|
|
|
Written by Swami Chandrashekarendra
Saraswati |
|
|
|
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.
The Brahmasutra says: "Asuddhamiti cen na sabdat". The performance of
sacrifices is based on scriptural authority and it is part of the quest
for
Self realisation. So how can it be called an impure act? How do we
determine whether or not an object or an act is impure or whether it is
good or bad? We do so by judging it according to the authority of of the
sastras. Vyasa goes on to state in his Brahmasutra that animal sacrifice
is
not sinful since the act is permeated by the sound of the Vedas. What is
pure or impure is to be known by the authority provided by the Vedas or
rather their sound called Sabdapramana. If sacrifices were impure acts
according to the Vedas, they would not have accepted them as part of
the Atmic quest. Even if the sacrificial animal is made of flour (the
substitute according to Madhvacharya) it is imbued with life by the
chanting of the Vedic mantras. Would it not then be like a living animal
and would not offering it in a sacrifice be taken as an act of violence?
Tiruvalluvar says in his Tirukkural that not to kill an animal and eat
it is
better than performing a thousand sacrifices in which the oblation is
consigned to the fire. You should not take this to mean that the poet
speaks ill of sacrifices.
What is in accordance or in pursuance of dharma must be practised
howsoever or whatsoever it be. Here questions of violence must be
disregarded. The Tirukkural says that it is better not to kill an animal
than
perform a thousand sacrifices. From this statement it is made out that
Tiruvalluvar condemns sacrifices. According to Manu himself conducting
one asvamedha (horse sacrifice) is superior to performing a thousand
other sacrifices. At the same time, he declares that higher than a
thousand horse sacrifices is the fact of one truth. If we say that one
thing
is better than another, the implication is that both are good. If the
performance of a sacrifice were sinful, would it be claimed that one
meritorious act is superior to a thousand sinful deeds? You may state
that
fasting on one Sivaratri is superior to fasting on a hundred Ekadasis.
But
would you say that the same is better than running a hundred
butcheries? When you remark that "this rite is better than that rite or
another", it means that the comparison is among two or more
meritorious observances.
In the concluding passage of the Chandogya Upanishad whwre ahimsa or
non-violence is extolled you find these words, "Anyatra tirthebhyah". It
means ahimsa must be practised except with regard to Vedic rites.
Considerations of violence have no place in sacrifices and the conduct
of
war.
If the ideal of non-violence were superior to the performance of
sacrifices, it would mean that "sacrifices are good but non-violence is
better". The performance of a thousand sacrifices must be spoken of
highly but the practice of non-violence is to be regarded as even
higher: It
is in this sense that the Kural stanza concerning sacrifices is to be
interpreted. We must not also forget that it occurs in the section on
renunciation. What the poet wants to convey is that a sanyasin does
better by abstaining from killing than a householder does by conducting
a
thousand sacrifices. According to the sastras also a sanyasin has no
right
to perform sacrifices.
There are several types of sacrifices. I shall speak about them later
when I
deal with "Kalpa" (an Anga or limb of the Vedas) aaand "Grihasthasrama"
(the stage of the householder). What I wish to state here is that
animals
are not killed in all sacrifices. There are a number of yagnas in which
only
ghee (ajya) is offered in the fire. In some, havisyanna (rice mixed with
ghee) is offered and in some the cooked grains called "caru" or
"purodasa", a kind of baked cake. In agnihotri milk is poured into the
fire;
in aupasana unbroken rice grains (aksata) are used; and in samidadhana
the sticks of the palasa (flame of the forest). In sacrifices in which
the
vapa of animals is offered, only a tiny bit of the remains of the burnt
offering is partaken of - and of course in the form of prasada.
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.
It is totally false to state that Brahmins performed sacrifices only to
satisfy their appetite for meat and that the talk of pleasing the
deities was
only a pretext. There are rules regarding the meat to be carved out from
a sacrificial animal, the part of the body from which it is to be taken
and
the quantity each rtvik can partake of as prasada (idavatarana). This is
not
more than the size of a pigeon-pea and it is to be swallowed without
anything added to taste. There may be various reasons for you to attack
the system of sacrifices but it would be preposterous to do so on the
score that Brahmins practised deception by making them a pretext to eat
meat.
Nowadays a large number of animals are slaughtered in the laboratories
as guinea-pigs. Animal sacrifices must be regarded as a little hurt
caused
in the cause of a great ideal, the welfare of mankind. As a matter of
fact
there is no hurt caused since the animal sacrificed attains to an
elevated
state.
There is another falsehood spread these days, that Brahmins performed
the somayajnas only as a pretext to drink somarasa (the essence of the
soma plant). Those who propagate this lie add that drinking somarasa is
akin to imbibing liquor or wine. As a matter of fact somarasa is not an
intoxicating drink. There is a reference in the Vedas to Indra killing
his foe
when he was "intoxicated" with somarasa. People who spread the above
falsehoods have recourse to “Arthavada" and base their perverse views
on this passage.
The principle on which the physiology of deities is based is superior to
that of humans. That apart, to say that the priests drank bottle after
bottle of somarasa or pot after pot is to betray gross ignorance of the
Vedic dharma. The soma plant is pounded and crushed in a small mortar
called "graha". There are rules with regard to the quantity of essence
to
be offered to the gods. The small portion that remains after the
oblation
has been made, "hutasesa",
which is drunk drop by drop, does not add
up to more than an ounce. No one has been knocked out by such
drinking. They say that somarasa is not very palatable. .
The preposterous suggestion is made that somarasa was the coffee of
those times. There are Vedic mantras which speak about the joy aroused
by drinking it. This has been misinterpreted. While coffee is injurious
to
the mind, somarasa cleanses it. It is absurd to equate the two. The soma
plant was available in plenty in ancient times. Now it is becoming more
and more scarce: this indeed is in keeping with the decline of Vedic
dharma. In recent years, the Raja of Kollengode made it a point to
supply
the soma plant for the soma sacrifice wherever it was held. |
|
|
