Does Rg veda call for killing of Cow-slayer..?

[thebigthinkg]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

"yaḥ pauruṣeyeṇa kraviṣā samaṅkte yo aśveyena paśunā yātudhānaḥ |
yo aghnyāyā bharati kṣīram aghne teṣāṃ śīrṣāṇi harasāpi vṛśca || " ​

- Rg Veda Mandala 10 Hymn 87-16

The meaning of it according to Griffith is "The fiend who smears himself with flesh of cattle, with flesh of horses and of human bodies, Who steals the milch-cow's milk away, O Agni,-tear off the heads of such with fiery fury"

The meaning according to me is "The meat/mass (kravis) of the particles of dark-matter (purusha), neutrinos (asvya) and other leptons (paSu) is seater/holder (dhAna) of their continuous travelling/movement (yAtu). In this fiery (aghnyaya) expression (bhArati) of Cosmos (kshiram), all these (tesAm) rain (vrsca) like (api) a drink (harasa)".

Even according to Griffith's translation, which RSS follows blindly, Rg Veda does not ask people to tear off the heads of cow slayers. According to that translation, the prayer is to Agni to tear off the head the one who smears themselves with flesh of all types of cattle and one who STEALS the milk of cow.

I definitely think that even the above translation is completely wrong, as I see Rg Veda a cosmic science. My translations may or may not stand the test of time. I still need some way to go before I can lift them to peer reviews. But that's another matter.

The author of the panchajanya article is a half-baked hot-head who is damaging the reputation of Vedas without having even heard them.
RSS by propagating such a stupid article is doing much more damage to the knowledge in Vedas.

-TBT

 

[yesmohan]

A good start. Let all come to lime light; WE COULD LEARN A BIT.

 

[sravna]

My view is that humans should first try to understand that killing or violence against another human is a primitive act. If they are able to transcend that level then things would fall into place. Some killings are justified like the killings in the mahabharatha war. But such decisions which decide what is greater good is best left to the wise. I would say in the current charged atmosphere promoting harmony among people should be a priority above everything else.

The vedas which is a repository of wisdom would have said the right thing. It is some people's interpretations according to their wishes that are far from wise.

 

[yesmohan]

பசு வதை செய்பவர்களை கொல்ல வேண்டும் என்று வேதங்களில் கூறப்பட்டுள்ளதாக ஆர்எஸ்எஸ் பிரச்சார ஏடு ஒன்றின் பிரதான கட்டுரையில் கூறப்பட்டுள்ளது.
இதுகுறித்து, ஆர்எஸ்எஸ் பிரச்சார ஏடான பாஞ்ச்ஜன்யாவின் சமீபத்திய பதிப்பில் வெளியாகி உள்ள கட்டுரையில் கூறியிருப்ப தாவது:
இந்து மதத்தில் பசு வதை என்பது மிகவும் பெரிய பிரச்சினை. எனவே, பசு வதை செய்பவர்களை கொல்ல வேண்டும் என்று வேதங்கள் கூறுகின்றன. தாத்ரி யில் மாட்டிறைச்சி சாப்பிட்டதாக முகமது இக்லாக் கொல்லப்பட் டார். இதைக் கண்டித்து சில எழுத்தாளர்கள் தங்கள் விருதை திருப்பி வழங்கி வருகின்றனர். ஆனால் அவர்கள் இக்லாக் பசுவை வதைத்திருக்கிறார் என்பதை ஏன் கருத்தில் கொள்ள மறுக்கிறார்கள்?
தாத்ரியில் படுகொலை செய் யப்பட்ட இக்லாக் மீது தனிப்பட்ட முறையில் யாருக்கும் பகை உணர்வு இருந்ததாக எந்த ஊடக மும் கூறவில்லை. மேலும் அங்கு இதற்கு முன்பு இதுபோன்ற வன்முறை சம்பவம் ஏற்பட்டதே இல்லை. இதன்மூலம் அமைதிக்கு பெயர்போன இந்த ஊரில், காரணம் இல்லாமல் இந்த சம்பவம் நடைபெற்றிருக்காது என்பதை உணர முடிகிறது.
மேலும் இந்த நேரத்தில், எந்த ஒரு செயலுக்கும் அதற்கு இணை யான எதிர் செயல் இருக்கும் என்ற நியூட்டனின் விதியை நினைவூகூர வேண்டி உள்ளது.
இந்த சம்பவத்தைக் கண்டித்து தங்களது விருதுகளை திருப்பித் தரும் எழுத்தாளர்கள், இக்லாக் பசு வதை செய்ததைப் போன்ற குற்றச் செயலை ஊக்குவிக்கும் சமூகத்தின் மனநிலை குறித்து ஏன் கேள்வி எழுப்புவதில்லை.
தங்களுடைய முன்னோர் களின் கலாச்சார மற்றும் பழக்க வழக்கத்தைக் கைவிட வேண்டும் என்று மதம் மாறிய இந்துக் களுக்கு யார் சொல்லிக் கொடுத் தது? இக்லாக் உட்பட இப்போது முஸ்லிம்காளாக உள்ள அனை வரும் சில தலைமுறைகளுக்கு முன்பு இந்துக்களாக இருந்தவர் கள்தான். அதேநேரம் குற்றவாளி களை தண்டிப்பதற்கு சட்டம் இருக் கிறது. அந்த சட்டத்தை யாரும் தங்களுடைய கையில் எடுத்துக் கொண்டு செயல்பட உரிமை இல்லை. இவ்வாறு அதில் கூறப் பட்டுள்ளது.
இதுகுறித்து இதழின் ஆசிரியர் ஹிதேஷ் சங்கர் கூறும்போது, “வன் முறையை நாங்கள் ஆதரிக்க வில்லை. இந்தக் கட்டுரையில் எழுத்தாளர் தனது தனிப்பட்ட கருத்தை தெரிவித்துள்ளார். இது ஆசிரியர் குழுவின் கருத்தல்ல. தாத்ரி சம்பவம் குறித்து விசாரிக்க வேண்டும்” என்றார்.
தங்களுடைய முன்னோர் களின் கலாச்சார மற்றும் பழக்க வழக்கத்தைக் கைவிட வேண்டும் என்று மதம் மாறிய இந்துக்களுக்கு யார் சொல்லிக் கொடுத்தது?
Keywords: பசுவதை, வேதம், ஆர்எஸ்எஸ் பிரச்சார ஏட்டில் தகவல்

 

[thebigthinkg]

பசு வதை செய்பவர்களை கொல்ல வேண்டும் என்று வேதங்களில் கூறப்பட்டுள்ளதாக ஆர்எஸ்எஸ் பிரச்சார ஏடு ஒன்றின் பிரதான கட்டுரையில் கூறப்பட்டுள்ளது.
இதுகுறித்து, ஆர்எஸ்எஸ் பிரச்சார ஏடான பாஞ்ச்ஜன்யாவின் சமீபத்திய பதிப்பில் வெளியாகி உள்ள கட்டுரையில் கூறியிருப்ப தாவது:
இந்து மதத்தில் பசு வதை என்பது மிகவும் பெரிய பிரச்சினை. எனவே, பசு வதை செய்பவர்களை கொல்ல வேண்டும் என்று வேதங்கள் கூறுகின்றன. தாத்ரி யில் மாட்டிறைச்சி சாப்பிட்டதாக முகமது இக்லாக் கொல்லப்பட் டார். இதைக் கண்டித்து சில எழுத்தாளர்கள் தங்கள் விருதை திருப்பி வழங்கி வருகின்றனர். ஆனால் அவர்கள் இக்லாக் பசுவை வதைத்திருக்கிறார் என்பதை ஏன் கருத்தில் கொள்ள மறுக்கிறார்கள்?
தாத்ரியில் படுகொலை செய் யப்பட்ட இக்லாக் மீது தனிப்பட்ட முறையில் யாருக்கும் பகை உணர்வு இருந்ததாக எந்த ஊடக மும் கூறவில்லை. மேலும் அங்கு இதற்கு முன்பு இதுபோன்ற வன்முறை சம்பவம் ஏற்பட்டதே இல்லை. இதன்மூலம் அமைதிக்கு பெயர்போன இந்த ஊரில், காரணம் இல்லாமல் இந்த சம்பவம் நடைபெற்றிருக்காது என்பதை உணர முடிகிறது.
மேலும் இந்த நேரத்தில், எந்த ஒரு செயலுக்கும் அதற்கு இணை யான எதிர் செயல் இருக்கும் என்ற நியூட்டனின் விதியை நினைவூகூர வேண்டி உள்ளது.
இந்த சம்பவத்தைக் கண்டித்து தங்களது விருதுகளை திருப்பித் தரும் எழுத்தாளர்கள், இக்லாக் பசு வதை செய்ததைப் போன்ற குற்றச் செயலை ஊக்குவிக்கும் சமூகத்தின் மனநிலை குறித்து ஏன் கேள்வி எழுப்புவதில்லை.
தங்களுடைய முன்னோர் களின் கலாச்சார மற்றும் பழக்க வழக்கத்தைக் கைவிட வேண்டும் என்று மதம் மாறிய இந்துக் களுக்கு யார் சொல்லிக் கொடுத் தது? இக்லாக் உட்பட இப்போது முஸ்லிம்காளாக உள்ள அனை வரும் சில தலைமுறைகளுக்கு முன்பு இந்துக்களாக இருந்தவர் கள்தான். அதேநேரம் குற்றவாளி களை தண்டிப்பதற்கு சட்டம் இருக் கிறது. அந்த சட்டத்தை யாரும் தங்களுடைய கையில் எடுத்துக் கொண்டு செயல்பட உரிமை இல்லை. இவ்வாறு அதில் கூறப் பட்டுள்ளது.
இதுகுறித்து இதழின் ஆசிரியர் ஹிதேஷ் சங்கர் கூறும்போது, “வன் முறையை நாங்கள் ஆதரிக்க வில்லை. இந்தக் கட்டுரையில் எழுத்தாளர் தனது தனிப்பட்ட கருத்தை தெரிவித்துள்ளார். இது ஆசிரியர் குழுவின் கருத்தல்ல. தாத்ரி சம்பவம் குறித்து விசாரிக்க வேண்டும்” என்றார்.
தங்களுடைய முன்னோர் களின் கலாச்சார மற்றும் பழக்க வழக்கத்தைக் கைவிட வேண்டும் என்று மதம் மாறிய இந்துக்களுக்கு யார் சொல்லிக் கொடுத்தது?
Keywords: பசுவதை, வேதம், ஆர்எஸ்எஸ் பிரச்சார ஏட்டில் தகவல்

Hmm......

1. What is the ancestral culture and habits that you are referring to..?

Valmiki describes in detail how a horse is sexually stimulated and slayed, liver is taken out, smoked and eaten. Should we follow this ancestral culture..?

Why did people of current times change this culture..?

2. Charaka asks people to eat cow-meat, crow-meat and even lions meat for certain diseases. Should we follow this ancestral culture..?

3. In Valmiki's ramayana at various places eating meat is referred to. Should we follow that culture..?

4. When sanatana dharmis of the current times can change and modify their cultural habits according to their current times and needs, why not people who follow religions like Islam, christianity, Buddhism also change..?

5. See the hall-mark of sanatana dharma is, it is not an abrahamic religion fixed at a point of time. It is a evolutionary way of life that adapts to principles and procedures, time to time.

Intolerant attitude kills the spirit of our dharma.

6. If we understand and play it right, Sanatana dharma will be understood as an adaptive evolutionary way of life, guiding evolution forever, which is its right place. But islamizing or chiristianizing or buddhisizing it will kill its spirit.

-TBT

 

[prasad1]

I agree with your post#5.
Even if Rig veda or God(choose which ever religion you want) himself said it, DOES IT JUSTIFY it today. So how does it matter what the veda (depending on the interpretation) says?.

 

[renuka]

Frankly speaking it does not really bother me if anyone wants to eat meat but what I can NOT tolerate is killing animals in the name of religion.

Why the heck does a Yagna need a sacrificial animal? Is God actually blood thirsty? Or was it just humans who were still evolving in their understanding of "God" and Nature and felt that a sacrifice is needed to keep God happy and one would get favors in return.

It just does not make any sense that one is called a Noble One(Arya) yet indulging in animal sacrifice for favors in return eg Ashwamedha to secure a place in so called heaven.

What type of Noble person will take the life of an innocent animal just to secure benefits?

That is not noble in my opinion but a total @#$%#!

So what is it now?

Did the Vedas really call for animal sacrifice? Or was it misinterpreted?

 

[thebigthinkg]

Frankly speaking it does not really bother me if anyone wants to eat meat but what I can NOT tolerate is killing animals in the name of religion.

Why the heck does a Yagna need a sacrificial animal? Is God actually blood thirsty? Or was it just humans who were still evolving in their understanding of "God" and Nature and felt that a sacrifice is needed to keep God happy and one would get favors in return.

It just does not make any sense that one is called a Noble One(Arya) yet indulging in animal sacrifice for favors in return eg Ashwamedha to secure a place in so called heaven.

What type of Noble person will take the life of an innocent animal just to secure benefits?

That is not noble in my opinion but a total @#$%#!

So what is it now?

Did the Vedas really call for animal sacrifice? Or was it misinterpreted?

My understanding (of which I am blogging a series translating Rg vedic slokas) is that Rg veda is about cosmic evolution and does not talk of mundane things like animal sacrifice.

But animal sacrifice existed in the older times, but not in the way we imagine. It was not about killing an animal and throwing it in fire. Valmiki Ramayana explains how Dasaratha's queens sexually stimulate a male horse (that feeds on its own and not fed in a stable) and in that condition slaughter it, extract its omentum and smoke it.

This seems to be have a solid understanding of science of last 100 years, though the practice is 1000's of years old. So there seems to be a purpose in these sacrifices, which probably we do not understand fully now.

-TBT

 

[renuka]

My understanding (of which I am blogging a series translating Rg vedic slokas) is that Rg veda is about cosmic evolution and does not talk of mundane things like animal sacrifice.

But animal sacrifice existed in the older times, but not in the way we imagine. It was not about killing an animal and throwing it in fire. Valmiki Ramayana explains how Dasaratha's queens sexually stimulate a male horse (that feeds on its own and not fed in a stable) and in that condition slaughter it, extract its omentum and smoke it.

This seems to be have a solid understanding of science of last 100 years, though the practice is 1000's of years old. So there seems to be a purpose in these sacrifices, which probably we do not understand fully now.

-TBT

Ok got it..found the verse about horse sacrifice..I must have missed that page when I read it.

Ok the word patatri is used...that can mean either bird or horse but in other verse the word haya is used which denotes horse.

Then it says that the omentum of the horse was placed in fire and Dasharatha smelt it.

Strange but what else smells like a horse? Ashwagandha as far as I know is a herb that is supposed to smell like a horse.

Any possibility the horse here is not a real horse and just a herb used in the fire ritual?

I am not trying to deny that a horse could have been killed but just wondering of any other possibilities?

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

Even if animals were used let us try to understand the rationale. The ritual is animal "sacrifice". You sacrifice something only when you are contemplating a greater good to happen. It is not mindless killing. Moksha only happens when you die. But it is a very positive occurrence. So without properly understanding what is happening spiritually we cannot come to a hasty conclusion about animal sacrifice. But I stress understanding is necessary when you commit that act. Otherwise it becomes barbaric.

 

[renuka]

Dear Renuka,

Even if animals were used let us try to understand the rationale. The ritual is animal "sacrifice". You sacrifice something only when you are contemplating a greater good to happen. It is not mindless killing. Moksha only happens when you die. But it is a very positive occurrence. So without properly understanding what is happening spiritually we cannot come to a hasty conclusion about animal sacrifice. But I stress understanding is necessary when you commit that act. Otherwise it becomes barbaric.

Nope...I do not condone killing of any kind even for a greater good ..what good can come when one inflicts pain on another for trivial reasons like a place in heaven?

I find that selfish..if one feels he/she wants a greater good then have the balls to sacrifice their own life and not an animal cos the animal has NOT given consent.

I have personally witnessed animal slaughter and I fainted flat..its not easy to watch the struggle and fear an animal has in its eyes knowing that its going to suffer a painful death.

Some of us too have experienced having being in a situation where we were held at knife point would know the emotions that run thru when we faced impending death.

So any proper human with a conscience would never condone any act of animal sacrifice of the religious kind.

If the Vedas had indeed condoned this..then all I can say God is NOT Great...totally defective.

So does Vedas give God a bad name?

 

[sravna]

Dear Renuka,

Vedas present a holistic understanding of reality, advocates what is right from that perspective.Telling a lie is not right but when you do it to save a person's life it is allowed. Lord Krishna himself in the famous Gita advocates Arjuna to do his duty irrespective of Arjuna's notion of what is right and wrong.

Events in the universe follow a certain path according to destiny. The final goal is for jivatmas to become one with God and the ensuing dissolution of the universe. Whatever events are necessary for these to happen will happen.

Even I do intuitively feel it is wrong to do something like killing of animals. But our intuitions are far far shallow compared to the immaculate visions of the rishis. I keep them in this high regard for the depth of the philosophy they were able to offer about life and such things. I do not have first hand knowledge of what is said in the vedas including about animal sacrifice because I do not understand sanskrit. But I have the faith that whatever are said in the vedas are said with depth and with a great understanding of reality.

 

[Brahmanyan]

Without going into the merit or demerit of Cow Slaughter, let us examine the legal position of the subject:

Our Constitution has included the subject under Part IV Directive Principles of State Policy:

Article 48 {Organisation of agriculture and animal husbandry}

The State shall endeavour to organise agriculture and animal husbandry on modern and scientific lines and shall, in particular, take steps for preserving and improving the breeds, and prohibiting the slaughter, of cows and calves and other milch and draught cattle.


I give below the list of Law against Cow slaughter passed by different States (Taken from Wikipedia)

The Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977 governs the slaughter of cattle in the state. Slaughter of cows (includes heifer, or a calf, whether male or female of a cow) is prohibited.

The Assam Cattle Preservation Act, 1950 governs the slaughter of cattle in the state. Slaughter of all cattle, including bulls, bullocks, cows, calves, male and female buffaloes and buffalo calves is prohibited.

The Bihar Preservation and Improvement of Animals Act, 1955 governs the slaughter of cattle in the state. Slaughter of cow and calf is totally prohibited.

The Goa, Daman & Diu Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1978 governs the slaughter of cattle in Daman and Diu. There is a total ban on slaughter of cow (includes cow, heifer or calf), except when the cow is suffering pain or contagious disease or for medical research.

The Delhi Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1994 governs the slaughter of cattle in the state. Slaughter of all agricultural cattle is totally prohibited. The law defines "agricultural cattle" as cows of all ages, calves of cows of all ages, and bulls and bullocks.

The Goa, Daman & Diu Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1978 and The Goa Animal Preservation Act, 1995 govern the slaughter of cattle in the state. Under the 1978 Act, which also applies to Daman and Diu, there is a total ban on slaughter of cow (includes cow, heifer or calf).

The Gujarat Animal Preservation Act (GAPA) 1954 governs the slaughter of cattle in the state. Slaughter of cows, calves of cows, bulls and bullocks is totally prohibited.

The Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 applies to Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab. Therefore, the law governing the slaughter of cattle in Haryana has the same provisions as that in Punjab and Himachal Pradesh. However, Haryana has stricter penalties for violating the law than the other 2 states.

The Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 applies to Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab. Therefore, the law governing the slaughter of cattle in Himachal Pradesh is the same as that in Punjab and Haryana. However, Himachal and Punjab have lighter penalties for violating the law than Haryana.

Jammu and Kashmir:The Ranbir Penal Code, 1932 governs the slaughter of cattle in Jammu and Kashmir. Voluntary slaughter of any bovine animal such as ox, bull, cow or calf shall be punished with imprisonment of either description which may extend to 10 years and shall also be liable to fine. The fine may extend to 5 times the price of the animals slaughtered as determined by the court. Possession of the flesh of slaughtered animals is also an offence punishable with imprisonment and fine .

The Karnataka Prevention of Cow Slaughter and Cattle Preservation Act, 1964 governs the slaughter of cattle in the state. Slaughter of cow, calf of a cow (male or female) or calf of a she-buffalo totally prohibited. Transport for slaughter to a place outside the State not permitted. Sale, purchase or disposal of a cow or a calf, for slaughter, is not permitted.

The Madhya Pradesh Agricultural Cattle Preservation Act, 1959governs the slaughter of cattle in the state. Slaughter of cows, calves of cows, bulls, bullocks and buffalo calves is prohibited. Transport or export of cattle for slaughter not permitted.

The Maharashtra Animal Preservation Act, 1976 governs the slaughter of cattle in the state. Slaughter of cows (includes a heifer or male or female calf of a cow) is totally prohibited.

In Manipur, cattle slaughter is restricted under a proclamation by the Maharaja in the Durbar Resolution of 1939. The proclamation states, "According to Hindu religion the killing of cow is a sinful act. It is also against Manipur Custom. I cannot allowed such things to be committed in my State. So if any one is seen killing a cow in the State he should be prosecuted."

The Orissa Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1960 governs the slaughter of cattle in the state. Slaughter of cows (includes heifer or calf) is totally prohibited.

The Pondicherry Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1968 governs the slaughter of cattle in Puducherry. Slaughter of cows (includes heifer or calf) is totally prohibited.

The Punjab Prohibition of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955applies to Haryana, Himachal Pradesh and Punjab. Therefore, the law governing the slaughter of cattle in Punjab has the same provisions as that in Himachal Pradesh. However, Punjab and Himachal have lighter penalties for violating the law than Haryana.

The Rajasthan Bovine Animal (Prohibition of Slaughter and Regulation of Temporary Migration or Export) Act, 1995 governs the slaughter of cattle in the state. Slaughter of all bovine animals (includes cow, calf, heifer, bull or bullocks) is prohibited. Possession, sale and/or transport of beef and beef products is prohibited. The export of bovine animals for slaughter is prohibited.

The Tamil Nadu Animal Preservation Act, 1958 governs the slaughter of cattle in the state.
On 30 August 1976, the Government of Tamil Nadu ordered a ban on cow slaughter. Under the new law, the slaughter of cows (including heifers) is banned in all slaughterhouses in Tamil Nadu. However, the ban is not stringently implemented.

Telengana: The Andhra Pradesh Prohibition of Cow Slaughter and Animal Preservation Act, 1977governs the slaughter of cattle in Telangana. Slaughter of cows (includes heifer, or a calf, whether male or female of a cow) is prohibited.

Uttarkhand Protection of Cow Progeny Bill, 2007 has imposed ban on Cow and its progeny.

The Uttar Pradesh Prevention of Cow Slaughter Act, 1955 governs the slaughter of cattle in the state. Slaughter of cow (includes a heifer and calf) is totally prohibited. Transport of cow outside the State for slaughter is not permitted. The sale of beef is prohibited.

The West Bengal Animal Slaughter Act, 1950governs the slaughter of cattle in the state. Slaughter of all animals is permitted on obtaining a "fit-for-slaughter" certificate. The law defines "animals" as bulls, bullocks, cows, calves and buffaloes of all types/ages. The certificate is only issued if the animal is over 14 years of age and unfit for work or breeding or has become permanently incapacitated for work and breeding due to age, injury, deformity, or any incurable disease.

Arunachal Pradesh, Kerala, Meghalaya,Mizoram, Nagaland, Sikkim and Tripura do not have any Legal sanction against Cow slaughter.

Interestingly except Madhya Pradesh and Uttarkhand,the Legislations prohibiting Cow Slaughter were passed mostly by non-BJP Governments.

Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

 

[sangom]

This topic itself is "aracca mAvu" and that too not long ago. Perhaps it suits the ego temperament of some members to bring up this 'cow-killing' topic and to keep it alive!


Please see my post here for the true position of rigveda.

 

[Brahmanyan]

Does Rg veda call for killing of Cow-slayer..?

This subject has been disscussed in detail by many Forums. Since I do not have first hand knowledge of Vedic Hymns,
I did the next best thing to do. Reading of English translations of relevent Hymns and articles written by scholars in the subject.
An objective analysis of the subject has been given in the following web-link, which is primarily dealing on the teachings of Swami Dayananda Saraswathi founder of Arya Samaj :

http://www.vedicgranth.org/misconce...-3---violence-against-animals-meet-eating-etc

Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

 

[sravna]

Does Rg veda call for killing of Cow-slayer..?

This subject has been disscussed in detail by many Forums. Since I do not have firsthand knowledge of Vedic Hymns,
I did the next best thing to do. Reading of English translations of relevent Hymns and articles written by scholars in the subject.
An objective analysis of the subject has been given in the following web-link, which is primarily dealing on the teachings of Swami Dayananda Saraswathi founder of Arya Samaj :

http://www.vedicgranth.org/misconce...-3---violence-against-animals-meet-eating-etc

Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

Thanks Shri Brahmanyan. Number of misconceptions have been cleared on the website.

 

[Brahmanyan]

Frankly speaking it does not really bother me if anyone wants to eat meat but what I can NOT tolerate is killing animals in the name of religion.
Why the heck does a Yagna need a sacrificial animal? Is God actually blood thirsty? Or was it just humans who were still evolving in their understanding of "God" and Nature and felt that a sacrifice is needed to keep God happy and one would get favors in return.
It just does not make any sense that one is called a Noble One(Arya) yet indulging in animal sacrifice for favors in return eg Ashwamedha to secure a place in so called heaven.
What type of Noble person will take the life of an innocent animal just to secure benefits?
That is not noble in my opinion but a total @#$%#!
So what is it now?
Did the Vedas really call for animal sacrifice? Or was it misinterpreted?

Doctor,

This subject has been discussed time and again in Tamil Brahmin Forum. Here is a brief exposition on the subject given by Kanchi Acharya Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi in his lectures;

Is Sacrificial Killing Justified?

"A yaga or sacrifice takes shape with the chanting of the mantras, the invoking of the deity and the offering of havis (oblation). The mantras are chanted (orally) and the deity is meditated upon (mentally). The most important material required for homa is the havis offered in the sacrificial fire-- in this "work" the body is involved. So, altogether, in a sacrificial offering mind, speech and body (mano-vak-kaya) are brought together.

Ghee (clarified butter) is an important ingredient of the oblation. While ghee by itself is offered as an oblation, it is also used to purify other sacrificial materials - in fact this is obligatory. In a number of sacrifices the vapa(fat or marrow) of animals is offered.

Is the performance of a sacrifice sinful, or is it meritorius? Or is it both?

Madvacharya was against the killing of any pasu for a sacrifice. In his compassion he said that a substitute for the vapa must be made with flour and offered in the fire. ("Pasu" does not necessarily mean a cow. In Sanskrit any animal is called a "pasu". )

In his Brahmasutra, Vyasa has expounded the nature of the Atman as found expressed in the Upanishads which constitute the jnanakanda of the Vedas. The actual conduct of sacrifices is dealt with in the Purvamimamsa which is the karmakanda of the Vedas. The true purpose of sacrifices is explained in the Uttaramimamsa, that is the jnanakanda. What is this purposse or goal? It is the cleansing of the consciousness and such cleansing is essential to lead a man to the path of jnana."

Sri Acharya continues further.......

One is enjoined to perform twenty-one sacrifices. These are of three types, pakayajna, haviryajna and somayajna. In each category there are seven subdivisions. In all the seven pakayajnas as well as in the first five haviryajnas there is no animal sacrifice. It is only from the sixth haviryajna onwards (it is called "nirudhapasubandha") that animals are sacrificed.

"Brahmins sacrificed herds and herds of animals and gorged themselves on their meat. The Buddha saved such herds when they were being taken to the sacrificial altar, " we often read such accounts in books. To tell the truth, there is no sacrifice in which a large number of animals are killed. For vajapeya which is the highest type of yajna performed by Brahmins, only twenty-three animals are mentioned. For asvamedha (horse sacrifice), the biggest of the sacrifices conducted by imperial rulers, one hundred animals are mentioned."


for reading full article kindly open the following web-link
http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap23.htm

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

 

[sangom]

Frankly speaking it does not really bother me if anyone wants to eat meat but what I can NOT tolerate is killing animals in the name of religion.

Why the heck does a Yagna need a sacrificial animal? Is God actually blood thirsty? Or was it just humans who were still evolving in their understanding of "God" and Nature and felt that a sacrifice is needed to keep God happy and one would get favors in return.

It just does not make any sense that one is called a Noble One(Arya) yet indulging in animal sacrifice for favors in return eg Ashwamedha to secure a place in so called heaven.

What type of Noble person will take the life of an innocent animal just to secure benefits?

That is not noble in my opinion but a total @#$%#!

So what is it now?

Did the Vedas really call for animal sacrifice? Or was it misinterpreted?

Vedas (at least the rigveda) specifies animal sacrifice. It should be borne in mind that the rigveda was orally compiled a long time ago and that humans had not probably settled down as agricultural or farming communities during that period. They were more nomadic and it is quite possible that their agriculture at that time was just 'cut and slash' the forest and sow the seeds, etc., which is a practice seen even in pre-independence North-East tribes.

The main and dependable food for Man in those vedic period should therefore have been meat of the animals which could be killed easily. Cow and bull had already been domesticated as was sheep and goat. Hence, the Gods of the people of those ages were "imagined" to be pleasable with offerings of the best of edible meat. This is nothing but what holds good today also. Many hindus even now believe in slaughtering bulls or calves, cocks, goats etc., as part of their god-worship whereas the god in the upper castes' temples like Tirumala, Guruvayur etc., are supposed to be pleased with naivedyam of Laddus, pAyAsam, etc., which are favourite eatable items for the upper (read brAhmaNa poojaris) caste worshippers. There are also a few temples like kAmAkhya, kALighat, cOttAnikkara devi temple, kodungallur devi temple etc., where both vegetarian and NV naivedyams are offered.

All these customs point out to the simple truth that Man has yet to find his GOD and whatever is done in the name of GOD is all sham! The true god does not need any naivedyam or offering and that true god can neither be pleased or displeased. Only when the whole humanity finds and accepts that true god, will peace prevail on the earth.

 

[thebigthinkg]

Nope...I do not condone killing of any kind even for a greater good ..what good can come when one inflicts pain on another for trivial reasons like a place in heaven?

I find that selfish..if one feels he/she wants a greater good then have the balls to sacrifice their own life and not an animal cos the animal has NOT given consent.

I have personally witnessed animal slaughter and I fainted flat..its not easy to watch the struggle and fear an animal has in its eyes knowing that its going to suffer a painful death.

Some of us too have experienced having being in a situation where we were held at knife point would know the emotions that run thru when we faced impending death.

So any proper human with a conscience would never condone any act of animal sacrifice of the religious kind.

If the Vedas had indeed condoned this..then all I can say God is NOT Great...totally defective.

So does Vedas give God a bad name?

My view and understanding is that people who keep saying Rg Veda specifies animal sacrifice etc have not analysed vedas themselves but have an understanding from translations made by Griffith/Max Mueller and other scholars. The classical sanskrit is very tough to translate and almost impossible, which is one reason that many people come up with different different meanings.

Even then there are hundreds of psuedo-scholars with us, who read Griffith's translations alone (never having heard or analyzed the slokas) and make a superficial meaning on top of these translations (or justifications).

Unfortunately there are very few attempts being made to understand vedas in a different light. The current background of understanding vedas is they were literature of a nomadic primitive civilization.

Beyond vedas, early civilizations performed animal sacrifice. As I said Ramayana's horse sacrifice has a perfect meaning. IN the last 100 years, the omentum is being recognized for variety of uses including stem-cells. But again, due to mediocrity, we probably lost the core ideas of these also.

Is killing of animals good or bad..?

My two cents. It is bad if performed for pleasure. If it is for evolutionary purposes it is not bad. This universe in itself is a Yajna, where beings of lower consciousness are continuously sacrificed to evolve beings of higher consciousness...

-TBT

 

[vgane]

[FONT=&quot]What does the Arya Samaj say?

In the Arya Samaj reform movement of Dayananda Sarasvati, the Ashvamedha is considered an allegory or a ritual to get connected to the "inner Sun" (Prana) According to Dayananda, no horse was actually to be slaughtered in the ritual as per the Yajurveda. Following Dayananda, the Arya Samaj disputes the very existence of the pre-Vedantic ritual; thus Swami Satya Prakash Saraswati claims that[/FONT]

[FONT=&quot]the word in the sense of the Horse Sacrifice does not occur in the Samhitas [...] In the terms of cosmic analogy, ashva s the Sun. In respect to the adhyatma paksha, the Prajapati-Agni, or the Purusha, the Creator, is the Ashva; He is the same as the Varuna, the Most Supreme. The word medha stands for homage; it later on became synonymous with oblations in rituology, since oblations are offered, dedicated to the one whom we pay homage. The word deteriorated further when it came to mean 'slaughter' or 'sacrifice'.[/FONT]
[FONT=&quot]He argues that the animals listed as sacrificial victims are just as symbolic as the list of human victims listed in the Purushamedha.(which is generally accepted as a purely symbolic sacrifice already in Rigvedic times).

All World Gayatri Pariwar since 1991 has organized performances of a "modern version" of the Ashvamedha where a statue is used in place of a real horse, according to Hinduism Today with a million participants in Chitrakoot, Madhya Pradesh on April 16 to 20, 1994. Such modern performances are sattvika Yajnas where the animal is worshipped without killing it,the religious motivation being prayer for overcoming enemies, the facilitation of child welfare and development, and clearance of debt, entirely within the allegorical interpretation of the ritual, and with no actual sacrifice of any animal.

Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Ashvamedha[/FONT]

 

[renuka]

Vedas (at least the rigveda) specifies animal sacrifice. It should be borne in mind that the rigveda was orally compiled a long time ago and that humans had not probably settled down as agricultural or farming communities during that period. They were more nomadic and it is quite possible that their agriculture at that time was just 'cut and slash' the forest and sow the seeds, etc., which is a practice seen even in pre-independence North-East tribes.

The main and dependable food for Man in those vedic period should therefore have been meat of the animals which could be killed easily. Cow and bull had already been domesticated as was sheep and goat. Hence, the Gods of the people of those ages were "imagined" to be pleasable with offerings of the best of edible meat. This is nothing but what holds good today also. Many hindus even now believe in slaughtering bulls or calves, cocks, goats etc., as part of their god-worship whereas the god in the upper castes' temples like Tirumala, Guruvayur etc., are supposed to be pleased with naivedyam of Laddus, pAyAsam, etc., which are favourite eatable items for the upper (read brAhmaNa poojaris) caste worshippers. There are also a few temples like kAmAkhya, kALighat, cOttAnikkara devi temple, kodungallur devi temple etc., where both vegetarian and NV naivedyams are offered.

All these customs point out to the simple truth that Man has yet to find his GOD and whatever is done in the name of GOD is all sham! The true god does not need any naivedyam or offering and that true god can neither be pleased or displeased. Only when the whole humanity finds and accepts that true god, will peace prevail on the earth.

Dear Sangom ji,

Thank you for the reply.

It only makes sense that its the perception of man that God must be pleased by some offering or the other.

An animal sacrifice or even Naivedyam is the Word of Man and NOT the word of God.

 

[renuka]

Doctor,

This subject has been discussed time and again in Tamil Brahmin Forum. Here is a brief exposition on the subject given by Kanchi Acharya Sri Chandrasekharendra Saraswathi in his lectures;

Is Sacrificial Killing Justified?

"A yaga or sacrifice takes shape with the chanting of the mantras, the invoking of the deity and the offering of havis (oblation). The mantras are chanted (orally) and the deity is meditated upon (mentally). The most important material required for homa is the havis offered in the sacrificial fire-- in this "work" the body is involved. So, altogether, in a sacrificial offering mind, speech and body (mano-vak-kaya) are brought together.

Ghee (clarified butter) is an important ingredient of the oblation. While ghee by itself is offered as an oblation, it is also used to purify other sacrificial materials - in fact this is obligatory. In a number of sacrifices the vapa(fat or marrow) of animals is offered.

Is the performance of a sacrifice sinful, or is it meritorius? Or is it both?

Madvacharya was against the killing of any pasu for a sacrifice. In his compassion he said that a substitute for the vapa must be made with flour and offered in the fire. ("Pasu" does not necessarily mean a cow. In Sanskrit any animal is called a "pasu". )

In his Brahmasutra, Vyasa has expounded the nature of the Atman as found expressed in the Upanishads which constitute the jnanakanda of the Vedas. The actual conduct of sacrifices is dealt with in the Purvamimamsa which is the karmakanda of the Vedas. The true purpose of sacrifices is explained in the Uttaramimamsa, that is the jnanakanda. What is this purposse or goal? It is the cleansing of the consciousness and such cleansing is essential to lead a man to the path of jnana."

Sri Acharya continues further.......

One is enjoined to perform twenty-one sacrifices. These are of three types, pakayajna, haviryajna and somayajna. In each category there are seven subdivisions. In all the seven pakayajnas as well as in the first five haviryajnas there is no animal sacrifice. It is only from the sixth haviryajna onwards (it is called "nirudhapasubandha") that animals are sacrificed.

"Brahmins sacrificed herds and herds of animals and gorged themselves on their meat. The Buddha saved such herds when they were being taken to the sacrificial altar, " we often read such accounts in books. To tell the truth, there is no sacrifice in which a large number of animals are killed. For vajapeya which is the highest type of yajna performed by Brahmins, only twenty-three animals are mentioned. For asvamedha (horse sacrifice), the biggest of the sacrifices conducted by imperial rulers, one hundred animals are mentioned."


for reading full article kindly open the following web-link
http://www.kamakoti.org/hindudharma/part5/chap23.htm

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

Dear Sir,

Thank you for links..I have read these links before and noted the differences between Kamakoti point of view and Arya Samaj point of view.

So it seems no one really knows the TRUTH.

Somehow Sangom Ji's एकंसद्विप्रा नैव जानन्ति makes the most sense!LOL

 

[renuka]

Is killing of animals good or bad..?

My two cents. It is bad if performed for pleasure. If it is for evolutionary purposes it is not bad. This universe in itself is a Yajna, where beings of lower consciousness are continuously sacrificed to evolve beings of higher consciousness...

-TBT

Its easy to say this if we are NOT the sacrificial animal.

Has anyone asked a sacrificial animal how he/she feels?

 

[thebigthinkg]

Its easy to say this if we are NOT the sacrificial animal.

Has anyone asked a sacrificial animal how he/she feels?

I hope the laptop or desktop or mobile phone you are using to type out these comments has some plastic and rubber. Any plastic and rubber component uses (has) stearic acid which is majorly derived from animal fat only.

So you are already sacrificing animals..

-TBT

 

[renuka]

I hope the laptop or desktop or mobile phone you are using to type out these comments has some plastic and rubber. Any plastic and rubber component uses (has) stearic acid which is majorly derived from animal fat only.

So you are already sacrificing animals..

-TBT

Its rather clear that you derive some pleasure from the thought of causing harm to animals.

I am surprised to see you use the word "I hope".

What do you gain from hoping it contains animal products?..just to prove a pointless point?

I do not hope any rubber of any kind including a condom contains any animal products..its better to be non violent in approach.

There are always less violent options in life.