Talk:The Vedas:Is Sacrificial Killing Justified
By Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswati Swami
A yajña or sacrifice takes shape through the chanting of mantras, the invocation of the Devatā, and the offering of havis (oblations). The mantras are chanted orally, while the Devatā is invoked through meditation. The most important material required for the homa is the havis offered into the sacrificial fire. Thus, in the performance of a sacrifice, the mind, speech, and body (mano-vāk-kāya) act together.
Ghṛta (clarified butter) is an important ingredient of the oblation. While ghṛta itself is offered into the sacrificial fire, it is also used to sanctify the other sacrificial materials, and this is obligatory. In certain sacrifices, the vapā (fat or marrow) of animals is also offered.
Is the performance of a sacrifice sinful, or is it meritorious? Or is it both?
Madhvācārya opposed the killing of any paśu for sacrifice. Out of compassion, he prescribed that a substitute made of flour should be offered in place of the vapā. (The Sanskrit word paśu does not necessarily denote a cow; it refers to any animal.)
In the Brahmasūtra, Vyāsa expounds the nature of the Ātmā as taught in the Upaniṣads, which constitute the Jñānakāṇḍa of the Vedas. The actual performance of sacrifices is dealt with in the Pūrvamīmāṃsā, which corresponds to the Karmakāṇḍa of the Vedas. The Uttaramīmāṃsā, or Jñānakāṇḍa, explains the ultimate purpose of sacrifices. That purpose is the purification of the consciousness, for such purification is essential to prepare one for the path of jñāna.
The Brahmasūtra states: Aśuddham iti cen na śabdāt. The performance of sacrifices rests upon scriptural authority and forms part of the quest for Self-realisation. How then can it be regarded as an impure act? Whether an act is pure or impure, good or bad, is determined by the authority of the Śāstra-s. Vyāsa further explains that animal sacrifice is not sinful because the act is sanctified by the sound of the Vedas. Purity and impurity are to be understood through the authority of the Vedas, that is, through Śabda-pramāṇa. If sacrifices had been regarded as impure according to the Vedas, they would not have been prescribed as part of the path leading to Self-realisation. Even if the sacrificial animal is replaced with one fashioned from flour, as suggested by Madhvācārya, it is ritually endowed with life through the chanting of Vedic mantras. Would it not then be regarded as a living animal, and would not offering it also constitute an act of violence?
Tiruvaḷḷuvar states in the Tirukkuṟaḷ that refraining from killing an animal for food is superior to performing a thousand sacrifices in which oblations are consigned to the sacred fire. This, however, should not be understood as a condemnation of sacrifice.
Whatever accords with dharm must be practised, whatever its nature. In such cases, considerations of violence are subordinated to scriptural injunction. The Tirukkuṟaḷ says that refraining from killing an animal is superior to performing a thousand sacrifices. This statement has led some to conclude that Tiruvaḷḷuvar condemned sacrifices. However, Manu himself declares that the performance of a single Aśvamedha is superior to a thousand ordinary sacrifices. At the same time, he states that speaking one truth is superior even to a thousand Aśvamedha sacrifices. If one act is said to be superior to another, it implies that both are regarded as meritorious. If sacrifice were sinful, it could not be compared in this manner with another virtuous act. One may say that fasting on one Śivarātri is superior to fasting on a hundred Ekādaśī days, but no one would compare such observances with the operation of a hundred slaughterhouses. Comparisons of superiority are made only among acts that are themselves considered meritorious.
In the concluding portion of the Chāndogya Upaniṣad, where ahiṃsā is extolled, the words Anyatra tīrthebhyaḥ occur. These are understood to mean that ahiṃsā is to be practised except in matters pertaining to Vedic rites.
Accordingly, considerations of violence have no place in sacrifices or in the conduct of a righteous war.
If the ideal of non-violence is regarded as superior to the performance of sacrifices, it means only that "sacrifices are good, but non-violence is higher." Thus, while the performance of a thousand sacrifices remains highly meritorious, the observance of ahiṃsā occupies an even higher place. This, according to the discourse, is the proper interpretation of the Tirukkuṟaḷ verse. It must also be remembered that the verse occurs in the section dealing with renunciation. The point being made is that a saṃnyāsin is better served by abstaining from killing than a householder is by performing a thousand sacrifices. Indeed, according to the Śāstra-s, a saṃnyāsin is not entitled to perform sacrifices.
There are many kinds of sacrifices. These will be discussed later under Kalpa, one of the Vedāṅga-s, and under Gṛhasthāśrama. It may be noted here that animals are not sacrificed in all yajña-s. In many sacrifices, only ājya (clarified butter) is offered into the fire. In others, haviṣyānna (rice mixed with ghṛta) is offered, while in some the oblation consists of cooked grains known as cāru or puroḍāśa. In the Agnihotra, milk is poured into the fire; in the Aupāsana, unbroken rice grains (akṣata) are offered; and in the Samidādhāna, sticks of the palāśa tree are used. Even in those sacrifices where the vapā of an animal is offered, only a tiny portion of the burnt offering is consumed as prasāda.
Twenty-one sacrifices are enjoined in the Śāstra-s. These are divided into three categories: Pākayajña, Haviryajña, and Somayajña, each comprising seven subdivisions. In all seven Pākayajña-s and in the first five Haviryajña-s, no animal sacrifice is prescribed. It is only from the sixth Haviryajña, known as Nirūḍhapaśubandha, that animal sacrifice occurs.
It is often alleged that Brāhmaṇa-s sacrificed large numbers of animals merely to feast upon their flesh, and that references to pleasing the Devatā-s served only as a pretext. According to the discourse, this allegation is entirely unfounded. There is no sacrifice in which vast numbers of animals are killed. In the Vājapeya, regarded as one of the highest sacrifices performed by Brāhmaṇa-s, only twenty-three animals are prescribed. In the Aśvamedha, the greatest sacrifice performed by imperial rulers, one hundred animals are prescribed.
The suggestion that Brāhmaṇa-s instituted sacrifices merely as a means of consuming meat is therefore rejected. The Śāstra-s prescribe the precise portion of meat to be taken from the sacrificial animal, the part of the body from which it is to be removed, and the quantity each ṛtvij may consume as prasāda (iḍāvataraṇa). The prescribed quantity is no larger than a pigeon pea and is to be swallowed without any seasoning. Whatever objections may be raised against the sacrificial system, the discourse maintains that it is unreasonable to claim that sacrifices were merely a pretext for eating meat.
The discourse further observes that large numbers of animals are used in modern laboratories for scientific experimentation. By contrast, animal sacrifice is presented as a small injury undertaken for a much greater ideal the welfare of humanity. Indeed, it is maintained that no real injury is caused, because the sacrificed animal attains an elevated state.
Another criticism sometimes advanced is that Somayajña-s were merely a pretext for consuming Soma-rasa, which is equated with intoxicating liquor. The discourse rejects this claim. Although the Vedas describe Indra as being exhilarated by Soma-rasa, such passages belong to the category of Arthavāda and should not be interpreted literally.
The constitution of the Devatā-s, according to the discourse, is altogether different from that of human beings. Moreover, the quantity of Soma-rasa consumed by the officiating priests is extremely small. The Soma plant is pounded in a small mortar called a graha, and after the prescribed oblations have been offered, only the tiny remainder (hutaśeṣa) is consumed, drop by drop. The total quantity does not exceed about an ounce. It is therefore impossible to compare it with intoxicating drink. Indeed, the discourse remarks that Soma-rasa is not even considered particularly palatable.
The suggestion that Soma-rasa was merely the "coffee" of ancient times is likewise rejected. Although the Vedas speak of the joy arising from drinking Soma-rasa, this joy is understood to be spiritual rather than intoxicating. Whereas coffee is said to agitate the mind, Soma-rasa is regarded as purifying it. The Soma plant was once abundant but has become increasingly scarce, a circumstance viewed as reflecting the gradual decline of Vedic dharm. The discourse notes that, in recent times, the Rāja of Kollengode made it a point to supply the Soma plant whenever a Somayajña was performed.