8

Doesnt the Gadhimai massacre of countless animals in Nepal violate the principle of Ahimsa? Can it really be called a 'Hindu' ritual?

Aditya K
  • 1,259
  • 3
  • 11
  • 19

2 Answers2

4

Yes, it does violate the principle of ahimsa. This is not for those who are interested in self realization.

Below are couple of verses from Srimad Bhagavatam spoken by Narada Muni:

7.15.10 Upon seeing the person engaged in performing the sacrifice, animals meant to be sacrificed are extremely afraid, thinking, “This merciless performer of sacrifices, being ignorant of the purpose of sacrifice and being most satisfied by killing others, will surely kill us.”

4.28.26 That most unkind king, Purañjana, had killed many animals in various sacrifices. Now, taking advantage of this opportunity, all these animals began to pierce him with their horns. It was as though he were being cut to pieces by axes.

And Srila Prabhupada writes in the purport:

Those who are very enthusiastic about killing animals in the name of religion or for food must await similar punishment after death. The word mamsa, “meat,” indicates that those animals whom we kill will be given an opportunity to kill us. Although in actuality no living entity is killed, the pains of being pierced by the horns of animals will be experienced after death. Not knowing this, rascals unhesitatingly go on killing poor animals. So-called human civilization has opened many slaughterhouses for animals in the name of religion or food. Those who are a little religious kill animals in temples, mosques or synagogues, and those who are more fallen maintain various slaughterhouses. Just as in civilized human society the law is a life for a life, no living entity can encroach upon another living entity as far as the Supreme Lord is concerned. Everyone should be given freedom to live at the cost of the supreme father, and animal-killing — either for religion or for food — is always condemned by the Supreme Personality of Godhead.

However we cannot deny the authority of the Vedas which allow the sacrifice in a restricted manner for gradual advancement.

As for the Nepal event, such a mass slaughter definitely violates the idea of doing it in a 'restricted' manner so my take is it must be a concocted ritual.

srinivasacarya dasa
  • 1,966
  • 14
  • 17
  • 4
    "However we cannot deny the Vedic authority saying that animal sacrifice is wrong." Sorry, did you mean "animal sacrifice is right"? Otherwise I don't understand the meaning of "however". – Keshav Srinivasan Dec 02 '14 at 01:52
  • 2
    By the way, how would you square things with the numerous Vedic Yagnas involving animal sacrifice? – Keshav Srinivasan Dec 02 '14 at 01:52
  • @KeshavSrinivasan, I edited my post for clarity. Regarding your question on Vedic Yagnas I accept the discussion here between Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and a muslim administrator in Bengal area : http://www.vedabase.com/en/cc/adi/17 You can jump to text 159 onwards for specific answer – srinivasacarya dasa Dec 02 '14 at 03:01
  • @srinivasacharya Interesting. So Chaitanya Mahaptabhu said that the animal sacrifices done during Vedic Yagnas involved killing the animal and then resurrecting it from the dead? If that's the case, then why wouldn't it be described in the Brahmanas of the Vedas, which tell you exactly the procedures that must be followed? You can read the Shatapatha Brahmana of the Yajur Veda here: http://sacred-texts.com/hin/sbr/index.htm – Keshav Srinivasan Dec 02 '14 at 03:11
  • 1
    I do not know why it is not there in a particular text. Also the state of several texts in Vedas is questionable and most of the texts are extinct in comparison to what is avaiable. So I would put more trust in Mahaprabhu. – srinivasacarya dasa Dec 02 '14 at 03:21
  • Well, since I'm not a Gaudiya Vaishnava and thus don't take Chaitanya Mahaprabhu's words as gospel, are there any other scriptures that mention the requirement that animals that are sacrificed must be resurrected from the dead? (By the way, short of the Vedic Samhitas, the Shatapatha Brahmana is one of the most well-preserved texts of antiquity.) In any case, why would the Vedas contain references to the afterlife of the sacrificed animal if the animal was going to be brought back? I wouldn't be surprised if there were even references to eternal rewards in the afterlife. – Keshav Srinivasan Dec 02 '14 at 03:45
  • 1
    I'll leave it for you to do further investigation. As far I am concerned I am happy to accept the statements of Puranas/Upanishads that confirm Mahaprabhu's incarnation and thus accept His words over your speculations founded on incomplete texts. – srinivasacarya dasa Dec 02 '14 at 17:49
  • is it hindu ritual or not ? if yes then please provide suitable reference. – Rakesh Joshi Mar 29 '17 at 07:40
3

Animal sacrifice is spoken of in the vedas. It belongs to another era. People that do animal sacrifices are, like people that do other types of sacrifice, trying to gain some worldly or heavenly (not brahmaloka) merit.

Animal sacrifice is animal sacrifice - no matter what the actual number of animals that are involved. Goat sacrifices are still done by Brahmin priests at the Kalighat in Kolkata. It is a Shakti Peetha.

If an animal sacrifice is done according to vedic rules by a Brahmin priest, then the results will be according to the vedas.

As a general rule for people, killing outside of the rules of the vedas is a sin.

There are no vedic sacrifices of animals that lead to brahmaloka.

Swami Vishwananda
  • 24,140
  • 2
  • 34
  • 78