Is it a Sin to kill small insects knowingly or unknowingly as per Hinduism?

[shanmukagayathri]

Share:

Facebook X (Twitter) LinkedIn WhatsApp Email Share Link

According to me human beings do tend to use certain amount of wisdom when doing certain acts [ofcourse in all of their acts], and most of us do it with conscious where our heart says that we are right. when it comes to killing of small creatures, sometimes it happens unknowingly and some other time it is for our own protection that we use repellants and so on... in that process say creatures like mosquitoes either get killed or escape from the place the repellants smell exists.

In the process of not commiting sin or just because we might be committing a sin , one can't stop protecting their lives is a practical fact. We are all well aware that thousands of human beings are dying every year just becoz of creatures like rats,mosquitoes and so on.. unless there is killing how can one be protected? if these creatures are just driven they cause harm to some other person isn't it? do we really have to see if its a sin or not when someone is harming us?

 

[HARE RAMA HARE KRISHNA]

sangom ji!

i did my own reasearch too on your statement , that there are vedic instruction to sacrifice 100s and 1000s of captive animals for yagna but could not find any.

Could you please help me on this ?

Thanks

 

[HARE RAMA HARE KRISHNA]

now they found one GOD particle, under its influence the photon wave change to photon particle and gain mass.

but they are yet to find many questions surrounding GOD particle.

"Anooraniyam Mahato Maheeyam Guhayam"

 

[sangom]

My reply in italics


Photon is said to be massless though, now, it is said that an upper limit of < 3×10[SUP]−27[/SUP] eV/c[SUP]2 [/SUP]
or some alternative values derived in different types of experiments/observations, are being put forward. But the essential aspect to be considered is whether the photon is a particle or wave? Science cannot be sure of this and so we cannot talk of "mass" of a photon in the same way as we may speak about the mass of, say, a pumpkin . When we come to fundamental particles, concepts like 'mass' are to be considered to be more in the nature of mathematical abstractions, imho.

Saying "really massless" is not sufficient; is it rest mass or relativistic mass? As long as there is a momentum, there will be mass according to the equation, P (momentum) = mv. Hence any particle which travels has a mass. Therefore, equating weightlessness with the ability to transcend space and/or time, etc., can at best be pseudo-scientific only.


Dear Shri Sangom,

We at least can be sure that there is a continuum of existence from photon which is almost massless to more massive ones and to matter which definitely is considered to have mass.

So let us not worry about the terminology now. But when you say a "particle" it means something which is localized in space and doesn't propagate in all the directions and moves along a particular direction.

When you see Einstein's equation you see that mass when multiplied by square of velocity gives you the corresponding energy. How particles were formed is still elusive to the scientists. May be it is due to the interlocking of energies travelling at great speed with the speed being converted to mass that makes a particle. At least that's one possibility when we see Einstein's equation But that is not very relevant to our present discussion

The point is it doesn't matter whether light is made of particles or is a wave because what we consider as wave is also not totally massless. Mass is necessary for movement through space and movement through space increases the mass. When the rest mass is really zero unlike the hypothesized zero rest mass of photon, the mass cannot increase. This is contrary to what happens to all physical energy.

I think the highlighted statement - one above and another below - are not correct. Kindly recheck.

I know that there are some schools of thought which try to spread impressions about 'thought waves' and all, more or less in the manner being followed by you. But the ground truth is that thoughts create some very faint electrical impulses travel through the neurons; whether this can create space-and-time-transcending massless particles etc., can at best be considered only within the realm of scientific fantasy or fiction at the moment, imho.

I am not using the term transcending with a religious connotation. What I mean is thoughts do not move through space but are instantaneously present everywhere once they are produced. [/QUOTE]

How can this happen unless the thought waves do travel at infinite speed? If that is the case will it also not entail infinite momentum and energy? What will be the source for such energy in thought?

 

[sravna]

I think the highlighted statement - one above and another below - are not correct. Kindly recheck.[/I]

I know that there are some schools of thought which try to spread impressions about 'thought waves' and all, more or less in the manner being followed by you. But the ground truth is that thoughts create some very faint electrical impulses travel through the neurons; whether this can create space-and-time-transcending massless particles etc., can at best be considered only within the realm of scientific fantasy or fiction at the moment, imho.

I am not using the term transcending with a religious connotation. What I mean is thoughts do not move through space but are instantaneously present everywhere once they are produced.

How can this happen unless the thought waves do travel at infinite speed? If that is the case will it also not entail infinite momentum and energy? What will be the source for such energy in thought?
[/QUOTE]

Dear Shri Sangom,

Let me put it this way. It is my view that thoughts do not travel at all. So it doesn't make sense to talk about rest mass or any other mass. And it doesn't make sense to talk about the speed of thought.

I will try to explain it this way. When two points are connected you can travel from one point to the other. If you are at one point you can be at the other. Assume you can travel at infinite speed. So being at one point means being at the other.

The same happens here. Space is made up of discrete units and the smallest length is called as planck's lenght. Within the planck area or volume the energy is the same. To move to the adjacent unit one needs to overcome an energy barrier. Within the planck volume the energy is the same through out and all the different units should also have the same energy.

Something which has mass has necessarily to span across units whereas something with zero mass does not span across units. So when something massless is produced it is in contact with the energy in the planck volume where it is produced but it is as if it is in contact with all the units of space or it is everywhere in space

If viewed from the angle of scriptures , the energy barrier is only a relative truth but in reality the space and time too are totally connected. All the products of space and time emanate from it and are its effects.

What we see as space and time and the effects are only the relative truth. Underlying it is a perfectly connected and harmonious reality.

The above is purely my speculation and it is up to the reader to make sense of it or discard it.

 

[prasad1]

The Vedanta recognizes no sin it only recognizes error. And the greatest error, says the Vedanta is to say that you are weak, that you are a sinner, a miserable creature, and that you have no power and you cannot do this and that.
Swami Vivekananda
Read more at The Vedanta recognizes no sin... at BrainyQuote
“We are responsible for what we are, and whatever we wish ourselves to be, we have the power to make ourselves. If what we are now has been the result of our own past actions, it certainly follows that whatever we wish to be in future can be produced by our present actions; so we have to know how to act.”

 

[Brahmanyan]

sangom ji!

i did my own reasearch too on your statement , that there are vedic instruction to sacrifice 100s and 1000s of captive animals for yagna but could not find any.

Could you please help me on this ?

Thanks

Namaskaram,

In my search on the subject I have not come across any reference about sacrificing 100 or 1000 animals for Yagna. Ofcourse I have not undergone proper training in Vedic studies. But I hope all will agree that Late Paramacharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Sankara Mutt knows well when he said about Animal Sacrifice while dealing on the subject "Is Sacrificial Killing Justified?" Kanchi Paramacharya Sri Chandrasekarendra Saraswathi of Kanchi Shankar Mutt explains in detail on the importance of Yagnas mentions " One is enjoined to perform twenty one sacrifices. These are three types Pakayajna, haviryajna and Soma yajna. 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 haviryajnas onwards (it is called "nirudhapasubandha") that animals are sacrificed."

The full speech is available in the following URL:
Is Sacrificial Killing Justified? from the Chapter "The Vedas", in Hindu Dharma : kamakoti.org:

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

 

[prasad1]

sangom ji!

i did my own reasearch too on your statement , that there are vedic instruction to sacrifice 100s and 1000s of captive animals for yagna but could not find any.

Could you please help me on this ?

Thanks

Obviously I can find so many references.
Ashvamedha - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Hindu sacrifice of 250,000 animals begins | World news | guardian.co.uk
Animal sacrifice : Hinduism

Ritualistic Animal Sacrifice in Ancient India « Evergreen Leaves ….


It comes as a surprise, thus, when several noteworthy scholars begin to claim that cow sacrifice was the norm among most rituals in Vedic India. This claim was first made in the book History and Culture of Indian People (Vol. I) published by Bharatiya Vidya Bhavan. The collection has been blessed with essays from noted philosophers and historians such as Dr. Sarvapalli Radhakrishnan, Dr. Suniti Kumar Chatterjee, Dr. B. L. Apte and others. In the chapter titled The Vedic Age, while expounding on the issues of marriage and the role of women in soceity, Dr. Apte writes:“The guest were entertained with the flesh of cows, killed on the occassion (Rig. 10.85.13)”Moreover, in another book, Vedic Index of Names and Subjects by Macdonell and Keith, the explanation of the same mantra contains
“The marriage ceremony was accompanied by the slaying of oxen, clearly for food.”Being a moderately traditional Hindu myself, I opened the Rig Veda to quell my doubts, and saw

suryaayaa vahatu praagaat savitaa yamavaasrujat |
aghaasu hanyate gaavo arjunyoh paryuhyate ||

​

 

[sangom]

Namaskaram,

In my search on the subject I have not come across any reference about sacrificing 100 or 1000 animals for Yagna. Ofcourse I have not undergone proper training in Vedic studies. But I hope all will agree that Late Paramacharya of Kanchi Kamakoti Sankara Mutt knows well when he said about Animal Sacrifice while dealing on the subject "Is Sacrificial Killing Justified?" Kanchi Paramacharya Sri Chandrasekarendra Saraswathi of Kanchi Shankar Mutt explains in detail on the importance of Yagnas mentions " One is enjoined to perform twenty one sacrifices. These are three types Pakayajna, haviryajna and Soma yajna. 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 haviryajnas onwards (it is called "nirudhapasubandha") that animals are sacrificed."

The full speech is available in the following URL:
Is Sacrificial Killing Justified? from the Chapter "The Vedas", in Hindu Dharma : kamakoti.org:

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

Shri Brahmanyan,

When we search the scriptures with a biased mind, possibly we find our biases to be justified, I feel. When I wrote about hundreds, if not thousands of animals being sacrificed in vedic yagnas, I had my memories of having read such statements from usually reliable authors while reading books in the google books category. Some of the occasions described are Dasaratha's ashvamedha, Harischandra's Dasaasvamedha at Varanasi (in memory of which the 'Dasaasvamedha Ghat' remains even today and, further, a descendant of Harischandra exercises the right to light the pyres there! even today.), Yudhishtira's Rajasooya, etc. Since I never had foreseen that this point will have to be defended at a future date in this Forum for some people who have very conservative views, I did not keep the references.

Now, on reading your post, I just googled for Dasaratha's Asvamedha and got the following sloka from Valmiki Ramayana:—

पशूनाम् त्रिशतम् तत्र यूपेषु नियतम् तदा |
अश्व रत्नः उत्तमम् तस्य राज्ञो दशरथस्य ह || १-१४-३२

paśūnām triśatam tatra yūpeṣu niyatam tadā |
aśva ratnaḥ uttamam tasya rājño daśarathasya ha || 1-14-32

Though the commentators of recent times try their best to gloss over saying that all those creatures were not killed but let off, etc., it looks laughable to me why an emperor should indulge in such a comic action of getting hundreds of animals captured, tying them to the gilted Yupas of the sacrificial altar and then finally letting them off .

The truth is that the grandeur of the yagna was judged by the scale of the sacrifices made.

Coming to the kamakoti.org's efforts at white washing the whole thing, I have heard from a Dikshitar who had performed a yajna in order to become a Dikshitar, that at least a goat has to be killed by suffocation, its parts markes according to the rules laid down in the scriptures and each priest (the ritwiks, adhvaryus. hotas, udgaatas) out of the minimum 16 prescribed will have to eat the specific portions prescribed for each. Till the middle of the 19th. century, in Maharashtra, the brahmin priests used to dip the meat parts in flour mixed with water and fry the meat (kind of Pakoda!) before eating, because that had become the accepted practice, instead of eating the raw meat. This has also been recorded in a book on samavedic somayajna by a Jesuit priest. I will search again and if I stumble upon any of my old references, I shall post it here.

For people like HRHK, no amount of evidence may possibly be adequate, but for you, perhaps, the Buddhist texts which touch upon the vedic yajnas in denouncing them, may be a rough guidance, even though I also will not rule out some amount of exaggeration in their statement since they were attacking the vedists.

I now find that Shri Prasad has given adequate evidence in his post above. Thank you, Shri Prasad. In our vedic marriage, there is one mantra "Gogha, Gogha" to be shouted out by the officiating priest on the night previous to the marriage. This was a signal to the in-house butchers to start slaughter of the animals whose meat would be cooked and served to the distinguished invitees. But this mantra has now vanished .

 

[Amirtha]

After reading the conversations amoung the members and the references provided, we can come to a conclusion that our ancestors did kill lot of animals. I always thought all these yagnas were nothing but மார்

தட்டிக்கொள்ளும் actions. Ok, our ancestors killed lot of animals. Thank you Shri Sangom and Shri Prasad for the informations. If they did they did because of their ignorance and desires. All those yajnas were

prescribed by the scriptures. Who ever didnt think out of square did what they did. That’s all they knew. Imo, we should stop justifying their actions, accept the truth and should get on with our life peacefully.

We should start living in the present and try not to encourage animal cruelty.

Kind Regards

 

[Amirtha]

In our vedic marriage, there is one mantra "Gogha, Gogha" to be shouted out by the officiating priest on the night previous to the marriage. This was a signal to the in-house butchers to start slaughter of the animals whose meat would be cooked and served to the distinguished invitees. But this mantra has now vanished .

Shri Sangom

Thank you very much for your information. I enjoy your writings.

There must be so many other evidences would have vanished too . I wonder who gave them the permission to remove those? As far as I know they are not "authorised" to change anything in the scriptures. Not

allowed to add or subtract from the scriptures. Can we call it scriptures of convenience?

Kind Regards

 

[prasad1]

After reading the conversations amoung the members and the references provided, we can come to a conclusion that our ancestors did kill lot of animals. I always thought all these yagnas were nothing but மார்

தட்டிக்கொள்ளும் actions. Ok, our ancestors killed lot of animals. Thank you Shri Sangom and Shri Prasad for the informations. If they did they did because of their ignorance and desires. All those yajnas were

prescribed by the scriptures. Who ever didnt think out of square did what they did. That’s all they knew. Imo, we should stop justifying their actions, accept the truth and should get on with our life peacefully.

We should start living in the present and try not to encourage animal cruelty.

Kind Regards

I whole heartedly agree with this view. Let us live in the present. We can not revert back tp pre-civilization. The reformers have modified it to meet the present day needs.

 

[HARE RAMA HARE KRISHNA]

MR Sangom and Prasad.

I don't see any vedic instruction on sacrificing 100s and 1000s of captive animals for yagnas in the so called evidences provided from you. Please be specific you can simply quote which rig or mantra and the reference no. that is enough.

I don't want to see any other irrelevant materials.

Now I see you don't have any direct reference but only posted what you have read sometimes before on internet, never mind please check and revert back to me on the sources .

Lets see who gloss over .

Thanks

(P.S Please don't make any personal attack on me , lets keep to the subject on what's discussed. If you give a proper evidence, im going to be convinced why not? why you say that no amount of evidence going to convince me ? )

 

[Iyer@Infosys]

MR Sangom and Prasad.

I don't see any vedic instruction on sacrificing 100s and 1000s of captive animals for yagnas in the so called evidences provided from you. Please be specific you can simply quote which rig or mantra and the reference no. that is enough.

I don't want to see any other irrelevant materials.

Now I see you don't have any direct reference but only posted what you have read sometimes before on internet, never mind please check and revert back to me on the sources .

Lets see who gloss over .

Thanks

(P.S Please don't make any personal attack on me , lets keep to the subject on what's discussed. If you give a proper evidence, im going to be convinced why not? why you say that no amount of evidence going to convince me ? )

To the extent I have searched the Hindu scriptures, I did not find evidence to substantiate the view that we should abstain from killing animals. On the contrary I found evidence in the Bagwad Gita that a Kshatriya's Dharma is to kill an enemy human being. Rama killed his enemies, Krishna killed his enemies and so on and so on. When an enemey human being can be killed as per precepts of Hinduism, I reckon it is no sin to kill an insect or for that matter any animal, if it tries to harm us.

 

[HARE RAMA HARE KRISHNA]

prasadji !

you understand the importance of yagnas first. please read geeta sloka where Lord Krishna ask us to support Devas thru yagnas and Devas to protect us thru timely rain and other wealth. Sure you would have come across this sloka.

yagnas are performed for LOKA KSHEMA that's why it is very important at all times.

The benefits of performing yagnas is for timely rain and other wealth that it brings with that.

You cannot run a world system with Fiat Money forever, you need crops to grow and provide food for us fundamentally for another 4 lakhs year to come.

Yagnas performed in India will benefit the world , that's why they say 70% of lokakshema is in the hands of Brahmins performing yagnas.

Vedanta is only for 0.0001% of Atma Gnanis, even for them, till they reach the ishvartvam stage they need the support of the world and they need world to be in a healthy enough for their biksha. don't club Paramartika dharma and Vyavaharika dharma together.


even though there are no vedic instructions to kill 100s and 1000s of captive animals. even if we assume that there is such instructions, even then if one thinks about the benefits of timely , adequate rainfall , 100s and 100s of captive animal sacrifice is justifiable and no need to gloss over.

Now millions and trillions of animals are killed for human consumption.

seen in this scale too , 100s and 1000s sacrificed for yagnas and thru uncanny ways of this sacrifices majority of population remains vegetarian is also a beneficial no need to gloss over.

Pasu means animal not necessarily cow. I don't know there is a cow sacrifice even if there is it is not killing it is sacrifice, the animal gets good rebirth and a chance to find moksha than if it died naturally.

Last but not least, My wife have seen one such rare yagna where a goat is sacrificed, she told me the goat offered no slightest resistance or shown fear of being killed at sacrificial altar and the killing also very swift action of knife slitting some nerve at the throat, she was wonderstruck on the ease with which it was performed.

 

[ShivKC]

MR Sangom and Prasad.

I don't see any vedic instruction on sacrificing 100s and 1000s of captive animals for yagnas in the so called evidences provided from you. Please be specific you can simply quote which rig or mantra and the reference no. that is enough.

I don't want to see any other irrelevant materials.

Now I see you don't have any direct reference but only posted what you have read sometimes before on internet, never mind please check and revert back to me on the sources .

Lets see who gloss over .

Thanks

(P.S Please don't make any personal attack on me , lets keep to the subject on what's discussed. If you give a proper evidence, im going to be convinced why not? why you say that no amount of evidence going to convince me ? )

Dear HRHK, why dont you take the burden of proof?

consider this.. the life history of Buddha clearly says that he opposed the animal sacrifice , and with that he went on to start his new religion. try to disprove this, then, you are there.

every religion followed animal sacrifice millenia ago. sacrifice is a key part in all religious dogma, and the only availablity they have to offer is their home grown vegetables or animals. jewish tradition had even a system of offering the first born son, and later shifted to vegetables/rams, and finally catholics transitioned it to breaking of bread & wine in the sacrifical altar.

Hinduism too had animal sacrifices, and later moved it offering of cooked food,PaAl abishekam, and cow in bonfire got replaced with gee (cow product) to be burnt there instead of the real cow.

what im trying to say is, religious rituals and customs were formed or shaped due to the cultural and civilizational change. There is noting wrong in cow was sacrificed one.. consider it as a ritual and culture of that timeline, and be thankful, this is not followed in this modern days.

 

[tks]

I whole heartedly agree with this view. Let us live in the present. We can not revert back tp pre-civilization. The reformers have modified it to meet the present day needs.

Our tradition never emphasized keeping history. It is like keeping a journal of our dreams. It is like writing in stream of river flowing down towards the sea.

Our way of life and teachings emphasize timeless and space invariant truths.

So it is irrelevant what our ancestors did or did not do. Our Vedic teaching by and large emphasizes timeless and universal principles. Ahimsa as a value is emphasized in Gita.

Today a large percentage of Hindus have minimal understanding of theory of Karma and Dharma and truly believe in a fatalistic interpretation with notions like Vidhi. Many hindus make things up as theories as can be seen in most discussions.

A few generations later a new group of Hindus from other countries could point to illogical actions of the present generations and interpret Vedic teaching in the light of ignorant actions by this generation.

The only correct way to understand timeless principle is to understand the context in which other similar principles operate in our lives and lives of all beings.

It is possible that there was meat eating or animal sacrifices . Or Perhaps not - it could be a mistaken interpretation by a famous person and their followers could cease these ideas to forward their theories and beliefs.

My point is that why care about trying to understand those practices whether they are real or imagined.

In the same vein it is irrelevant whether Sri Rama and Sril Krishna were historical figures. Or Sri Krishna is a figment of imagination of someone (by name Vyasa) who may have presented Sri Krishna as Bhagavan. To understand the teachings of Bhagavad Gita it is irrelevant whether Sri Krishna was a historical figure. It may be even better if it was not because it gets the Hindus out of thinking and fighting like followers of biblical religions.

History of how rituals are conducted is irrelevant - because Hindus or whatever we were called did not keep history. Someone writes something and others write references to that person and very soon a set of details are concocted.

Ahimsa is a timeless principle that need not be even taught since we instinctively know its value. It is these religions and their traditions that corrupt our natural state to commit injury.

 

[sravna]

I think not only Hinduism but other religions too at the core teach only timeless principles and universal values. It would be nice if such common values form the core philosophy of every human. We should try to move away from highlighting the differences to highlighting what is common.

 

[sangom]

After reading the conversations amoung the members and the references provided, we can come to a conclusion that our ancestors did kill lot of animals. I always thought all these yagnas were nothing but மார்

தட்டிக்கொள்ளும் actions. Ok, our ancestors killed lot of animals. Thank you Shri Sangom and Shri Prasad for the informations. If they did they did because of their ignorance and desires. All those yajnas were

prescribed by the scriptures. Who ever didnt think out of square did what they did. That’s all they knew. Imo, we should stop justifying their actions, accept the truth and should get on with our life peacefully.

We should start living in the present and try not to encourage animal cruelty.

Kind Regards

Shri Sangom

Thank you very much for your information. I enjoy your writings.

There must be so many other evidences would have vanished too . I wonder who gave them the permission to remove those? As far as I know they are not "authorised" to change anything in the scriptures. Not

allowed to add or subtract from the scriptures. Can we call it scriptures of convenience?

Kind Regards

Smt. Amirtha,

I believe that most Hindus as well as most of the Tabras yearn to live under the snug belief that our Hindu scriptures, starting with the ṛgveda, all denote a very glorious past. This is because all our scriptures are in sanskrit or even archaic sanskrit and we, as a people, have lost touch with that language, may be due to historical reasons. But the tragedy is, imho, even those who profess to talk on behalf of the scriptures do not usually take the trouble of reading (and understanding) at least the main religious treatises or their English translations by dispassionate authors (and not sources like kamakoti.org which apparently has to gloss over the inconvenient parts of the scriptures and will not dare to say that "The Emperor is without clothes!") All that I want to say is also the same thing which you say, viz., let us get on with our lives today, but, when it comes to any discussion about the past history of our religion, let us refrain from deliberate obfuscation.

Madam, I thank you for complimenting my posts. When I said the "gogha" utterance has vanished, I meant that priests no longer utter this during the tabra marriage ceremony. Your queries, "There must be so many other evidences would have vanished too . I wonder who gave them the permission to remove those? As far as I know they are not "authorised" to change anything in the scriptures. Not

allowed to add or subtract from the scriptures. Can we call it scriptures of convenience?", shows, imho, a lack of knowledge about scriptures in general, or, these comments are based on some erroneous inputs you have received regarding scriptures.

Do you think the Bible today is authentic? There are many versions available. Is the Talmud, the same as it was originally? Was the ṛgveda the same as it is known to us today? Fortunately for us, our own scriptures say that each of the vedas had very many śākhās or rescensions, (many of which seem to have now been lost by efflux of time!). Thus, no scripture has remained untouched and unaltered, imo. But that alone does not turn them into scriptures of convenience; if there is a committed priesthood to back-up the scriptures, they may even turn those scriptures into tools of intimidation, something we can see in the Taliban. So, it is for you to choose between a scripture which is elastic in the hands of those who believe in them, or a set of scriptures like the Iron Code of the Taliban.

It must also be noted that just as many things have vanished (may be due to inconvenience in adhering to them) our Hindu religion allows many new and (in those times) atrocious practices, chants, etc., being followed as well. For instance, vināyaka is a late entrant into the Hindu pantheon. The mānava gṛhyasūtra (2.15) states that vināyaka is a "dushtagraha" and prescribes a śānti-like parihāram for warding off the evil effects which would be caused by Vināyaka's vakradṛṣṭi. Yājnavalkya smṛti (1.271-294) states that vināyaka being the Commander (adhipati) of the ganas of Brahma and Rudra, he can not only create Vighna but also bestow the fruits of the poojas and other rituals made by the humans. Gobhila smṛti (1.13) recommends doing pooja of Ganesha along with Saptamātrikas at the start of every dharma karma (religious rite). The practice of worshipping the now-famous shape of Ganesha is, according to the opinion of scholars, a custom which could not have existed before the 5th. century A.D.

IMHO,we Hindus should be happy that our scriptures are not backed up by a 'crusading' priesthood and that we have the freedom to change, avoid or even oppose any of the pronouncements in those scriptures.

 

[prasad1]

Mr. HRHK,
Your post#113
I do not have the power to to take you to the ancient times to show an actual animal sacrifice at a Yagam.
Even if I could you will not believe it to be cruel. You will come up with a story line like your wife said that the animal did not suffer, and it actually welcomed it. What a sad state of affairs.
Obviously you do not understand the feelings of animals. Like Mr. ShivKC said you may even justify human sacrifice.
You can take a camel to the water, but you can not force it to drink. Sorry I do not have proof that will satisfy you, as you are not ready to open your eyes.

 

[sangom]

Mr. HRHK,
Your post#113
I do not have the power to to take you to the ancient times to show an actual animal sacrifice at a Yagam.
Even if I could you will not believe it to be cruel. You will come up with a story line like your wife said that the animal did not suffer, and it actually welcomed it. What a sad state of affairs.
Obviously you do not understand the feelings of animals. Like Mr. ShivKC said you may even justify human sacrifice.
You can take a camel to the water, but you can not force it to drink. Sorry I do not have proof that will satisfy you, as you are not ready to open your eyes.

I 162-163 of the ṛgveda (śākala saṃhitā) deals with some of the mantras used in the aśvamedha sacrifice. Though this does not say how many, and which kinds of animals had to be killed, even a casual reading tells that for each horse to be sacrificed in the aśvamedha, one or two goats were also mandatory. If our HRHK has the willingness to come out of his shell, he may like to get hold of a copy of the two sūktas referred to above, and satisfy himself.

 

[Amirtha]

Thus, no scripture has remained untouched and unaltered, imo. But that alone does not turn them into scriptures of convenience;

Shri Sangom

Thank you for your reply.


When I said “scriptures of convenience”, it was not meant in degrading sense. I only meant about evolving to suit present conveniences. But that does not mean that we have to deny the past. There is nothing

wrong in accepting the way it was in the past in comparison to the way we live today in the sense of religious rituals. If it means although in the past Hindus had animal sacrifices in the yagnas in the present day’s

majority of the Hindus in general are known for their vegetarian way of living which is imo great progress indeed. When I said scriptures of convenience, although it may not sound right, I was only trying to confirm

this point of view.

Kind Regards

 

[Iyer@Infosys]

Most respectful Mr. TKS,

I humbly request you to review your statement :

"It may be even better if it was not because it gets the Hindus out of thinking and fighting like followers of biblical religions."

It is neither those who claim to follow nor those who apparently follow are true followers. Those who diligently follow and are being witnesses and testimonies are the followers of any Master, precept or principle whatsoever.

I request you to refrain from jumping to hasty conclusions about followers of any faith or belief and from making generalized statements/remarks on them. If someone does not love his/her enemies then he/she is not a follower of the teacher who preached that principle.

Regards,
Iyer@Infosys

 

[Brahmanyan]

To the extent I have searched the Hindu scriptures, I did not find evidence to substantiate the view that we should abstain from killing animals. On the contrary I found evidence in the Bagwad Gita that a Kshatriya's Dharma is to kill an enemy human being. Rama killed his enemies, Krishna killed his enemies and so on and so on. When an enemey human being can be killed as per precepts of Hinduism, I reckon it is no sin to kill an insect or for that matter any animal, if it tries to harm us.

It is neither those who claim to follow nor those who apparently follow are true followers. Those who diligently follow and are being witnesses and testimonies are the followers of any Master, precept or principle whatsoever.
I request you to refrain from jumping to hasty conclusions about followers of any faith or belief and from making generalized statements/remarks on them. If someone does not love his/her enemies then he/she is not a follower of the teacher who preached that principle.

Dear Sri Iyer,

Interesting observations.
After going through your posts I wish to share my thoughts on the subject.
"Self preservation and propagation of the species" is the first law of nature. This applies to all living beings.
All our acts revolve around these two aspects of life. For me the word "Sin" represents "guilt". Basing on this
each one has to decide whether an act of his is sinful or not.

Many a time I used to wonder how is that we are led to believe that "Ahimsa Paramo Dharmaha" and at the same time glorify killing of enemies. While Governments enact laws and spend money to safe guard the rights of individual and even animals, they have no qualms in dropping bombs to wipe out millions of innocent men, women and children. We all know war is destruction, but countries spend huge amounts of their revenue in equipping their defense machinery. This is done in the name of self preservation.

Regards,
Brahmanyan,
Bangalore.

 

[HARE RAMA HARE KRISHNA]

prasadji!

you don't have to do that. just present me the vedic evidence supporting sangom statment that will do.