attitude " or " state of

> mind " he has performed that action. Every subject

> has

> to bear the results of his action as long as even

> particle of 'I' exists in the subject. 99% of cases

> actions causing pain to others gives pain back to

> the

> subject - why?- Because 99% cases both the " doer "

> and

> " bearer " are in the illusion of " I " . Hence the

> general

> law that " do not give pain for you will have the

> same " . But Einstien's law is not just for physics.

> Every thing/action is actually " relative " . The

> general

> law of " give pain - recieve pain " is not true at

> every

> time. At a certain state of mind where there is no

> " attachment " to the " action " or " results " but a

> state

> of total " disattached attention " - in this state the

> ego vanishes. Any action done in that state would be

> a

> " Nishkaama-karma " . Such actions do not inflcit any

> results on the subject. That is why Krishna murdered

> so many rakshashas (that also should be a sin!) and

> did so huge actions in Mahabharata for which even a

> 100 rebirths would not suffice! - yet - he says in

> Gita " I do all actions unattached so none of the

> results can touch me " . So did also J.Krishnamurthy

> and

> Shankaracharya when they say of " Observerer and

> Observed " " Dik Drishya Viveka " . In such a state the

> there is no " doer " of action so the sacrifice of the

> animal would bear no " sin " on the doer. Yet as you

> said the pain and misery of animal is so visible!!

> this is because the animal is also in the illusion

> of

> " I " and so are all the persons who " percieve " its

> " pain " . So Buddha and every other saint has

> forbidden

> such action for us - " the ego-centered mankind " .

> Do enlighten me if I am incorrect.

> Jai Ramakrishna.

> Sriram.

>

>

Dear Sir,

Your explanation seems self contradictory according

to Thakur's views.Once Thakur was asked what would

happen if an enlightened person give trouble to

others?

Ans by Thakur:An enlightened person free from the

concept of " I " ,will never trouble a jiva which is

under the ignorance of " I " .Innate non violence &

compassion is obvious in any knowledgeful soul.Hence

they can never kill a poor animal or if a man kills an

animal he can't be an enlightened soul anymore(if at

all he was, before killing it.)

In evidence to this, there is a story in Bhagavatam.

The great sage Dhurvasa, once got angry with King

Ambarisha who was a devotee of Lord Vishnu.The reason

for his angry was that Ambarisha did not wait for him

& concluded his fasting on EKADASI(only with Tulasi

leaves)as it was the right time.Hence Dhurvasa ordered

a Bhuta against Ambarisha.The moment he did that

offense against a Vishnu Bhaktha, he lost all his

enlightenment & ran for life as Vishnu Chakra was

chasing forcibly to attack him.At last he was pardoned

by Ambarisha himself.

Hence animal sacrifice is no doubt an

abominable,most cruel act that deserves intense

suffering reaction as they are cheating in the name of

 

God.Krishna supports this argument in Gita as he says

" Those who perform violent austerities actually

torture me dwelling in the body of all jivas. "

Thats why Thakur warned us like this:

Before realisation one should not say " I am Narayana

and I am doing Nishkamya Karma " ,as by that he is

verily cheating himself and others.

 

I don't mean to criticize your views, but there can be

no comprimise on truth.

Please all of you elaborate on this discussion.(I only

initiated this topic).

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

[Guest guest]

I agree with Vijay, and I will really appreciate an insight into sacrificing

animals. I feel, it is more of a ritual than a valid religious practice.

 

Thanks.

 

VijayHirani99 wrote:

Hi Sriram,

 

I know animal sacrifice has been practiced in Hinduism and is practiced

today.

 

Though I respect the beliefs of others.

 

I find it difficult that there can be any desirable results in killing

animals, on the contrary the suffering of the animal is more like a curse on

us. I

cannot imagine it ever give anyone any peace of mind.

 

Vijay

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

I am just puting forth few arguments to further the discussion on

animal sacrifice. I humbly request the views of interested list

members.

 

1) Leaving pleasure or pain aside. Even rejecting the law of

causation? Is there one simplified reason to do it? Getting spiritual

benefits is abstract for me.

 

2) There is a difference in murdering and defending Dharma. Krishna

was never murdering. Can we match Krishna's action or intention with

animal sacrifice performer? Like can I say that performer of animal

sacrifice is defending Dharma in doing so? If yes then please clarify

How?

 

3) Why the Sacrifice could not have been sacrifice of hatred, anger,

jealousy, ego.... There are so many other things to sacrifice. Or if

you are saying that the A sacrifice is done in order to subdue the

effects(hatred etc...) mentioned above then please answer How?

 

4) Considering postulate (Every thing/action is actually " relative " .

The general law of " give pain - receive pain " is not true at every

time. At a certain state of mind where there is no " attachment " to

the " action " or " results " but a state of total " detached attention " -

in this state the ego vanishes. Any action done in that state would

be a " Nishkaama-karma " ) to be true.

( A.) Can I then say Performer of sacrifice can reach such a state at

WILL. Like just before the sacrifice or during the sacrifice.

( B.) Can it then logically be infered as " already FREE " ?

( C.) If yes, In such a case what spiritual benefits he might be

considering? if no please elaborate on why?

 

5) Can we be absolutist and relativist at the same time when

explaining a phenomenon. In that case can we rationalize the theory

we are putting forth?

 

I am only in this debate from the standpoint of logic and my

understanding. I intentionally do not have any other motive.

 

best wishes

[Guest guest]

-

" skgvg " <skgvg

<Ramakrishna >

Thursday, October 09, 2003 12:02

[sri Ramakrishna] Re: animal sacrifice

 

 

> I am just puting forth few arguments to further the discussion on

> animal sacrifice. I humbly request the views of interested list

> members.

>

> 1) Leaving pleasure or pain aside. Even rejecting the law of

> causation? Is there one simplified reason to do it? Getting spiritual

> benefits is abstract for me.

 

Spirituality is abstract by definition but all practices related to spirituality

are concrete. All rituals are necessarily contextual and may be

adopted or rejected depending on the need of the individual. So there

is no need to try and find absolute answers to something that makes no

claim of being an absolute resolution.

 

> 2) There is a difference in murdering and defending Dharma. Krishna

> was never murdering. Can we match Krishna's action or intention with

> animal sacrifice performer? Like can I say that performer of animal

> sacrifice is defending Dharma in doing so? If yes then please clarify

> How?

>

Bhagavad Gita is advocating religion to be practised contextually.

If you are a monk you can turn the other cheek.. If you are a householder

you have to stand up for your rights and if necessary fight for it.

 

> 3) Why the Sacrifice could not have been sacrifice of hatred, anger,

> jealousy, ego.... There are so many other things to sacrifice. Or if

> you are saying that the A sacrifice is done in order to subdue the

> effects(hatred etc...) mentioned above then please answer How?

>

This is a perfect example of 'contextual practices' changing with the needs

of the individual and society. All recent Acharyas have displaced animal

sacrifice

with other forms of sacrifice. Hope this helps.

 

jay

Vivekananda Centre London

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Dear Moderator - I have tried to compress my reply but

it still remains long. This the best I could edit to

in order to maintain the strength of the message.

I hope it does not become a problem.

---------------------

Reply message to Mr. K.S.krishna moorthy on his

message for Animal sacrifice.

Dear Mr.Moorthy,

You speak of no compromise on " Truth " . But what about

our " perception " of " Truth " . I guess its always a

compromise unfortunately! why? because our

understanding of truth is distorted and coloured when

we percieve it through our emotions and beliefs we

hold on! Can we shed them and then try to understand

this concept of animal sacrifice ? I would like to

give an analogy say of a bunch of apples. There can be

1 or 2 apples or zero apples but how can there be -1

or -2 apples ? So do the negative numbers not exist ?

It is the very basis of all technological wonders we

have achieved. Of course negativity of numbers cannot

be percieved in our usual/worldy understanding of

mathematics. In the very same way an action can yield

bad results (pain- analogous to positive number) or

zero results (Nishkama karma- analogous to number

zero) or even benefitial results ( analogous to

negative numbers) depending upon the state of mind of

the doer. That is why Shri Ramakrishna says " Animal

sacrifice was only done by a person in a particular

state of mind " (Shri Ramakrishna Vachanamrita). Our

liking or disliking should not cloud the understanding

of any concept just because it is useless for our

purpose. Any concept/ritual from vedas is a truly

realisable " knowledge " " vidya " - saraswati herself is

manifested as vedas - have no doubts dear Sir. Our

ancestors were no dumb meat enjoying fools like those

of present world but were " Seers " " Rishis " and true

scientists and seekers of TRUTH. And they found

various ways to grow gradually spiritually and realise

it. Amazingly, the concept of animal sacrifice is not

only found in our vedas but in almost every religion

you study!! So is that Islam, Christianity and every

other religion including our own sacred Vedas - all -

incorrect when they talk about aninmal sacrifice??? -

just because the " WISE " people like us " feel " an

emotion of pain on seeing an animal being cut?? It is

gruesome??- ofcourse! because we have weak hearts and

weak minds and the very words " blood " " pain " " death "

shrivels our being and our very perception is clouded

by our " emotions " which we proudly brand within our

minds as this is " Compassion " of " Buddha " and keep

thinking that we are spiritually progressing!?

Majority may say it is compassion but I understand it

as ignorance. Do we mean that the Vedic Seers were

devoid of Compassion because they did animal

sacrifice?. Lets think about suicide - its an

agreeable sin - but what about the suicide of the

person in the agony of seeking the vision of lord? Was

it gruesome that Shri Ramakrishna was about to cut his

head with the sword of Mother Kali and sacrifice the

sacred human body for her divine vision? See the same

action - but - a totally different attitude brings a

totally different result- contradictory is it not?!!

If such actions can produce spiritual benefits instead

of sin just because of the " attitude " of the " doer "

why should one close ones eyes while understanding the

ritual of animal sacrifice and that too mentioned by

our sacred vedas? By saying this do I mean to say that

we should all begin sacrificing animals - a big " NO " .

If we do that with our ignorant minds we will

defintily sin - no doubts!! But why should the

" concept " be branded " incorrect " ? because " WE THE

WISE " cannot see an animal in the vedic ritual being

cut and bleed and shriek in pain ? But Dear Sir so are

our " poor " animals shrieking when being " sacrificed "

all over the world - and that too for palatial

enjoyment - contrary for what Vedas prescribe.

Bhagawan Ramakrishna rightly said " Man's prana is

annagata in kaliyuga " and so one cannot do the

incredible rituals of the vedas in right manner

because we cannot understand it. It is my sincere

suggestion to please do not try to approach vedas as

just another philosphical book where conclusions can

be met through rationality - here it is more through

experience and to do so one does will need to shed

aside all weakness in our hearts!(naayamatama

balahinena labhayah - " the Atman is not realised by

the weak " ). Otherwise Vedas can be assumed to be just

another Penguin or McMillan book read for a thoughtful

liesure.

Jai Shri ramakrishna!

Sriram.

" Asatoma sat gamaya "

" tamasoma jyotirgamaya "

" mrityorma amritangamaya "

 

 

 

The New with improved product search

 

[Guest guest]

Hi Sriram,

You have some valid arguments about whether the state of mind

is actually attached to the sacrifice.

 

There are animal sacrifices in the vedas, like the horse

sacrifice. I for one do not believe that our anscestors were vegetarian.

No doubt Patanjali himself said vegetarianism is necessary for meditation

in ancient times.

 

In my village in India about 50 years ago, many of the lower

caste hindus ate meat during lean times. Even the farmers were struggling

to have enough food. Pest, drought would destroy entire harvest.

 

With technology and our understanding of nature we have been able to

have unprecendented food supplies. Non of the lower caste eat meat now.

 

No doubt, our ancestors were in a similar predicament. For all we know

only a very few people could have been vegetarian in the ancient times.

 

The Vedas are very inspiring to me but many thing in there were for a

different

time and valid in their context.

 

We have to better our ancestors and ensure that our children better us ...

 

Vijay

 

Dear Mr.Moorthy,

You speak of no compromise on " Truth " . But what about

our " perception " of " Truth " .

 

 

 

 

[Guest guest]

Reply to Shri Sriram Popuri.

 

Dear Sir,

I hope arguing with the knower enhances our

comphrehension of spiritual science.I take the liberty

as your brother & continue my clarifications.

In vedas there are verses seeming to be supporting

some concepts.But the question is whether we rigthly

interpret or not?

Lord Krishna asked Gokulam people to stop worshipping

devas such as Indra & thus followed Govardana Giri

Incident.(But Indra worship is prescribed in karma

kanda).

Even atharvana veda is part of vedas but so much

tantric practices are mentioned there which aim at

harming others.Thats why we say Tri

Vedam(Rig,Yajur,Sama only).

We have every right to sacrifice our body before

Mother Kali but not others.We need not be so concerned

about that animal's spiritual progress(many say the

animal being sacrified get some higher species birth.)

When contraversy appears in interpreting vedas we must

ask our own conscience & follow the path of great

acharyas.

Adi Shankaracharya stopped the animal sacrifice done

by fierce KAPALIKAS at Kamakshi temple,Kanchipuram.

Lord Caitanya Mahaprabhu,63 Nayanmars(Tamil

Shaivists),

Madhvacharya,Ramanujacharya,Bhaskaracharya(one who

wrote commentary on Lalitha Sahasranama) all strictly

condemned animal sacrifice.

The real interpretation of Ashwamedha,Ajamedha

sacrifice was once given in detail by KALYAN KALPATHRU

a Kerala magazine.(It appeared some 20 years ago I

hope).The information was found in Voice Of God by

Jagadguru Chandrasekarendra Saraswati(the famous

Acharya of Adi Shankara Guru Parampara,Kanchipuram).

 

Sarvam Vasudeva Mayam Jaghat.

Jay Shri Ramakrishnaya Avatara Varishtine!!!!

 

 

 

 

 

The New with improved product search