9

How did other schools of Indian philosophy respond to this argument by the Cārvākas with regard to animal sacrifice as part of a yajña?

If a beast slain in the Jyotishtoma rite will itself go to heaven,
Why then does not the sacrificer forthwith offer his own father?

So why isn't a human offered (more frequently) in place of an animal in a sacrifice?

Say No To Censorship
  • 30,811
  • 17
  • 131
  • 257
  • 4
    Because sacrifice are made on Shruti rules... for eg. Shruti says 'If this animal is sacrificed on this Yajna, it will ascend to heaven.' Now, one can't form speculations on human too that sacrificing human will also do it... it's because there is no Shruti rule for human sacrifice... also one can't go just through Anumana (thinking that if it works for animal it should also work for human)... because Dharma can't be known through our senses... and Shrutis which are authorless are considered as Valid means to know Dharma (Jaimini Sutras)..... hence priest doesn't sacrifice his father.... – Tezz May 01 '17 at 01:17
  • 1
    @moonstar2001 I don't think this question is off topic... because question is not asking about Charvaka philosophy... it's asking refutations of Charvaka philosophy which is found in works of ancient commentators as well as in some Puranas too.... – Tezz May 01 '17 at 01:22
  • @Tezz you are right. –  May 01 '17 at 01:34
  • @Tezz Why do think Yudhiṣṭhira sacrificed old women as part of his Aśvamedha yajña if it's not sanctioned in scripture? In Aitareya Brahmana, on what basis does Harischandra offer his son (instead of a goat, cow or horse) as sacrifice to Varuna? – Say No To Censorship May 01 '17 at 03:23
  • 1
    @sv. this question is valid because charvaka is also part of hinduism... – Rakesh Joshi May 01 '17 at 03:43
  • @sv. The Mahabharata does not say Yudhishthira killed any old woman. Concerning Harishchandra, he tried to sacrifice his son (and ultimately Shunashepa) because he had promised to do so, not because there was a Vedic procedure for killing a human being. He tied him up to the sacrificial post the way an animal would be tied up. And the Aitareya Brahamana does not say that was Harishchandra was trying to do was good. In fact Shunashepa is freed by the gods. By the way, if you're trying to find examples of people trying to do human sacrifices, check out the stories of Jarsandha and Mahiravana. – Keshav Srinivasan May 01 '17 at 04:08
  • @KeshavSrinivasan "The Mahabharata does not say Yudhishthira killed any old woman" - what do you think the old women were doing there? What good are old women as slaves if they're not meant to be sacrificed? 'Harishchandra, he tried to sacrifice his son because he had promised to do so' - why would a sane human being promise his son as sacrifice without scriptural basis or precedent? Why not promise a horse? – Say No To Censorship May 01 '17 at 04:13
  • @sv. I think Yudishthira was just giving female slaves of all ages. Slaves wouldn't usually "retire" when they get old. Regarding Harischandrs, he was really desperate, and he was hoping that by promising the most valuable thing possible he could get Varuna to agree to grant his boon, and then he could later try to renege on his promise. It's basic human psychology. – Keshav Srinivasan May 01 '17 at 04:18
  • @KeshavSrinivasan "he could get Varuna to agree to grant his boon" - Ok, in that case, Varuna should have said: "Sorry, I cannot accept your son as sacrifice because there's no scriptural basis for such a sacrifice! It's unlawful" But he didn't. He accepted the offer. Which I think proves there is a precedent. Re: offering old women as slaves to brahmanas, one brahmana can take offense to not offering a healthy slave and curse Yudhishthira for being so cheap! So I think they're really there to be sacrificed along with the various animals. – Say No To Censorship May 01 '17 at 04:25
  • @sv. If the story ended with Harischandra sacrificing his son and the gods being pleased with that, that would be one thing. But the gods free Shunashepa from being sacrificed. In any case, I don't think Yudhisthira was being cheap, rather he was being generous, trying to offer as many slaves as possible, giving away even his old female slaves. – Keshav Srinivasan May 01 '17 at 04:31
  • @sv. I thought even the rishis conducting the Rajasuya were ok with the human sacrifice, so you think they were all just playing along with the gods? I actually think the story is much simpler that you imagine it to be. It was really meant as a human sacrifice. Gods saving him eventually is a moot point. An animal being sacrificed simply cannot pray to Gods in the same way a human can. It doesn't prove anything about human sacrifice not done in those days. It actually shows that it wasn't uncommon. – Say No To Censorship May 01 '17 at 04:49
  • 2
    Human sacrifices are never prescribed so what to refute here? – Rickross May 01 '17 at 06:40
  • @Rickross 'what to refute here?' - that, do humans also go to heaven if offered in a sacrifice? – Say No To Censorship May 01 '17 at 14:29
  • 1
    @sv Why then does not the sacrificer forthwith offer his own father? That's because scriptures do not prescribe such a thing. Its only so said for the animals. – Rickross May 02 '17 at 05:13
  • @Rickross 'It's only so said for the animals' - counter to that is above discussion in comments of why were some humans on rare instances offered (or meant to be offered) in a sacrifice if the idea itself is against scriptures? – Say No To Censorship May 02 '17 at 16:35
  • 1
    @sv. Just like Yudhishtira betting his wife does not prove that the act is sanctioned in scriptures, similarly the Harishchandra incident does not prove that scriptures approve that one can sacrifice human beings. – Rickross May 03 '17 at 05:17
  • @Rickross "Harishchandra incident does not prove that scriptures approve that" - it's not Harishchandra I'm interested in. I suggest you read the full story here - why were Rishis performing a yagna with human chosen as a sacrifice. Was it at a time when scriptures were still being written by the same Rishis? – Say No To Censorship May 03 '17 at 16:05
  • @sv. Ok i'll go through it. – Rickross May 03 '17 at 17:13
  • 2
    To all those holding this misconception - Carvaka is not part of Hinduism. –  May 04 '17 at 02:44
  • @Rickross : your argument is that "scriptures do not prescribe such thing". But then (1) "scriptures also do not prescribe using/not using hinduism.stackexchange.com to discuss about scriptures" ; (2)scriptures do not explicitly ban that you can not sacrifice your father. When there is no such ban or any rule, then one can do that work; then why not this (father sacrifice)? – zaxebo1 Sep 25 '18 at 23:45
  • @user1195 "To all those holding this misconception - Carvaka is not part of Hinduism" . Please quote from scripture saying that charvaka is not part of "Hinduism" ? Then also tell lingayat is part of hinduism or not - which does not uphold vedas? Arya samaj s part of hinduism or not - many hindus refuse to hold arya samaj as hinduism, although is 100% vedic, 0% puranic? Agamic sects are part of hinduism or not ? Buddha as 9th avatara of Vishnu, is himself hindu or not? And also quote from scripture that how to choose the one , who can decide what is part of hinduism and what is not? – zaxebo1 Sep 25 '18 at 23:49
  • @zaxebo1 Scriptures probably have such a ban. Even if there are none, there will be certainly some arguments based on scriptures which will tell u that such sacrifices are not allowed. – Rickross Sep 26 '18 at 05:34
  • @zaxebo1 Charvaka doctrine is definitely part of Hinduism and it was propounded by none other than the righteous Guru of the Devas - Brihaspati. – Rickross Sep 26 '18 at 05:35
  • @Rickross - seems that Charvaka doctrine doesn't accept rebirth and karma. How can then it be a part of Hinduism ? – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Nov 26 '19 at 01:45
  • But still it belongs to Hinduism. Brihaspati propounded that doctrine. Even if its Nastika (they don't believe in Gods, afterlife etc) in nature but still its part of Hinduism. @Carmensandiego – Rickross Nov 27 '19 at 06:16
  • How does that work ? Wasn't Brihaspati involved in supernatural events (giving curses etc) ? - @Rickross – Artist Formerly Known As CSD Nov 28 '19 at 05:10
  • 1
    @Rickross it is a complete contradiction to say that Brhaspati, the guru of devas, a Vedic rishi, propounded an anti-Vedic system like Charvaka. This is one of those frauds in medieval times who write something under the name of a famous rishi to pass it off as authoritative. – RamAbloh Jun 26 '20 at 18:07

2 Answers2

2
If a beast slain in the Jyotishtoma rite will itself go to heaven

This is from the observer perspective. Beast itself doesn't get sacrificed for the sake of attaining heaven. Like how soldiers don't get martyred themselves just to go to heaven.
[ Add on reference: Martyr concept in Hinduism ]

That means, beast (or a soldier) would be living normally. Upon its master's (country's) requirement, it will be sacrificed (martyred). This falls under action out of duty, where one acts without desire of result. Such sacrifice is termed as SAtvika:

BG 18.23 - The regular obligatory action which is performed without attachment and without likes or dislikes by one who does not hanker for rewards, that is said to be born of sattva

The actions performed under sattva has the heavenly happiness:

BG 14.9 - ... sattva attaches one to happiness, ...
BG 14.14 - When an embodied one undergoes death while mainly sattva is predominant, then they attain the taint-less plane of knower of the highest
BG 14.18 - Those with sattva go higher [regions] ... 

Why then does not the sacrificer forthwith offer his own father?

Because father will not attain heaven.
What is the purpose of offering father?

  • Is it in their tribe or local's constitution or scripture -- NO
  • Will father be useful for eating -- NO
  • Is there any other purpose for sacrificing father -- NO

So here the sole purpose is to send father to heaven. Since it's a fruitive action, it becomes RAjasika in nature.

BG 18.24 - But that action is said to be born of rajas, which is done by one desirous of results or by one who is egotistic, and which is highly strenuous.

Actions performed under RAjasika would result in sin followed by sorrow.
Refer Sin according to Hinduism.

iammilind
  • 19,793
  • 7
  • 62
  • 145
  • "Because father will not attain heaven" - I guess the real question is, why not, if you accept the concept of yajña and its purpose is to appease the Gods? And if a human is sacrificed as an offering to the Gods, does he go to heaven? There was an attempt to sacrifice a young boy as noted in Aitareya Brahmana - even the priests were ok with this. They didn't say no. The question then is, if the priests went ahead with the yajña and the offering, would the boy have ascended to heaven? – Say No To Censorship Sep 25 '17 at 21:21
  • Now according to BG 3.11, the concept of yajña is kind of a mutual agreement between men and gods: you please us, we please you with rains, children, so on. It can be argued that sacrificing a father or son is the greatest sacrifice of all. A mutual agreement is clearly a fruitive action/associated with rewards. I think the Cārvāka argument is based on this concept of mutual appeasement and rewards. Why don't you offer your father or son and reap the greatest of benefits? – Say No To Censorship Sep 25 '17 at 21:31
  • @sv. In Gita the yajna is perseverance -- not limited to homa havana. Example if the trees are planted to save nature then it's a yajna to varuna deva. The god of water is Not an impersonal deity. The various water bodies combined have their own consciousness, like how you & me have ours. Earth & Sun also have their consciousness. The solar system has its own. The whole universe is Brahman consciousness. Like how fingers in hand serves to body by eating food, ultimately nutritious come back to it. Similarly consider humans as fingers & whole body as Deva. Then yajna will make more sense. – iammilind Sep 26 '17 at 01:40
  • @sv. I have already explained why father will not attain heaven. Suppose if sacrificing a person at certain age due to certain burden created on certain community and if it's agreed by all, then it may have chances of heaven. This can be called as their constitution or scripture. Here the main purpose is to reduce the burden on community so that it functions healthily. However in your Qn, it appears that the sole purpose is heaven. In that case even a soldier may suicide to avoid torture or agony of sudden death & then attend heaven. Those who act without fruits in mind only are eligible. – iammilind Sep 26 '17 at 01:46
0

Religious texts often reflect the cultural and societal values of the time and place in which they were written. One of these values is the importance placed on family relationships, and the stronger emotional bond between a parent and child than a random street goat. This cultural value is likely to be reflected in religious texts.

That being said there is atleast one documented vedic ritual sacrifice of a human being, Purushamedha, described in ancient Hindu texts as a royal rite. It is one of the most controversial and debated topics in Hinduism, as it is considered a form of human sacrifice. The ritual is not considered to be practiced or condoned by mainstream Hinduism today, and is considered to be a symbolic or allegorical rite by some scholars.

tejasvi88
  • 230
  • 2
  • 13