Originally Posted by
Avyaydya
My limited personal opinion:
Personally I think it is very likely that the ancient sacrificed real animals and that they did not see anything wrong with it. I think modern man has a rather distorted understanding of the ideas that ancient man had. Mythology was written in poems, the language of symbolism. Then philosophy came up written in prose and it changed everything. Everything symbolic became literal, Through reading prose we have become literalist, we take things literal. Then the understanding of things becomes limited in non-contradictory terms we call logic. Thus we say: ahimsa means not hurting any being, so certainly not killing any animal by the people we hold high as the wise.
I think our minds then become less sensitive. Modern man can no longer deal with ambiguity. Simplification through logic leads inevitably to contradiction when dealing with old texts. Modern man thinks contradictions mean that something is wrong. That is because we no longer live in Nature, but in self-created mindscapes (Mental landscapes). We created whole new languages like mathematics that no longer allow contradictions. We superimpose this rigid thinking on reality. The Gita actually is a monument, the pinnacle of precise, logical thinking. A philosophical world wonder. But it can not reflect the subtlety of Nature. It is not the Rig Veda. It is an abstraction of the the Vedas. It is made to be perfect, but it is limited by its logic, and blinds us.
That is why we no longer see that Reality is full of subtle contradictions, ambiguity, nuances that challenge our literal thinking. In our rigid logical thinking we believe that if something (like non-violence) is beneficiary, it is even better if we take it to the extreme. That is why we have literalists putting a large amount of effort in not using anything of dead animals no matter how small. In this mindset it even becomes unthinkable that the wisest of the wise would have done something so evil as killing animals.
But that is a projection of modern thinking on ancient customs. To begin with I am sure that the ancient would disagree that animal sacrifice was harmful to the animal. They would content that this was the best that could happen to any animal for many reasons. First of all we have a rather naive picture of nature. Nature can be very brutal to animals, and animals rarely die of old age. So if a sacrificial animal was well fed and taken care off before he was ultimately killed that would be a blessing to the animal. Secondly, an animal sacrificed to the Gods would be the best fate that any animal could wish for. It would bring him immediately to a higher plane. This is the opposite of harming an animal. Thirdly, special care was taken not anger the spirit of the animal. Rituals and prayers were done for that, for they were very concerned that an angry spirit would take revenge on them. Even today in Africa there are still tribes who do animal sacrifices in this way.
Did you notice something about man, bull, horse, ram and he-goat. They did not sacrifice arbitrary animals, but the ones they depended on, and they sacrifices the males, not the females. The principle behind sacrice is that Gods are basically multipliers. What we give them they return in abundance, ten times, a hundred times, a thousand times. So to get a good harvest, you preserve grain from last harvest and sacrifice it to the Gods. To get enough rain you sacrifice water, to get enough milk, you pour milk. To get more animals you sacrifice animals. Soma offered to the Gods multiplies happiness.
Why males? Because it is the Dharm of males to be sacrificed. It is their Dharm to protect the lives of their wifes and children. Why are wars fought between men? Because men are expendable. Children need the mother more than the father. A whole generation of men can be slaughtered in a war, but after one generation people are back on their original numbers as their children grow up. For warriors war was also a ritual sacrifice. A way for men to reach the highest goals, as even Krishna points out to Arjuna. With animals too, you only need a few male animals for reproduction. They do not have the value of the female animals that give milk and nurture the young ones. That is why male animals were sacrificed in all cultures and often slaughtered as calves.
A sacrifice is always symbolic as what we sacrifice is a token for what we want to receive. As man discovered the power of symbols, especially words, the sacrifices changed. The right word sounds, especially names, have the power to evoke things. You could say prayers instead, so mantras are sacrifices too. But the original direct way was to sacrifice what you wanted given. This can be done by throwing things at the Gods. that is why people still throw water and rice on occasions. The fire was a very powerful way to send gifts to the Gods, the fire being a mediator God itself.
I personally reject the idea that ritual animal sacrifice is against ahimsa because literalists create a simplistic notion of it. This idea that the ancient people were all peaceful forest dwellers that did not kill animals and pacified them with their tranquil minds is beautiful but not very realistic. Such great men exist but they are exceptions. Most sacrifices were simply done to secure that people had enough to eat. And the rule is simple, give part of your food to feed the Gods and they multiply it in return. This is simply how nature works, sow leftover grain in mother Earth and you are rewarded with abundance of grain. This goes for karma too: one small deed can have an avalanche of effects.
As I see it, the ancients were not religious fundamentalists that had sworn to veganism, they were practical people seeking harmony with nature. Why? because that is the best way to create a good life and to survive. They understood that Nature like our body is a system whose balance one must not disturb. No killing for pleasure, lust or greed. No indiscriminate killing. Animal predators in Nature obey to these rules, they kill but seldom for pleasure. Thus they service the animals they prey on by keeping the population healthy and prevent starvation by overpopulation that hits all.
Seeking ahimsa is a byproduct of seeking harmony, as much as the other way round. Brahman is in all, also means that everything in nature serves each other. Nothing lives for his own sake. Yes animals too serve each other as food. That is seva too. Nowadays we live with the idea that everything has to live until it dies from the misfortunes of old age, but nature is not based on that. More important than dying of old age is leading a life that fulfills its purpose, its Dharma. If death itself can fulfill a purpose too, that is a beautiful thing. That is the idea that also makes us worship hero's that give their life for the benefit of others.
In my country they try to recreate wild life. But due to a lack of natural predators there is often overpopulation of animals like deer and horses that leads to large scale starvation in winter, which is an enduring awful suffering for all the animals. But people reject shooting a few animals for reasons of ahimsa. But without predators, human or animal, there is no balance in nature, and without balance there is no harmony either. Idealizing philosophical ideas that neglect or reject Nature only lead to more suffering.
I think it is great that developed minds stops eating meat not wanting to hurt, but as a rigid principle it would have averse effects. If in my country people would stop eating meat, then most animals would simply become superfluous and be killed. We would genocide them, problem solved, no more animals, so no more animal killing and suffering. And if the end of all suffering of man is the goal, than killing the human race would be the logical solution. That is why Abramists believe God will come to destroy the world, the final solution. That is where this limited logical philosophical thinking leads to. It also leads to people taking on suffering freely in life to escape suffering in next lives. It leads to all kind of life-denying conclusions, rejecting joy of life.
That is not what I read in the Vedas. In the Vedas I witness people that cherish life, people that use sacrifices as way to lead harmonious lives in accordance with Nature. The Vedas do not state like the Bible that the rest of Nature is giving to man for his wants. It teaches true respect of Nature. But everything is sacrifice to each other, everything serves each other. There is constant transformation. In the end every being is eaten, if not by the big animals then by fungus and micro-organisms.
Renunciates of the world strive for not using any particle of killed animals. They strife for perfection. They believe in a perfect God. To be perfect like their God they see as a way to reunite with him. They think contributing to animal suffering in any way is ungodlike.
I am a polytheist. I reason, if such perfect God would exist that created this world, he could have done a better job. It would not need saving, nor would it be filled with suffering to be saved from. Yes monotheist have many explanations, like: we self-inflicted it, sufferings helps us in understanding God, etc. Okay than suffering has the same benefit to animals, it will help them become humans. If not so, why does God hurt these poor beings so much? It is so easy to create all kinds explanations that it easily leads to life rejecting thinking and behavior. That is why Dharma based on Laws of Nature is superior to book morale. Nature neither forbids nor imposes but challenges us seek the right actions according to the circumstances, thus we seek harmony and happiness finds us in return. Nature celebrates life, that is why it is so abundant, but at the same time it renews itself through birth and death. Being part of this is not evil like monotheist think. It is the expression of Brahman.
Bookmarks