Is Sacrificial Killing Justified?

[jijaji]

Is Sacrificial Killing Justified?

(HinduDharma: The Vedas)

 

From the discourses of His Holiness Sri Sri Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi MahaSwamiji

 

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 akayajna, 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.

 

[jijaji]

Originally posted by jijaji:

Is Sacrificial Killing Justified?

 

 

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.

This is cool as well!

 

 

 

[theist]

This swami is not convincing to me.He assumes the Bramin's actually followed the rules and intent of the vedic text.That is the very thing some say they were not doing.

 

The author also condones animal experimentation in today's science labs.he says "they will attain to an elevated state," having been "sacrificed for a great ideal, the wefare of mankind."

 

Is he still on Earth?If so I'm going to report him to PETA.

 

How about this cure for dropsy from the SB?

 

Therafter, the famous King Hariscandra, one of the exalted persons in history, performed grand sacrifices by sacrificing a man and pleased all the demigods.In this way his dropsy created by Varuna was cured.SB 9.7.21

 

How could this ghastly act please the demigods?

 

[This message has been edited by theist (edited 04-14-2002).]

[jijaji]

I guess you don't know who His Holiness Sri Sri Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi MahaSwamiji was?

 

interesting responce though!

 

[theist]

Originally posted by jijaji:

I guess you don't know who His Holiness Sri Sri Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi MahaSwamiji was?

 

interesting responce though!

 

You are correct, I don't know who he was.Perhaps you could say something about him if you like.But I still don't accept his position.

 

What about the man-animal sacrifices mentioned in SB 9.7?Not indicative of an advanced civilisation in my mind.

 

 

[jijaji]

Purusha-Medha Yagna

 

As described in Vedic literature during the Purusha Medha Yaqna the captured men were not to be killed, they were only to be tied to a stake and a piece of burning wood was to be waved before them and they were then set to work.

 

confused..?

 

 

[theist]

confused? perpetualy it seems.

 

The context in SB 9.7 is different.Hariscandra was trying to have a son and was frustrated in his attempts.So on the advice from Narada he approached Varuna.He begged a son from Varuna with the promise that that child would be sacrificed to Varuna.He then bargins for time with Varuna.

Varuna waited and in the mean time the son Rohita grew and acquired understanding that his father intended to offer him in sacrifice.So to save himself from death he booked it to the forest.

 

Where is the sacrifice instructions that you spoke of to be found?I know they kept slaves but this human sacrifice thing is just really creepy.

 

theist

 

[This message has been edited by theist (edited 04-14-2002).]

[jijaji]

I have gone back and forth on the animal/human sacrifice as well myself as you know...and have tried to get as much objective info as possible. It seems much of the information out there is from anti-hindu groups who post exaggerated material of which I'm just plain unsure of its authenticity

The Swami here does give another persective which does not seem to smear anyone at least.

The postings you see on human sacrifice in the Vedas out there are by the same groups that post stories of Queens and horses and all kinds of bizarre stuff..

 

I question it's authenticity.

 

One thing more..

I am more like an advaitavadin in that I do not take all the Puranas as seriously or literally as I once did.

 

I'll catch hell for that I bet..

 

[bhaktajoy]

Although this human sacrifice thing is creepy it still dosen't bother me.First class knowledge is there...simply love Krishna

 

joy

 

 

[gHari]

Prabhupada said that in Kali Yuga no one is qualified to pronounce the appropriate hymns properly to perform these sacrifices.

[jijaji]

I'm sure he was right..!

 

 

[theist]

jijaji said:One thing more..

I am more like an advaitavadin in that I do not take all the Puranas as seriously or literally as I once did.

 

I am forever a personalist, but I am with you on the Puranas.The problem is reality in this material dream can be stranger than fiction, so what is allegory and what is history may not always be clear.

 

Bhaktajoy said:Although this human sacrifice thing is creepy it still dosen't bother me.First class knowledge is there...simply love Krishna

 

I agree.Like Prabhupada said"Take the essence".

[xxvvii]

Animal/human sacrifice shouldn't be supported. But tradition can't be changed in a night & Aryan, as a nomadic race, lives on livestocks. Don't attach to vegetarianism though it's better.

 

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by xxvvii:

Animal/human sacrifice shouldn't be supported. But tradition can't be changed in a night & Aryan, as a nomadic race, lives on livestocks. Don't attach to vegetarianism though it's better.

You are just parroting eurocentric notions on nomadic Aryans. There is no mention of meat-eating in the vedas - not in Rk veda atleast.

 

 

[shvu]

 

You are just parroting eurocentric notions on nomadic Aryans. There is no mention of meat-eating in the vedas - not in Rk veda atleast.

I have heard from more than one source that Yaajnavalkya mentions meat-eating in the Yajur (Shatapatha?). Also from the Yajur, the Brhadaaranyaka Upanishad(6.4.18) has a reference to beef eating. I checked Shankara's commmentary on this verse and he interprets this verse to mean meat-eating.

 

Cheers

 

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by shvu:

I have heard from more than one source that Yaajnavalkya mentions meat-eating in the Yajur (Shatapatha?). Also from the Yajur, the Brhadaaranyaka Upanishad(6.4.18) has a reference to beef eating. I checked Shankara's commmentary on this verse and he interprets this verse to mean meat-eating.

 

Cheers

Chances are that you are referring to Sankara's Bhasyam as translated by Ramakrishna Mutt. Please correct me if I am wrong. RKM folks eat meat and also liberally use Max Mueller's translation, even in Sankara's commentary. Atleast I wouldn't consider their work as bonafide. I remember havning read Kanchi Paramacarya staing that there is no mention of meat-eating in BU.

 

There was also a discussion [i will try to get the url], where a vedic scholar from Greece and another from BHU literally tore Witzel to pieces when he made the same claim. They quoted from the same BU where it says that Surya consumes forests and asked Witzel if it means that Surya devoured trees. They gave atleast 12 examples and clearly drove home the point that the language was metaphorical and not literal. They also gave a verse from BU that condemns meat-eating, explicitly.

 

Witzel had no answer except resorting to his usual stance that for 120 years Germans have translated that way.

[shvu]

Chances are that you are referring to Sankara's Bhasyam as translated by Ramakrishna Mutt. Please correct me if I am wrong. RKM folks eat meat and also liberally use Max Mueller's translation, even in Sankara's commentary. Atleast I wouldn't consider their work as bonafide. I remember havning read Kanchi Paramacarya staing that there is no mention of meat-eating in BU.

The translation I use is by Maadhavaananda of the RK Math. The commentary looks fine to me. However I will try to verify this from alternate sources.

 

The problem I have is vegetarians are also biased and tend to translate everything from a vegetarian perspective. For instance, remember the MaaMsa and Madhu translation posted in ths forum a while back? I found it more reasonable to accept that Rama, a kshatriya was not consuming meat and liqor while living in the forest. However, the translation posted was, Rama was not eating fruits and honey while living in the forest, which I feel is very unlikely.

 

Thanks

 

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by shvu:

The search feature is real cool.

 

http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000492-2.html

 

There was a person named LakSri who used to post for sometime then. Search for LakSri's first post on this page.

 

Cheers

Thanks Shvu. Even I find that Laksri's interpretation is correct. Here are my reasons. In Valmiki Ramayana, there are verses that tell that meat-eating is abominable. I can't recall the verses off-hand and can search the book. Also, when Guha meets Rama, the conversation [don't recall who speaks] is about what one can eat during vanavasa. The list includes roots, herbs and milk. It doesn't include fruits, meat and liquor. Also, when Sita wants the golden deer, she tells Rama that if He can't catch it alive, he should kill it, so that the skin can be used for meditation. Again there is no mention of eating its meat.

 

Also I am wondering as to where you came across the use of the word "madhu" to mean liquor. As far as I am aware, it is used to signify sweets and honey. Perhaps, you are thinking of the Tamil usage.

[shvu]

 

Yes, a Vegetarian translation makes more sense when we look at the big picture. btw, didn't Shabari offer him a half-eaten fruit? Madhu in sanskrit also means "a sweet intoxicating drink" and "Soma juice".

 

Cheers

 

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by shvu:

Yes, a Vegetarian translation makes more sense when we look at the big picture. btw, didn't Shabari offer him a half-eaten fruit? Madhu in sanskrit also means "a sweet intoxicating drink" and "Soma juice".

 

Cheers

I thought that Shabari offered a dry nut, but I need to check that. Madhu certainly means "a sweet drink [made from fruits]", but where have you come across "a sweet intoxicating drink"? Also where does madhu mean "soma"? I am going over Sri Aurobindo's commentary on Rk veda and Soma is not even a drink. I have gone over Thirumanthiram 3 times, and it also refers to Soma as the thrid eye. I will try going over Sayanacarya's commentary when I get time and confirm if it refers to soma as a drink. If it doesn't then, it is a recent innovation.

 

 

[shvu]

 

Apte's sanskrit dictionary. I can get the full list of meanings for Madhu when I get home. I think it is also available online somewhere. I will also check up Soma tonight.

 

Cheers

 

[karthik_v]

Originally posted by shvu:

The translation I use is by Maadhavaananda of the RK Math. The commentary looks fine to me. However I will try to verify this from alternate sources.

 

The problem I have is vegetarians are also biased and tend to translate everything from a vegetarian perspective. For instance, remember the MaaMsa and Madhu translation posted in ths forum a while back? I found it more reasonable to accept that Rama, a kshatriya was not consuming meat and liqor while living in the forest. However, the translation posted was, Rama was not eating fruits and honey while living in the forest, which I feel is very unlikely.

 

Thanks

Shvu, it is possible that vegetarians may be biased too at times. So, what we need to do is to go by the scriptures themselves and not speculate. I feel that most eurocentric authors speculate, often in an untenable way. Also, what the traditional commentaries say carries weight.

 

I think that I missed out on the debate on Maamsa and madhu. Can you please point me to that thread. I read through the Gita press version of Valmiki Ramayana and a couple of English translations as well. I didn't come across even one verse that suggested that Rama ever ate meat or missed eating that while in the forest. If you have any specific verse, I would like to hear.

[shvu]

 

The search feature is real cool.

 

http://www.indiadivine.com/ubb/Forum1/HTML/000492-2.html

 

There was a person named LakSri who used to post for sometime then. Search for LakSri's first post on this page.

 

Cheers

 

[shvu]

 

According to Apte, Madhu has a number of meanings including Soma juice, Wine and Spiritous liquor. Soma has many meanings and the common meaning is "Juice of a plant". No mention of intoxication here.

 

Cheers

 

[Avinash]

I knew another meaning: - "honey".