Killing of animals or humans as a sacrifice is generally banished in Hinduism although some clans are still allowed to do so.

How is this Hindu practice of sacrificing animal or human life to make gods happy still justified?


Note: When you edit this question, please refrain from removing the phrase 'human sacrifice' as few users have tried and failed. I am looking for clarification/justification on both types of sacrifices in my question - animals and humans.

Barbaric sacrifice is a human sacrifice related to war and there are a few past incidents to prove that this took place.


I am still looking for answers justifying human sacrifices that happened in the past.

  • 2
    @KeshavSrinivasan no man its about the animal sacrifice ..'pashu bali' or 'nar bali' ..not about an island :)
    – Trialcoder
    Commented Jul 17, 2014 at 5:09
  • 1
    @Trialcoder will update my answer regarding nar bali as soon as i find some solid justifications. Commented Jul 17, 2014 at 6:47
  • 2
    @SwamiVishwananda The way to address this would be to show in your answer that human sacrifice is not a part of Hinduism. You shouldn't edit the question in a way that clearly conflicts with the intent of the questioner. Commented Aug 12, 2015 at 13:55
  • 1
    @SwamiVishwananda Also, the Brahmavaivarta Purana lists human sacrifice as one of the things that were done in earlier Yugas but are prohibited in the Kali Yuga, although I happen to think that that verse is not an authentic verse of the Brahmavaivarta Purana (but Gaudiya Vaishnavas especially think it's authentic). In any case, to reiterate, I'm not remotely arguing that human sacrifice is allowed, I'm just saying that you can find references to it in Hindu scripture. This is the sort of factual dispute that should be settled by answering the question, not by editing or closing the question. Commented Aug 12, 2015 at 14:12
  • 1
    @SwamiVishwananda I linked to the relevant Aitareya Brahmana excerpt in my question here: hinduism.stackexchange.com/q/6753/36 Here's a summary. The god Varuna agreed to give the king Harischchandra a son, in exchange for Harischandra sacrificing his son in a Yagna to Varuna once his son reached a certain age. When the time came to sacrifice his son Rohita, Rohita ran to the forest and paid Brahmin named Ajigarta for his son Shunshepa to take his place. Shunashepa was about to be sacrificed when he started uttering various hymns to the gods, whereupon he was freed from his bonds. Commented Aug 13, 2015 at 4:13

5 Answers 5


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

  • However,if one were to simply stop animal sacrifice,then the devi would revolt. Commented Jan 12, 2020 at 18:41

According Hindu scriptures,in general,animals are meant to be sacrificed.Its their only means to attain higher abodes(heavens etc)(However,it is condemned in few scriptures as well in which they cite examples of how Maharishis like Yajnvalkya have attained highest state of bliss without animal sacrifice).At the same time scriptures say that eating meat otherwise is considered a sin,as meat can not be obtained without injuring that animal.All Shastras agree on this point.

The following justifications are available in scriptures.

Manu Smriti,Sloka 39,Chapter 5,says:

Svayambhu (the Self-existent) himself created animals for the sake of sacrifices; sacrifices (have been instituted) for the good of this whole (world); hence the slaughtering (of beasts) for sacrifices is not slaughtering (in the ordinary sense of the word).

Sloka 40 says:

Herbs, trees, cattle, birds, and (other) animals that have been destroyed for sacrifices, receive (being reborn) higher existences.

Sloka 42 says:

A twice-born man who, knowing the true meaning of the Veda, slays an animal for these purposes, causes both himself and the animal to enter a most blessed state

enter image description here

enter image description here

In Devi Bhagawatam Sri Vyasa says the same to king Janamejaya:

  1. Those who eat meat, they can sacrifice animals in this worship of the Devî; and, for this purpose, goat and wild boars are the best.

> 33-34. O sinless one! The goats, etc., offered as a sacrifice before the Devî attain to unending heavens. Therefore persons offering the sacrifices of goats do not incur any sin. O king! The goats, etc., and other beast offered as a sacrifice before the Devas undoubtedly go to the heavenly regions; therefore, in all the S’âstras, it has been decided that this killing of animals in a sacrifice is considered as non-killing.

So,it seems,that our scriptures are suggesting that for these animals the only means to achieve higher lokas(yonis) is only by being a sacrificial being in Yajnas!.Whereas, we humans have various other methods, like doing penance(tapas) or doing fire sacrifice, for attaining the same goals(higher abodes).

Please note that i have not touched the human sacrifice part.So,consider this as an partial answer.

Edit- The following are a few prohibited(nishiddha) actions in Kali Yuga as per the book "Essence of Dharma Sindhu":

Kali Yuga Nishiddhas: The following are the avoidable and unnecessary acts of Kali Yuga viz. Samudra Yatra, carrying of Kamandulu to misdirect the Public , remarriages, begetting children fro m husband’s brothers; Go Vadha; Mamsa Bhakshana at Shraddhas; performing vivaha to a physically imm ature girl; Chira kaala Brahmacharitwa; Naramedha Ashwamedha Gomedha Yagna; Madya Paana, Abhakshya Bhakshana, Apeya paana, Agamyaagamana orcwandering aimlesly Rahasya Prayascittha, Devata Puja and Pashubali for evil ends; Kula Bhrashtata; Extreme Pr ofiteering and narrow mindedness.

So,in my view ,people of Kali Yuga are better off not doing any animal sacrifices of any form.In any case, its not Yajna or worship but Dana(charity) & Nama Japa(chanting of Holy names) that are the effective remedies in Kali Yuga.

People who are in power should take measures in banning animal sacrifices of all kinds.

  • "for these animals the only means to achieve higher lokas is by being a sacrificial being" - I don't understand the logic here. Why should we bother about higher lokas of animals? Going by that logic, sparing a few domesticated animals, all animals should be sacrificed so they can all reach higher states quickly, why let them procreate? Commented Sep 25, 2016 at 20:41
  • 1
    I don't get ur logic either.Why should we not bother about the well beings of animals?As i have said in the answer i just cited how shastras justify sacrifice.And how they(sacrifices) are different from killing.And don't assume that i am in any way in favor of animal sacrifice.
    – Rickross
    Commented Sep 26, 2016 at 5:24
  • No, I'm not saying you support animal sacrifice. I'm just saying I don't understand what you have highlighted in bold at the end. If a single animal goes to higher lokas when sacrificed, why don't the same scriptures recommend sacrificing a 100 animals for their own good. I'm not trying to pick up an argument, I'm just trying to understand. Commented Sep 26, 2016 at 5:29
  • If you read the DEvi Bhagawatam chapter i cited in my answer.You will see that Vyasa is not saying that everyone should perform animal sacrifice in the Puja.God's DON"T need animal sacrifice.ONLY those people who eat meat are supposed to eat it after offering it to God first.So that you don't incur any sin.And Vyasa also says that the sacrificial animal eventually ends up attaining hihger lokas(possibly the Loka of the Deity to whom it was sacrificed).So,in my view its win win situation for both side-One who eat meat and the poor animal.
    – Rickross
    Commented Sep 26, 2016 at 5:34
  • @sv Another important thing is doing the ritual of sacrifice exactly as per the Vedas.Only then the said fruits are obtained.So,In today's time,its better not to do it instead of doing it wrongly.Doing it wrongly does not help anybody's cause.So better to ban it all together.
    – Rickross
    Commented Sep 26, 2016 at 6:31

This is a partial answer. I would like to point out that animal sacrifice is both recommended and criticized in Hindu scriptures.

Animal sacrifice is allowed in Hindu scripture for people with clean minds. Otherwise vegetable sacrifice is to be done as can be seen by the following quote:

One who is of such a cleansed soul may slaughter a cow (as an offering in Sacrifice). They, therefore, that are not of that kind should perform Sacrifices with herbs and plants (and not animals).

Mahabharata Santi Parva Section CCLXIII

Animal sacrifice has also been condemned in Hindu scripture:

How can one like me worship his maker in animal-sacrifices involving cruelty, or sacrifices of the body, such as Pisachas only can perform and such as produce fruits that are transitory?

Mahabharata Santi Parva Section CLXXV

Animal sacrifice permitted by Hindu scripture is not a license to indulgence. The goal is to wean away man gradually from such sacrifice. The passage below is in my opinion the best justification for animal sacrifice allowed by Hindu scriptures.

It is only a restrictive ruling of the scriptures that a king is fond of meat may hunt wild animals for use in important religious ceremonies like Sraddha. (The object is not to encourage but to restrict it and ultimately wean man away from it. ) A man who performs such work (involving sense indulgence) in this way, i.e., with the understanding that they are allowed not for the sake of indulgence in itself, but to restrain and wean him away from them ultimately, such a person never grows addicted to them because of the knowledge generated by such reflection.

Srimad Bhagavata Purana IV.26.6–7

Thus there is no uniform position in Hindu scripture on animal sacrifice. Since Hindus have no organized Church to tell them what they should or should not do, some Hindus may do animal sacrifice and others may not.


There is an excellent article on animal sacrifice in Bali (Indonesia) on the Hinduism Today magazine website. It is from the April/May/June 2012 issue and is titled The Reality of Animal Sacrifice. The article states:

Animal sacrifice, called bhuta yajna in Sanskrit and caru in Balinese, is widely accepted in Bali--much more than in India. No report on Balinese Hinduism would be complete without addressing the issue.

I did not witness this practice during my two-week stay, which included visits to many of the most prominent temples, but nearly everyone I spoke with supported it. However, priest Ida Rsi made it clear that this is not an everyday occurrence; rather, it is limited to certain occasions: "It is a special ceremony, performed only during special pujas, such as temple festivals and new year festivities. It is not a part of daily puja."

Strong Local Tradition

Indian-born Puneet Malhotra, a resident of Bali for seven years, owns the Queen's Tandoor restaurant in Kuta. He shares his experience: "Animal sacrifice is done in a big way here, close to the culture prevailing in Bengal. When we opened our restaurant, Balinese Hindu priests conducted the ceremony, which began with killing and burying a dog out in front. Then a pig was roasted, grilled, worshiped and buried. They killed fifty chickens, burying them in the various corners of the building. I had requested all of this not be done, but I was told it had to be done according to the local traditions, that animal sacrifice is an integral part of any big ceremony. We had to follow the customs; we were told that if we did not, and something untoward were to happen later on, we would be blamed for it."

In his book Bali: Sekala and Niskala, journalist Fred Eiseman, Jr., explains the basic philosophical premise: "In the Hindu faith, one must take the bad with the good, and while the Gods must be worshiped, the demons--in respect for their great power--must be placated. And the demons, the leering and fanged bhutas and kalas, have great and gross appetites." He describes the range in magnitude of sacrifices: "Caru range from a fairly simple offering requiring the sacrifice of a single chicken, to elaborate ceremonies involving the slaughter of dozens of animals."

While most Indian Hindus oppose animal sacrifice (and eating meat) based on the prevailing Hindu principle of ahimsa, nonviolence, only a few Balinese Hindus seem to share this view. From students to high priests, nearly everyone I interviewed endorsed animal sacrifice, believing it leads to the attainment of a human birth for the animal.

Ida Rsi disclosed, "I have a book by Romila Thapar. She is not liked in India, and people say she is wrong. But I find her to be correct. She mentions that in ancient times, Hindu kings and nobles ate beef, though only on special occasions. This practice continues in Bali until now, where beef is offered as part of our big ceremony every hundred years and smaller ceremonies every ten years."

I felt compelled to ask about the sacredness of the cow, an idea that is so strong in India. If cows are sacred, shouldn't they be protected instead of sacrificed? Prof. Phagunadi responded, "We are not as strict about the cow as you are in India. In Bali, the cow is treated as a holy animal, but not as a sacred animal. We consider holy and sacred to be different. Holy means something we respect. Sacred means something we cannot touch."

Phagunadi continued, "Hinduism in Bali is most ancient. Here we practice Tantric Saiva Siddhanta, as opposed to the Vedantic Saiva Siddhanta of India. Most of our temples are tantric, and that is the reason we carry out animal sacrifice." He elaborated on the local customs: "We follow Durga and Siva, who are two sides of the same coin. We worship Durga if we want something magical. She is extremely popular in Bali, and every home worships Her every fifteen days with animal sacrifice. Every hundred years we have to perform the Ekadasa Rudra festival in which more than 200 kinds of animals are offered."

Though most people I interviewed avoided this question, I gathered that a family may typically offer between five and two /dozen animals per year in various ceremonies, according to its means, to say nothing of the animals they eat without formally sacrificing them. With a population just under four million, any number must pale in comparison to the 59 billion animals killed in 2009 to feed the US's population of 312 million.

Vedic Controversy

Proponents of animal sacrifice usually cite the Rig Veda, the oldest of Hinduism's revealed scriptures. Certain of its verses could be interpreted to support the practice, but scholars differ: Should those words be taken literally, or do they have a deeper, mystical meaning?

Some Vedic commentators, such as Udgita, Ananda Tirtha, Atmananda and Sayana, refer to Rig Veda verse 10.86.14, in which Indra says, "They cook for me 15 plus 20 oxen," and verse 8.43.11, which describes Agni as one whose food is the ox and the barren cow. These verses, they say, mean that these animals should be offered in yajnas. Vedic-Agamic scholar and priest Dr. S.P. Sabharathnam Sivachariyar says these verses should not be interpreted literally. He asserts that the true meaning is symbolic: "The tenth mandala of the Rig Veda states that the words of the Veda mantras are concealed words, encapsulating deeper meanings. Therefore the reader should never take the meaning literally." Hinduism is full of symbolism, perhaps more than any other religion; and Dr. Sabharathnam explains that various animals mentioned in the context of sacrifices are actually representative of our inner faculties, qualities, emotions and external and internal organs. "Killing a horse refers to suppressing the human/animal side of our life-energy and transmuting it to the Divine. Similarly in all other contexts."

Pandit Vamadeva Shastri amplifies the mystical viewpoint: "The Vedic yajna has an inner side, with the offerings of speech, mind and prana, such as outlined in the fourth chapter of the Gita, and as reflected in many Vedic mantras. The practice of yoga itself arose from the inner sacrifice."

Along these lines, Sabharathnam offers an alternate translation for one of the above-mentioned verses: "Agni, who maintains the order of the universe and the inner faculties of the human body, makes the ox (pingala nadi, the human masculine-aggressive current) and the cow (ida nadi, the feminine passive-emotional current) his tools and bears the soma-delight (attainable in the sahasrara chakra) on his back (to distribute it to the seekers)." As a whole, he maintains, the hymn is speaking to the aspirant about deeply mystical practices. "No doubt the literal translation starts 'Agni whose food is the ox and the barren cow...' but this is not correct according to the context of the hymn."

The Agamas do not prescribe animal sacrifice. Sabharathnam asks, "How is it that one set of revelations (Agamas) do not speak of animal sacrifice, while another set of revelations (Vedas) from the same Lord could? The Rig Veda itself states that the Veda mantras should be understood against the background of the Agamas. The two sets of scriptures complement each other."

Vamadeva adds, "It would be wrong to say that the Vedas do not allow any animal sacrifice. However, animal sacrifice was generally regarded as an inferior sacrifice for less-evolved souls, in whom the gunas [qualities] of rajas [agitation] and tamas [lethargy] are still powerful. For those of inner vision, more sattvic [pure] in nature, the animal was symbolic of certain states of mind to be offered to the Deity. So, it is also wrong to say that the Vedas had a high regard for animal sacrifice and thought it to be equal to the other types of sacrifice."

Sabharathnam remarks, "I am not saying that sacrifices were not conducted externally. The grains, vegetables, plants, sweets and other such items the Vedas enjoin us to sacrifice should be considered representative of the animals. It was never the actual animals that were intended to be sacrificed. It was in this way that the Vedic yajnas were conducted in the earlier periods, before the Brahmanas and Aranyakas were written. Certain Vedic pandits took the literal meaning and wrote treatises prescribing the sacrifice of actual animals. Unfortunately, their writings were widely read, and genuine yajnas came to be considered a lesser form of worship."

Vamadeva points out the rarity of references to animal sacrifice in the Vedas: "Of substance-based offerings, dairy products like ghee and milk are the most common, and Soma, which usually had a plant basis, is said to be the highest of all offerings. Actual references to animal sacrifices in Vedic texts do exist but are relatively rare. I have found no more than a handful of such potential references in the entire Rig Veda, whereas offerings of ghee, honey and Soma can be found in great abundance."

According to Sabharathnam, the Brihadaranyaka Upanishad established that the Vedic sacrifices are intended to be spiritual, that they do not involve the killing of animals. "In fact, many Upanishads were the result of sages' efforts to expose the spiritual side of the Vedic yajnas, to be performed internally."

Historical Perspective

Phagunadi maintains, "Animal sacrifice is right as per the Vedas. It is discussed in the Mahabharata as well. Orthodox [ancient] Hinduism is completely different than what Hindus practice in India now."

Swami Harshananda's A Concise Encyclopaedia of Hinduism offers this opinion: "Sacrificing an animal to please a supernatural Deity is a common feature found in many cultures, including that of Hinduism, during the early part of their development. Though formal animal sacrifices of the early Vedic period gradually lost their importance, due to the reformatory movements of the Upanishadic sages, Jainism and Buddhism, a new type of animal sacrifice got into the fabric of Hinduism during later ages as aboriginal cultures got integrated into the Hindu fold. The Deity was invariably an aspect of Durga or Kali and the rituals were very simple. Buffaloes, goats, sheep and cockerels were the usual sacrificial victims. It was believed that these victims would go to heaven."

Hinduism came to Bali 1,200-1,500 years ago. At that time, the practice of animal sacrifice may have been more prevalent in India than it is now. According to Vamadeva, animal sacrifice occurs today not only in Bali but in the Himalayas, Assam and the northeast of India, as well parts of Orissa and Bengal, Nepal and a few places in Panjab.

Dwi Rupini Andayani, Ida Rsi's daughter, concludes, "I visited India as a small child with my father in 1999 and have taken around twenty tour groups there in recent years. The Indian way of worshiping is mainly different from ours in that they do not have such an elaborate system of offerings, including the rituals of animal sacrifice. In some ways, Bali's Hinduism is closer to that of Nepal than of India."


It is justified because you are doing the sacrifice a favor by sending it/him/her to heaven with a golden body.

You only give it/him/her momentary pain. Momentary pain is nothing compared to heaven.

The human/animal goes to heaven. The person who sacrifices gets his/her wishes and gets meat. The Gods, Goddess is happy.

Just for momentary pain of one animal/human every one benefits including the animal/human.

Ramanujacharya, in his commentary on the Brahma Sutras here, goes further and argues that animal sacrifice is not even contrary to the principle of Ahimsa, because the animal experiences rewards in the afterlife which far outweigh the momentary suffering it experiences:

For Scripture declares that the killing of sacrificial animals makes them to go up to the heavenly world, and therefore is not of the nature of harm. This is declared in the text, 'The animal killed at the sacrifice having assumed a divine body goes to the heavenly world'; 'with a golden body it ascends to the heavenly world.' An action which is the means of supreme exaltation is not of the nature of harm, even if it involves some little pain; it rather is of beneficial nature.--With this the mantra also agrees: 'Thou dost not die, thou goest to the gods on easy paths; where virtuous men go, not evil-doers, there the divine Savitri may lead thee.' An act which has a healing tendency, although it may cause a transitory pain, men of insight declare to be preservative and beneficial.


Most of the above should apply for Human Sacrifices too.

Consider the words by Ramanujachrya which used scriptures and logic to show that the scriptures support animal sacrifice edited to replace animal with human.:

The animal human killed at the sacrifice having assumed a divine body goes to the heavenly world'; 'with a golden body it he/she ascends to the heavenly world.An action which is the means of supreme exaltation is not of the nature of harm, even if it involves some little pain; it rather is of beneficial nature.--With this the mantra also agrees: 'Thou dost not die, thou goest to the gods on easy paths; where virtuous men go, not evil-doers, there the divine Savitri may lead thee.' An act which has a healing tendency, although it may cause a transitory pain, men of insight declare to be preservative and beneficial.

If Ramanujs's logic is applied to human sacrifice one observes that it fits perfectly well.

Note: I'm not says Ramanuja directly supported human sacrifice, but the logic he used can be applied to any creature including humans.

  • Ramanuja and Sankara commentary from the Brahma Sutra is the verse that says that animal sacrifice is ok - when scripture says it is ok. It is verse 3.1.25. They do not say anything more than that. They do not address human sacrifice in any way. Their only 'logic' in their commentary is that if scripture says it is ok, then there is no sin. Crossing out animal and substituting human does not fit their logic as their logic is - when scripture, sruti, says it is ok. Commented Apr 11, 2016 at 8:09
  • 1
    @SwamiVishwananda The logic is that the creature goes to heaven and experiences only momentary pain. If the same logic is applied to humans or any other creature it applies. I did not mention that he supported human sacrifice. I said the logic applied by him to animal sacrifice can apply to humans too.
    – Notty
    Commented Apr 11, 2016 at 12:28
  • 1
    @SwamiVishwananda There is no logical fallacy here. The logic he applied to animal sacrifices applies to any creature as long as it goes to heaven after being killed.
    – Notty
    Commented Apr 11, 2016 at 12:34
  • 1
    The same logic does not apply to humans. The Vedas make very specific statements like "If you sacrifice this exact animal in this Yagna, then it will go to Devaloka." But there are no Vedic Yagnas that involve sacrificing a human being. If you sacrificed a human in, say, an Ashwamedha Yagna where you were supposed to sacrifice a horse, the human would not go to Devaloka. Commented Apr 11, 2016 at 19:32

You must log in to answer this question.

Not the answer you're looking for? Browse other questions tagged .