Take the 2-minute tour ×
Hinduism Stack Exchange is a question and answer site for followers of the Hindu religion and those interested in learning more about Hinduism. It's 100% free, no registration required.

Though killing of animals/human is banished by hinduism(though some clans are allowed to). How sacrificing animal/human life is considered as a practice to make god happy in Hinduism ?

EDIT 1 -

Please do not remove human sacrifice as few people are removing these words while edit. I am referencing to both type of sacrifices in my question.

As Barbareek sacrifice is considered as a human sacrifice while war and some more past incidence happened to prove this.

EDIT 2 -

I am still looking for human sacrifices justification.

share|improve this question
    
Are you talking about the island of Bali, or what? –  Keshav Srinivasan Jul 17 at 4:53
1  
@KeshavSrinivasan no man its about the animal sacrifice ..'pashu bali' or 'nar bali' ..not about an island :) –  Trialcoder Jul 17 at 5:09
1  
@Trialcoder will update my answer regarding nar bali as soon as i find some solid justifications. –  The Dictator Jul 17 at 6:47
add comment

2 Answers 2

up vote 9 down vote accepted

Śrīla Prabhupāda has mentioned this as vedic sacrifice

bali-dāna (kālī-pūjā or durgā-pūjā), in which a goat or other prescribed animal is slaughtered in a ritual performed for the demigoddess Kālī (Durgā) and its flesh consumed afterwards. This sacrifice, he says, is recommended in the tāmasika Purāṇas, Vedic literatures aimed at the gradual reformation and elevation of persons from the lowest levels of human consciousness.

He describes the process and purpose of the bali-dāna sacrifice:

Just like a person is attached to eat meat. Now if all of a sudden if he is instructed that meat eating is not good. Or a person is attached to drink liquor. If he at once said that liquor is not good, he cannot accept. Therefore in the Purāṇas we'll find,

"All right, if you want to eat meat, you just worship goddess Kālī and sacrifice a goat before the goddess. And you can eat meat. You cannot eat meat or flesh by purchasing from the slaughterhouse or butcher shop. You have to eat in this way."

That means restriction. Because if you want to perform the sacrifice before the goddess Kālī, there is a certain date, there is a certain paraphernalia, you have to arrange for that. And that pūjā, that worship is allowed on the dark moon night. So dark moon night means once in a month. And the mantras are chanted in this way: the goat is advised that

"You are sacrificing your life before the goddess Kālī. So you get immediately promotion to have a human form of life."

Actually it happens. Because to come to the standard of human form of life one living entity has to pass through so many evolutionary process. But the goat who agrees or who is by force sacrificed before the goddess Kālī, he gets immediate promotion to the human form of life. And the mantra says, that

"You have got the right to kill this man who is sacrificing." Māṁsa.

Māṁsa means that you will also eat his flesh, next birth.

"Why eat this flesh? Then I'll have to repay with my flesh. Why shall I do this job?"

You see. The whole idea is to restrain him.

As Śrīla Prabhupāda points out, the mantra recited in the ceremony makes it evident that though this sacrificial process is sanctioned by the Vedas, it does not excuse the person for whom it is performed from the laws of God and nature. "Even by following this method," he notes, "one is still an offender." However, Śrīla Prabhupāda shows that the action of one who follows this recommendation is restricted, better informed and less offensive than it would be otherwise. Moreover, the sacrificial process protects society at large from the adverse effects of animal slaughter. He writes:

No one can create a living being despite all advancement of material science, and therefore no one has the right to kill a living being by one's independent whims. For the animal-eaters, the scriptures have sanctioned restricted animal sacrifices only, and such sanctions are there just to restrict the opening of slaughterhouses and not to encourage animal-killing. The procedure under which animal sacrifice is allowed in the scriptures is good both for the animal sacrificed and the animal-eaters. It is good for the animal in the sense that the sacrificed animal is at once promoted to the human form of life after being sacrificed at the altar, and the animal-eater is saved from grosser types of sins (eating meats supplied by organized slaughterhouses which are ghastly places for breeding all kinds of material afflictions to society, country and the people in general). The material world is itself a place always full of anxieties, and by encouraging animal slaughter the whole atmosphere becomes polluted more and more by war, pestilence, famine and many other unwanted calamities.

Śrīla Prabhupāda emphasizes that the goal of the sacrifice is to discourage animal slaughter.

So after hearing all these mantras, if one takes the risk of eating meat, let him do that. But who is that sane man who will take this risk? This is the meaning of sacrifice. Not that it is a slaughterhouse substitute

Śrīla Prabhupāda holds that rituals such as the Kālī-pūjā are good for containing the lower propensities of humanity and encouraging the ignorant toward more elevated levels of awareness. He tells of how the Vedas and other scriptures include such recommendations for this very purpose. However, he maintains that ultimately, animal sacrifice is not auspicious and that it should not be taken to represent the ideals or the goal of religion.

Śrīla Prabhupāda thus shows that

there is no reason to perform large-scale animal sacrifices in this day and age. Regarding the bali-dāna ritual for meat-eaters, he concludes that this type of sacrifice has its necessity and is certainly better than allowing unrestricted slaughter, but that ultimately, it is not the best practice.

Although one is sometimes permitted to sacrifice an animal before the goddess Kālī and eat it instead of purchasing meat from a slaughterhouse, permission to eat meat after a sacrifice in the presence of the goddess Kālī is not the order of the Supreme Personality of Godhead. It is simply a concession for the miserable person who will not give up eating meat.

Reference : Vanipedia

share|improve this answer
add comment

I have found Rene Girard's theory of culture formation and human desire to be a very enlightening and adequate explanation of both human and animal sacrifice (or sacrifice in general). His "Violent Sacred" and scapegoat theory transcends both religion and time. Here is a good summary:

To better understand Girard’s theory of culture formation, it is important to look to his insights into the nature of human desire (as opposed to physiological needs). Girard calls human desire “mimetic.” By this, he means that de- sire is learned (imitated) from others and that desire includes an acquisitive drive to possess what the other has or to be what the other is. We do not desire objects directly; rather, we desire objects through the eyes of others. For example, put two children into a nursery full of toys. The first child will perhaps select a toy at random. It will invariably be precisely that same toy that the second child will want and that he will assume he wanted all along. Adults at a garage sale behave no differently, only realizing how much they wanted an item when their neighbor picks it up.

Mimesis is a defining characteristic of human beings. Our mimetic capacity makes it possible for us to learn, to assimilate symbolic communication (language), and to become productive members of society. However, mimetic desire inevitably brings us into conflict with one another. Two hands reaching for the same object, or two people desiring the same position of honor, virtually always results in rivalry. The natural tendency of these mimetic rivalries is to escalate through a process of positive feedback. Due simply to the struggle itself, the contested object increases in value, making it even more desirable in the eyes of the aspirants. The struggle chains the two parties together in escalating conflict, with each person blaming the other for the conflict, each seeing the other as the cause of his unhappiness.

Because of education, rules (prohibitions), law backed up by legitimized violence, and the structure of social hierarchy itself, modern society is not torn apart by accumulated, unresolved mimetic rivalries. Primitive man was different. Girard asks us to imagine a group of early humans wracked by ubiquitous intense mimetic rivalries in a conflict of all against all. The very survival of the group is threatened. Suddenly two members of the group realize that they have a common adversary, who appears responsible for their problems. If this focus on one person is then imitated by yet a third individual, there is a significant likelihood this will lead to a rapid mimetic polarization of the entire group against one individual.

Mimesis itself thus transforms a war of all against all into a war of all against one. Accumulated resentment, accusation, and hate are transferred onto this scapegoat, who is violently eliminated. Peace and stability are restored to the group, or occur for the first time. In human beginnings, such events occurred many times in many different places. These primordial murders engender the violent sacred. Archaic or primitive religion, consisting of prohibitions, ritual, and myth, originates in the violent sacred. Prohibitions are rules against doing the evil things the original scapegoat is perceived to have done. Ritual sacrifice is an organized reenactment of the primordial murder. Myth is the distorted remembering of the murder by the persecutors. Myth transforms dead human scape- goats into living gods and human violence into divine violence. The victims are seen to have been killed by “God,” or it is perceived that God wanted them killed. Archaic religion is the wellspring of human culture, which is born in violent murder and self-deception.

share|improve this answer
1  
I think the site is for religious content and not about psychological artifacts –  swapnesh Jul 17 at 17:10
add comment

Your Answer

 
discard

By posting your answer, you agree to the privacy policy and terms of service.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged or ask your own question.