Thread by @shrikanth_krish

We should not link personal habits/morality with interpretation of scripture

Nearly all commentators on Brahma Sutra (including Shankara and Ramanuja) defended animal sacrifice in the limited context of a Vedic Yajna

Though it is v v likely Shankara / Ramanuja were vegetarians

https://twitter.com/TIinExile/status/1178232676542603264

There is no doubt that an ethical argument against animal sacrifice has animated the HIndu world for at least 2500 years

And that ethical argument did not always merely stem from the two nAstika maThas, but often from within the Astika fold

While this ethical argument did have an impact of making animal sacrifice less frequent and less prevalent (outside of the Shakta traditions), it was never positioned as a repudiation of the Vedic scripture

For instance in the Bhagavad Gita, the elaborate requirement of "sacrifice" is downplayed by vAsudEva kRSNa, when he says he will accept a leaf, a flower or a fruit

Translation (Verse 9.26)

"If one offers to Me with devotion a leaf, a flower, a fruit, or even water, I delightfully partake of that article offered with love by My devotee in pure consciousness"

So this is no frontal attack on the Vedic ritual, but an acknowledgment that devotion is supreme, and that simpler forms of pUja are acceptable

This eventually led to the emphasis on pUja in pANcharAtra religion, and the widespread popularity of "vegetarian" offerings

Much of modern pUja follows in this spirit.

Having said that even the greatest votaries of pAncharAtra, (e.g. Ramanuja) defended animal sacrifice, suggesting that the sacrifice does not constitute violence but liberation to the offered animal (commentary on the B.S. 3.1.25)

How do we reconcile the ethical argument with the Vedic scripture

Some commentators (e.g. mAdhva) recommended Pista Pashu offerings (animals made of flour)

That might not please the purists

One example of reconciliation can be illustrated using the example of Kapinjala bird sacrifice in the famous Jaimini Sutras on Purva Mimamsa

So there is an injunction - "vasantAya kapinjalAnAlabheta"

"Let the sacrificer bring kapinjala birds to the sacrifice"

Given that the injunction uses kapinjala birds in plural, the question arises how many birds?

It can range anywhere from 3 to quadrillion

2 is not considered given that in sanskrit "plural" denotes 3 and above

But this gives scope for the ethical argument to come in, limiting the sacrifice.

One can legitimately cite the "general" Vedic injunction against injuring animals -

"mAhimsyat Sarva bhutAni" (never injure a living thing)

So we need to adhere to the general injunction, but then the special injunction in the context of kapinjala sacrifice overrides it.

We combine the two, to have the best of both worlds, by limiting the sacrifice to exactly 3 birds

3 and no more

This is an example of how one can further the "general" ethical argument while not violating the more specific injunctions mandating animal sacrifice

A classic example of how animal sacrifice is moderated without deviating from the Vedic injunctions