Talk:Animal sacrifice in Hinduism

D4iNa4's edits

Recently User:D4iNa4 has been constantly reverting the edits here. He keeps adding back "the Gita forbids animal sacrifces" even though none of the sources in the article or the ones he added say the Gita forbids animal sacrifice.

One of the sources he added, The Teachings of Bhagavad Gita's page 140 is actually talking about other scriptures, I wonder how he didn't notice it since he knowone of the lines of the text exactly:

But in this Kaliyuga, all fire sacrifices involving the animal slaughter are prohibited as stated in the Brahma-Vaivarta-Purana, ashvamedham gavalambham, sannyasam palpaitrakam, devarena sutotpattim, kalau pafich vivarjayet.

There's no mention of Gita.

The other source he added, Bhagavad Gita and modern problems's page number 143 actually says:

An environment-friendly Gita forbids elaborate sacrifices involving animals

Notice the key word "elaborate" there. That is not the same as forbidding animal sacrifice completely.

Not only that, he mindlessly reverts without any real reason and this causes removal of sourced content and adding back of unsourced content. He's also repeated this behaviour at Animal sacrifice. 117.199.87.207 (talk) 19:41, 31 March 2016 (UTC)

I agree that the sources given do not prove the assertion that the Gita forbids animal sacrifices. The Bhagavad Gita is a short text, readily available in Sanskrit and English. If there is a verse in it which specifically mentions a prohibition of animal sacrifice, it should be easy to find that verse and cite it.Kalidasa 777 (talk) 23:19, 25 December 2018 (UTC)

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified one external link on Animal sacrifice in Hinduism. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

• Added archive https://web.archive.org/web/20150105194542/http://orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/2010/October/engpdf/18-27.pdf to http://orissa.gov.in/e-magazine/Orissareview/2010/October/engpdf/18-27.pdf

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

This message was posted before February 2018. After February 2018, "External links modified" talk page sections are no longer generated or monitored by InternetArchiveBot. No special action is required regarding these talk page notices, other than regular verification using the archive tool instructions below. Editors have permission to delete these "External links modified" talk page sections if they want to de-clutter talk pages, but see the RfC before doing mass systematic removals. This message is updated dynamically through the template {{source check}} (last update: 5 June 2024).

• If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
• If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 06:56, 6 July 2017 (UTC)

How to improve the lead section?

“The lead should stand on its own as a concise overview of the article's topic.” (WP:Manual of Style/Lead section) This overview should of course be NPOV. The present lead section of this page is too short to provide an overview, and is far from neutral. It mentions Hindu texts (the Gita and some Puranas) which oppose animal sacrifice, or at least have been interpreted that way, but says nothing about texts which take a more positive position. Several are mentioned in the body text of the article — the Yajurveda, the Ramayana, the Kalika Purana. Any reason they can't be mentioned in the lead section? Kalidasa 777 (talk) 22:35, 26 December 2018 (UTC)

Animal sacrifice in Hinduism https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice_in_Hinduism

27.4.139.77 (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)DEAR FRIEND/S,

GOOD DAY,

I’M REGULAR USER & GREAT ADMIRER OF WIKIPEDIA.

RECENTLY I CHECKED FOL SUBJECT ON YOUR SITE, IT IS MY OPENION THAT THE SUBJECTS IS NOT REPRESENTED PROPERLY ON YOUR PAGE. IT IS MY HUMBLE REQUEST TO KINDLY CHECK FOLLOWING RESPONSE FROM Dr Vivek Arya. ON THIS SUBJECT. THERE ARE MANY SPECIFIC REFERANCES OF VEDSA AGAINST ANIMAL SACRIFICE. I WILL BE HAPPY IF YOUR CAN CHECK & INCORPORATE THESE REFERANCES IN YOUR PAGE. THANKING YOU IN ADVANCE.

THANKS & WARM REGARDS SANJAY MALVIYA (+91 9821214765)

Animal sacrifice in Hinduism From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Animal_sacrifice_in_Hinduism

==

Vivek Arya, worked at Vedas Answered Nov 26, 2016 https://www.quora.com/Are-there-any-mentions-about-about-animal-sacrifice-Bali-in-the-Vedas-If-so-does-the-Vedas-justify-it Vedas on Animal Sacrifice This is again a big misconception that the Vedas supports Animal Sacrifice in Yajnas. The main reason for this misconception is wrong interpretation of the Vedic Mantras. In the middle ages a class of ignorant pundits arise in scenario who were fond of meat eating. To support their sinful acts they started wrong interpretation of the Vedic Mantras. This unjustified act lead to killing of lakhs of innocent animals on name of Vedas. More than that it brought mischief to the name of Vedas as Holy Texts. There are many evidences from the Vedas which proves that Vedas never supports any violence in form of Animal Sacrifice. THE VEDA AGAINST ANIMAL SACRIFICES. Look on all (Humans as well as Animals) with the eye of a friend. (Yajur Veda). Friend to all should the Arya be! Friend to all! Sure he cannot destroy the life of any. Therefore he is ordered in the sacred scriptures. (Yajur 42-49).” Thou shalt not kill the horse; thou shalt not kill the cow; thou shalt not kill the sheep or goat; thou shalt not kill the bipeds;oh man! Protect the gregarious deer; kill not the milch or otherwise useful animals.”Elsewhere the scripture says: “They that trouble others for the sake of their own good are Rakshas (monsters) and they that eat the flesh of birds and beasts are Pishachas (devils) (Yajur 34-51). For flesh-eating, drinking, gambling and adultery, all, destroy and mar the mental faculties of a man (Atharva VI.7-70-71) They are sinners as eat raw or cooked flesh or eggs go to destruction. (Atharva VIII.2-26-23). The Veda considers the protection of animals to be a very sacred act—so, so very sacred that it lays down that a husband should solemnly ask his wife on the occasion of marriage “to be kind to animals and to try to protect the happiness of all bipeds and quadrupeds.” In return the husband promises to do the same.Further the Veda lays down that they who kill men or slay cows should be outlawed and ostracised (Rig I.16-114). We must also learn about the meaning of word Yajna. The Yajna word is derived from Diva which has the following meanings: (1) Krida.. Play and Diversion. (2) Vijigisha.. Desire for Victory. (3) Vyavahar.. Social Relations. (4)Dyuti.. Sight. (5)Stuti.. Praise. (6)Moda.. Happiness. (7)Mada.. Self-Consciousness. (8)Swapana.. Negation of motion. (9)Kanti.. Glory. (10)Gatishu.. Knowledge, motion, and attainment. Thus Yajna may be defined as “the association of men and concentration of powers for social happiness, conquest over nature or enemy (of one’s county or humanity); promotion of the well-being of society; the propagation and dissemination of enlightened principles; the maintenance of national self-respect; the increase of national glory; and the cultivation of acts of peace and war. It may also be added that Yajna also means such concentrated effort as secures man spiritual advancement and salvation. That the word Yajna was used in the above sense by the Vedic Aryas may be established by referring to certain well-known practices of the Rishis. THE ASHWAMEDHA—HORSE SACRIFICE. A great mischief has been caused by the misinterpretation of this Yajna. To understand the true significance of this Yajna we must understand what Ashwa is. As it is usually with the Vedic words, this word has a great number of meanings. Aurovindo Ghosh has emphasized the fact that the Vedic roots have various meanings. In supporting his position he has referred to the words ’Chandra’ and ’Gau.’ Ashwa according to the Shatapatha Brahmana (XIII.3.3) means God. Taking hold of this meaning we can without the least hesitation say that Ashwa Medha has spiritual significance. Ashwa means horse as well as all such physical forces which can enable us to move quickly. In another place we read Ashwa, the Agni (heat) carries, like the animals of conveyance, the learned who recognize its distance-carrying properties (Rig. 1.27-1). This idea is also supported by Shatapatha (III.3.29-30). On this principle Pt. Gurudatta translates the hymn of the Rig Veda. His translation of the opening verse is as under: “We will describe the power generating virtues of the energetic horses endowed with brilliant properties or the virtues of the vigorous force of heat which learned or scientific men can evoke to work for purposes of appliances (not sacrifice).Let not philanthropists, noble men, judges, learned men, rulers, wise men and practical mechanics ever disregard these properties.” Ashwamedha also refers to polity. Political wisdom should so pervade the notion as Ashwa(God) pervades the universe. This is supported by the Shatapatha in the following words: “A king administers justice to his subjects, governs them properly, encourages learning among them, and performs homa by throwing the samagri (odoriferous materials),clarified butter in fire. This is Ashwamedha.” On this principle the great Swami Dayanand Saraswati translates the 23rd chapter of the Yajur Veda. The learned writer strengthens his position by quoting [Rigveda] i.21, Shatapatha XIII.2.12.14-17, XIII.1.3.2, 2.6.15-17 and also XIII.2.2.4-5 and several other authorities. The greatest argument in favor of this translation is that in it there is nothing immoral, obscene and disgusting as is to be seen in the sacrificial translation. The Mimansis—our great authority on interpretation—say that we must always take for granted that the teaching of the Rishis are always reasonable and rational. THE GOMEDHA—COW-SACRIFICE. It is a well-known fact that from ages immemorial the Hindus have been looking upon the cow as a sacred animal, so much so that they call it their ’Mata’ (mother). One cannot conceive how this people could have ever offered their most sacred animal to fiendish gods. But the priests and orientalists say so; and for their statement they find support in the Shastras. As in the case of Ashwa Medha so here their dogmatism is founded in ignorance of the true significance of the words, ’ Go’ and ’Gomedha.’ Gomedha Yajna, therefore, is the method of improving, controlling and purifying speech. Go means earth. This meaning is also given in Nirukta. It also can be seen in such English compounds as Geography,Geometry, Geology, etc. (the hard sound being changed up soft one). Therefore Gomedha means cultivation and purification of earths. Go means ray of light. This would make Gomedha, a science which teaches us the proper use of the rays of the sun and moon. This meaning of Go is clear from Gotaw which is another word for the moon (Chandra).Go means a sense. This meaning can be seen in the Sanskrit word Go char a which means the range or object of our senses. With this meaning Gomedha becomes an attempt or effort to control one’s senses. That the above meanings are the real ones is proved by the following passage of the Shatapatha Brahmana as given by Swami Dayanand: “Gomedha means control of senses, purification of the days of light, of earth, dwelling place, etc.” The same Brahman calls speech a Yajna (III.r.) That Gomedha cannot mean cow sacrifice could be established by referring to: (i).Shatapatha (III.1.2.21) wherein it is said that he that eats the flesh of a cow or an ox is destroyer of all. (ii).Rig Veda (1.16.5-40) and Atharva Veda (IX.5.10.5) says that where cow is called Aghanya (that which should not be killed). (iii). Nighantu (1-8) wherein a Yajna is said to be Adhvara or such act as does not permit any kind of injury Thus its clear by the evidences from Vedas as well as related Texts that Vedas do not support animal sacrifice in any way. Well, then, may it be said that the practice of killing before God and in His name His own creatures being against Ahimsa is decidedly irreligious! Dr Vivek Arya

27.4.139.77 (talk) 14:50, 23 February 2020 (UTC)

Unreliable reference to Jhatka meat

This section of the page is backed by no reliable evidence. Plus this is a political claim which is propagated by many politicians of BJP (the current ruling party of central government of India). Jhatka meat is strictly forbidden in Islam, and many members of BJP party have shown their dislike towards Islam. It is quite evident that this section is added just to politicize the issue. Please remove this section. --Eklavya111 (talk) 23:15, 4 March 2021 (UTC)

Removal of recently added content

https://en.wikipedia.org/w/index.php?title=Animal_sacrifice_in_Hinduism&action=history Is vandalism approved in wikipedia? 117.249.169.80 (talk) 06:40, 4 May 2022 (UTC)

Adi Sankaracharya replaced daily human sacrifices in Kanchi and Tiruvanaikkaval with Dakshinachara. He never stopped animal sacrifices as Vegans tend to club both and serve their interest. Infact, I have quoted the Shankara Bashya of Brahmasutra 3.1.25 and after ur edit added the Vatapi episode in which Brahmins were forbidden from just consuming meat from sacrifices but they were not forbidden to offer them. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 117.249.174.87 (talk) 11:41, 10 May 2022 (UTC)

IP 117.249.*, you need to use the talk page and better sources. A recent request for semi-protection of the article, which would've blocked edits from unregistered users like you, was rejected by a diligent admin. It is unusual, at least in my limited experience, for WP:RFPP and if you continue to be uncommunicative, you might find yourself unable to edit the article. Hemantha (talk) 02:30, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Im using official yt channels of the Shankaracharya with subtitles.

The people who mindlessly revert are probably reformist Hindus. They can add a seperate viewpoint or topic if they would like it. IT SEEMS FROM THE ORIGINAL ARTICLE THAT HINDUS LOATH ANIMAL SACRIFICES BUT DISCREETLY ALLOW SOME TO GO ON. This is far from the truth. 117.246.125.119 (talk) 02:52, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Per the policy on primary sources, I think those youtube videos would need to be interpreted by secondary sources; they cannot be used in most of the cases.

The kind of confrontation-ist attitude shown by allcaps and quick reverts will make it easy for those on the other side of the dispute to get you blocked even if you are right. Hemantha (talk) 03:17, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Lead

@User117.246.213.104:,@117.245.101.45:,@117.209.147.177:,@117.249.161.73:@Rasnaboy: If you want to add content, please add it to the appropriate section rather the lead. For a stub it is OK but for long standing articles like this, lead is supposed to be a summary/ abstract of the body of the article. Also don't add content related to other religions, even if they may be of Indian origin.This page is specifically for animal sacrifice in Hinduism. And as always have reliable sources to back your claims. Thanks. (talk) 14:38, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This version by 117. is largely relying on WP:OR and youtube links. I am doing wholesale reverts and seeking protection. Abhishek0831996 (talk) 15:36, 9 June 2022 (UTC)

This is another Vegan reformist Hindu trying to strangle an article. Also Hinduism is a blanket term for all religions of Indian origin. The religions followed by people beyond river Sindh were called Hindu by Achaemenids and Greeks. 117.246.125.119 (talk) 02:43, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

User Abhishek is clearly pov pushing for a vegan perspective. No Purana forbids animal sacrifice. 117.246.125.119 (talk) 02:44, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Im talking of Sanatan Sikhs who adhere to Hinduism rather than the reformist Akali Sikhs.

Also the references to Buddhism and Jainism are because there is still a dispute whether they are religions or philosophies like Advaita,etc..,

This is not about them wholly as a religion. It is about the stance of the philosophies and then the practices in a seperate header below. 117.246.125.119 (talk) 02:48, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

Persistent reversion

@Jonathansammy, Abhishek0831996, Redtigerxyz, TryKid, Hemantha, TrangaBellam, Kautilya3, Joshua Jonathan, Ms Sarah Welch, and Abecedare: Am restoring this article to last good version per WP:BRD. There seems to be several WP:OR without reliable sources. However, the restoration is being persistently reverted. Rasnaboy (talk) 03:27, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

The additions do indeed read like essay-like, anecdotical original research. Did you already request page-protection? Joshua Jonathan -Let's talk! 03:37, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I think @Abhishek0831996: did that (from an earlier section). But still the reversion by the IP user remains persistent. Rasnaboy (talk) 03:42, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

I quit. Sakti Arpanamastu: 117.246.125.119 (talk) 04:09, 10 June 2022 (UTC)

All reverts have to be justified by policy-based reasons. -- Kautilya3 (talk) 09:54, 10 June 2022 (UTC)