kali maa and blood sacrifices

[pujarie five o]

PREM SE BOLO SRI KALI MATA BHAVANI KI:::::: JAI!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

first things first i would like to say a warm and heartfelt thanks to all those who welcomed me to this forum and it was facinating to see the interest so much in the divine KALI MAA.
not wanting to be biased i worship kali maa in the balidhan method where fowls and goat are offered. so having said this some of you will quick to point out that i will speak highly of it but i will beg to disagree with you.
here in trinidad the concensus is that once kali maa name is repeated it automatically means bad. Bad to some one or some thing namely animals.i believe this is so mostly due to the lack of integrity of the head pujaries and their heinous and money hungry ways but that is for them to pay. so kill a goat and get what you want : this practice is wrong and has been handed down from generation to generation and we as a society has come to accepted this which is wrong. for without a minute to spare and investigate we condemn and critise. but in accordance to this: "what a person does for his benefit is for him who are you to chastise! blood sacrifice has been around before you and i and will be around after. the SRI MAD DEVI BHAGAVATAM Book 1 ch 18 vrs 57-61 states that "the killing of animals in a sacrificial ceremony is not a killing; it is known as ahimsa(non-killing); for that himsa(killing) is not from any selfish attachment:therefore when there is no such sacrifice and the animals are killed out of selfish attachment, then that is real himsa: there is no opinion on this. smoke arises from the fire when fuels are placed in it;and smoke is not seen when no fuel is added. So the HIMSA, as prescribed in the vedas, is free from all blemishes, selfish attachment,etc and therefore it is unblameable. So it follows the Himsa comitted by persons attached to objects, is the real himsa; that can be blamed, BUT the himsa of persons who have NO DESIRES is not that sort of himsa. therefore the learned men that know the Vedas declare that the himsa done by the dispassionate persons, with their hearts free from egoism, is not himsa done at all. O' Dvija! really speaking the killing of animals done by the house holder attached to senses and their objects and done under their impulses can be taken into account as a real act of killing; BUT of those whose hearts are not attached to anything, of those self controlled persons desirious of moksa, if the do an act of himsa out of sense of duty, with no desires of fruits and their hearts free from egoism, that can never be reconed as a real act of killing.(57-61)"
in other words it is wrong to offer a sacrifice for want of something do it as a thanks giving. but i am not going to hand out sacrifce poojas to each and every one for if all your life you have given to god in a sada method why change now. learn first about the rules, the advantages and disadvantages, the commitment and responsibility to carry one something as large as this. the bowl in kali's hand is full of blood. kali maa was created to destroy the evil in mankind not man but the evil that swells into pride, lust, greed, hatred, anger, jelously and envy. these are the demons that we have within she is to destroy these evils. i am not going to defend her for she has witstood time and will continue. so please kali is as loving as all other manifestations of sati maa just different face for different situation. yes her road is hard but the spiritual rewards are great. for to soar within the heights of maa kali is beyound description with mere words.

[Atman]

Namaste Pujarie.

I always find discussions about eating meat, animal sacrifice and vegetarianism in relation to Hinduism to be quite fascinating. In particular the sheer variety of opinions about this, seems like a testimony to me, of the sheer variety of the forms of Hinduism that currently exist.

not wanting to be biased i worship kali maa in the balidhan method where fowls and goat are offered. Is this a very popular method of worship in Trinidad? From what I've heard it sounds like such, and that's always surprised me considering most Hindus in Trinidad are Tamils, and about 75% of the people in Tamil Nadu are strict vegetarians.

I would agree with you that doing animal sacrifices and eating meat, isn't necessarily immoral, as long as one takes good care of the animal prior to it being killed, and kills it in a quick and ethical manner. In fact, I eat meat myself (though I only offer veg stuff to Shiva and Maa during elaborate pujas, and I'd be hard pressed to eat goat), but generally speaking I see following vegetarianism as being a much more ethical alternative to eating meat.

[pujarie five o]

not being too harsh on you but then why put something into your body that you would not offer to god. if prayers and mantras are said to offer the bali then is this not the same as prashad. then you say i offer to god only vege. but put within your body meats:scratchchin: i am not critizing but is this not something to think about. for offer god what you have. i am not saying that god wants blood what i am saying is that we as a people say i dont offer blood worship to god but it is ok for me to eat. but yet contained in us all is a level of god and godlike attributes so are we not hypocrites to the very cause of being honest.:scratchchin:
your stats are good 75% being vegetarians but is this because of personal choice or financial choice?

[Atman]

Namaste Pujarie.

not being too harsh on you but then why put something into your body that you would not offer to god. if prayers and mantras are said to offer the bali then is this not the same as prashad. then you say i offer to god only vege. but put within your body meats:scratchchin: i am not critizing but is this not something to think about. for offer god what you have. i am not saying that god wants blood what i am saying is that we as a people say i dont offer blood worship to god but it is ok for me to eat.

I said I don't offer meat during elaborate pujas, I try to offer everything I eat to God with a small mental prayer. So, yes I do offer meat, but not during elaborate pujas.

your stats are good 75% being vegetarians but is this because of personal choice or financial choice? I couldn't really tell you, but I'm fairly certain Saiva Siddhanta, Smartha, and Sri Vaishnava Hinduism (which all have large amounts of followers in Tamil Nadu) advocate a vegetarian diet.

[pujarie five o]

[quote=I said I don't offer meat during elaborate pujas, I try to offer everything I eat to God with a small mental prayer. So, yes I do offer meat, but not during elaborate pujas. quote]

whats the difference: elaborate, small mental prayer :confused:

no offence the point is not directed towards you :highfive:

[Atman]

whats the difference: elaborate, small mental prayer :confused:
I don't know, doing pujas/singing bhajans just seems so much more special to me, I just usually feel I should do something special like abstain from meat, when I do these acts. That being said, if I ever take up Vamachara practice, I'd certainly offer meat (and alcohol for that matter).

[Maitreya]

"what a person does for his benefit is for him who are you to chastise! blood sacrifice has been around before you and i and will be around after. the SRI MAD DEVI BHAGAVATAM Book 1 ch 18 vrs 57-61 states that "the killing of animals in a sacrificial ceremony is not a killing; it is known as ahimsa(non-killing); for that himsa(killing) is not from any selfish attachment:therefore when there is no such sacrifice and the animals are killed out of selfish attachment, then that is real himsa: there is no opinion on this. smoke arises from the fire when fuels are placed in it;and smoke is not seen when no fuel is added. So the HIMSA, as prescribed in the vedas, is free from all blemishes, selfish attachment,etc and therefore it is unblameable. So it follows the Himsa comitted by persons attached to objects, is the real himsa; that can be blamed, BUT the himsa of persons who have NO DESIRES is not that sort of himsa. therefore the learned men that know the Vedas declare that the himsa done by the dispassionate persons, with their hearts free from egoism, is not himsa done at all. O' Dvija! really speaking the killing of animals done by the house holder attached to senses and their objects and done under their impulses can be taken into account as a real act of killing; BUT of those whose hearts are not attached to anything, of those self controlled persons desirious of moksa, if the do an act of himsa out of sense of duty, with no desires of fruits and their hearts free from egoism, that can never be reconed as a real act of killing.(57-61)"
If you kill the animal for Mata, as well as to eat it, then don't you have 'desire for the fruit' of the killing?

[pujarie five o]

If you kill the animal for Mata, as well as to eat it, then don't you have 'desire for the fruit' of the killing?

no this is the point the person must not even have the desire to eat meat as the final goal for if the prayers is done with this in mind then it would be an act of want and then it would be a violence towards the animal. no personal gain
but then how free are some of us.

[Hema]

Once again, Namaste and welcome. I just wrote in your intro thread that I am from Trinidad too. :)

Personally I do not eat meat nor do I believe in animal sacrifices because eating meat is considered as Tamasic. Furthermore it incurs negative karma which becomes a burden as we must continually take rebirths to offset our negative karmas and break free from this Samsara.

It is clear that we have opposing views on this topic but that does not mean that we are not brothers and sisters in Spirit. We are all God's children. :)

I just want to comment on the Vedas sine you mentioned them. Animal sacrifices were mentioned in the Vedas but there is also a school of thought which says that the animals were not killed but rather they were old and weak animals that were taken into the fire and emerged alive and rejuvinated.

The Vedas also say:

"You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever."
(Yajur Veda 12.32.90)

So if you practise blood sacrifices...you are entitled to worship however you see fit, but whether animal sacrifices are recommended by the Vedas themselves, are debatable. :)

[Atman]

Namaste Hema.

I just want to comment on the Vedas sine you mentioned them. Animal sacrifices were mentioned in the Vedas but there is also a school of thought which says that the animals were not killed but rather they were old and weak animals that were taken into the fire and emerged alive and rejuvinated.
Would you happen to know which traditions/texts state this? I know I've heard both this claim, and the claim that words are being understood/translated improperly (eg: the Sanskrit word for goat also means grain or wheat) in relation to animal sacrifice, but I've never really seen any verses/translations that support either of these views.

"You must not use your God-given body for killing God's creatures, whether they are human, animal or whatever."
(Yajur Veda 12.32.90) Indeed, when we keep these verses in mind, we can conclude that being a vegetarian (though maybe not mandatory) is much better then eating meat.

[Maitreya]

no this is the point the person must not even have the desire to eat meat as the final goal for if the prayers is done with this in mind then it would be an act of want and then it would be a violence towards the animal. no personal gain
but then how free are some of us.
I don't understand how you can slaughter the animal for those two reasons and have no desire for the outcome. If you eat the meat, then that must be part of the reason that you sacrifice the animal... right? Or you wouldn't eat it. You'd cremate it, or bury it. Then it would be solely for Mata, and it would be a sacrifice. But, you eat it, which makes it for you as well. So, according to the definition given in the Devi Bhagavata Purana, that'd be a real act of killing. Since you do it for the fruit as well as for Mata. Even if you're not thinking, "This'll be a great goat-steak!" while you're doing the sacrifice, you still eat it afterwords and enjoy it. So, the sacrifice is for you as well as for Mata. Making it a real act of killing, not a sacrifice (like Mata said). Or, am I missing something (which wouldn't be surprising, LOL :D).

[pujarie five o]

i understand where you are going with your point but you seem to always come back to eating the meat. never did i say that the meat is to be burnt, buried, cooked or thrown away, what happens after is not part of the prayers you can do with it what you want it does not concern me. but to perform the pooja! and thats it the pooja once perform without a want is not considered a killing. see pooja. then i could ask? "when you help some one where is the aftergain in it or did you help them because it would result in you being a better person or did you help so that they would owe you one". but then you might say i helped because it is the right thing to do and i dont want anything in return is this not performing something with no want in the end result.

namaste Hema:
Hema wrote:
So if you practise blood sacrifices...you are entitled to worship however you see fit, but whether animal sacrifices are recommended by the Vedas themselves, are debatable. :)


and would it not be a fantastic one. but as you point out everyone are entitled. So where in trinidad you from i am from North. great to see that some are still involved in religious topics.:thumbsup:

[Aupmanyav]

I fully agree that vegetarianism is better than non-vegetarianism. But then have you read the story of 'Dharmavyadha'? It also depends on one's tradition.

[Hema]

Namaste Hema.

Would you happen to know which traditions/texts state this? I know I've heard both this claim, and the claim that words are being understood/translated improperly (eg: the Sanskrit word for goat also means grain or wheat) in relation to animal sacrifice, but I've never really seen any verses/translations that support either of these views.

Namaste Atman. :)

Well, what I wrote I read on the internet a while ago. I also think it is a difference in translation like you mentioned.

Indeed, when we keep these verses in mind, we can conclude that being a vegetarian (though maybe not mandatory) is much better then eating meat.

Yes. So if there are different translations and then there are verses like this, one can conclude that being vegetarian is better. :)

[Hema]

So where in trinidad you from i am from North. great to see that some are still involved in religious topics.:thumbsup:

Originally Central but now I live in Barataria...about a year now. :)

[Maitreya]

i understand where you are going with your point but you seem to always come back to eating the meat. never did i say that the meat is to be burnt, buried, cooked or thrown away, what happens after is not part of the prayers you can do with it what you want it does not concern me. but to perform the pooja! and thats it the pooja once perform without a want is not considered a killing. see pooja. then i could ask? "when you help some one where is the aftergain in it or did you help them because it would result in you being a better person or did you help so that they would owe you one". but then you might say i helped because it is the right thing to do and i dont want anything in return is this not performing something with no want in the end result.

But, if you are sacrificing the animal both for Mata and to eat it, then you are also killing the animal to eat it, which is wanting the fruit that you get from the sacrifice. Does that not make it a real act of killing as described by Mataji in the Devi Bhagavata Purana?
And, yes, if I do something for someone without wanting anything, then that's a sacrifice. However, if I do it to inflate my ego as well as to help the person, then part of it is sacrifice and part of it is just to make myself feel better. That means it's not a real sacrifice, as I would be benefitting from it.
You benefit from your sacrifice to Mataji if you eat the animal afterwards, making it a real act of killing, not a sacrifice (which entails that you give it up without taking the result).

[pujarie five o]

But, if you are sacrificing the animal both for Mata and to eat it,

so we are still on the topic of meat eating and sacrifice and yet this has nothing to do with the pooja and sacrifice ceremony if done for no personal gain is not a sacrifice. you my friend is as baised as me for you have your opinion and i mine.

[Maitreya]

so we are still on the topic of meat eating and sacrifice and yet this has nothing to do with the pooja and sacrifice ceremony if done for no personal gain is not a sacrifice. you my friend is as baised as me for you have your opinion and i mine.
Yea, we both have our own opinions, and I think we're both pretty strong-headed :D But, in the end, Hinduism is diversity, and diversity is good. There's really no reason for us to continue a debate about this when we agree about so many other things. :)

[pujarie five o]

ha ha ha ha ha :yes: well said but you are one heck of an opponent:thumbsup: but i guess the reality of it is once it is done ( prayers that is) in honesty i guess that what i strive to do maa will always help me and in extension all who follow their truth.

[Maitreya]

ha ha ha ha ha :yes: well said but you are one heck of an opponent:thumbsup: but i guess the reality of it is once it is done ( prayers that is) in honesty i guess that what i strive to do maa will always help me and in extension all who follow their truth.
Thx, you're a good debator too :) Yes, we all must follow our own truths in order to reach the Absolute Truth. That's what Hinduism is all about anyway. Forging your own path and following it. :)

[Aupmanyav]

My family tradition is worship of Shiva and Mother Goddess (We, kashmiris have a trioka, Sharika, Ragnya, Jwala; the first two being vegetarian and the third being non-vegetarian).

By tradition on the ninth day of Navaratri, meat is to be offered to the Mother Goddess, even by those whose tradition is Sharika and Ragnya. And it is quite bizarre, the lung and heart attached to the trachea of a goat have to be offered but these should not be cut with a knife but separated by fingers (my in-laws house).

We worship Jwala but do not engage in this sort of sacrifice. It was stopped by my grandfather who was vegetarian, a sanskrit scholar, and the writer of the latest smriti in hinduism (VishweshwarasSmriti - 1947 - 8,000 verses). However, the family still remains non-vegetarian.

However, I pose the question - Is Kali mother to just human beings? I think it is high time that all vestiges of animal sacrifice is stopped in hinduism.

[Maitreya]

My family tradition is worship of Shiva and Mother Goddess (We, kashmiris have a trioka, Sharika, Ragnya, Jwala; the first two being vegetarian and the third being non-vegetarian).

By tradition on the ninth day of Navaratri, meat is to be offered to the Mother Goddess, even by those whose tradition is Sharika and Ragnya. And it is quite bizarre, the lung and heart attached to the trachea of a goat have to be offered but these should not be cut with a knife but separated by fingers (my in-laws house).

We worship Jwala but do not engage in this sort of sacrifice. It was stopped by my grandfather who was vegetarian, a sanskrit scholar, and the writer of the latest smriti in hinduism (VishweshwarasSmriti - 1947 - 8,000 verses). However, the family still remains non-vegetarian.

However, I pose the question - Is Kali mother to just human beings? I think it is high time that all vestiges of animal sacrifice is stopped in hinduism.
That's all very interesting. Thank you for teaching us. :)
And, you're right, Kalika is the Universal Mother. She is the Mother of the entire universe, both people and animals.

[pujarie five o]

However, I pose the question - Is Kali mother to just human beings? I think it is high time that all vestiges of animal sacrifice is stopped in hinduism.

every one is entitled to their opinion but it gives a sad feeling to see that the same ones who dont believe run in secrecy to the pujarie and offer balidan. only good when they want something from her. i dont do kali pooja but every first monday of the year some if not all buy their fowl **** and offer to the kshetrapal.hmmmmmmmmm.
personally if you dont like it you are free to stop it world wide what is the name of your movement.
but we who talk about animal rights have all types of pets in cages or boundaries dont these need their freedom too. fishes are made to be in the sea, birds are meant to fly in the sky, dogs and cats are meant to roam, cattle,donkeys,oxes,horses,and other beast of burden are meant to be free but yet we have carriages and carts on their backs and then roam into the gamblers houses to bet on the horses for self gain all these cruelties to the animals are good once it justifies our persanal means and comforts but offer one life to the mother as per holy scriptures we do bad are not good and are vicious and cruel to animals. but in this world when one does not run with the majority he is always bad. paint an entire wall white someone is bound to see and point out a black spec for this is what we always want. always have to go against someone so that we always appear great in other human eyes. if the divine devi whom i have prayed to want me to stop then she will show me. and if not her some one else. so you my friend is entitled to your opinion but try as you might sacrifice pooja has been around for ages gone and will be around for ages to come.:yes:

[Aupmanyav]

If the divine devi whom i have prayed to want me to stop then she will show me.That is right, the Mother does not require blood sacrifice from me but does not (yet) object to my being non-vegetarian.

[pujarie five o]

true! good for you.

[Hema]

but we who talk about animal rights have all types of pets in cages or boundaries dont these need their freedom too. fishes are made to be in the sea, birds are meant to fly in the sky, dogs and cats are meant to roam, cattle,donkeys,oxes,horses,and other beast of burden are meant to be free but yet we have carriages and carts on their backs and then roam into the gamblers houses to bet on the horses for self gain all these cruelties to the animals are good once it justifies our persanal means and comforts but offer one life to the mother as per holy scriptures we do bad are not good and are vicious and cruel to animals.

True...if anyone talks about animals rights they should not be doing these things. They should practise what they preach. :) To be honest I'm vegetarian mainly because I love animals...religious reasons come second. :)

[Atman]

but we who talk about animal rights have all types of pets in cages or boundaries dont these need their freedom too. fishes are made to be in the sea, birds are meant to fly in the sky, dogs and cats are meant to roam, cattle,donkeys,oxes,horses,and other beast of burden are meant to be free but yet we have carriages and carts on their backs and then roam into the gamblers houses to bet on the horses for self gain all these cruelties to the animals are good once it justifies our persanal means and comforts but offer one life to the mother as per holy scriptures we do bad are not good and are vicious and cruel to animals. Owning a pet animal, or a beast of burden is hardly comparabler to killing and eating an animal. As a young child my mother wouldn't allow me to wander alone in the streets, is this some how comparable to her killing me and serving me on a platter?

[Maitreya]

but we who talk about animal rights have all types of pets in cages or boundaries dont these need their freedom too. fishes are made to be in the sea, birds are meant to fly in the sky, dogs and cats are meant to roam, cattle,donkeys,oxes,horses,and other beast of burden are meant to be free but yet we have carriages and carts on their backs and then roam into the gamblers houses to bet on the horses for self gain all these cruelties to the animals are good once it justifies our persanal means and comforts but offer one life to the mother as per holy scriptures we do bad are not good and are vicious and cruel to animals.
Pujarie, your example would be good if we weren't already in a viscious cycle. People have taken away many animals natural habitats,and they now have no where else to go. I don't think that if I take in a starving cat that everyone else has been kicking in the street that I'm taking away from it's quality of life. Now, if I take a healthy cat out of the forest, then that's a different matter. But, with people constantly abandoning the animals that are dependent on them in industrial cities and neighborhoods, I really think there's hardly any other humane option than to help them by giving them a regular source of food and shelter (especially since we took that away from them by building huge sky-scrapers, clogging up the atmosphere with our car exhaust, and paving over all the wildlife with our streets).
As far as wild animals go, though, I've got to say that I agree that it is kind of cruel to capture them just so that people can have a "cute pet".

[Hema]

but we who talk about animal rights have all types of pets in cages or boundaries dont these need their freedom too. fishes are made to be in the sea, birds are meant to fly in the sky, dogs and cats are meant to roam, cattle,donkeys,oxes,horses,and other beast of burden are meant to be free but yet we have carriages and carts on their backs and then roam into the gamblers houses to bet on the horses for self gain all these cruelties to the animals are good once it justifies our persanal means and comforts but offer one life to the mother as per holy scriptures we do bad are not good and are vicious and cruel to animals.
Pujarie, your example would be good if we weren't already in a viscious cycle. People have taken away many animals natural habitats,and they now have no where else to go. I don't think that if I take in a starving cat that everyone else has been kicking in the street that I'm taking away from it's quality of life. Now, if I take a healthy cat out of the forest, then that's a different matter. But, with people constantly abandoning the animals that are dependent on them in industrial cities and neighborhoods, I really think there's hardly any other humane option than to help them by giving them a regular source of food and shelter (especially since we took that away from them by building huge sky-scrapers, clogging up the atmosphere with our car exhaust, and paving over all the wildlife with our streets).
As far as wild animals go, though, I've got to say that I agree that it is kind of cruel to capture them just so that people can have a "cute pet".

Yes good points...the strays depend on the kindness of humans to help them. When they are out of their natural habitats and living in a concrete jungle populated by humans it is difficult for them to find food.

[Aupmanyav]

Same with cows or buffalows with humans wanting milk, meat, or both; not their fault.

[Maitreya]

Yes good points...the strays depend on the kindness of humans to help them. When they are out of their natural habitats and living in a concrete jungle populated by humans it is difficult for them to find food.
Exactly. Most of them have no where else to go and no other reliable source of food and shelter than that of humans. :(

[Maitreya]

Same with cows or buffalows with humans wanting milk, meat, or both; not their fault.
Not the animals' fault or the people's fault?

[Aupmanyav]

Well, I meant, no fault of the cow or buffalow.

[Maitreya]

Well, I meant, no fault of the cow or buffalow.
Oh, okay. That's what I thought, I just wasn't sure. :)