During Vedic animal sacrifices, were the animals killed before being offered into the fire?
Question. During animal sacrifices in Vedic times was the animal actually killed? Was it put in the fire after being killed or before? Did it die after entering the fire? Did it immediately get a new body? Prabhupada seems to say different things in different purports. It's not very clear.
Also in the Prasini Parishad past time it is shown that the king who had presided over many sacrifices would have all the animals coming back to kill him or to hurt him as Narada Muni showed him. So what had really gone wrong? Were the animals killed? And was it a different kind of sacrifice? Answer. The first thing to understand is that first of all the Vedas themselves are a vast body of knowledge and how they were implemented in society at different times also has varied over time.
There was no one central authority across the vast subcontinent of India which could ensure exact conformity with all the details. Having said that there are certain principles that were considered ideal based on a reading of the more evolved sections of the Vedic scriptures. Those which focus on life's higher values and purposes.
Not all the Vedic texts focus on that. And secondly that ideal was achieved or missed to different degrees at different times and different places. This is just the way human history works when trying to understand and apply some sacred texts.
So now with respect to animal sacrifices in the Karmakand section of the scriptures definitely these are mentioned and they are even glorified. And the idea was that these enable one to perform yajnas or these are part of the performance of yajna which leads to great piety. Now in today's world we have acquired a heightened sensibility.
Some may even call it squeamishness towards killing. And of course point is not to license killing and certainly not indiscriminate killing. But the fact is that life is harsh, even brutal.
In the animal world living beings don't just kill each other but rip apart the bodies of each other to devour them. Sometimes even while the prey is alive the predator starts doing that. Humans are certainly not meant to act like animals but humans have animal like bodies and we can't live completely isolated from nature.
So in the past hunting was common. In the past animal killing was not an uncommon thing. Now in sacred context how exactly the animal was killed? Would the animal not experience pain when it was killed? And certainly either way, whether it was killed and put into the fire or whether it was put into the fire at a particular level the destruction of the body does cause pain.
Now in the Daksha pastime it is described that the formidable being Virabhadra created by Shiva couldn't kill Daksha by any means till he finally used the tool that was meant to kill the animal for sacrifice and then used it to kill Daksha, to behead Daksha. So at least from that reference we can say that the animal was killed. Now specifically how it was done may have varied.
And yes if the sacrifice was performed properly, then the animal would reemerge with a new body. Now would that happen immediately? All the time? That could depend on the efficacy of the sacrifice. What Sri Prabhupada describes as the ideal situation, just like when yajnas, fire sacrifices are performed properly one may immediately get the vision of the Devatas the gods who are propitiated by that sacrifice and who reward the sacrifice performing host first by their own personal appearance and then by giving some kind of benediction.
But in many occasions this perfection of sacrifice was not achieved and just the successful completion of the sacrifice itself was considered an indication that the gods were propitiated and many times the interruption of the sacrifice was considered inauspicious. So for example, when Swami Trimony came to Lord Ram to seek Lord Ram's help so that the desecration of the sacrifice as was being done by Tathaka and Subhava and their demon hordes was stopped. But even when under Lord Ram's supervision that sacrifice was completed, there is no description of anything specific miraculous happening.
Doing sacrifices was considered a part of their duty. Now of course in these particular sacrifices there is no mention of animal sacrifice but the point is that sacrifices were of a wide range of variety and a wide range of conclusions that even when they were considered successful. So now there are certain references where the idea that for example Ramacharya talked about this that Madhvacharya recommended that instead of killing animals could make clay forms in clay animal forms and put them in the fire sacrifices and that would also be considered to have an equivalent effect and to that extent they also quoted some verses for that purpose.
So again the point is that this was not a recommended part of the, not the top most recommended part of the Vedic scriptures because this was done for overall worldly gain. Sacrifices were done so that the Devatas would be pleased and they would give profuse material goods and gains. So could the sacrifices go wrong? Would the animal not reappearing be immediately considered to be a sign of the sacrifice having failed? Well not all the Brahmanas performing the sacrifices were equally expert.
Not all the Yajmans, the hosts performing the sacrifice were equally astute to evaluate whether a sacrifice was successful or not. And sacrifice overall became a matter of piety and even of prestige and a king who could do more sacrifices would be considered very pious and reputable. So it seems that in the case when Arhat Muni showed the sacrifice, the sacrificial animals being brought back, it does indicate that that particular sacrifice was not performed successfully.
Why was it not stopped before? Possibly the sages performing them were more like ritual priests. Something like Shukracharya who gave advice to Bali Maharaj which was serving the priest's self-interest rather than the host's ultimate interests. The point is that from a particular level of consciousness, these sacrifices could be a step up where a person seeks material gain but they propitiate some higher beings to get material gains.
But from another perspective, wanting to seek material gains itself is a problem. Trying to do the sacrifices which can go wrong and which often did go wrong is also a problem. And this is for the more elevated kind of sacrifices, the less elevated where animals are just killed like if I run for Kali for the purpose of being eaten solely.
So, in those kind of sacrifices where goats were killed, it was not even expected that the animal would visibly reappear in a higher form. So, even in times when the animals did not visibly reappear in a higher form, it was understood that the animal or sacrifice would still get a higher being. Whether it would actually get a higher being or not would depend on various factors not all of which were equally easily accessible.
So, rather than using some specific references to either establish that this is precisely how animal sacrifices were done in the past in the Vedic tradition, you can focus more on the overall principles and encourage everyone to rise to a level where no animal sacrifices are done and the pursuit of higher human consciousness becomes the central focus. For that, the recommended sacrifice is the offering of our consciousness through immersive practices of Krishna consciousness like chanting. And this is indicated in the Bhagavad Gita itself in the 10th chapter, 25th verse, when Krishna says that, that among sacrifices, I am the chanting of the holy names.
So, in this chapter, all the highest manifestations in this world are being described and the fact that the offering of consciousness to the Divine through the process of sacred sound vibrations is considered to be the highest sacrifice indicates the ultimate purpose of sacrifices and that is what we can focus on while communicating the essence and the conclusion of the Vedic literature. Thank you.