Thread by @shrikanth_krish

I see a great deal of pride in the defence of certain Shakta traditions during Durga Puja on SM - including Animal sacrifice

While I am all for "diversity" in religious practice, the Vaishnavite in me is a bit bothered by this unqualified embrace of animal sacrifice

Animal sacrifice was ofcourse a lot more common across vast swathes of Indian society including in the orthodox Vedic religion at one point - some 2500+ years ago.

But there was a reaction against it, within the establishment, as indicated by the growth of the bhAgavata religion

An early oblique expression of unease at animal sacrifice and an encouragement of "vegetarian" offerings features in the Bhagavad Gita itself (Chapter 9)

"patraM puShpaM phalaM toyaM yo me bhaktyA prayachChati |
tadahaM bhakty upahR^itam ashnAmi prayatAtmanaH || "

Translation -

"Whoever offers me with devotion and with the right sentiment, a leaf, a flower, a fruit or water I accept that."

The growth of the bhAgavata religion and its interactions with the orthodox shrauta religion of yore in the centuries preceding the common era are excellently described by @blog_supplement in this old post -

manasataramgini.wordpress.com/2012/03/11/mea…

Eventually the votaries of ahimsa won the day, and the Vedic tradition completely abjured the sacrifice of animals

But this was by no means a dogmatic adoption of a religious principle. It was a process that probably took centuries and many debates

One example of such a debate features in Jaimini's Mimamsa sutras

A text authored perhaps well before the common era that grapples with the right interpretation of the ritual portion of the Vedas (the karmakAnd section)

So this example grapples with a particular Vedic injunction from the ritual portion of the Vedas. The injunction reads -

"Kapilanjalaanalabheta"

It means "One should offer Kapilanjala birds (plural) as part of the Vedic sacrifice"

So now the question is how do the Mimamsa Sutras (possibly composed in a period of transition to mass vegetarianism) deal with this Vedic Adhikarana?

Do we offer Kapilanjala birds in the sacrifice? And if yes, how many?

Now let's note that that the Vedic injunction we quoted does not specify the number of birds to be offered in the sacrifice? Should it be 2, 3, 10, 20, 100, 1000, 10000?

What's the right number?

What we do know is that the injunction uses the "plural" form for the Kapilanjala birds.

This means the # birds to be sacrificed in the Yajna is at least 3 if not more.

(Note : In Sanskrit, plural form is used for 3 and above and not 2+ as in English)

So now we know the number of birds to be offered is at-least 3. But what should be the right number?

A prima-facie view is - it can be anything. 3 or 30 or 3000.

But this view is wrong. As we shall see

The author of the Sutras cites another Vedic injunction which says -

"na himsyAth sarvabhoothAni "

Translation : One should never trouble or afflict any being whatsoever"

So one can think of this injunction as a general principle declaring Ahimsa (non violence) as the general norm to be adhered to.

But then we have the more specific injunction of the same Vedic texts instructing us to offer the birds in sacrifice.

Now what do we do?

Now if you are a "liberal" who derides tradition and elevates reason to a high pedestal, you would say -

"Chuck the sacrificial injunction. It makes no sense to me. One must not harm birds. No violence please. Chuck the sacrifice"

However a thoughtful conservative would acknowledge the "general" principle,while trying his best to accommodate the more "specific" injunction

Given that the former is asking him to minimize violence, he would restrict his sacrificial offering to exactly 3 birds and no more

By restricting the sacrifice to 3, he is fulfilling the specific injunction, while at the same time adhering to the "general" principle to the extent he can.

While this may not have been ideal to the "liberals" of 300BCE, it was probably a prudent choice to avoid a head-on conflict with the traditionalists, while at the same time acknowledging the change in the ethical climate.

Ofc India moved away almost entirely from animal sacrifice to more benign oblations in later centuries

But the change probably occurred in a piecemeal way.

Not by a slavish adherence to an abstract doctrine (Ahimsa in this case), but by reconciling an "abstract" thought with the demands of tradition and in the process changing the tradition to suit the times.

This is a classic example of how one can drive "social change" not by frontally attacking tradition, but by actually leveraging tradition itself to back the claims of reason

Notwithstanding the change in religious climate, the legitimacy of animal sacrifice in the Vedic tradition was never seriously questioned even by later commentators.

Even as late as 1100 CE, Ramanuja in his Shri bhAshya defended killing in the context of Vedic sacrifice

In his Bhashya on Sutra 25 of Chapter 3, he says -

"Just as a treatment for an injury, even if involves a little pain does a lot of good so too the animal sacrifice in yajnas benefit the soul that inhabits the body of the animal"

But in my view this still was very much abstract philosophy

The religion on the ground had been transformed starting 500BCE by many influences

The bhAgavata religion
The nAstika religions
The philosophy of Yoga with its emphasis on Yama/Niyamas (which include Ahimsa and Saucha)

So I regard the Shakta traditions of sacrifice that may persist in some parts as a historical anomaly.

While I don't advocate violent uprooting of these traditions, which would be contradictory, I feel there needs to be a dialogue within the communities for change

The experience of the past (discussed in this thread) suggests that there is room for much optimism

Postscript : Typo corrections

1. The bird is not "Kapilanjala" but "Kapinjala"
2. The second vedic injunction is not "na himsyat" but "mA himsyat"
3. Jaimini does recommend 3 birds but does not invoke injunction 2 explicitly. 2 appears to have been leveraged in later writings