Animal Sacrifice in the Veda-s?

[Jaskaran Singh]

When going through a Veganism thread in the Hinduism forum, I came across the following post which I couldn't quite understand, so rather than necropost on that thread, I thought I might as well start a new thread:

Namaste, Draka:

Good to see you asking notable questions in the HinduDIR. I hope I can be of some assistance:

According to the Shri Shruti Rig Veda (which is the foremost and highest authority of all Hindu scriptures, the scripture that overrides every other Hindu scripture there is, the very scripture that has precedence above all other Hindu scriptures, the most high of all Hindu scriptures, the highest of the highest, the most important, the most powerful of all the Hindu scriptures, the most authoritative of all the Hindu scriptures, the creme de la creme, etc. etc. etc.) ....

....The milk-giving cow (the female cow of the numerous Bovinae) is the holiest animal. Goats and their milk isn't that important. And, the reason for that is: goats are to be sacrificed during certain yajnas such as the Agnistoma and the various Soma rituals. But, the milk-giving cow is Aghnya: She That Shall Not Be Harmed (in other words: She that has precedence; that which is not to be sacrificed. Ever.).

EDIT: And, next to the cow in terms of holiest and equal importance, is the horse.

When he states that during the jyotiShToma, a goat is sacrificed, I assume he's referring to the verses in the shatapatha brAhmaNam detailing this matter. However, if one is to accept those as literal rather than figurative, then what about those verses which speak of the sacrifice of a female cow mentioned not only in the baudhAyanashrautasUtram, but also in the shA~NkhAyanashrautasUtram:

sa yatraikAdashinyA anubandhyasyeShTaM vapayAbhavaty'aniShTaM|
vashayA tajjaghanena gArhapatyam aupasadAyAM vedyAN stambayajur harati||17.15. 295.18||

prAyaNIyayodayanIyA vyAkhyAtA||1||
viparyAso yAjyApuronuvAkyAnAM svi-ShTakR^itaH parihApya||2||
pathyAM svastiM chaturthIM yajati||3||
tR^itIyaM savitAram||4||
maitrAvaruNI cha vashA anUbandhyA||5||
payasyA vA||6||
A vAM mitrAvaruNA tat suvAM mitrAvaruNA no mitrAvaruNeti puronuvAkyAH||7||
yuvaM vastrANi yadbaMhiShThaM pra bA-haveti yAjyAH ||8||
dIkShaNIyAprabhR^ityAnUbandhyAyAH saMsthAnAnna vede patnIM vAchayati na stR^iNAti||9||
anUbandhyAyAM vAchayitvAgreNAgnIdhrIyaM dhiShNyaM stR^iNAti||10||
mApo mauShadhIrhiMsIH shugasi yaM dviShmastaM te shugR^ichChatu dhAmnodhAmno rAjaMstato varuna no mu~ncha yadApo aghnyA iti varuNeti shapAmahe tato varuNa no mu~ncha iti hR^idayashUlamupasthAya sumitriyA na Apa oShadhayaH santvityupaspR^ishyadurmitriyAstasmai santu yo'smAndveShTi yaM cha vayaM dviShma iti dakShiNA nirukShanti||11||
AjyabhAgaprabhR^iti vA payasyA||12||
amAvAsyAvikAraH||13||

Clearly, the pashu which is referred to as anUbandhyA (to be bound/sacrificed later) in both cases is a female cow, or else the text wouldn't have used the feminine term for a cow (vashA) and also would have used the masculine intrumental form vashena in place of vashayA. Since there are texts mentioning the sacrifice not only of a goat, but also of a cow, I don't see how goats can be considered as unimportant. I definitely do not consider the references to animal sacrifice mentioned in the veda-s, in which a shAkhApashu is tied to a yUpa, to be necessary at ALL in the kaliyuga (I'm a vaiShNava after all), but isn't it a bit of a double standard to take one reference figuratively and another to be literal? In regards to the horse, the ashvamedha is probably the most detailed sacrifice in the shatapatha brAhmaNam (if horses were so important, then why are they sacrificed, following the logic wherein sacrifice determines the important?). From my perspective, if one is going by the veda-s, then the qualities of a jIva, regardless of their sharIra, cannot be determined by whether they are ritually sacrificed or not. In fact, the greatest sacrifice mentioned is that of the adhipUruShaH, which was conducted by the deva-s themselves (i.e. yatpuruSheNa haviShA devA yaj~namatanvata); gomAtA is important, yes, but certainly not any more important than bhagavAn/paramAtmA. Hence, even if there was no mention of cow sacrifice within shrauta ritual, basing the importance of an animal off whether they are sacrificed or not seems almost pointless.

 

[Tyaga]

Namaste,



Just a speculation from my part,i think these 'animal sacrifices' used pratima or images of animals made up of rice cakes or purodasa instead of actual animal,as said in Taittiriya Brahmana,Satapatha Brahmana,Aitareya Brahmana etc.

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

Namaste,



Just a speculation from my part,i think these 'animal sacrifices' used pratima or images of animals made up of rice cakes or purodasa instead of actual animal,as said in Taittiriya Brahmana,Satapatha Brahmana,Aitareya Brahmana etc.

praNAm,
Perhaps, although I would assume that even if they were meant to be taken literally, the view that one animal can be considered as less important solely because it is sacrificed seems to make absolutely no sense, if looking at it from a vedic perpective.

 

[Tyaga]

Namaste,

praNAm,
Perhaps, although I would assume that even if they were meant to be taken literally, the view that one animal can be considered as less important solely because it is sacrificed seems to make absolutely no sense, if looking at it from a vedic perpective.

Yes,i agree.We cannot really compare souls of different living beings,all of them share same feelings.

Also,i think even human sacrifices(whether symbolic or not) were practiced in early Vedic period.The story of Sunahsepa have reference of human sacrifice. Echoes of Sunahsepa story is found even in Rig Veda.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Perhaps at one time, Aryans did use animals in sacrifice. Do we take that even in 10,000 BC, Aryans had abandoned animal sacrifice which all other aboriginal people in the world might have been doing at that time.

As for 'Ashvamedha', as they say 'dil nahin manata' (my heart does not accept it). 'Ashvamedha' was a yajna whose sole purpose was to invigorate Indra and his steed with Soma for their fight against the demons of darkness (dasas and dasyus, robbers and theives), who had hid the sun and thus made the world dark and cold, during Ati-Ratra (the two-month long dark cold Arctic night); how can we say that the steed is killed (disregarding all that might have been written in YajurVeda). I think we are making a very wrong assessment.

It is after coming to India that Aryans abandoned sacrificial offerings, I think because it was not the tradition in India. Perhaps at that time they made rice dumplings in form of cows and other animals which were once sacrificed. The indigenous tradition of 'ahimsa', I think is very old and strong. That is why the Charvakists said that if the brahmin thinks that the sacrificed animal goes to heaven, why does not he sacrifice is grandfather or father. Similarly Mahavira and Buddha did not accept it.l

'Ashvamedha' was to make Indra's steed, sort of 'medhavi' (brilliant).

 

[Poeticus]

*My views are always changing: they are never stationary, for they are always developing as time proceeds. Therefore, quote-hunting old posts of mine could be problematic for this very reason. Thus, if any of my older posts, from a time that was a couple months before Draka went inactive (which I would categorize as 'ancient'), are questionable, then instead of quoting me for a new thread without consulting me, it would be beneficial and helpful for all of us to speak about it privately with me first, benefitting both the inquirer and me in the end.*

then what about those verses which speak of the sacrifice of a female cow mentioned not only in the baudhAyanashrautasUtram, but also in the aha~NkhAyanashrautasUtram...Clearly, the pashu which is referred to as anUbandhyA (to be bound/sacrificed later) in both cases is a female cow, or else the text wouldn't have used the feminine term for a cow (vashA) and also would have used the masculine intrumental form vashena in place of vashayA.

Don't you mean the infertile female-cow? The barren one? They were sacrificed. Meat was offered during yajna-s of various Bovinae. For what I can recall, I never state that female cows were not sacrificed; instead, I repeatedly stated that milk-giving female cows were not sacrificed.

I definitely do not consider the references to animal sacrifice mentioned in the veda-s, in which a shAkhApashu is tied to a yUpa, to be necessary at ALL in the kaliyuga (I'm a vaiShNava after all), but isn't it a bit of a double standard to take one reference figuratively and another to be literal?

Well, for starters, who on here is saying that it is necessary in this day and age/Kaliyuga? And, who is taking one reference figuratively and another literally?

gomAtA is important, yes, but certainly not any more important than bhagavAn/paramAtmA.

Well...again...who is saying that gomAtA is more important than the Shri Gods?

In regards to the horse, the ashvamedha is probably the most detailed sacrifice in the shatapatha brAhmaNam (if horses were so important, then why are they sacrificed, following the logic wherein sacrifice determines the important?)

&

Hence, even if there was no mention of cow sacrifice within shrauta ritual, basing the importance of an animal off whether they are sacrificed or not seems almost pointless.

There were theological differences for sacrificing various animals. The horse represented something completely else when it came to offering it in the yajna.

&

And, there are certainly mentioning of "cow" sacrifices (or, one should say: the sacrificing of various species of Bovinae) within the Shrauta ritual. It was a different yuga with a different ethos.

However, you are right that my statement of goats being sacrificed because they were less important is pointless - especially since I don't hold that view anymore, and haven't held it for quite a few months now (which seem to resonate with the reminder at the top of this post).

 

[Poeticus]

That is why the Charvakists said that if the brahmin thinks that the sacrificed animal goes to heaven, why does not he sacrifice is grandfather or father.

Putting all the indirect references to Tilak aside...

...that is a very clever point made by the Carvakists. I wonder if there is an apologetic response by the Brahmins of that time in various scriptures somewhere.​

 

[Jaskaran Singh]

*My views are always changing: they are never stationary, for they are always developing as time proceeds. Therefore, quote-hunting old posts of mine could be problematic for this very reason. Thus, if any of my older posts, from a time that was a couple months before Draka went inactive (which I would categorize as 'ancient'), are questionable, then instead of quoting me for a new thread without consulting me, it would be beneficial and helpful for all of us to speak about it privately with me first, benefitting both the inquirer and me in the end.*

It was still a response to a post on the forum, no? I created a new thread because I didn't want to necro-post on the vegan thread and I wanted to make a general topic discussion rather than just some sort of rebuttal to your statements (which would be counterproductive). I honestly didn't think I needed permission to talk about/speak on the topic regarding something you said. If you would like me to delete the thread and continue the discussion on PM, then that is fine; I am more than willing to do so. However, the original post isn't solely a response to your [previously held] view of goat sacrifice, it's about the concept of sacrifice in the veda-s in general. Hence, I wanted other individuals' opinion on animal sacrifice, not just yours. Capisce, .

Don't you mean the infertile female-cow? The barren one? They were sacrificed. Meat was offered during yajna-s of various Bovinae. For what I can recall, I never state that female cows were not sacrificed; instead, I repeatedly stated that milk-giving female cows were not sacrificed.

It doesn't even state that the cow needed to be infertile, but I'll give you the benefit of the doubt and assume that that was what was originally meant. Still, doesn't this mean that during that time, female cows were only "important" insofar that they could provide milk? If that's the case, then a cow can't even symbolically be one's mother (why would an individual sacrifice their mother solely if she had stopped providing for him/her?). I don't interpret these sacrifices completely literally, but I assume you do, so I'm wondering.

Well, for starters, who on here is saying that it is necessary in this day and age/Kaliyuga? And, who is taking one reference figuratively and another literally?

I'm just stating that was my opinion on sacrifice (if at all it occurred), I never stated therein that you disagreed with me. However, I did kind of assume that you would view the former (goat sacrifice) literally, but try view the cow sacrifice as non-literal.

Well...again...who is saying that gomAtA is more important than the Shri Gods?

Following the logic that a "milk-giving cow" was more important than a goat because the former was not "sacrificed," the cow must also be more important than bhagavAn, because the puruShasUktam describes the supreme deity as "figuratively" being "sacrificed" by the deva-s.

There were theological differences for sacrificing various animals. The horse represented something completely else when it came to offering it in the yajna.

This still does not change the fact that some bodily parts of a horse are to be eaten according to the veda-s (yé vAjínam paripáshyanti pakváM yá Im AhúH surabhír nír haréti yé chÁrvato mAMsabhikSÁm upÁsata utó téSAm abhígUrtir na invatu), right?

And, there are certainly mentioning of "cow" sacrifices (or, one should say: the sacrificing of various species of Bovinae) within the Shrauta ritual. It was a different yuga with a different ethos.
However, you are right that my statement of goats being sacrificed because they were less important is pointless - especially since I don't hold that view anymore, and haven't held it for quite a few months now (which seem to resonate with the reminder at the top of this post).

Okay then...

 

[Poeticus]

It was a different time, with a different ethos. To get definitive answers that can be of justice, it would be important to contact Shrautic Guru-s of various shAkhA-s in India to explain it all. Keep in mind that many Brahmins of these shAkhA-s still have a desire to conduct various animal sacrifices, such as offering a goat. An attempt was made to have an actual, live animal be sacrificed in the late 70s/early 80s (can't recall the exact date), but many non-religionists, secularists, and Hindus lodged complaints to local courts, after which Brahmins like the Nambudiri-s had to replace a live goat with a wooden statue (or was it a rice cake resembling a goat?). On a completely different note: it's ironic that thousands of cows and goats can be slaughtered on Eid throughout India as well as killed for food in numerous Indian states and even be transported across state lines, but a goat being offered in a yajna warrants complaints to local courts.

 

[Tyaga]

a[/B] goat being offered in a yajna warrants complaints to local courts.

Namaste,

It is not 'a' goat,various sacrifices requires numerous animals.Ashvamedha is the king of Yajnas,it requires over a 100 animals.

Anyway,i agree,the animal sacrifice during Yajnas(which are very rare and complex,also we kill the animal by suffocation,not by butchering it) is nothing compared to the thousands of bloody animal sacrifices done on eid.

And yes,the sacrifice was stopped by communists,secularists and other anti-Vedics.Instead,Brahmins sacrificed with cakes made of rice paste.

 

[Poeticus]

Namaste,

It is not 'a' goat,various sacrifices requires numerous animals.Ashvamedha is the king of Yajnas,it requires over a 100 animals.

I wasn't talking about the Ashvamedha. But, yes, various sacrifices require numerous animals. However, my post was an attempt to contrast the irony - or better yet, an almost hypocritical barring - of allowing thousands of cows and goats to be slaughtered on Eid in India along with the regular slaughtering of cows (India is one of the largest exporters of beef, BTW) for food, but vehemently opposing a rare occurrence of animal sacrifice which is, in relative terms, not different from slaughtering animals for religious observances such as Eid (the only tangible difference being numerical: 14 vs thousands).

Anyway, here is a photo that mentions the opposition a certain Brahmin community received regarding the topic at hand (it is mentioned under What Is "Agnichayana"):

 

[Tyaga]

I wasn't talking about the Ashvamedha. But, yes, various sacrifices require numerous animals. However, my post was an attempt to contrast the irony - or better yet, an almost hypocritical barring - of allowing thousands of cows and goats to be slaughtered on Eid in India along with the regular slaughtering of cows (India is one of the largest exporters of beef, BTW) for food, but violently opposing a rare occurrence of animal sacrifice which is, in relative terms, not that different from slaughtering animals for religious observances such as Eid.

Anyway, here is a photo that mentions the opposition a certain Brahmin community received regarding the topic at hand (it is mentioned under What Is "Agnichayana"):

Pranam,

My thoughts exactly.Thank you for the snapshot,i have useful links to share,but can't post it until i have 15 posts on the forum

 

[ShivaFan]

.... of allowing thousands of cows ... to be slaughtered on Eid

Wha??? Is this actually happening?

... I mean, even here in California where the Cow is held like slaves and butchered for "burgers" eaten by citizens, my God despite this even here the slaughter of thousands of cows for some "rite" would be, and is, illegal. Why would they slaughter thousands of Cows? What is Eid in this slaughter? Is it to eat these Cows? I don't understand.

Om Namah Sivaya

 

[Tyaga]

What is Eid in this slaughter? Is it to eat these Cows? I don't understand.

Namaste,

I think it is like the sacrifices in Yajnas,i.e we are making some living offering to Gods.The animals which are sacrificed would go straight to the God(s).

 

[Aupmanyav]

.. that is a very clever point made by the Carvakists. I wonder if there is an apologetic response by the Brahmins of that time in various scriptures somewhere.

I think it was completely ignored by brahmins as ignorance and irresponsibility. 'Not caring about ancestors? How ungrateful!!' (Like you ignore my Tilak quotes)

Anyway, I agree,the animal sacrifice during Yajnas (which are very rare and complex,also we kill the animal by suffocation,not by butchering it) is nothing compared to the thousands of bloody animal sacrifices done on eid.

Eid sacrifice also is a payback to their God, but the Congress and Communists interfere only in Hindu matters. I do not think death by suffocation is any better than a stroke of the butcher's knife. Sorry, O Goat Brahman, or chicken Brahman, or the pork Brahman, but I am a non-vegetarian Hindu whose tradition does not prohibit it. (Jeevo-jeevasya bhojanam)

 

[Aupmanyav]

Wha??? Is this actually happening?

Cow slaughter is a state subject in India. "The strictest laws are in Delhi, Gujarat, Madhya Pradesh, Punjab, Rajasthan and Uttar Pradesh, where the slaughter of cow and its progeny, including bulls and bullocks of all ages, is completely banned. Most States prohibit the slaughter of cows of all ages. However, Assam, Tamil Nadu and West Bengal permit the slaughter of cows of over the ages of 14, 10 and 14 years, respectively. Most States prohibit the slaughter of calves, whether male or female. With the exception of Bihar and Rajasthan, where age of a calf is given as below 3 years, the other States have not defined the age of a calf. According to the National Commission on Cattle, the definition of a calf being followed in Maharashtra, by some executive instructions, was "below the age of 1 year".

In Delhi, Goa, Puducherry, Punjab and Uttar Pradesh violation of State laws on cattle slaughter are both cognizable and non-bailable offences. Most of other States specify that offences would be cognizable only. The maximum term of imprisonment varies from 6 months to 5 years and the fine from INR1,000 to INR10,000. Delhi and Madhya Pradesh have fixed a mandatory minimum term of imprisonment at 6 months. Arunachal Pradesh, Kerala, Meghalaya, Mizoram, Nagaland, Tripura and Lakshadweep have no legislation." (Kerala being the most problematic from the Hindu point of view, made so by the Hindu Communists)
Cattle slaughter in India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[Tyaga]

But I do not think death by suffocation is any better than a stroke of the butcher's knife. Sorry, O Goat Brahman, but I am a non-vegetarian. (Jeevo-jeevasya bhojanam)

Pranam,

Yes,death is death,no matter inwhich way we choose to do it.But i believe suffocation causes much less pain and bloodshed.

I'm a non-veg as well,hunting was the main sport of Kshatriyas even during the British era.