PDA

View Full Version : "Hindu" Animal Sacrifice in Nepal!!



TatTvamAsi
24 November 2009, 12:40 PM
Namaste,

I just came across this article on TOI and was aghast!

link: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-asia/Indians-throng-Nepals-Gadhimai-fair-for-animal-sacrifice/articleshow/5264701.cms

I suppose a lot of Hindus still do animal sacrifice however I thought it had reduced drastically after Jain & Buddhist influence??

It just seems so weird that Hindus, whose basic tenet of ahimsa (principle against VOLUNTARY emotional/physical/mental violence towards other beings), is slid under the carpet for this issue. (?)

Of course, this doesn't compare to the pedophile worshiping (muslim) monkeys who kill about 2-3 MILLION goats every year in some desert to please their demonic fairy allah.

Yet, the "secular" news media would only pounce on this "Hindu" animal sacrifice as anathema!

Anyone know more about this festival? Are these types of sacrifices more common in the villages of India/Nepal?

Well, there must be a reason for everything (including the existence of christians/muslims) so I suppose we shouldn't judge too quickly.

Only GOD can protect India!

SATYAMEVA JAYATE!

JAI HIND!

Namaskar.

NetiNeti
01 January 2010, 12:31 AM
I was shocked by this as well. Ahimsa is such an important aspect of my life and I truly believe that flowers, leafs and fruits are fine offerings. Why destroy beings that have the same Atman as us? Sometimes I see things like this and I truly know that the Kali Yuga is effect.

kshama
01 January 2010, 11:08 PM
@TatTwamAsi Ji,

Compared to the killings of cows and goats for consumption by the Muslim, Christians and other people, I must say the sacrifices that some Hindus do are extremely relatively lower.

People have agendas to show Hinduism in bad light. So these reports are all catered for that purpose. The meat industry and the dairy industry are the most cruel, but nobody talks abt that.

In my place, there are temples where animal sacrifices being done annually, but not on daily basis. Most of these temples are temples of Kali Ma or Lord Muniandy (a Tamil village God). Personally I do not know what are the significances of sacrifices to the deities. But I have heard it is abt thanksgiving, say some good things happened to an individual after praying to Kali Ma, so they show gratitude by sacrificing a goat or a chicken, according to their capacity. Mostly it is based on traditions in the family.

Well, I must say, we have the liberty to chose which temple you want to go. If you feel ahimsa is your principle, so live by it and go to temples where there's never any sacrifices done. But we should not ever try to criticize Kali Ma or othe deities for what their followers do. That's not right. Namaste.

Eastern Mind
02 January 2010, 07:14 AM
Vanakkam: I agree with kshama. The western media has an agenda, and they are supported by right wing christianity, and the meat industry, who each have powerful lobbyists. So one can be a rebel by not supporting or attending such temples, by being a vegetarian, and by doing political action such as letter writing, signing of petitions, and protesting when possible.

But even some of our own scriptures and Puranas talk of animal sacrifice. But of all faiths, I think ours moves on as well as any.

Aum Namasivaya

ScottMalaysia
15 January 2010, 05:49 PM
Before my wife and I left Malaysia to come to New Zealand, my mother-in-law wanted us to attend a ceremony at the Kantan Kali Temple (cave temple in Perak). Most of the shrines were either in the cave or just outside it, but there was one that was set significantly apart from the rest. It was a Madurai Veeran shrine. I asked my wife's grandfather why it was away from the main temple and he said that goats are sacrificed there.

sambya
24 January 2010, 07:32 AM
well, sacrifices are still practised in some parts of hindu world . vedic religion of aryans also had some significant animal sacrifices in their yagnas . so technically , hinduism was not always about non-violence .
however in present day vedic sacrifices are held no more . but tantric scrifices still occur in places .

however these falls into the ritualistic or karma kanda section of the hindu religion . and practicing sacrifce does nothing to elevate our consciousness to higher states of understanding--to know god . so its meaningless to follow this procedure ...at least for those who wish to be spiritual .


balidaan(hindu term for sacrifice) symbolises offering of our six passions(sada ripu) of lust greed anger etc at the feet of the divine and can also be ritually performed with vegtables like gourd or sugarcane .

LALKAR
24 January 2010, 10:55 AM
Namaste All,


well, sacrifices are still practised in some parts of hindu world . vedic religion of aryans also had some significant animal sacrifices in their yagnas . so technically , hinduism was not always about non-violence .
however in present day vedic sacrifices are held no more . but tantric scrifices still occur in places .

however these falls into the ritualistic or karma kanda section of the hindu religion . and practicing sacrifce does nothing to elevate our consciousness to higher states of understanding--to know god . so its meaningless to follow this procedure ...at least for those who wish to be spiritual .


balidaan(hindu term for sacrifice) symbolises offering of our six passions(sada ripu) of lust greed anger etc at the feet of the divine and can also be ritually performed with vegtables like gourd or sugarcane .

from were did you get this?

Balidaan did not meens killing
according to Sanskrit scholars the term 'Bali' means Last Aahuti and not killing anybody,


Hinduism did not adopted Ahimsa from Jainism or Buddhism, they adopted it from ancient Hindu texts

Jain ahimsa is adopted from 'Sankhya Darshan'

Buddhist texts themselves accept that Buddha's ahimsa and Yoga came from two Brahmans Alar Kalam and Rudrak Ramputr

both Ram and Krishan were born before Buddha and Mahavir, didi anybody of them eat any nonveg?
During his 14 years of Vanvaas did Ram Lakshman or Sita ate any non-veg ?

sambya
24 January 2010, 01:57 PM
namste ji .



Balidaan did not meens killing
according to Sanskrit scholars the term 'Bali' means Last Aahuti and not killing anybody,

karmakandic rituals of a puja draws heavily in influence from tantric agamas and prevalent customs of the region . roughly speaking these r the parts in an average ritualistic puja as followed today -- achman , vishnu smaran atma suddhi , samanyargha sthapan , asana suddhi , pushpa suddhi , nyasa , prana pratishta , pradhana puja , homa , stava path , arati , japa samarpan , atmanivedanam and kshamaparadha prayer .

in a shakta puja there is an added ritual after homa which goes by the name ' balidaan ' and finds its authorisation in various puranas and tantric texts !

literally it might mean something like self sacrifice but in practical usage it is sacrifice of animals or symbolic cutting of whole vegtables . that is the standard mode of worship in a shakta tradition (atleast in kalikula) .

by the way , the 'last ahuti' that you seem to be suggesting is known as purnaahuti at the end of the homa . it has nothing to do with ritualistic balidaan .




Hinduism did not adopted Ahimsa from Jainism or Buddhism, they adopted it from ancient Hindu texts

i agree . i did not say anything to the contrary . you are imagining things up . hinduism later elaborated on its own principles of ahimsa and did away with vedic animal sacrifices altogether . infact it would not be wholly unjustified if i say buddhistic or jain ahimsa were derived to an extent from that of hinduism .


Jain ahimsa is adopted from 'Sankhya Darshan'
really ?! i did not know that . how ? can you shed a little more light on this matter ?


Buddhist texts themselves accept that Buddha's ahimsa and Yoga came from two Brahmans Alar Kalam and Rudrak Ramputr
thats also new to me . can you write in some more details . it would help me in learning something new .



both Ram and Krishan were born before Buddha and Mahavir, didi anybody of them eat any nonveg?During his 14 years of Vanvaas did Ram Lakshman or Sita ate any non-veg ?


well i have not read through the original valmiki ramayan completely and hence unfit for commenting , but have read through certain debates regarding some places in ramayana where he allegedly ate meat while in vanavasa . the defenders on the other hand tried to show that the concerned word in that respective sloka was misinterpreted by the other party to mean meat .

i shall require even more time to find that debate out . untill then i cannot give you the direct sloka numbers .

LALKAR
29 January 2010, 09:29 AM
You said teachers of Buddha Alar Kalam and Rudrak Ramputr are new to you, that mean you yourself don't know about Buddha's mahabhinishkraman.:D
Not only these two teachers, buddha's buddies Aanj, Assji, Vapp, Mahanam and Bhavdiya were brahmans
Buddha was himself not against eating non-veg, he was only against killing anybody be if it is human or animal
Even Buddha's last meal was pork offered by Chund Sunar

Shakya are non-veg themselves and not proved by Hindu texts, Buddha was himself a Shakya

If this is also new to you read Buddhist texts:p

As for Sankhy Darshan you have to read it and not just some Shalok,
There were already Rules established by Pasharvnath before Mahavir

If this is also new to You :D

You said you haven't read Valmiki Ramayan, yet you claim you read somewere that Ram eat meat during Vanvas period, I also read somewere
like Ramneek of Thailand that Ram had 16,000 wives Lakshman had 8,000 wives, Hanuman was also a womaniser. But thats no proved Hindu text, you are reading anti-hindu texts:naughty:

Purn Aahuti still not need Killing anybody, Bali is not killing just reading in ancient texts that 'Bali' was offered dose not prove anybody was killed,


Maharshi Dayanand of Arya Samaj gave the slogan "BACK TO THE VEDAS"
he opposed non-veg, alcohal, etc evils only by wits and that these are against Vedic Rule.

sambya
30 January 2010, 02:02 AM
am i advocating non-vegetarianism ? im myself a vegetarian ... but ofcourse i believe that vegetarianism might not necessarily be the only way to enlightment .

since im not a buddhist by faith well, isnt it very natural for me , not to be well aqquainted with buddhist stories ?!

you have still not mentioned how sankhya yoga is the basis of jain ahimsa . im really curious to know !!


Purn Aahuti still not need Killing anybody, Bali is not killing just reading in ancient texts that 'Bali' was offered dose not prove anybody was killed,



just go through what i wrote once more . i never said purna ahuti is 'killing anybody ' !!!!! purna ahuti is purna ahuti --a distinct ritual .

and bali , as followed in tantra based traditions that are there in this subcontinent from the time of the vedas , is killing . remember here im not reffering to vedas when i say bali . and also remember that the two different margs of vedism and tantrism existed side by side since earliest times , and modern hinduism is but a mixture of both .

LALKAR
04 February 2010, 10:32 AM
For this you will have to read Sankhya Darshan yourself
you will find similarities between teachings of Jainism and Kapil Muni

sambya
05 February 2010, 03:24 AM
For this you will have to read Sankhya Darshan yourself
you will find similarities between teachings of Jainism and Kapil Muni

i dont want details of sankhya or jainism . i just want to undestand some brief points of simlarity and the way the two systems are related(as u r saying) . a few sentences of explantion would do . im not asking too much .

surely you know many such examples , and consequently should have no major problem to satisfy the curious demands of this ignorant student , as you have personally completed through sankhya and jain siddhanta(as ur previous posts suggest) !!


waiting ....

Sagefrakrobatik
06 February 2010, 07:13 AM
You said you haven't read Valmiki Ramayan, yet you claim you read somewere that Ram eat meat during Vanvas period, I also read somewere
like Ramneek of Thailand that Ram had 16,000 wives Lakshman had 8,000 wives, Hanuman was also a womaniser. But thats no proved Hindu text, you are reading anti-hindu texts:naughty:



Now I am no expert in Hinduism nor have I read Valamki's version in the original Sanskrit. I doubt you have too. However the one version I have from C. Rajagopalachari a companion to Ghandhi said that he did hunt for meat because he is a Ksastriya and as a Ksastriya he he is not restricted to the law of non-violence. How could he be his clan is the warrior clan.

Sagefrakrobatik
06 February 2010, 07:20 AM
@TatTwamAsi Ji,

People have agendas to show Hinduism in bad light. So these reports are all catered for that purpose. The meat industry and the dairy industry are the most cruel, but nobody talks abt that.


This is news because most of people think Hinduism is about peace and nature and living in harmony with animals. This maybe negative news but its news because it shows a side of Hinduism people are not familiar with. But dont assume everything from the western media is negative. Look at the post I made in the "I am a Hindu" section "Hinduism and Modernity" that story was pretty positive.

Yet everyone here and elsewhere think that its the big bad Western Media showing their culture in a negative light. True as a student of the media, I am sometimes embarrass at home some cultures are displayed but if it upsets you so much do something about it create your own media.

As a journalist I am instructed to get both sides of an issue if you feel only one-side of hinduism is being represented and its tainting the image of Hinduism call the editor, blog, write a letter to the editor. It is the responsibility of the Journalist to seek out contrary positions on controversial issues however if they cannot find any then you cant neccessarily blame them can you?

kshama
06 February 2010, 07:46 AM
Namaskar Sagefrakrobatik Ji,

First of all, after much thought and contemplation, I have decided long ago I will not create threads or posts here in HDF anymore.
But since you have quoted my statement, I have to elaborate my point of view once again. If not, my statement will look biased.THIS WILL BE MY LAST POST.

I am sorry, if you feel my statements seemed harsh towards the media. I am just stating my point of view. You see, there are certain quarters of people will try their best to showcase certain issues in a particular way in order to prove their point. This happens in the media all the time. Ethics in journalism are not followed by people nowadays, as news that are sensational and could create controversy can be an execellent news material-to make money.

Hinduism has been a target of riducule and attacks by various quarters since long time ago. This is also a fact. Not only western media, media based on some specific religion too try to show Hinduism in bad light.

People generally are more interested to know abt the so-called bad stuff about any matter. All confusions arose because of this. Sometimes what people see, hear and read in the media is not true or maybe slightly true. So this half-baked news about Hinduism will make people come into a wrong conclusion, because their premise of what Hinduism is are flawed.

Coming back to the matter. Animal sacrifice has been practiced in some ways in Hinduism. But there's a purpose behind it. I can elaborate more on this matter, but it's not proper, as there are more senior and knowledgeable people here that can give you a precise picture of why the so-called animal sacrife being done.

You can PM me, if you feel you need to ask more questions. This will be my last post here in HDF. Namaste to you and all.

Kshama

sambya
06 February 2010, 10:39 AM
HI KSHAMA ,

why last post ?!

you not letting anyone go so soon .

:)

MAT
18 April 2010, 08:35 AM
Straight from the Valmiki Ramayana, Ayodhya Kanda, Chapter 52, Sloka 102:

tau tatra hatvā caturo mahāmṛgān; varāham ṛśyaṃ pṛṣataṃ mahārurum
ādāya medhyaṃ tvaritaṃ bubhukṣitau; vāsāya kāle yayatur vanaspatim

“There those two, [Rama and Laksmana,] having killed four large animals: a boar, an antelope, a spotted antelope and an antelope [of some other type], the two hungry ones, having quickly received/taken the pure [part of the animals], they went to a tree to rest in the dark [nighttime].”

The parts in brackets were added by me to clarify the sentence.

I have studied Sanskrit for a few years now and there is no way I can see to translate this in a way that doesn’t have them eating meat as it says that they kill the animals and that they are hungry and take the pure parts of the meat.

Manusmrti 5.27-56 says clearly that there are times when you may eat meat and that,

“there is no fault in eating meat, drinking liquor, or in having sex; that is the natural activity of creatures. Abstaining from such activity, however, brings great rewards.”

So obviously meat eating was accepted at some point and at 5.35 it says,

“If a man refuses to eat meat after he has been ritually commissioned according to rule, after death he will become an animal for twenty-one lifetimes.”

I myself am a strict vegetarian but I still think that it is clear that meat eating was once allowed for brahmans at least under the certain conditions. Manu 5.39-40 says:

“The Self-existent One himself created domestic animals for sacrifice, and the sacrifice is for the prosperity of this whole world. Within the sacrifice, therefore, killing is not killing. When plants, domestic animals, trees, beasts, and birds die for the sake of the sacrifice, they will in turn earn superior births.”

This seems to deal with the seeming contradiction with ahimsa. If you are killing for sacrifice then you are doing a service and not harm to the animals and so how could you be going against ahimsa?

NayaSurya
19 April 2010, 01:50 PM
The Mahabharata has discussion on this subject and it seems that it was tradition and was considered sacred. Book 3 Section 207.

"The sacred fire is fond of animal food,' this saying has come down to us. And at sacrifices animals are invariably killed by regenerate Brahmanas, and these animals being purged of sin, by incantation of hymns, go to heaven."

TatTvamAsi
19 April 2010, 09:11 PM
The topic of vegetarianism has been beaten to death on HDF, pun not-intended! ;)

With regards to what you have written, yes, meat-eating and engaging in hedonistic pleasures are not antithetical to nature, yet, when ones takes on the responsibility of sAdhanA, it is imperative to control one's senses, emotions, desires, and wants. Thus, abstinence is a requirement for those along that path. And, in those days, most sAdhakAs were Brahmins and thus happened to be vegetarians. The funny thing is, it is not against the sVadharmA of sUdras, VaiSyAs, and KSatriyAs to engage in wordly affairs, of which meat-eating is one.

However, to use the past as an excuse to continue one's bad habits, that is, if one is along the path of sAdhanA, is ridiculous to say the least. And furthermore, there weren't any "organic" vegetables available in the previous yuga (during Rama's reign) so meat-eating must have been quite rampant. Nonetheless, ahimsa is still a fundamental core of Hinduism. The difference of course is the "INTENTIONAL" causing of harm mentally, physically, or emotionally.


Straight from the Valmiki Ramayana, Ayodhya Kanda, Chapter 52, Sloka 102:

tau tatra hatvā caturo mahāmṛgān; varāham ṛśyaṃ pṛṣataṃ mahārurum
ādāya medhyaṃ tvaritaṃ bubhukṣitau; vāsāya kāle yayatur vanaspatim

“There those two, [Rama and Laksmana,] having killed four large animals: a boar, an antelope, a spotted antelope and an antelope [of some other type], the two hungry ones, having quickly received/taken the pure [part of the animals], they went to a tree to rest in the dark [nighttime].”

The parts in brackets were added by me to clarify the sentence.

I have studied Sanskrit for a few years now and there is no way I can see to translate this in a way that doesn’t have them eating meat as it says that they kill the animals and that they are hungry and take the pure parts of the meat.

Manusmrti 5.27-56 says clearly that there are times when you may eat meat and that,

“there is no fault in eating meat, drinking liquor, or in having sex; that is the natural activity of creatures. Abstaining from such activity, however, brings great rewards.”

So obviously meat eating was accepted at some point and at 5.35 it says,

“If a man refuses to eat meat after he has been ritually commissioned according to rule, after death he will become an animal for twenty-one lifetimes.”

I myself am a strict vegetarian but I still think that it is clear that meat eating was once allowed for brahmans at least under the certain conditions. Manu 5.39-40 says:

“The Self-existent One himself created domestic animals for sacrifice, and the sacrifice is for the prosperity of this whole world. Within the sacrifice, therefore, killing is not killing. When plants, domestic animals, trees, beasts, and birds die for the sake of the sacrifice, they will in turn earn superior births.”

This seems to deal with the seeming contradiction with ahimsa. If you are killing for sacrifice then you are doing a service and not harm to the animals and so how could you be going against ahimsa?

rcscwc
07 September 2010, 08:29 AM
What is the problem if some Hindus still do animal sacrifice? why should anyone be shocked? How many are shocked when millions of animals are sacrificed by muslims?

Of course, meat is not prohibited to Hindus. But many do shun it. Show me a single jew/xian/muslim who shuns meat.

Most of Hindus repudiate animal sacrifice. Show me a single muslim who opposes sacrifice on Id?

Kumar_Das
07 September 2010, 08:56 AM
Namaste,

I just came across this article on TOI and was aghast!

link: http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/world/south-asia/Indians-throng-Nepals-Gadhimai-fair-for-animal-sacrifice/articleshow/5264701.cms

I suppose a lot of Hindus still do animal sacrifice however I thought it had reduced drastically after Jain & Buddhist influence??

It just seems so weird that Hindus, whose basic tenet of ahimsa (principle against VOLUNTARY emotional/physical/mental violence towards other beings), is slid under the carpet for this issue. (?)

Of course, this doesn't compare to the pedophile worshiping (muslim) monkeys who kill about 2-3 MILLION goats every year in some desert to please their demonic fairy allah.

Yet, the "secular" news media would only pounce on this "Hindu" animal sacrifice as anathema!

Anyone know more about this festival? Are these types of sacrifices more common in the villages of India/Nepal?

Well, there must be a reason for everything (including the existence of christians/muslims) so I suppose we shouldn't judge too quickly.

Only GOD can protect India!

SATYAMEVA JAYATE!

JAI HIND!

Namaskar.

From my understanding this ritual is pre-Brahmin animist and their Shaktaism is more 'tantric'.

NetiNeti
07 September 2010, 10:25 AM
What is the problem if some Hindus still do animal sacrifice? why should anyone be shocked? How many are shocked when millions of animals are sacrificed by muslims?

Of course, meat is not prohibited to Hindus. But many do shun it. Show me a single jew/xian/muslim who shuns meat.

Most of Hindus repudiate animal sacrifice. Show me a single muslim who oppses sacrifice on Id?

We do not progress by regressing to the level of others. Do not measure your actions by those of others. We, as Hindus, should see a problem with such a display of violence and carnage. We need to be the example against the more violent faiths. Our compassion is what makes us different. Maintain it always.

By the way, there is a christian sect called The Seventh-day Adventist Church. They have 16 million followers and they follow total vegetarianism based on the grounds of compassion.

Ganeshprasad
07 September 2010, 01:34 PM
pranam


We do not progress by regressing to the level of others. Do not measure your actions by those of others. We, as Hindus, should see a problem with such a display of violence and carnage. We need to be the example against the more violent faiths. Our compassion is what makes us different. Maintain it always.

By the way, there is a christian sect called The Seventh-day Adventist Church. They have 16 million followers and they follow total vegetarianism based on the grounds of compassion.

now that is something to cultivate, compassion Karuna, one off the pillar of Vedic Dharma, i would not trust my mind or mind level, it has a habit of justifying even murders, so it is not surprising for those who want to eat meat, therefore i put my trust in Dharma, it implores me to be compassionate.

Jai Shree Krishna

NetiNeti
10 September 2010, 01:17 AM
pranam



now that is something to cultivate, compassion Karuna, one off the pillar of Vedic Dharma, i would not trust my mind or mind level, it has a habit of justifying even murders, so it is not surprising for those who want to eat meat, therefore i put my trust in Dharma, it implores me to be compassionate.

Jai Shree Krishna

Ganeshprasad,

You speak very wisely. Our faith should be our guide, not out minds. Human minds justify all sorts of horrors. We must always hold compassion as the highest ideal.

Adhvagat
10 September 2010, 06:16 AM
And furthermore, there weren't any "organic" vegetables available in the previous yuga (during Rama's reign) so meat-eating must have been quite rampant. Nonetheless, ahimsa is still a fundamental core of Hinduism. The difference of course is the "INTENTIONAL" causing of harm mentally, physically, or emotionally.

Tattvamasi, what do you mean by "no organic vegetables" in Treta yuga?

That seems pretty strange for me...

Ganeshprasad
10 September 2010, 10:21 AM
Pranam


Tattvamasi, what do you mean by "no organic vegetables" in Treta yuga?

That seems pretty strange for me...

Strange indeed, thankfully it is not the opinion off Ramayan here it is and i quote

phalamulashanaa nitya.m bhaviShyaami na sa.mshayaH |

na tu duHkha.m kaiShyaami nivasantii tvayaa sadaa || raa 2.27.16 ||

I shall without doubt live on fruits and roots from day to day and
shall not cause any annoyance to you while living with you (raamaayaNa,
ayodhya-kaaNDa, 27.16). (spoken by Siitaa to Raama)

patra.m muula.m phala.m yattu alpa.m vaa yadi vaa bahu

daasyase svayamaahutya tanme.mR^itarasopamam || raa 2.30.15 ||

Anything you will give (me) in the shape of leaves, roots or fruits,
bringing it yourself in a small or large quantity will taste like nectar to
me (raamaayaNa, ayodhya-kaaNDa, 30.15). (spoken by Siitaa to Raama)

na maaturna pitustatra smariShyaami na veshmanaH |

aartavaanyupabhu~njaanaa puShpaaNi cha phalaani cha || raa 2.30.16 ||

Enjoying there seasonal flowers and fruits too I shall neither remember my
mother nor father nor home (raamaayaNa, ayodhya-kaaNDa 30.16).

Jai Shree Krishna

KaliBhakta
22 September 2010, 02:32 AM
We do not progress by regressing to the level of others. Do not measure your actions by those of others. We, as Hindus, should see a problem with such a display of violence and carnage. We need to be the example against the more violent faiths. Our compassion is what makes us different. Maintain it always.

By the way, there is a christian sect called The Seventh-day Adventist Church. They have 16 million followers and they follow total vegetarianism based on the grounds of compassion.

For the record, in addition to the Seventh-day Adventists, they are Quakers, who tend to be often Vegetarian, along with many Sufis and Jews who chose to be Vegetarian for spiritual reasons (Rather then lacking "Kosher" meat). Not many, but they are there.

TatTvamAsi
25 September 2010, 07:56 PM
Tattvamasi, what do you mean by "no organic vegetables" in Treta yuga?

That seems pretty strange for me...

EDIT: Just saw GaneshPrasad's post above. Yes, he is right. I was just assuming, incorrectly, people in those days ate meat so it was the norm.

rcscwc
16 October 2010, 10:32 AM
We do not progress by regressing to the level of others. Do not measure your actions by those of others. We, as Hindus, should see a problem with such a display of violence and carnage. We need to be the example against the more violent faiths. Our compassion is what makes us different. Maintain it always.

By the way, there is a christian sect called The Seventh-day Adventist Church. They have 16 million followers and they follow total vegetarianism based on the grounds of compassion.
The thread is not at all about progress or regress. The poster of OP was AGHAST!! But never was he aghast at Id sacrifices. Was he?

Does a tiger regress or progress?

I do not take meat, but I don't preach to those who do.

I do not approve of BALI in temples, but I do not demolish them. In east and NE you will find many, many temples of goddess where there is a BALI. I NEVER went inside any of such temples, but the Mother is still revered by me. So I paid my respects from a distance.

Sir I hail from Punjab, where goddess or Shiva temples do not have BALI.

TatTvamAsi
17 October 2010, 12:50 PM
The thread is not at all about progress or regress. The poster of OP was AGHAST!! But never was he aghast at Id sacrifices. Was he?


I mentioned this "animal sacrifice" because I had never heard of it before. Especially at such a scale and that too by Hindus. I am not preaching that it is "wrong". I was just surprised.

And, I know mlecchas (christians/muslims/jews etc.) do all sorts of unsavory things but I am not going to waste my time combating them in this regard. They are not going to change. When Hindus do it, I thought it was something rare and that is why I posted about it.

I also know certain sects of Hindus still do animal sacrifice so I wanted to discuss what the philosophy behind it was. Why some Hindus are very particular about not eating meat, sacrificing animals and others are not that way.

Eastern Mind
19 October 2010, 07:41 AM
Vannakkam: Times change.

Source: timesofindia.indiatimes.com (http://timesofindia.indiatimes.com/city/patna/Pumpkins-cucumbers-replace-animal-sacrifice-in-Puja/articleshow/6756355.cms#ixzz12Y1hC0oQ)
PATNA, INDIA, October 14, 2010: Isn’t it a heartening news that Durga Puja committees have been sensitized against animal sacrifice? Ranjit Bhattacharya, a purohit (priest) of a Barowari Puja Committee said, “Sacrifice is an essential aspect of the Puja, for `bali’ is the symbol of power. Bali invokes power. And since we are worshipping Durga, who is the embodiment of shakti (power), it is essential to incorporate bali in puja. But it does not have to be an animal. Now most of the Puja committees prefer to use vegetables or fruits,” added the purohit.

Incidentally, even Bengali pandals here do not offer animal sacrifice to the Goddess. Bali made of white pumpkin, sugarcane and cucumber is offered specially on Mahaashtami day during sandhi pujan. An integral and important part of Durga Puja, sandhi puja is performed at the juncture of the 8th and 9th lunar days. Sandhi puja lasts from the last 24 minutes of Ashtami till the first 24 minutes of Navami.

Aum Namasivaya

Adhvagat
19 October 2010, 02:41 PM
I mentioned this "animal sacrifice" because I had never heard of it before. Especially at such a scale and that too by Hindus. I am not preaching that it is "wrong". I was just surprised.

And, I know mlecchas (christians/muslims/jews etc.) do all sorts of unsavory things but I am not going to waste my time combating them in this regard. They are not going to change. When Hindus do it, I thought it was something rare and that is why I posted about it.

I also know certain sects of Hindus still do animal sacrifice so I wanted to discuss what the philosophy behind it was. Why some Hindus are very particular about not eating meat, sacrificing animals and others are not that way.

The opinion of my siksha guru on animal sacrifice is that it shouldn't be done in Kali Yuga since there aren't individuals elevated enough to liberate the souls of the animals.

naga
20 October 2010, 07:18 AM
In Bali everyday pigs, dogs, frogs, chickens, infact I have seen buffalos and many more. On Eka dasa rudra one of every species is offered to Rudra. The priest would say the animals are raised in the next life to a higher level. Of course the usual tourist rarely sees it. Many cultures in the past do the same. In Bali vegetarianism is rare, so prasadam would contain meat.

rcscwc
22 October 2010, 07:50 AM
I mentioned this "animal sacrifice" because I had never heard of it before. Especially at such a scale and that too by Hindus. I am not preaching that it is "wrong". I was just surprised.

And, I know mlecchas (christians/muslims/jews etc.) do all sorts of unsavory things but I am not going to waste my time combating them in this regard. They are not going to change. When Hindus do it, I thought it was something rare and that is why I posted about it.

I also know certain sects of Hindus still do animal sacrifice so I wanted to discuss what the philosophy behind it was. Why some Hindus are very particular about not eating meat, sacrificing animals and others are not that way.
I am never surprised or agast at bali. But I am dismayed. It is futile. General thrust of Upnashids frowns upon Bali and positively disapproves.

Frankly, I do not believe that scarifices were done at that scale. In fact, bali goes on practically around the years.

But I am reminded of Stalin. One murder is a heinous crime, but a million are are just statistics. A few sacrifces by a few Hindus are shocking, millions by muslims- oh SHRUG.

Arjuni
21 September 2011, 04:36 PM
Namasté,

I came across this thread a while back and thought to add a little note of hope: From Nov 6 to 11, the Vedic Society will be performing a Somayagya (http://www.vedicsociety.org/somayagya-nepal-2011-c-209_292_321.html?osCsid=37c4a74d1fc2533e9b9ab1723af912a0) in Panauti, Nepal.

One reason for choosing the Kathmandu Valley is explained as:


"...this has not been done before in the recorded history of Nepal that a non-violent Somayagya has been performed there. Some 13 years back, a Somayagya was done at Pashupathi (the first in recorded history), but it was done with violence to animals which is not acceptable.


The vision of the Rishis for these Mahayagyas was that they could be used bring more peace and harmony to the place they are performed, and hence the need of the hour is to perform this in Nepal."

Indraneela
===
Oṁ Indrāya Namaḥ.
Oṁ Namaḥ Śivāya.

sm78
22 September 2011, 03:04 AM
The opinion of my siksha guru on animal sacrifice is that it shouldn't be done in Kali Yuga since there aren't individuals elevated enough to liberate the souls of the animals.

The idea behind bali-dana is not to send living beings to higher life or birth. If somebody was really capable of that, he should be really going on a killing spree and saving the world in the process. With proper understanding, its purpose is same as any ritual i.e liberation - not of the animal, but the performer. Originally it must have been done to appease dieties or vedic gods in case of vedic yajnas, which is also a valid point.

Buddhist monks do have practices to send dying beings (not killing healthy beings) to various lokas. Hindus don't have such practices or at least they are no longer preserved if there were ever such. Although besides the point, I don't believe this buddhist practice works, since sending animals to various lokas is quite absurd - birth of animals and human do not follow the same process really. Animals, directly return to the seed state for rebirth upon death - there is not intermediate lokas, mental vasanas for them to deal with - unless they are already advanced beings trapped in animal body. This ofcourse teaching I believe in, surely not the buddhists.

PS: Buddist tantra also have this idea of sending beings to better birth or even liberation by killing. This was used to justify even practices like human sacrifices and is termed as compassionate killing or violence. Compassionate violence was a big part in the buddhist occupation of Tibet and is also present everywhere Buddhist engaged in violence. I am not a scholar, so early Hindu tantras which were closer to Buddhist tantras may have this element of compassionate killing dogma in them too. (not to suggest that Hindu tantrism was offspring of Buddhist tantrism which would be very wrong, but they had some sort of common ancestory).

But current Hindu practice of Bali-dana has nothing to do with it and shakta doctrine doesn't give this excuse for killing.

Most hindus believe in Ahimsa and see violence as necessary evil needed for survival and protection (eg warfare) and nothing more. This is far better and honest position than "Compassionate Violence", which is to me is a poor excuse and dangerous justification for evil, not too different from Jehadi logic of suicide bombing who fall on a very similar logic. Buddhism under clout of superior philosophy has often sheltered quite dangerous dogmas and notions, and continue to shelter such notions.

You may refer to David Gray's thesis on Comapassionate Violence in buddhist ethics. It may be through them that this sending animals to better birth etc became popular opinions. As I said, if you are really capable of doing some good to other's by killing them, why not be a mass-murderer than preaching from a monestry? Its a fallacy, and a dangerous one, likely to be evoked only when commiting a crime and not otherwise. Hindus should stay away from such justifications, even if some obscure proof of the notion is discovered in our own books. My opinion ofcourse.

Guiding Thoughts
03 September 2012, 01:37 PM
Dear Readers .

Animal sacrifice is such a tragedy.

Hinduism is a religion that preaches love for all our fellow beings. Animal sacrifice is a distortion of the Hinduism concept of self evolution which is " We need to sacrifice the animal instincts that rests within us individually" so as to evolve into better human beings. It does not mean sacrificing an animal LITERALLY.

To God all of his creation is equally loved. For eg. As parents we love all our children equally.We are not going to be pleased if one of our children "sacrifices or Kills" the other to please us as parents. So how can we expect GOD to do the same?

We are a blogspot committed to spreading the scientific basis of Hinduism. We invite readers to visit us at:
1)Guidingthoughts.blogspot.com (http://guidingthoughts.blogspot.com/)
2)Spiritual bee.com (http://www.spiritualbee.com/)

Best regards
Guiding Thoughts Team

ShivaFan
03 September 2012, 10:51 PM
Namaste

Hmmm... I haven't read this posting before and noticed it tonight since someone had put in a reply today.

I say "Hmmmm..." because I am having a hard time exactly how to respond to this. Anyone who knows me, they know that I am a great admirer and lover of animals, especially birds, and of course especially the beautiful cows of India. The eyes of these cows, literally, can make your heart melt and you want to "marry" one! :) Of course, that is a bit of overstating things, but that is how much I love the beautiful cows. And the baby cows, I just want to kiss them and give them all the love.

I love birds, as many who know me are aware. Some of my favorite birds are the Fruit Doves (BEAUTIFUL! - look up their images on the internet!) and so reading about sacrificing doves and pigeons does make me upset. I have many doves who come to my white millet feeders every morning, they have no fear of me at all. Their are mourning doves, Eurasian Collard Doves (actually, unusual for this area), ring necks, I have Quails come also, and Jays. Note far away on a very tall tree are crows and during a certain time of the year very HUGE ravens come to eat the walnuts. They pick up the walnuts, smash them on the ground and eat the insides. Of course, jays, crows and ravens are also meat eaters.

But I still say "Hmmm...." because, I have been to, and go to Kali Ghat Temple near Kolkata. Goats are sacrificed there, the head is chopped off. Now if I give, I give big bags of rice. But I have stood with a goat sacrifice just in front of me, and I have to say it is none of my business telling the priests what to do regarding Mother Kali. I can see it can be upsetting, when I was before such a sacrifice the last time and the head came off and blood, there was an Indian girl who let out a sort of scream which sort of made things odd at the time.

I have to say, I also love goats, especially those ones from Egypt. I would LOVE to have goats of my own on personal property, but that would not be fesiable for me. Because I LOVE goat milk! Nevertheless, as shocking as this sounds to my fellow Shaivites, the goat sacrifice doesn't make me flinch in the least. I also love Mother Kali very much!

My personal devotion to Kali Mother is in Her form as a young girl, which is not a common devotion but She does appear as such to mystics, yogis and others, sometimes in the actual person of a young girl and not just an apiration of vision.

I think, and agree with the pujaris, that goat sacrifice to Kali Mother is ok. I hope there is nothing wrong in saying that.

There was a thread on this forum about the Horse Sacrifice. That is restricted actually to Royal members of the Raj, such as sponsored Horse Sacrifices by Maharajas, Rajas and Princes. Only they can sponsor this. Since there are so few such Royals which have any real royal authority, we do not see the Horse Sacrifice anymore as was in the Ramayana. I have no issue with it, but no one needs to fuss over it since there isn't anymore Royals in authority to sponsor a Horse Sacrifice so there won't be any of late, or extremely rare.

I am not for Buffalo Sacrifice at all.

So I guess, I am of the opinion that some forms, such as goat sacrifice to Kali Mother, or Horse Sacrifice sponsored by Royals, has it's place and I am not one to criticise. I hope no one is angry at me for saying so.

Om Namah Sivaya

ShivaFan
04 September 2012, 01:27 PM
Namaste

Actually I gave a little more thought regarding this thread.

What was also interesting is, while driving to work and listening to Fox News over Sirius satellite radio, a commercial came on from an organization called “ADAPTT – Animals Deserve Absolute Protection Today and Tomorrow”. The voice was appealing to listeners about patriotism expanding to protecting animals such as cows and livestock. So I took a visit to the site, finding some young man named Gary Yourofsky (anyone know him by chance?), very healthy looking, I noticed he has his head shaved so I am not sure if he is ex-ISKCON or other but I played a video of his from the organization's site which was called “Watch a LIFE-CHANGING speech” and in the video he makes clear at the onset that what he is about to talk about will not include any of his religious beliefs. He does quote “Thou shalt not kill” but he is addressing what appears to be kids at a public school, not sure. So his presentation isn’t Christian, Hindu or any other, it is simply advocacy for animals and stopping the slaughter of livestock in the United States.

I am not going to post his web link, if you are really interested you can easily search them on the internet by "Animals Deserve Absolute Protection". Again, this is not a Hindu site, not any particular religion actually so I am not sure the policy around posting a web link of such on the HDF.

I did watch most of the video, it is strange how things seem to all happen at a particular time since on the way in I was kind of feeling bad about animals in general and my response on HDF. This video was very convincing actually, it does not present the Hindu viewpoint but it did present a lot of science around the fact that humans are not carnivores. Be forewarned, if you watch the video, about halfway through it he plays a short film to the class about what happens in the slaughter house. Of course, seeing beloved cows being tortured, really is upsetting and you can imagine the class was upset too since almost all young kids love animals and they also love cows.

So this makes me stop and take a better look at how all animals are treated, including goats for example.

Thanks for sharing some thoughts on this! You know, all life needs respect. On my way into work, right in front of me on the freeway, a shoot out started and guns fired. An officer was shot dead, one suspect I believe dead, all traffic stopped, it appeared another suspect was on the run, and then of all crazy things a huge fire then burst up off the side of the freeway as well. It was total mayhem. Love your family, love your fellow Hindus, and love the animals. Because at any moment things can happen, and disrespect for life is a big problem in the modern world. I am home now, work told me to somehow turn around and head back, which actually was quite difficult but I am home now and I think I will give my bird friends some more white millet and peanuts to eat.

Om Namah Sivaya