The topic of animal sacrifice
in Vedic yajñas these days always stirs up controversy and debate due to various
reasons. One of the main reasons is the nearly complete obsolescence of
traditional Vedic yajña culture of the karma kāṇḍa. As a result, intimate
and practical details of the rituals are unknown to most Hindus, and there are
probably only a handful of traditional scholars and practitioners of the
full-fledged institution of yajña. So the status quo in Hinduism today is that animal
sacrifice is not practiced in the context of Vedic or orthodox rituals.
The historical fact is that animal
sacrifice was once a part of some Vedic yajñas. However, the important point to
note is that it was not an essential or indispensable part. What bothers me is
the biased manner in which certain academics and historians depict this aspect when
describing Vedic culture. These people can be categorized as anti-Hindu by
means of their various affiliations such as leftist, pseudo-liberal, pseudo-secular,
etc. Whatever be their affiliation, their common objective is to denigrate
Hinduism and show it in bad light by misinterpreting and misrepresenting its
history, scriptures and religious practices, and over-projecting other systems
as paragons of enlightenment that rescued people and animal victims from the barbaric
and wanton slaughter of animals in the Vedic system. In the descriptions of
these people, the entire Vedic culture was nothing but inhumane and horrible animal
slaughter until Buddhism and Jainism taught the gospel of non-violence. So
according to this group, traditional Vedic culture did not have any
independent, internal recognition of the violence and brutality involved in
animal sacrifice and hence did not come up with any internal alternatives. The
simplistic theory is that Vedic practitioners had to wait for the advent of
Buddhism and Jainism to receive the message of non-violence.
The reality is much more complex and far
from being so black-and-white. To start, let’s have a quick and brief overview
of the institution of yajña.
There are three categories of yajña – pāka,
havis, and soma. Each of these categories consist of seven
individual prototypes, thus totaling to twenty-one. Of these twenty-one, the
seven pākayajñas and the seven haviryajñas do not involve any animal
sacrifice, while the seven somayajñas have some kind of animal sacrifice.
So, even theoretically, only one-third of the prescribed rituals have
the possibility of animal sacrifice.
However, one must question the prevalence
of animal sacrifice in real practice. We must consider the fact that Vedic culture
was not a monolith, but rather a complex criss-crossing of multiple levels of
beliefs and practices at multiple time periods. The Vedic rishis constitute the
highest level and the oldest time period, as represented by the mantras and
hymns of the Ṛgveda Samhitā. The enlightenment, self-realization
and refined thought of the rishis is seen in the subtle metaphysics and
spirituality expressed in the mantras. I have demonstrated the subtle Vedic metaphysics
(brahmavidyā or adhyātmavidyā) in these essays:
As also noted in the
essay on the Cow
Hymn of the Ṛgveda, rishi Bharadvāja expresses utmost affection, love
and reverence for cows and states as a matter of fact that cows are never sacrificed
or slaughtered for any purpose. This philosophy and belief represent the most
refined level as well as the most ancient period of Vedic culture. This also
corresponds to the period of high spirituality, simple rituals, and no animal
sacrifice. Throughout the Ṛgveda Samhitā, the offerings into Agni that are
mentioned most frequently are ghṛtam (ghee) and puroḍāśa (rice
cake).
This tallies with the traditional
theory of the eons (yugas), where the first golden eon (Kṛta Yuga) consisted of
spiritually elevated beings without yajñas, while the second eon (Tretā Yuga) saw
a huge proliferation of yajñas, which may also involve animal sacrifice. This
is evidenced by the statement “tretāyāṃ bahudhā santatāni” of Muṇḍaka
Upaniṣad 1.2.1.
An interesting data
point in support of the above thesis is the fact that Yājñavalkya, who is
credited with revealing the “new” Śukla-yajurveda, derives his name from his father’s
name Yajñavalka, literally “teacher of yajñas”, which implies that he was involved
in constructing new rituals and this is indicated symbolically as the story of
him giving up the old Yajurveda and obtaining a new one.
Finally, another
interesting data point in support of the above thesis comes from the Buddhist
Sutta Nipāta [1][2]. In chapter 2 “Cūḷavagga”, section 7 “Brāhmaṇa-dhammika-sutta”,
Buddha describes the lifestyle of the “ancient Brāhmaṇas” who were more pious
and spiritually dedicated than those of his time. In the course of his lecture he
says:
“Seers, before, were austere & restrained in mind. Abandoning
the five strings of sensuality, they practiced for their own benefit. They had no
cattle, no gold, no wealth. They had study as their wealth. They protected the
Brahmā treasure.
…….
They asked for rice, bedding, cloth, butter & oil. Having
collected all that in line with rectitude, from that they performed the
sacrifice. And in setting up the sacrifice, they didn’t harm cows.
“Like a mother, father, brother, or other relative, cows are
our foremost friends.
From them comes medicine. They give food, strength, beauty, &
happiness.”
Knowing this line of reasoning, they didn’t harm cows.”
Now, this is probably a
unilateral depiction of the situation in Buddha’s time, showing Brāhmaṇas as
greedy and wanton, and coming to Buddha for advice on how ancient Brāhmaṇas
behaved as if they had completely lost their connection with their own
tradition. I haven’t come across independent evidence from non-Buddhist sources
of the same time period to back this up. We wouldn’t be remiss in assuming that
Buddha may have been exaggerating the apparent deterioration of Brāhmaṇas in
his own time, as his motive was to wean away Vedic practitioners into his own
fold. However, there is certainly truth in his statements about “ancient Brāhmaṇas”
treating cows with love and affection, as seen clearly in the Cow Hymn. So, we
can confidently deduce that animal sacrifice was a relatively newer development
not practiced in the most ancient Vedic period.
However, the central question
is whether there was any recognition of non-violence in ancient Vedic texts,
and hence prescription of alternatives to animal sacrifice.
The texts that
specialized in prescriptions of rituals are the Brāhmaṇas and Āraṇyakas. Two
important points to note about these texts are:
- They prescribed rituals for the general population of Vedic times, who were from all walks of life and with various levels of spiritual awakening. As in any society, the enlightened people (rishis) only made up a small percentage of the population. Hence these texts have a variety of different rituals to cater to the religious needs of many different types of people, including those who feel obligated to sacrifice animals.
- They
represent the second period of Vedic culture. This is evidenced by the fact
that these texts quote the Samhitā mantras to be recited for each ritual. Hence
the Samhitā must have existed prior to the composition of these texts.
I was pleasantly
surprised to find several explicit, direct and unambiguous passages which
prescribe a bloodless alternative to animal sacrifice. I shall detail them
below.
There are only a
handful of academics who have studied the ancient Brāhmaṇa and Āraṇyaka texts
from this perspective. In the upper echelons of western academia, Edwin
Bryant[3] stands out as someone who is more balanced and less biased in his
views. However, his analysis is also somewhat unsatisfactory. He explains the alternatives
to animal sacrifice as “confusion and conflict” in the minds of the experts,
who while upholding the “orthodoxy” of animal sacrifice, begin to have feelings
for the animals, and hence they insert these alternatives. He sees this as a
clash of opposing old and new beliefs.
I must disagree with
Bryant. These Brāhmaṇa and Āraṇyaka texts are distilled compilations of many
centuries of ritual practice. They represent the best and most accepted form of
the rituals coming down through tradition. So, they do not contain material
that is adventitious according to the whimsical beliefs of an individual. They
contain settled and canonical doctrine. Therefore, if they prescribe
alternatives to animal sacrifice, then it is certainly an old teaching that has
co-existed with other teachings as options. Hence, we must conclude that the
idea of non-violence in yajñas has always been encouraged, but the choice of
animal sacrifice has been provided in the hope of gently nudging the worshipper
towards higher spirituality.
Below, I shall provide
details from the instances I have found. There is no doubt that many more
instances would be found.
Aitareya
Brāhmaṇa (chapter)6.8-9 or (pañcikā)2.1.8-9 has a very explicit
statement regarding effectiveness of using rice in place of real animals.
Khaṇḍa
8 starts with an allegorical story describing how the Devas first
sought man as the yajña-paśu:
पुरुषं वै
देवाः पशुमालभन्त
तस्मादालब्धान्मेध उदक्रामत्
सोऽश्वं प्राविशत्
तस्मादश्वो मेध्योऽभवत्
अथैनमुत्क्रान्तमेधमत्यार्जन्त स
किंपुरुषोऽभवत्
“The Devas first obtained man as the sacrificial animal. From that
man, the sacred part escaped and it entered the horse. Hence the horse became
fit for sacrifice. They abandoned the man from whom the sacred part escaped, he
became Kiṃpuruṣa.”
तेऽश्वमालभन्त सोऽश्वादालब्धादुदक्रामत्
स गां प्राविशत्, तस्माद् गौर्मेध्योऽभवत्
अथैनमुत्क्रान्तमेधमत्यार्जन्त स
गौरमृगोऽभवत्
“They obtained the horse. From the horse, the sacred part escaped
and entered the cow/bull. Hence the cow/bull became fit for sacrifice. They
abandoned the horse from whom the sacred part escaped, it became the Gauramṛga
(Nilgai).”
ते गामालभन्त, स
गोरालब्धादुदक्रामत् सोऽविं
प्राविशत् तस्मादविर्मेध्योऽभवत्
अथैनमुत्क्रान्तमेधमत्यार्जन्त स
गवयोऽभवत् तेऽविमालभन्त
सोऽवेरालब्धादुदक्रामत् सोऽजं
प्राविशत् तस्मादजो
मेध्योऽभवत् अथैनमुत्क्रान्तमेधमत्यार्जन्त
स उष्ट्रोऽभवत् ।
“They obtained the cow/bull. From the cow/bull, the sacred part
escaped and entered into the sheep. Hence the sheep became fit for sacrifice.
They abandoned the cow/bull from whom the sacred part escaped, it became the
ox. From the sheep it escaped and entered into the goat. Hence the goat became
fit for sacrifice. They abandoned the sheep from whom the sacred part escaped,
it became the camel.”
सोऽजे ज्योक्तमामिवारमत
तस्मादेष एतेषां पशूनां
प्रयुक्ततमो यदजः
।
“The sacred part stayed in the goat for the longest time as it
were, hence the goat is the most frequently used among these animals.”
तेऽजमालभन्त सोऽजादालब्धादुदक्रामत्
स इमां प्राविशत्, तस्मादियं मेध्याभवत्
अथैनमुत्क्रान्तमेधमत्यार्जन्त स
शरभोऽभवत् ।
“They obtained the goat. From the goat, the sacred part escaped
and entered the Earth. They abandoned the goat from whom the sacred part
escaped, it became the Śarabha.”
तमस्यामन्वगच्छन् सोऽनुगतो
व्रीहिरभवत् ...
“They followed this sacred part in the Earth, he became rice...”
Khaṇḍa
9:
स वा
एष पशुरेवालभ्यते यत्पुरोडाशः
।
“The cake made from rice is indeed the same as getting an animal.”
तस्य यानि
किंशारूणि तानि रोमाणि, ये
तुषाः सा त्वक्
ये फलीकरणास्तदसृक् यत्पिष्टं
किक्नसास्तन्मांसं यत्किंचित्कं
सारं तदस्थि ।
“Of the rice, the straw compares to the hair of the animal, the
chaff compares to the skin, the soft material that comes off after whitening
the rice compares to the blood, the white rice that is ground into flour
compares to the flesh, and whatever hard part of the rice grains is remaining,
that compares to the bones.”
सर्वेषां वा
एष पशूनां मेधेन यजते
यः पुरोडाशेन यजते ।
“Hence, he who performs yajna with the rice cake (puroḍāśa),
effectively he performs yajna with the essence of all animals.”
तस्मादाहुः पुरोडाशसत्रं
लोक्यमिति ।
“Hence, the learned people say that the puroḍāśa-satra is
beautiful to view (or beneficial) (or preferable).”
Śatapatha Brāhmaṇa 1.2.3.6-9 has an almost identical description and
conclusion.
Taittirīya Samhitā 2.3.2.8 says:
… दधि मधु घृतमापो धाना भवन्त्येतद्वै पशूनां रूपं रूपेणैव पशूनवरुन्धे …
“… Curds/yogurt, Honey, Ghee,
Waters, Grains – these are verily the forms of the animals. By the forms alone
the animals are obtained…”
Taittirīya Āraṇyaka 6.2 provides a different alternative. This section deals with the Pitṛ-yajña:
कल्पः - अत्र राजगवीमुपाकरोति...जरतीं मुख्यां तज्जघन्यां कृष्णां कृष्णाक्षीं कृष्णवालां कृष्णखुरां
“He obtains/prepares
the “royal cow” who is old and decrepit, black, with black eyes, black tail and
black hooves.”
However, the next paragraph says that the
yajamāna has the option of either killing the cow or releasing her:
कल्पः - तां घ्नन्ति उत्सृजन्ति वा
“They can
either kill her or release her.”
There are very likely many more such
teachings of alternatives to animal sacrifice in the vast literature that is
the Brāhmaṇas and Āraṇyakas. Suffice it to say from the above evidence that
animal sacrifice was not a required or mandatory part of Vedic ritual, and
non-violence was already a firmly established teaching in Vedic scriptures.
References:
[3] “Strategies
of Subversion: The Emergence of Vegetarianism in Post-Vedic India” in
A Communion of Subjects (194-203) Eds Waldau, P & Patton, K New York:
Columbia University Press, 2006.
