You are here: SriPedia - SriRangaSri - Archives - Aug 2003

SriRangaSri List Archive: Message 00020 Aug 2003

 
Aug 2003 Indexes ( Date | Thread | Author )
[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next]


Dear Swamy,

I agree with your vivid explanation about our scriptures. There had been 
somayagis even in the kaliyuga till very recently too. I heard about the yagnya 
performed by navalpakkam swamy and he performed shraddha to the sacrificial 
goat till his end. Please also add to your text that now is not the yuga for 
indulging in sacrifices like that which need hard niyamas & are difficult to 
follow. In the verse "Yah poorvyaya vedhase naviyase ..... garghagum havishaa 
piparthana, aasya janantho namachidvivakthana" it is equivalent to performing 
yagnya but simply doing namasankeerthana of lord. In aswamedham also it is 
clearly said many times "ya uchainam evam veda" means one who knows this & 
recites also get the phalam. In fact doing "Brahmayagnyam" daily yields similar 
benefits. So no need to perform any sacrifice having to take the life of any 
animal. It amounts to 'jeeva himsa' if some 'lopa' occurs in doing any yagya. 
Swamy Deshikan clearly says in Dayashathakam that committing sins
(yagnya with lopa inclusive) and doing prayaschittam for all ('anubhavithum 
aghogham...prashamayithum ashesham nishkriyabhihi na shakyam....') is 
impossible as in the prayaschittam process new sins could be committed. 

So although eminent swamies performed yagya in days of yore, such need not be 
practised now. Lets live with 'Kalau keshava keerthanath' in a committed way.

Sajjana Pada padma paramanuhu
Lakshmi Narasimhan dasan

sadagopaniyengar <sadagopaniyengar@xxxx> wrote:

Srimate SrivanSatakopa Sri Vedanta Desika Yatindra Mahadesikaya nama:



To Kill or Not to Kill



One of the important reasons for the origins and spread of Buddhism in India is 
said to be people's disillusionment with widespread animal sacrifices, as part 
of the various YagyAs. With his emphasis on eschewing violence of any sort, 
especially to hapless animals, Buddha was able to capture the imagination and 
hearts of large masses who couldn't stand the free flow of blood in the various 
sacrifices. Ahimsa became the cornerstone of Buddhist philosophy (it is quite a 
different thing that most of the Buddhists today are not vegetarians) as also 
of the Jain tenet, where the sAdhUs went to the extent of covering their mouths 
for fear of insects getting into the apertures and meeting their end thereby. 



All this gives rise to the logical question as to whether the SanAtana Dharma, 
later on called Hinduism, did not believe in non-violence. Was it a religion 
barbaric enough to espouse animal sacrifices for the attainment of various 
goals, which may or may not have been achieved? Was it a philosophy which 
preached ahimsa on the one hand ("na himsyAt sarva bhootAni") while callously 
sanctioning violence against beings lesser than humans on the other, in the 
name of propitiating various deities? What unspeakable agonies would the 
sacrificed animals have undergone, what copious tears would their little ones 
have shed at permanent separation from their mothers and fathers! And were they 
really deities, which thirsted and hungered for the blood and flesh of innocent 
animals? Was it really worthwhile performing such sacrifices at the stupendous 
cost of lives, whatever be the objective?



These and other questions do haunt our minds now and again, especially when we 
are in a reflective mood, prompted by the company of the "enlightened". We are 
even ashamed at the thought of our forefathers having been guilty of such 
bloody practices, with scant regard for the value of life, be it human or 
otherwise. And we are simultaneously puzzled, when we consider that such Yagas 
involving bestial sacrifices have been ordained by no other body of knowledge 
than the venerated Vedas. "VasantAya kapinjalAn AlabhEta" "agnIshOmIyam pasum 
AlabhEta" etc. are but a couple of Veda vAkyAs advocating animal/ bird 
sacrifice. Would the Shruti, the embodiment of unblemished wisdom, with its 
overwhelming concern for universal well-being, prescribe such painful practices 
as means of attaining this objective or that, however exalted? Do Shastras, 
touted to be kinder than a thousand parents ("MAtA pitA sahasrEbhyOpi 
vatsalataram Shastram"), cater to the welfare only of human beings and not of
lower creatures? How is it that the Lord too, glorified for His virtue of 
Samyam (equal treatment of all beings, irrespective of distinctions based on 
birth, caste, creed, economic or social status etc.), is oblivious to animals 
being slaughtered right and left in the name of propitiation? Does He reserve 
His KaruNyam or boundless Mercy for human beings, carefully leaving out animals 
from its comforting ambit?



We know, based on the eternal immaculateness of the Shruti, its abiding concern 
for all beings, the Lord's enduring empathy for all creatures human and 
otherwise, that the answer to all the aforesaid questions has to be a 
resounding and emphatic"No". Neither is the Shruti uncaring towards animals, 
nor the Lord blind to the sufferings of sacrificed animals. If this is so, then 
how indeed do we reconcile these conflicting positions?



Maharshi Manu is held out to be a great soul, even by the impartial Shruti, 
which doesn't believe in lavishing praise where none is deserved. If such 
Shruti itself were to certify to Manu's words as the Gospel Truth and to term 
all His utterances as the best medicine for all ills ("yat vai kincha Manu: 
avadat tat bhEshajam"), physical and spiritual, we can certainly repose faith 
in his prescriptions. Let us see what the venerable Maharshi has to say about 
killing of animals in Yagyas. 



In the fifth chapter of Manu Smriti, which serves till date as a code book for 
righteous conduct, Manu says-



"YagyArttham pasava: srishtA: svayamEva SvayambhuvA

Yagyascha bhootyai sarvasya, tasmAt YagyE vadha: avadha:"



The glory of Yagyas is recorded in the Shruti and Smriti alike. The Upanishad 
avers that all things have their basis in Yagyas ("YagyE sarvam 
pratishttitam"), Yagyas are the sole means for emancipation of the good 
("YagyEna dEvA divam gataA:") and eradication of evil ("YagyEna asurA 
apAnudanta"). Is it any wonder then that Yagyas are considered supreme, 
enquires the Upanishad ("tasmAt Yagyam paramam vadanti"). In several contexts, 
Yagyas are glorifed as being verily the Lord Himself-

"YagyO vai Vishnu:" Further, the Vishnu Sahasranama Stotra too refers to the 
Lord by the various names of such sacrifices-"Yagya: ijya: mahEjya: kratu: 
satram". 



Manu avers that Yagyas are the sole reason animals were created-"YagyArttham 
pasava: srishtA:". According to the Maharshi, the raison de etre of these 
creatures was to be sacrificed in Yagyas, for which specific purpose they were 
brought into being by the Lord Himself-"svayamEva SvayambhuvA". And since there 
can be no life, no creation, no happiness or glory without the Yagyas, the 
slaughter of animals at the altar of the Yagya is indeed justified and correct. 
Therefore, concludes Manu, the slaughter of sacrificial animals is no killing 
at all, but mere application of resources to the use they were meant to be put 
to. Thus the "vadham" or killing of animals for the purpose of Yagyas is 
"avadham" or no killing at all. 



The purport of the aforesaid remarkable statement, emanating from such an 
impeccable source as Manu, is two-fold. One is that the sin that attaches to 
anyone indulging in himsA, does not affect the performer of Yagyas involving 
sacrifice of animals, though the act involves violence, bloodshed and loss of 
life.

The second significant fact is that if truth were to be told, even though it 
may appear prima facie that the animal is being condemned to cruel death, after 
its sacrifice in the Yagya, the creature goes straight to Svarga lOka, as a 
reward for giving up its life for the exalted cause. As the sacrifice entails 
the animal receiving a much better deal after death than it could ever dream of 
in life, its slaughter is in fact an act of kindness, strange though it may 
sound. We have it on the authority of the Shruti, which tells the sacrificial 
goat that it is indeed blessed, for its fate is not miserable slaughter at the 
hands of cruel priests: for, once it leaves its wretched mortal coils, the 
animal goes straight to heaven, the destination of denizens with magnificent 
merit. Following are the relative Veda vAkyAs-"na vA u Etan mriasE, na 
rishyasi. DEvAn idEshi pathibhi: sugEbhi:" etc.



Sri Ramanuja, dealing with the issue in his Gita Bhashya, tells us that animals 
slaughtered for yagyas like agnIshOmIyam reach exalted worlds and, as such, 
their sacrifice is really an act of kindness to them. From the animals' 
viewpoint, even if they were not sacrificed, what big deal could they look 
forward to in their continued bestial existence, bereft of the faculties of 
speech, thought and contemplation which could lead them on to higher births in 
future? Whereas their sacrifice, though prima facie violence to their person, 
takes them straight to Svarga, with all its trappings of bliss, ecstasy and 
enjoyment.



According to Sri Bhashyakara, himsa or violence is that which causes pain to 
the being on whom or which it is inflicted, the acid test being what flows out 
of the apparently unkind action-if it results in suffering and misery, it is 
indeed himsA and if it does not, and brings, to the contrary, a better deal for 
the being, then obviously it is not violence or unkindness. The Shruti says 
that the sacrificed animal assumes a golden form and ascends to the blissful 
heavens-"HiraNya sharIra oordhva: Svargam lOkam Eti". Sri Ramanuja negates the 
idea(of animal sacrifice being sinful) in the Sri Bhashya too (in the 
commentary to the Brahma Sutra-"ashuddham it chEt na, shabdAt"). For our 
comprehension, Sri Ramanuja cites the example of a doctor using a sharp knife 
or painful needles on his patient, as a part of treatment. Would anyone call a 
surgery himsA? We don't, because it results in our being cured from the malady 
and enjoying better health than before. Sri KulasekharAzhwar attests that
all that a patient has for the surgeon wielding the cruel knife is undying 
grattitude and love-"VALAl arutthu sudinum marutthuvan pAl mALAda kAdal 
nOyALan". Similarly, says the Bhashyakara, the sacrifice of animals in Yagyas 
cannot be equated with and condemned as mere senseless slaughter for pleasure 
or for eating. Expanding on the Master's lines, Swami Desikan concludes that it 
is only the uninitiated who would consider such sacrifices to be acts of 
cruelty and brutality to living beings-"vadha: iti pAmara drishtya anuvada: 
avadha iti tatva kathanam". 



Srimad Ramayana talks about the killing of a horse, the sacrificial animal in 
the asvamEdha yAga performed by Sri Dasarata. Sri Valmiki says that Kousalya 
killed the animal with a knife, "quite gladly"-



"KousalyA tam hayam tatra paricharya samantata:

KripANai: vishasAsa Enam tribhi: paramayA mudA"



Had animal sacrifice been a sinful act, resulting in the ultimate atrocity 
being inflicted on an innocent living thing, Sri Valmiki would hardly have 
described the act vividly in a work born to portray righteous conduct.







In the secular world too, the raging controversy about euthanasia or mercy 
killing, (resorted to for putting out of suffering people afflicted by 
incurable and extremely painful ailments) highlights death being better than 
continued living, in some cases. Several courts have ruled in favour of such 
killings, which are really acts of kindness rather than mere murders. Society 
also tolerates, rightly or wrongly, the practice of putting to death race 
horses which sustain incurable injuries. And there are socially-sanctioned 
killings like capital punishment for grave offences and wars fought between 
nations, when it is considered patriotic to take as many enemy lives as 
possible. The point here is that killing doesn't appear to be regarded as wrong 
per se, but acquires appropriate shades of right and wrong, depending upon the 
underlying motive, with secular conduct buttressing the standpoint of the 
Shastras. 



Interestingly, and striking a contrary note, Sri Mahabharata narrates the tale 
of Maharaja Uparishravasu, who was called upon to mediate in a dispute between 
Rishis (who were against animal sacrifice and preferred to perform the same 
with the aid of a creature made of flour, instead of an actual living being) 
and Devas (who were adamant that sacrifice in the Yagyas should be of actual 
animals and not mere dolls of flour). After listening at length and with great 
care to both sides, the Raja decided in favour of the Devas, holding animal 
sacrifice to be correct in view of the overwhelming evidence therefor found in 
the Shruti and Smriti. The enraged Rishis, convinced of their correctness, 
cursed Uparishravasu to a condemned existence in the bowels of the earth, if 
his ruling was incorrect, and offered to undergo similar punishment, if they 
were in the wrong. The moment the curse was voiced, the Maharaja fell to the 
PAtAla lOka, proving the Rishis to have been right, establishing
thereby that Pasu vadham or animal sacrifice should not involve an actual 
living creature. 



However, on overall consideration, we find that himsa, as permitted by 
Shastras, is not himsa at all in view of its wholly beneficial effects on the 
so-called victim. Despite such points and counter-points, we are left with the 
question as to whether we ought to indulge in such practices, merely because 
they bear the sanction of Shastras, as the very thought of killing, whether it 
be of a housefly or a sacrificial horse, is unbearable anathema to us. Trained 
as we are in the ways of absolute non-violence right from childhood, we cannot 
bring ourselves to harm an animal, however low on the totem pole of creation it 
may figure. The animal's death may not be of earth-shaking consequence nor 
would it would leave behind inconsolable and mourning relatives. And the 
sacrificed animal does go straight to heaven, destined for an infinitely 
superior existence compared to its present one. Even with all these mitigating 
factors, we still cannot consider with any courage the possibility of
deliberately harming a living being, however altruistic be the motive. 



Another significant fact strikes us on contemplation-none of our revered 
Poorvacharyas has been known to have performed such Yagyas requiring animal 
sacrifices. Though the blessed fathers of both Sri Ramanuja and Swami Desikan 
had performed yagyas, as is evident from their tirunAmam, we do not come across 
accounts of Acharyas as such conducting Yagyas. Swami Desikan does mention Sri 
Peria Nambi having performed Yagyas, without, however, any mention of their 
involving sacrifices. Though they did insist upon flawless and timely 
performance of vaidika karmAs and were themselves strict adherents to the same, 
Poorvacharyas do not appear to have laid emphasis on Yagyas involving 
sacrificial offerings of live creatures. In fact, they appear to have felt that 
even if ordained by Vedas, only those karmAs are to be observed by an aspirant 
for liberation, as would assist in his ascent to Paramapadam. This is what Sri 
Ramanuja says in the Gita Bhashya-""SarvEshu cha VEdEshu brAhmaNasya vijAnata:
vaidikasya mumukshO: yadEva mOksha sAdhanam, tadEva upAdEyam, nAnyat". 
According to this definition, Yagas and Yagyas mostly being performed with some 
specific prayer in mind (KAmya karmAs), do not come under the vaidika karmas 
which are a must-do for PrapannAs. Even if engaged in as a form of worshipping 
the Lord (Bhagavat kainkarya roopam), there are indeed any number of ways to 
please and serve the Lord, other than sacrificing innocent lives.



We therefore arrive at the tentative conclusion that though sacrificing an 
animal as part of Yagya involves no sin to us nor any detriment to the 
creature, and in fact, confers upon it the distinction of ascent to higher 
worlds, it is not incumbent upon us to perform each and every such karma 
prescribed by the Vedas, our principal aim and prayer being liberation from 
this samsara, for which purpose such karmas are of absolutely no assistance. 
Sri Nammazhwar too perhaps hints at this when he chides people making offerings 
of flesh and blood of animals to demi-gods, for attaining various 
objectives-"kaLLum iraicchiyum toovEnmin".



Srimate Sri LakshmINrsimha divya paduka sevaka SrivanSatakopa Sri Narayana 
Yatindra Mahadesikaya nama:

Dasan, sadagopan



[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]



Yahoo! Groups SponsorADVERTISEMENT

To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
Srirangasri-unsubscribe@xxxxxxxxxxx



Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service. 



---------------------------------
Do you Yahoo!?
Yahoo! SiteBuilder - Free, easy-to-use web site design software

[Non-text portions of this message have been removed]





[Date Prev][Date Next][Thread Prev][Thread Next] [Date Index ] [Thread Index ] [Author Index ]
Home Page
http://www.ibiblio.org/sripedia
srirangasri-subscribe@yahoogroups.com
To subscribe to the list