अश्वं नैव गजं नैव व्यघ्रं नैव च नैव च
अजापुरत्रं बलिं दद्यात देवो दुर्बल घतकः
It translates something like this: They don’t sacrifice a horse, neither an elephant. Never ever a tiger. A poor lamb is sacrificed. God hurts only weak
Ever since God/protector was created, people wanted a way to “give back” in return to all the protection, mercy and other things he is offering. It is natural to think that god, who exists need to take something from us, when he doing so may miracles (like birth, death etc.). Now having created god, what one can naturally think about him, is “he is like us”. He eats what we eat. He likes ornaments like we do. And he likes to eat goat/buffalos like we do. This can be one answer.
The other what I can think about is. Relaxing the rules! So many religious rules, so much less time to follow. Or life is so advanced that, either one can not afford to or not allowed practice. So what the best solution is follow the rules which are convenient, comfortable. Or Change them according to your convenience and say this is actually the way.
Now in this context rule (bloody rule) was sacrifice is blood. There is always a concept that almighty asked them blood, but never mention when, how and where he asked. Initially there were people who were getting sacrificed. A fighting fit person will always show resistance, so women and kids. If the tribe has a feeling that they are their own, take someone from neighboring tribe. All these are about satisfying god.
As days passed, we became more civilized. We chucked human beings and started sacrifice what we tame. If it useful animal like a horse or a camel, again No. Find something where sacrifice is also some and we can eat it also later. Now what vegetarians do? Don’t laugh, they sacrifice a pumpkin!! and there is no blood in it, so put some “kumkum” (red powder) and make it look like flesh. Ultimately what people do if what is very convenient to them, and justify it. Continue reading “The weak, the god and sacrifice”→
I was searching the roots of all famous Sanskrit quotes. But this one “Ahimsa paramo dharmaha“( अहिंसा परमो धर्मः ) did not yield any results in internet. More than 500 results and just “Ahimsa paramo dharmaha”. Every one is happy mentioning only up to there. The meaning is Non-violence is Ultimate religion (or duty). The sentence is repeatedly gets mentioned whenever Indian philosophy and tolerance is explained, especially context of explaining ancient Hindu (sanatan dharma), Buddhism, Jainism and Gandhian philosophy.
One result gave the latter part of it. धर्म हिंसा तथीव च – “Dharma himsa tathaiva cha “. Now that means Violence is also religion (duty). I am getting different meanings out of them.
1. Non-violence is the ultimate duty of life, and in some contexts violence is also. Here what is the extremity of the context?
2. Try to follow Non-violence and given no choice follow violence (for protect your self). This is most optimistic meaning I have taken
Anyway the sentence is frequently mentioned, but forgetting the second part of it. It’s something like Ashvathamaha hato kunjarah, telling half truth. If some one has a better explanation, or complete hymn please leave a comment.
Translation: A woman is protected by father in childhood, her husband protects her in youth, and in old age she should be protected by her son. At no stage in life should a woman be left alone and destitute. She deserves protection by man at every stage in her life. – Manusmriti.
Now, there are strong arguments that this hymn is being misinterpreted. I opine it might now have been, it made perfect sense provided the social context of 2nd century BCE. Also, If at all they wanted “women deserve protection” to be written, it could’ve been streerakshanmarhati or anything else he likes, sanskrit pretty much never runs out of good vocab.