"Pranksters" at CERN perform mock human sacrifice in front of Shiva

[Aupmanyav]

That is what Sage Narada (or Buddha, whichever) said to them when Valmiki wanted to kill and rob him. Narada said 'just ask your family members if they would like to share the sin that you will incur by killing me'. Valmiki asked the family members and they said 'no'. That is when Valmiki abandoned his evil ways.

 

[User14]

I definitely need to learn how to detach myself from negative associations I may have, not only with New Agers but also with the darker parts of the histories of the traditions I'm interested in. I feel like that's hard for Westerners to do; in Western thought, a religious tradition, nationality or even an entire race can become 'tainted' by things that happened in the past. It's an obsessional and neurotic way of thinking.

 

[Vinayaka]

I definitely need to learn how to detach myself from negative associations I may have, not only with New Agers but also with the darker parts of the histories of the traditions I'm interested in. I feel like that's hard for Westerners to do; in Western thought, a religious tradition, nationality or even an entire race can become 'tainted' by things that happened in the past. It's an obsessional and neurotic way of thinking.

And just how do you intend to do this? I'm curious.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

I definitely need to learn how to detach myself from negative associations I may have, not only with New Agers but also with the darker parts of the histories of the traditions I'm interested in. I feel like that's hard for Westerners to do; in Western thought, a religious tradition, nationality or even an entire race can become 'tainted' by things that happened in the past. It's an obsessional and neurotic way of thinking.

I found it hard in the beginning of my journey into Hinduism to accept that animal sacrifices was once the mainstream practice of early Hinduism. At the time I was a vegetarian and animal lover, so the idea was repugnant to me. So I rationalised it by accepting the Arya Samaaj interpretations, where they literally torture the Nirukta(Vedic etymology of Yaksha) to prove that cow does now mean cow, goat does not mean goat, horse does not mean horse e.g. sanskrit for goat sacrifice is 'aja medha' and if you break down the sandhi to a+ja it can rendered as unborn. Medha is translated as sacrifice, but if you torture the sandhi, it can be rendered as wisdom --- hence it becomes sacrifice for wisdom of the unborn. They did the same with ashva+medha, which can be broken down as ashva meaning swift and fast and medha, again sacrifice or wisdom, so you get sacrifice for the swift and fast, or for power.(It was indeed a sacrifice done only by kings) The most ridiculous break downs were of the word mitra, broken down mi+tra, meaning the smallest measured one, rendered as hydrogen.

It took a while for me to gain enough to maturity to accept that the early brahmanical religion was indeed a sacrificial religion, and if it wasn't, then why would it have come under extreme criticism by the Shramana movement of the Jains, Buddhists and yogis, and why would animal sacrifices still exist in some sects of Hinduism today. As my knowledge of religion grew, I realised that animal sacrifice in that day and age was in vogue all over the planet, it was a mark of its time, it was practised in Babylonia, Egypt, Judea and by the time we transitioned into the age of philosophy, dubbed the axial age, it started disappearing all over the planet. The later Hinduism of Vedanta moves to more lofty and sophisticated concepts like ahimsa. Just as it would be unfair to criticise Christianity because of the OT, it is unfair to criticise Hinduism because of purva-mimamsa.

 

[Aupmanyav]

So I rationalised it by accepting the Arya Samaaj interpretations, where they literally torture the Nirukta(Vedic etymology of Yaksha) to prove that cow does now mean cow, goat does not mean goat, horse does not mean horse e.g. sanskrit for goat sacrifice is 'aja medha' and if you break down the sandhi to a+ja it can rendered as unborn. Medha is translated as sacrifice, but if you torture the sandhi, it can be rendered as wisdom --- hence it becomes sacrifice for wisdom of the unborn. They did the same with ashva+medha, which can be broken down as ashva meaning swift and fast and medha, again sacrifice or wisdom, so you get sacrifice for the swift and fast, or for power.(It was indeed a sacrifice done only by kings) The most ridiculous break downs were of the word mitra, broken down mi+tra, meaning the smallest measured one, rendered as hydrogen.

, there are others too who deform to fix.

 

[User14]

And just how do you intend to do this? I'm curious.

I wish I knew!

 

[Kirran]

I am not entirely sure of the usefulness of the New Age label. I imagine there is a core group who can fairly be said to come under this umbrella, but more often than not I see it used as a smear, similarly to terms like 'politically correct'.

 

[Vinayaka]

I wish I knew!

In my sampradaya, strategies are taught, so it's not just some intellectual whim of 'I should'. There is really no point observing something you have no idea how to fix, although its a start.

 

[Stormcry]

Isn't shiva satan for Christians?

 

[Kirran]

Isn't shiva satan for Christians?

Last Shivaratri puja I went to there were Christians attending among the worshippers

 

[Stormcry]

Last Shivaratri puja I went to there were Christians attending among the worshippers

Were they practicing Christians?

 

[Kirran]

Were they practicing Christians?

I imagine they would say so. Depends by what criteria you define a Christian as practicing.

 

[User14]

I found it hard in the beginning of my journey into Hinduism to accept that animal sacrifices was once the mainstream practice of early Hinduism. At the time I was a vegetarian and animal lover, so the idea was repugnant to me. So I rationalised it by accepting the Arya Samaaj interpretations, where they literally torture the Nirukta(Vedic etymology of Yaksha) to prove that cow does now mean cow, goat does not mean goat, horse does not mean horse e.g. sanskrit for goat sacrifice is 'aja medha' and if you break down the sandhi to a+ja it can rendered as unborn. Medha is translated as sacrifice, but if you torture the sandhi, it can be rendered as wisdom --- hence it becomes sacrifice for wisdom of the unborn. They did the same with ashva+medha, which can be broken down as ashva meaning swift and fast and medha, again sacrifice or wisdom, so you get sacrifice for the swift and fast, or for power.(It was indeed a sacrifice done only by kings) The most ridiculous break downs were of the word mitra, broken down mi+tra, meaning the smallest measured one, rendered as hydrogen.

It took a while for me to gain enough to maturity to accept that the early brahmanical religion was indeed a sacrificial religion, and if it wasn't, then why would it have come under extreme criticism by the Shramana movement of the Jains, Buddhists and yogis, and why would animal sacrifices still exist in some sects of Hinduism today. As my knowledge of religion grew, I realised that animal sacrifice in that day and age was in vogue all over the planet, it was a mark of its time, it was practised in Babylonia, Egypt, Judea and by the time we transitioned into the age of philosophy, dubbed the axial age, it started disappearing all over the planet. The later Hinduism of Vedanta moves to more lofty and sophisticated concepts like ahimsa. Just as it would be unfair to criticise Christianity because of the OT, it is unfair to criticise Hinduism because of purva-mimamsa.

Animal sacrifice doesn't bother me as much as human sacrifice, even though I love animals and would never partcipate in one myself, and even though it's still common in the very kind of devotional Shaktism that I'm inspired by (even Sri Ramakrishna sacrificed goats! ). I think understanding that the sacrifice was never intended to be cruel helps; you can see this in the Vedas where the victim is praised as a brother and a speedy death is prayed for.

I am not entirely sure of the usefulness of the New Age label. I imagine there is a core group who can fairly be said to come under this umbrella, but more often than not I see it used as a smear, similarly to terms like 'politically correct'.

I know the label isn't precise, but I'm not sure what other shorthand term to use for the eclectic and typically liberal Western spiritual trend that borrows elements from Eastern religion and pre-Christian paganism while remaining distinct from
both.

In my sampradaya, strategies are taught, so it's not just some intellectual whim of 'I should'. There is really no point observing something you have no idea how to fix, although its a start.

I suppose I do have an idea of how to fix it. I can use a form of radically unassuming thinking- basically asking questions like "So what?" and "Do I really actually know that?" until the associations are broken down and become less powerful. These types of mental exercises often help to lessen the impact of obsessional thinking.

 

[Spirit_Warrior]

Animal sacrifice doesn't bother me as much as human sacrifice, even though I love animals and would never partcipate in one myself, and even though it's still common in the very kind of devotional Shaktism that I'm inspired by (even Sri Ramakrishna sacrificed goats! ). I think understanding that the sacrifice was never intended to be cruel helps; you can see this in the Vedas where the victim is praised as a brother and a speedy death is prayed for.

I struggle with this idea. It can be argued that the animal's life is worthless as it has no goals to achieve and perhaps through sanctifying it through ritual you are helping the soul evolve. However, the animal is still a living being, and all living beings feel pain and pleasure, and no matter how much we rationalise the murder of an animal, the animal is certainly feeling pain. I don't see how we can justify that inflicting pain on the animal is more justified than inflicting pain on a human. The other problem with this we become the arbiters of which life is considered dispensable and which is not. If we are the arbiters, then group A may decide pigs are dispensable, group B may decide dogs are dispensable, group C dolphins, group D cats, and eventually somebody may even decide some races of humans are dispensable, and we know that has happened in many genocides in human history. It is dangerous because it is arbitrary.

I recall an argument by the Charvaka philosophers who challenged the animal sacrificial rituals of the early Brahmins, when the Brahmins said that they are doing good for the animal by sending it straight to heaven, they challenged thus "If that is the case, then why don't the Brahmins offer their, mothers, fathers and sons, to send them to heaven first."

I find it very hard to reconcile animal sacrifices as being part of an advanced spiritual culture.

 

[Stormcry]

I struggle with this idea. It can be argued that the animal's life is worthless as it has no goals to achieve and perhaps through sanctifying it through ritual you are helping the soul evolve. However, the animal is still a living being, and all living beings feel pain and pleasure, and no matter how much we rationalise the murder of an animal, the animal is certainly feeling pain. I don't see how we can justify that inflicting pain on the animal is more justified than inflicting pain on a human. The other problem with this we become the arbiters of which life is considered dispensable and which is not. If we are the arbiters, then group A may decide pigs are dispensable, group B may decide dogs are dispensable, group C dolphins, group D cats, and eventually somebody may even decide some races of humans are dispensable, and we know that has happened in many genocides in human history. It is dangerous because it is arbitrary.

I recall an argument by the Charvaka philosophers who challenged the animal sacrificial rituals of the early Brahmins, when the Brahmins said that they are doing good for the animal by sending it straight to heaven, they challenged thus "If that is the case, then why don't the Brahmins offer their, mothers, fathers and sons, to send them to heaven first."

I find it very hard to reconcile animal sacrifices as being part of an advanced spiritual culture.

Brahmins, if they're Karmayogi, wouldn't incure sins/consequences even by sacrificing animals. They'll be untouched. And as for the pain experienced by the animals, the destiny/karma has the answer. The destiny wouldn't make someone hurt for no reason. It's impossible.

 

[Vinayaka]

Isn't shiva satan for Christians?

For quite a few, yes. Just wear a really bright bindu/pottu/red mark down a busy marketplace. The ones who believe that also think the red forehead mark is the mark of the devil. Those who don't make eye contact, or go scurrying behind shelves, around corners, or otherwise hiding, will be these. Others won't care so much.

 

[Jainarayan]

I definitely need to learn how to detach myself from negative associations I may have, not only with New Agers but also with the darker parts of the histories of the traditions I'm interested in. ...

And just how do you intend to do this? I'm curious.

I can say that running away from it or tossing it all out the window is not the way.

 

[Jainarayan]

Isn't shiva satan for Christians?

It depends on the Christian denomination. Catholics and Orthodox are more likely to see him as irrelevent, or at worst simply a distraction.

Evangelicals see Satan around every corner, in every pantry, book, movie, toilet tank. Evangelicals are pretty much the Christians that come to mind when we think of or discuss Christianity.

 

[Vinayaka]

I can say that running away from it or tossing it all out the window is not the way.

I concur. It's tough, but you can conquer it all with love ... sometimes from a distance. Hate or disdain is just negative attachment.

 

[Milton Platt]

Does this bother anyone else?

There's a lot to discuss here. Whether it really was just a prank, or whether it was an authentic ritual. Whether it has any ties to similar rituals done by a number of secret societies in the West. Whether CERN is more than just a scientific facility, and whether it has a political and cultural agenda. Whether Shiva himself is central to the supposed ritual, or whether they just preformed it in front of him because he is centrally located on the campus. Why there is a Nataraja statue at CERN in the first place (I understand that it was a gift from India and is supposed to link the discoveries of quantum physics to the concept of the cosmic dance- but I wonder if there is anything else to it).

But the thing that bothers me the most is that it appears to be yet another example of self-described "esoterics" and liberals in the West appropriating Hindu symbols for their own purposes. They're not truly interested in authentic Indian religion; they just like it to the extent that they can pervert it into a kind of New Age cult of individualism with which to scare/challenge Christians.

I think it is someone having a laugh at your expense. 1. How do we know the location of the video? 2. Why does this matter?