Animal Sacrifice near demigods

[Sumit]

Since last 2000-1500 years some sects were developed in Hinduism which promoted animal sacrifice. Even today in some remote villages of India animal sacrifice near local deity is common. We all know animal sacrifice is wrong but how do you think it was introduced in Hinduism? These two may be possible reasons.

Animal sacrifice was common near local deties or demigods. These demigods were not god but souls and there nature lied somewhere between Tamas and Rajas. So they take the life energy of sacrificed animal and helps the one who sacrificed. A give and take system. This also resulted in human sacrifice in past within some tantric sects as humans are great source of life energy.

The second reason may be when hindus went from vegetarian to non vegetarian, they in order to prove them right started animal sacrifice and than started consuming meat.

What may be other reasons?

 

[Sumit]

Since your religion is, "Vedic Dharma", and not "Hindu" Dharma.....I found your OP extremely and vehemently ironic. Because, if a "Hindu" wrote this....I could understand....but.....a Vedicist writing this is similar to a wolf in sheep's clothing, IMHO. Anyways, the following should give you a reality of how Vedicists are offended by OPs such as yours:

Click Me to Understand Ground Reality

I am against any type of Scarifice. Common I don't even kill a grasshopper.

 

[Sumit]

Click Me to Understand Ground Reality

Thank god he didn't saw my post, he would be most offended after reading this. However I wrote demigod because I think god do not need animal sacrifices.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Animal sacrifice was common near local deties or demigods.

Just because you may not be worshiping them, you term them as demi-Gods. They are Gods of their people. Animal sacrifice has been there all the time. Hindus sacrificed to Shiva and Shakti. Aryans sacrificed to their Gods. Even today, my father-in-laws family completes the Nav-Ratri vratas with worship of Devi with a goat's heart and lung. During the eight days they are strict vegetarians, not using any sour substance, onion or garlic. Note that the parts cannot be cut with a knife, they have to be made into pieces by hand. And we are Kashmiri brahmins. Of course, we have a non-vegetarian feast on the ninth day. You may know about Sage Durvasa going to another sage's house and demanding a non-vegetarian meal. The second reason does not make much sense. 'Mrigaya' (hunting) has always been the sport of kings and nobles.

I am against any type of Scarifice. Common I don't even kill a grasshopper.

That is your personal choice, you have a right to it. We have stories of a learned brahmin being sent to a butcher to learn Dharma (Dharma Vyadha - Srimad Bhagawat Purana). Of course, books have said 'Jeevo Jeevasya Bhojanam' (One living being is food for another living being).

 

[Sumit]

(keep in mind, in the following: I'm operating under the moral paradigm that animal sacrifice is wrong and a non-Vaishnava paradigm ---)

Well, I think Krishna is a "demigod". And, he doesn't need various modes of worship.

Do you see what I'm trying to say?

At the beginning of thread I specifically mentioned some sects and demigods not all. Animal sacrifice were common in some sect. The most common deities were Kali, Tara, Bhairav, Narshima etc.

 

[Vinayaka]

We all know animal sacrifice is wrong but how do you think it was introduced in Hinduism?

What may be other reasons?

I have no real insight into this excellent question. One factor might be the influence of surrounding tribal religions. It's incredibly common in Bali, used to be in Mauritius, and Fiji, but not so much anymore.

I don't really know the whys. Of course there is reference to it in various scriptures, yet I know of no school existing today where it is highly recommended, other than perhaps in Bali. But I don't get around enough to know.

 

[Sumit]

.That is your personal choice, you have a right to it. We have *stories of a learned brahmin being sent to a butcher to learn Dharma (Dharma Vyadha - Srimad Bhagawat Purana). Of course, books have said 'Jeevo Jeevasya Bhojanam' (One living being is food for another living being).

I know many books composed later contained animal sacrifice but what was reason behind? BTW Is this verse "Jeevo Jeevasya Bhojanam" is from vedas or puranas?? As hinduism has perhaps hundreds of scriptures so it's always a good idea to check the authentic scriptures. Puranas are self contradictory.

We ought to destroy those who eat cooked or uncooked meat, meat that involve destruction of males and females, foetus and eggs.
Atharva Veda 8:6:23

Anago hatya vai bheema kritye Atharva10.1
It is great sins to kill innocients.

Aghnyaa yajamaanasya pashoonpahi Yajurveda
Animals are not to be killed, protect them

Protect bipeds and quadrupeds. Yajurveda 14:8

 

[Sumit]

I wouldn't really trust Agniveer a whole lot. They sometimes mistranslate verses on purpose. However, their Rig Vedic verses regarding egalitarianism and women equality were quite wonderful in their mystical translating.

Not even I and that is why I never ordered their translation of vedas, they just call everything that they don't believe as superstition. I am not very good in Sanskrit but most of verses that I give here translate either myself or use translation of Aurobindo or Swami Dayanand from Aryasamaj Jamnagar website.

 

[Poeticus]

Not even I and that is why I never ordered their translation of vedas, they just call everything that they don't believe as superstition. I am not very good in Sanskrit but most of verses that I give here translate either myself or use translation of Aurobindo or Swami Dayanand from Aryasamaj Jamnagar website.

The "correct" and "current" translations are actually not available to the public, due to copy-right laws. These are translations of many, not all, hymns of the Vedas that were done recently (1990-present) because of many errors in previous translations done by Griffith and Wilson. However....to an extant....I find Aurobindo's translations very cool, even Wilson's and Griffith's.

Anyways...regarding your OP......animal sacrifices were a tenet of Yagya-Dharma. It was an "esoteric" practice that only a select few practiced....in fact, it preceded the advent of the Shramanic traditions....so....our current distaste with animal sacrifices is due to our being influenced by Shramanic values of ahimsā during the post-Brahmanic phase of "Hinduism". It's not about "demigod" this or that. In fact, tribal mentality has always existed in the Indian subcontinent since the early Vedic period...where numerous tribes kept a specific ritualistic fire whereas other tribes who also kept a fire were not deemed proper even though they had a fire. Furthermore, it was riddled with inter-cine conflicts. If you take a philological look at the Rig Veda...you will notice that many tribes are quite divided and each tribes sees each other as "incorrect": Tribe A is wrong; No! Tribe B is wrong; Nooo! Tribe C is wrong. But, all these tribes kept the proper fire, but they were very competitive in the ritualistic and spiritualistic compartments. On a few occasions....conducting a yagya without offering an animal sacrifice was almost unthinkable. However....animal sacrifice was never ordained as Yagyic-Law...since it was not a part of Satya and Rta, the ethics of Vedic Dharma.

 

[Aupmanyav]

Tradition does not bar many kshatriyas, vaishyas, shudras and even some brahmins from eating non-vegetarian fare. It is a good advice but no one can be forced to accept it. Kashmiri brahmins do not mind and perhaps Maithil brahmins also are allowed to eat non-vegetarian fare.

 

[Sb1995]

I am Kashmiri Brahmin and I eat non-veg. He is correct about what he said^.

 

[Poeticus]

Tradition does not bar many kshatriyas, vaishyas, shudras and even some brahmins from eating non-vegetarian fare. It is a good advice but no one can be forced to accept it. Kashmiri brahmins do not mind and perhaps Maithil brahmins also are allowed to eat non-vegetarian fare.

I am Kashmiri Brahmin and I eat non-veg. He is correct about what he said^.

Correct, "tradition" (and I am quoting it since we are not talking about traditional Hinduism, but in fact...are talking about Vedic-centric ritualistic paradigms) does not bar many social groups of certain forms of stratification from consuming flesh of various animals. However, one thing is obviously clear when it comes to which animal was deemed inappropriate to eat: the female cow (aka: the milk-giving cow), for She, Go-mātā, was and is aghnya - that which must not be harmed, sacrificed, or consumed. The famous "Yatudhana Hymn" in the Rig Veda stresses repeatedly that God Savitar personally ruins those that consume the flesh of the milk-giving cow.

 

[Sb1995]

No cow of course

 

[Sumit]

I am Kashmiri Brahmin and I eat non-veg. He is correct about what he said^.

Most of the brahmin from Northern States eat non veg. Even family in village in Village during rituals sacrificed many goats. This reminds me an statement from Mahanirvan Tantra.

Shiva says to shakti "Due to effect of kali Brahmins will loose the ability to distinguish between pure and impure, so in that case how they will achieve what is given in vedas. In that condition even through smriti people cannot achieve siddhi of their Ista. I always speak truth, In kaliyuga the only path is Agmas. O devi, In kaliyuga people will pray Gods through Tantric path".

The next verse says "In kali, vedic mantras are like snakes without poison, that's true these mantras worked in Treta and Dwapar yugas. These mantras are nearly dead . In kaliyuga these all mantras are fruitless. In age of kali one who wants to achieve siddhi through such mantras is similar to thirsty person digging land on bank of ganga. On kali, tantric way of worship is only fruitful.



Your views about animal sacrifice near deity and it's results?

 

[Sb1995]

Never sacrificed an animal or know anyone who has and don't know anyone who would/will. I don't plan to EVER in my life and don't know who would lol

 

[Vinayaka]

Never sacrificed an animal or know anyone who has and don't know anyone who would/will. I don't plan to EVER in my life and don't know who would lol

I wouldn't enter a temple that did it (provided I knew about it) either. Came close once, got as far as the chopping block, but when we saw the blood and feathers, we walked back to the car.

 

[Yogi1054]

Im caught in the middle on this one - I have a Vashnava friend who argues that Lord Buddha came to end all animal killing, yet on the other hand my Yoga tradition that I follow has its origins in the Skati worship of Bengal. Im a strict vegetarian and the thought of eating meat put me right off, but its sacrifice is part of the worship.....I dont know...very confused on the matter

 

[Sumit]

Im caught in the middle on this one - I have a Vashnava friend who argues that Lord Buddha came to end all animal killing, yet on the other hand my Yoga tradition that I follow has its origins in the Skati worship of Bengal. Im a strict vegetarian and the thought of eating meat put me right off, but its sacrifice is part of the worship.....I dont know...very confused on the matter

Not all sect under Shaktism support animal sacrifice, I have read a little of Shakta literature and in fact many of their scriptures are against animal sacrifice.

 

[Aupmanyav]

However, one thing is obviously clear when it comes to which animal was deemed inappropriate to eat: the female cow ..

But bulls can be sacrificed, because RigVeda mentions invoking Indra after a bull is killed to come and partake it..

 

[Poeticus]

Not all sect under Shaktism support animal sacrifice, I have read a little of Shakta literature and in fact many of their scriptures are against animal sacrifice.

Well, obviously: it's not for this yuga and it's quite outdated and "old fashioned" and was not an evolved occurrence, now was it?

But bulls can be sacrificed, because RigVeda mentions invoking Indra after a bull is killed to come and partake it..

Are bulls, female milk-giving cows?