11

I had always assumed that the Advaitin philosopher Adi Shankaracharya opposed animal sacrifice in Vedic Yagnas (fire-rituals). Here is what this blog post says, for instance:

In the 7th century A.D. the great philosopher Adi Shankara stopped animal sacrifice wherever he went – from Pashupatinath in Nepal to Kanchi Kamakshi in the south (he walked all over India).

But now I've found reason to believe otherwise. As a proponent of Advaita, Adi Shankaracharya was part of the Vedanta school of Hindu philosophy. And as I discuss in this question, the defining text of the Vedanta school is the Brahma Sutras, a work by the sage Vyasa which summarizes and systematizes the philosophical teachings of the Upanishads. You can read the Brahma Sutras here. In any case, Vyasa discusses the issue of animal sacrifice in Adhyaya 3 Pada 1 of the Brahma Sutras:

  1. If it be argued that rites (invoking killing of animals) are unholy, we say, no, since they are sanctioned by scriptures.

And here is what Adi Shankaracharya says about this Sutra in his commentary on the Brahma Sutras:

We proceed to refute the remark made by the pûrvapakshin that sacrificial works are unholy because involving harm done to animals ... Now from scripture we derive the certain knowledge that the gyotishtoma-sacrifice, which involves harm done to animals (i.e. the animal sacrifice), &c., is an act of duty; how then can it be called unholy?--But does not the scriptural precept, 'Do not harm any creature,' intimate that to do harm to any being is an act contrary to duty?--True, but that is a general rule, while the precept, 'Let him offer an animal to Agnîshomau,' embodies an exception; and general rule and exception have different spheres of application.

So does that mean that Adi Shankarcharya was actually in favor of animal sacrifice? Is the claim that he went around stopping animal sacrifice incorrect? Or was he in favor of animal sacrifice at one point in his life and against it at another?

Community
  • 1
Keshav Srinivasan
  • 98,014
  • 18
  • 293
  • 853
  • Adi Sankaracharya was never in favor of animal sacrifice. In fact, it is he who changed the practice and sanctioned the substitution of animals made from dough (like animal crackers) for live animals in yagna/yagas. –  Dec 29 '14 at 16:33
  • 1
    @moonstar2001 Then how would you interpret his statements in the Brahma Sutra Bhashya? – Keshav Srinivasan Dec 29 '14 at 16:40
  • 2
    @moonstar - It was Madhvacharya (The propagator of Dvaita philosophy) who introduced the practice of substitution of animals made from dough and not Shankaracharya. Though this doesn't mean shankaracharya supported animal sacrifices. –  Dec 30 '14 at 10:17
  • @Krishna Are you sure? I remember it differently, but okay... –  Dec 30 '14 at 12:34
  • 1
    @moonstar2001 - Yes it was madhvacharya and not shankaracharya. Please read the bramha sutra bhasya of Madhvacharya for more information. Also, please refer to the following link https://books.google.co.in/books?id=x89I_zEGPhkC&pg=PA311&lpg=PA311&dq=Animal+sacrifices+and+ramanujacharya&source=bl&ots=JWdZkwdomt&sig=036AHYoftpPLcviLhzewlHGlNe0&hl=en&sa=X&ei=vIyiVIatCIOAuwSkx4LADg&redir_esc=y#v=onepage&q=Animal%20sacrifices%20and%20ramanujacharya&f=false –  Dec 30 '14 at 13:45
  • I would like to refer you to this well written Quora answer although it may not be considered an "academic" citation. It is beyond belief to equate Ashwamedha Sacrifice to Slaughter of Horses, although there are many academic sources which claim the contrary. The place of Yajna offerings is "Pavithra-Kundam" so it violates the basic tenets of the Vedic sacrifice to slaughter animals therein. I expected the well read members of this forum to be in a position to reject the notion of animal sacrifice in Vedas rather than holding such misinterpretations to be true. – Naveen Apr 08 '15 at 04:22
  • To add, this essay and this article provides a thorough analysis(with citations) to debunk the notion of animal sacrifices in Vedas. – Naveen Apr 08 '15 at 04:42
  • @Naveen Well, we'll have to agree to disagree on this. The vast majority of scholars believe that Vedic Yagnas involved animal sacrifice, and I think they are right. This is described in great detail in countless places in Hindu scripture, for instance in this chapter of the Bala Kanda of the Valmiki Ramayana: http://www.valmikiramayan.net/utf8/baala/sarga14/bala_14_frame.htm I think articles like the ones you cite are twisting the meaning of certain Vedic verses to make them more palatable to modern sensibilities. They ignore ethical justifications like the Brahma Sutra quote in my question. – Keshav Srinivasan Apr 08 '15 at 05:06
  • @Naveen And the articles are also very selective in the quotes they choose to interpret, rather than examining in detail the whole passages they're taken from. Here's a quote from the Aitareya Brahmana of Rig Veda that clearly shows that animals were being sacrificed: https://books.google.com/books?id=u1QjaM31z8oC&lpg=PA443&ots=l_NrL2s3cd&dq=%22supernatural%20being%20communicated%20it%20to%20Girija%22&pg=PA443#v=onepage&q&f=false "To those who divide the sacrificial animal in the way mentioned, it becomes the guide to heaven. But those who make the division otherwise ... kill an animal merely" – Keshav Srinivasan Apr 08 '15 at 05:35
  • @Keshav The Martin Haug source you cited does not contain the original sanskrit verse. We need to define who really has the authority to interpret Vedas. Would you trust the interpretation of someone like Sringeri Sankaracharya who has come from a parampara of Gurus and practices the Yamas and Niyamas in real life or a western indologist who is merely a Sanskrit scholar? I have researched on this topic of western scholarship of Indian literature and can vouch for the fact there is conflict of interest therein. I would recommend you to check out Rajiv Malhotra's critique of Sheldon Pollock. – Naveen Apr 11 '15 at 23:12
  • @Keshav I'm yet to ascertain the veracity of the verses and it's interpretation in the valmikiramayana cite and will get back to you shortly on that. I certainly wouldn't consider it as a "go to" source for Valmiki Ramayana just because it is named so. As a rule of thumb, I usually verify if the source has any influence of marxist authors(of the JNU mould) and Western indologists. I can provide numerous examples for malicious interpretations/translations of Hindu literature by academics of the above category since the colonial era. The BhramaSutra source again does not provide Sanskrit verse. – Naveen Apr 11 '15 at 23:31
  • @Naveen We don't need to rely on any translation or interpretation of the Sanskrit verses by Western Indologists; the meaning is clear enough in the original Sanskrit. Here is Sarga 14 of the Bala Kanda of the Ramayana in Sanskrit: http://www.hindunet.org/ramayana/txt/1_balakanda_13.txt Here are the relevant Aitareya Brahmana verses in Sanskrit (Aitareya Brahmana 7.1.5-6): "sa eṣa svargyaḥ paśur ya enam evaṃ vibʰajanty. atʰa ye 'to 'nyatʰā, tad yatʰā selagā vā pāpakr̥to vā paśuṃ vimatʰnīraṃs tādr̥k tat" – Keshav Srinivasan Apr 12 '15 at 00:18
  • @Naveen And here is Adi Shankaracharya's commentary on Adhyaya 3 Pada 1 Sutra 25 of the Brahma Sutras in Sanskrit: https://ia700606.us.archive.org/4/items/BrahmaSutraBhashyaByAdiShankaracharyasanskrit.pdf/Brahma.Sutra.Bhashya.By.Adi.Shankaracharya.Sanskrit.pdf (Go to page 156) – Keshav Srinivasan Apr 12 '15 at 00:19
  • @KeshavSrinivasan What does Ramanuja say about animal sacrifice? I assume he condones it (which explains this "my-guy-is-great-yours-is-not" post)...but how does he rationalize the Vedas- would actually mention it – user7938511 May 30 '17 at 10:15
  • @user7938511 This isn't a "my-guy-is-great-yours-is-not" post. Ramanujacharya and all the major commentators of the Brahma Sutras approve of animal sacrifice; see my question here: https://hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/7947/36 – Keshav Srinivasan May 30 '17 at 13:02

1 Answers1

4

He was not saying he was in favor. What he is saying is "knowledge of virtue and vice is derived from the scriptures. The scriptures alone are the source for knowing that such an act is virtuous, and another not virtuous; for merit and demerit are super-sensuous realities and they are not invariable for all space, time, and environment. Any deed that is performed as virtuous in relation to certain time, place and circumstances, becomes non-virtuous in relation to other places, times, and circumstances...and it is ascertained from the scriptures that the Jyotistoma sacrifice, involving injury, favour, etc., is virtuous.. So how can it be declared to be impure?"

The scriptures outline what sacrifices can be done to attain certain ends. If you want that end attained by the Jyotistoma sacrifice, it can be yours. They are not saying to do it, they are merely outlining what is to do to attain a certain desired end result. Be careful what you ask for because it can be the rat hole of endless rebirth......

Shankar is saying that in this one particular instance animal sacrifice is permitted. It is not a general rule for any or all times, places, or circumstances.

In the Brihdaranyaka Upanishad it also tells of the horse sacrifice. It also, however, tells how to do the sacrifice through symbolic meditation.

Keshav Srinivasan
  • 98,014
  • 18
  • 293
  • 853
Swami Vishwananda
  • 24,140
  • 2
  • 34
  • 78
  • Also in his Sri Bhasya Ramanuja comments that this sutra merely means that no bad karma is generated from the killing of an animal in sacrifices sanctioned by scripture. He neither condones nor condemns it. – Swami Vishwananda Dec 30 '14 at 10:41
  • Agreed that like Shankaracharya, Ramanujacharya also says that, animal sacrifice is not unholy because the scriptures say so. The Shruti says that the sacrificed animal assumes a golden form and ascends to the blissful heavens-"HiraNya sharIra oordhva: Svargam lOkam Eti". Sri Ramanuja negates the idea(of animal sacrifice being sinful) in the Sri Bhashya too (in the commentary to the Brahma Sutra-"ashuddham it chEt na, shabdAt"). –  Dec 30 '14 at 13:47
  • Now, in Gita Bhasya, Sri Ramanujacharya says -""SarvEshu cha VEdEshu brAhmaNasya vijAnata: vaidikasya mumukshO: yadEva mOksha sAdhanam, tadEva upAdEyam, nAnyat". According to this definition, Yagas and Yagnas mostly being performed with some specific prayer other than salvation in mind (KAmya karmAs), do not come under the vaidika karmas, which are a must-do for PrapannAs (mumukshu). Even if engaged in as a form of worshipping the Lord, there are indeed many number of ways to please and serve the Lord, other than sacrificing innocent lives. –  Dec 30 '14 at 13:47
  • though sacrificing an animal as part of Yagya involves no sin to yagnakarta, and in fact, confers upon the sacrificed animal the distinction of ascent to higher worlds, it is not incumbent upon us to perform each and every such karma prescribed by the Vedas. Our principal aim and prayer being moksha, for which purpose such kamya karmas are of absolutely no assistance and should be completely abandoned. Sri Nammazhwar too perhaps hints at this when he chides people making offerings of flesh and blood of animals to demi-gods, for attaining various objectives-"kaLLum iraicchiyum toovEnmin". –  Dec 30 '14 at 13:50
  • @SwamiVishwananda Most of your stuff in your answer is irrelevant to my question. I'm just trying to find out whether Adi Shankaracharya thought it was allowed to do animal sacrifice in Yagnas when the Vedas tell you to do so. And you seem to be saying that the answer is yes. So if that's the case, what did Adi Shankaracharya do to tell people to stop doing animal sacrifice in Vedic Yagnas? Did he merely tell them that they should do other things if they wanted to get Moksha, or did he tell them what they were doing was immoral? – Keshav Srinivasan Dec 30 '14 at 16:45
  • His commentary says clearly that is is allowed in this instance because scripture says it is allowed. Animal sacrifice, whether in scripture or not, only leads to rebirth. It does not lead to Liberation. Animal sacrifice condoned by scripture only allows an individual to attain rajasic karma without any tamasic karma attached to it. Shankaracharya is not condoning it, he is only clarifying scripture. Like a pharmacist explaining a drug to you, he will tell you the good and bad effects of the drug. – Swami Vishwananda Jan 04 '15 at 05:23
  • 1
    @SwamiVishwananda Tell me this: did Adi Shankaracharya think that Vedic Yagnas both with and without animal sacrifice would only lead to rebirth rather than Moksha? Or did he see some moral or spiritual difference between the two types of carrying out Yagnas? – Keshav Srinivasan Jan 05 '15 at 06:16