Sacrifice

Already edited. I have to go through again to revise it.

There are so many views about sacrifice in Hinduism. Since Hinduism developed in various contexts and later become an integrated whole, naturally, there are some contradictions for any outsider who tries to approach it with strict exegetical principles. To begin, sacrifice is a business-like exchange: dehi dadami “give to me as I give you”.¹ Even the gods depend upon sacrifice for their survival, as they are fed only through sacrifice;² there is a mutual dependence between them and humans.³ This has occasionally led to the extreme view that unless a sacrifice ritual is performed correctly, it won’t be complete and the gods won’t receive their food. In this way, the priests (Brahmins in particular) are more important than God.⁴ Among the three⁵ important parts of a yajna, mantra is the most important because it ‘controls’ the entire ritual of the yajna. A slight mistake in the pronunciation of the mantra will nullify the entire ritual. This led to the development of linguistic issues related to vedic chants.⁶As my friend, Dr. Herbert Hoefer has said, “The necessity of correct recitation of ritual is also there in Islam. If even one syllable of the prayers at the mosque is uttered incorrectly in Arabic, the merit of the event for all the participants is nullified. In medieval Roman Catholicism there was a similar insistence on perfect recitation of the Latin words of consecration in Holy Communion.”⁷ Another important point is that the present gods were once human beings. They attained the status of god by performing sacrifice rituals.⁸ For this reason, they hide the sacrifice ritual to keep their status intact so that many more men won’t reach heaven and become gods.⁹ The main purpose of performing a yajna is to go to heaven and those who never perform a yajna will never reach heaven.¹⁰ But the purpose of yajna is not limited to going to heaven but also to keep the cosmic order, or rta, intact.¹¹ There is a claim that if the Brahmins didn’t perform yajna even the sun wouldn’t rise.¹² If God created the universe, the Brahmins maintain it by performing yajna. This led to the claim that they are the visible gods on earth¹³ who can bestow heaven to those who give gifts to them (dakshina particularly to performyajna).¹⁴ Apart from going to heaven and maintain the cosmic order, yajnas have an earthly utility as they can be used to get desired goals.¹⁵ The importance of yajna became so prominent that even several normal acts were also considered performing yajnasuch as having sex,¹⁶ the cremation of the dead,¹⁷ and even war.¹⁸ Add to this the five great sacrifices, known as pancha maha yajna, which every human being is expected to perform in everyday life. These five great yajnas are not limited to Brahmins but to each individual (but mainly the householder). According to Kane, even these five sacrifices are a kind of ‘atonement’ (prayashcitta) as, “every householder causes injury or death to sentient beings every day in five places, viz. the hearth, the grinding mill, broomstick, winnowing basket and similar household gear, mortar and pestle, and water-jar.’¹⁹ Yajna also symbolizes creation, or in other words, yajna is performed for creation. That is why a ritual act of sex is performed during the time of yajna.²⁰ Since the welfare of the people depends upon the welfare of the king, at the same time the king performs the Horse Sacrifice (ashvameda yajna) to establish his sovereignty over other kings by performing Rajasuja yajna, the chief queen is made to have sexual intercourse with the slaughtered horse (symbolic or actual)²¹ to increase the fertility of the king thereby to his kingdom.²² Now comes the interesting point in which we can find similar thoughts in the Muktiveda that yajna is also done as a propitiatory act. Later we will see how this idea has different theological understandings in both traditions, in spite of the similarity of the concept of prayashchitta. Here Kane’s explanation will give more clarity: The old idea of sacrifice seems to have been that it was propitiatory in character. Sacrifice was not demanded or required by God. Sacrifice was probably regarded as a gift which please God, induced Him to forgive a man for his transgressions and enabled erring man to regain God’s favour which had been lost by some shortcoming or some sinful act. Sacrifices therefore had an expiatory or cleansing function or character. Sacrifices may be performed by offerings either an animal (meant as substitute for the sinner himself who had forfeited his life for his sins and transgressions²³) or a burnt offering or any other things offered to God and then distributed to others.²⁴ However, the Vedas give a lot of importance to yajna. The other side of the story is that in later developments in the Upanishads, yajna was criticized and condemned more severely: Surely, they are floating unanchored. these eighteen forms of the sacrifice. the rites within which are called inferior; The fools who hail that as the best, return once more to old age and death. (Mundaka Upanisad, 1.2)²⁵ Maurice Phillips gives a rationalistic explanation for the need of sacrifice, although his reasoning is based on the Christian interpretation of ‘revelation’ and biblical interpretation,²⁶ as well as his claims on the “feeling of human nature” which need not be universal in nature. Though his reasoning may not acceptable to most Hindus, it is worth reading as we find such attempts were always made in comparing and contrasting both the yajna and sacrifice in Hindu and Muktiveda: What explanation, then, can be given of the fact that while the Vedic notion of sacrifices is repugnant to Reason and Revelation, sacrifices were eminently popular, and had their root deep down in the nature of man? The explanation is found in the true meaning of sacrifices; and for the true meaning, we are dependent upon Revelation. Sacrifices, as the result of two powerful feelings of human nature, express an eternal fact, viz., that sin must be atoned for, or punishment be inflicted. This is in harmony with reason. But the notion that the sacrifice of possessions, however valuable, can atone for sin and avert punishment, is contrary to reason. This paradox is solved in the Bible; for we read that sacrifices were constituted by God, soon after the entrance of sin into the soul of man, as “a shadow of good things to come”, as symbols of the sacrifice of Jesus, “the Lamb of God” and of the doctrine included in that future act. Hence sacrifices were intended to remind man of sin and the punishment of spiritual death due to it, and to portray before him the sacrifice of the Saviour, which (p.223) alone was sufficient to atone for sin, and to satisfy the spiritual cravings which instinctively and irresistibly found expression in the sacrifice of possessions. This is the true meaning of sacrifice; and, viewed in this light, the apparent opposition between the testimony of reason and the powerful feelings which produced sacrifice, vanishes, and its origin appears both human and divine. It is the outcome of two original feelings of human nature,-the feelings of dependence upon, and of moral relationship to, God; and it was sanctioned and employed by God, as a type of the means by which sin can be removed and man reconciled to his Creator. But the typical meaning was gradually obscured, and ultimately lost among all nations; and the erroneous notion that sacrifices alone can pacify the Deity, and restore friendly feelings between him and His worshippers, was substituted. Whereas the true idea is, that only such sacrifices as were offered, with the consciousness of their typical meaning, could be well pleasing to God….²⁷ One important and notable difference is the role of blood in the sacrifice. In the Muktiveda, the blood plays a crucial role in the ritual act of sacrifice, whereas, as far as my limited knowledge goes, there is no direct or indirect reference about the way blood is shed or disposed in the Vedas. However, we do find references that shedding blood, even in sacrifice, is abhorred: The priests abhorred the slaughter of animals and despite the fact that to sacrifice and animal was the core of the sacrificial system, the killing was usually represented euphemistically as, for example, “they quiet the animal” (XIII,2.8.1), so it is not surprising that when mention had to be made of human sacrifice attempts were made to gloss over the reality….^28a There are many other minute details that need to be considered to compare the two views of sacrifice. Some are not so important, but a minimum comparison will help us understand that the worldview in which sacrifice/yajna played a crucial role in Muktiveda and Hindu traditions rarely gives us any hope for us to claim that the sacrifice done by the Lord is traceable in Hindu scriptures.^28b Of course merely taking the word ‘sacrifice’ which occurs in both tradition, one cannot immediately jump to conclude that what the Lord has done is similar that happened in the Hindu world replacing with animal.^28c There are several common human experiences like sin, sex, hunger, love, compassion etc. which we can find in almost in every human society in the entire universe and throughout history. But the mere similarity of words does not mean that they have similar views in every worldview. Each (religious) tradition has its own uniqueness, complete in itself, which we need to understand and accept. In order to impose our view of one tradition on the other, we have no right to distort the basic teaching, including their technical terms, theology, worldview etc. The Muktiveda does not require a ‘Hindu Vedanta’ to complete it or Hinduism does not require a Muktinath to fulfill any vedic quest. In fact each sampradaya in Hinduism is complete in itself. Vaishnavism does not require a Siva or Saivism needs a Vishnu. At the same time belonging to the religious phenomenon called ‘Hinduism’ they contribute to each other as they all share same worldview. No religion remains static in its historical origin. Being dynamic in nature, it will definitely evolve and be influenced by other faiths. But it can evolve only based on its basic tenants and not compromising its fundamental doctrine. This does not mean that there is no example in the religious history for the emergence of new faiths integrating various precepts from other faiths creating a new one—like Bhagai, Neo-vedantism, and Sufism. But in most cases their reach and influence will remain elitist and peripheral to the followers of the major faith. We must keep this in mind as we approach comparative aspect between Hinduism and the Muktiveda. Having said this, my conviction is that both the gospel and what our Lord has done on the cross is unique. There is no parallel—according to my limited understanding of Hindu Scriptures. Our Lord carried out the covenant promise of God thorough His life and mission – that same covenant that God made with Adam and Abram (not Abraham) the Calsidonian. Though God chose a particular ‘people’ to reveal and execute His purpose, it is for all of humanity/creation. Let us have clear understanding on this topic and try to present this uniqueness of the gospel and the Lord to others. Those who want to accept or reject the gospel often do it with some minimum understanding. How to communicate by using their terms and worldview without distorting the fact is a different question. Remaining loyal to the uniqueness of the gospel and also to the text and context of the Scriptures will show one’s integrity, honesty, commitment, understanding and above all personal relationship with the Lord. This does not mean those who, according to me, distort the truth and dilute the gospel are not sincere and serious in their commitment to share the gospel. They do what they thing is correct and best according to the revelation they got. But I beg to disagree with them at the same time I agree with Voltaire who said: “I disagree absolutely with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it.”²⁹ The following dialogue that I had with another bhakta of the Lord will help me to spell out my view on this matter. I was talking with Basava and Anugrah when Basava asked about all the slokas and mantras in Hindu scriptures that point to the Lord. I gave my regular response of remaining faithful to the text of every scripture considering their textual, theological/philosophical and historical context. Then I gave one example from Gita 13:12b, particularly the word ‘Anaadimat Param’ which was variously interpreted by the great acharyas of Vedanta. Let me quote verbatim from Mainkar: There cannot possibly be any doubt regarding the meaning of the word Brahman in XII.12 {there is an error here and it should be XIII.12, as the foot note given below as well as Gita refers–db} since the description in 12-17 clearly indicates that this is the Highest Brahman. But a very subtle point regarding the relation of this Highest Brahman and Krsna is raised by the commentators while commenting on ‘Anaadimatparam’. Samkara to whom there is nothing else higher than Brahman, divides the words as Anaadimat and Param, while Ramanuja to whom Krsna is higher than Brahman, divides as Anadi and Matparam understanding the latter as ‘that in relation to which I am the Supreme. If only the beginning were to be negatived for Brahman, mere ‘Anaadi’ would have been sufficient and there is no necessity of adding a possessive ‘Mat’ to it. Samkara notices the difficulty and gives the excuse that it is for the sake of completing the sloka. Ramanuja’s interpretation has the support of a tradition that goes to pre-Samkara times as is indicated by the fact that Samkara notes this interpretation…..(p.24) This is more or less a problem in textual criticism, but before Samkara the words were so divided and interpreted. Considering the spirit of the Bhagavadgita, Ramajuna appears to be nearer the truth. Samkara’s interpretation is actuated by a desire to prove that Brahman is Nirguna and Highest.³⁰ Likewise before quoting to support any claim from Hindu scripture pointing towards Muktinath, we should be careful to remain faithful to the text and avoid any kind of text torturing. Just hijacking one sloka or mantra from any Hindu scripture and super-imposing one’s own interpretation to ‘derive’ a personal meaning will distort the truth of both the tradition. I also told him, as most of the Hindu (main) scriptures are available online, find out the sloka (in translation) and read the entire chapter to know the textual context of that sloka or mantra. Then Basava asked is there any specific reference clearly indicating about the Lord in any Hindu scripture, I said that there are few references in Bhavishya Purana. But we should keep in mind what Prof. Kane says about such Puranas: After the 9th century no further Mahapuranas appear, but additional matter appears to have been unscrupulously inserted in several Puranas, the worst example of the kind being the third part of the Bhavisya {purana}, which contains stories of Adam and Eve, of Prthviraja and Jaicandra, Taimur, Akbar, Caitanya, Bhattoji, Nadirshah and so on. …When purana came to mean a work dealing with ancient tales, to speak of a Bhavisyat-purana was apparently a contradiction in terms. That contradiction was probably not minded or was ignored by the thought that works that narrated old tales gradually came to include comparatively recent ones and had therefore to adopt a prophetic style of composition with reference to the latter.³¹ It is worth noting what Kane warns about the Puranas to derive any historical conclusion: …None of the extant Puranas can claim to be older than the 3rd or 4th century A.D….Many of the (p.622) legends contained in the puranas were meant for the entertainment of common people, just as even in these days millions in Western countries read with relish detective stories and crime club fiction. Some pauranic legends had a serious purpose in view viz., emphasizing religious or philosophical dogma or moral values and standards and were clothed in a supernatural garb to make them striking and effective. Only a few legends have some historical basis, but the latter is evidently smothered in a mass of exaggerations and prejudices for or against a hero, or a caste, class, tribe or family. It is hardly fair to draw far-reaching historical conclusions from heterogeneous materials in the puranas about the conditions of things that prevailed several hundred or thousands of years before they were compiled….³² So as I said before, it is not enough to give the reference to the slokas and mantras from Hindu scripture but they should give the information about the author and publisher so that we can cross check the authenticity of those references. But my humble suggestion is not to waste our time in investigating those things in order to challenge such Christian activities. We can invest our time in a more useful manner. After briefly sharing a few points about sacrifice from Hindu scriptures and tradition, I resist the temptation to trace out all the various details about sacrifice in Muktiveda, particularly in Purvaveda (OT), which is beyond the scope of this paper and my ability. Above all, as bhaktas of the Lord, one should strive to take time to read and understand the various connotations related with sacrifice in Muktiveda than served readymade through an article. Saying ‘I have no time’ is just an excuse. If you want to be a serious (and also sincere) student of scripture, you should take time to read and understand. However to encourage such study I am giving only a few important points from ‘John H. Walton; Victor H. Matthews & Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament, Downers Grove, Illinois, 2000’ hoping that every bhakta will take time to read and understand herself from the Muktiveda and also from scholarly commentaries. I am also giving an interesting account how the killing of an animal is done in a yajna from Kane following it. Conclusion What is my take in understanding sacrifice both in Hindu traditions and the Muktiveda? My bhakti in the Lord does not depend upon this. In fact, born in a Brahmin family, any act of bloodletting is an abhorrence for me. What I cannot understand is the ‘single window’ gospel that is presented before the Hindus about the Lord and Mukti based on the atonement of the Lord alone. Of course it is important for us to understand it clearly as it is the central teaching in Muktiveda. But it need not be the starting point for God to interfere in our life through Muktinath or for us to grow in our bhakti in the Lord. Even if I studied all these details, still it is not very clear what is presented in the Uttara Veda (NT) about the sacrifice of the Lord as atonement for us and the role of various sacrifices that is explained in the Purvaveda (OT). And which one is replaced by the Lord? Sin-offering, substitution, redemption, ransom, propitiation, appeasement of the wrath of God (for His righteous indignation) and prayaschiita are some terms which won’t neatly fit with the death of the Lord for our substitute. All these have different context and meaning in the sacrificial institution of the Israel.³³ How the disciples and the early bhaktas (particularly in Hebrew) understood and interpreted becomes important for our understanding. The following points which I gleaned randomly from Walton will help us to understand this complexity in the sacrificial institution of the Israel: …The concept of substitution in sacrifice is not as common as we might think….—p. 53, pp.122-23; … Redemption of the firstborn and Passover would be notable exceptions on the fringe of the sacrificial institution.—p. 53 … blood served as a purifying element. And not to ward off evil power….—p. 85, pp.155-56 Animal killed in sacrifice is not necessarily for ‘atonement’ rather for ‘purification’….—p. 120 Sacrifices are done not to feed God—p. 122, 181, 184, 423, 514, 584-85 …one who is offering these sacrifices seeks reconciliation with God, not pardon from punishment.—p. 123 Regular offerings are for forgiveness whereas scapegoat and annual ritual along with it is to dispose the sin of the people—Lev. 16:6-10, p.131 Sacrifice is done only in the tabernacle or in temple related to ritual and not outside it. At the same time temple is not constructed to perform sacrifice but sacrifices were done there to maintain the temple.—132, 513 Burnt offerings and fellowship offerings are… served as an opportunity for festive celebration and a communal meal before the Lord….— ibid. 1 SAMUEL p.295 …. We know that Israel’s worship centered around sacred space (the temple), sacred times (Sabbath, festivals), sacred rituals (sacrifice) and sacred words (prayers)…..—comments on Psalms, p. 513 …In Israel we should think in terms not of sins being eternally removed but of the sacrifices cleansing ways the desecration of God’s presence caused by sin (see comment no Lev 1:4, “atonement”)….—p. 531 34:18 …cutting a calf in two. The ritual of severing an animal body as part of a covenant-making ceremony is found only here and in Genesis 15:9-10….—p. 668 Any clear understanding based on the Muktiveda is not going to be very simple in any doctrinal matter. For example, based on Walton’s comments, ‘substitution is not common in sacrifice’ (p. 53, 122-23), ‘redemption and Passover’ are notable exceptions (p. 53); animals killed in sacrifice is for purification and not for atonement (p. 120); sacrifice is rather seeking reconciliation than seeking pardon for punishment (p. 123); ‘scapegoat’ and annual sacrifice is to dispose the sin (and not seeking forgiveness?) (p. 123); sacrifices cleanse ways the desecration of God’s presence caused by sin and not to remove sin (p. 513); Lord’s death is not the ritual of severing an animal body in covenant (p. 668); finally as He was killed outside the temple, it does not technically represents the sacrifice done in the presence of God either in the tabernacle or temple (p. 513). But for the early bhaktas, our Lord’s death represents all of them and even goes beyond it. For me in the Lord I found the guru whom I was searching and there begins my bhakti/faith. The rest are for me to understand the various doctrinal aspects related to Muktiveda. But they all are not important for me to keep my bhakti alive in the Lord or to grow in Him. They may enhance my understanding of Muktiveda but are not necessary for my bhakti in Him. Realizing this, we too need to remain open to the way God would reveal His grace in others life. But we cannot put any limit on it because of our experience or understanding alone—particularly in Muktiveda. Aug 20, 2016 Notes 1.. “I give to thee –do thou give to me” is the key to be of many hymns. When sacrifice got prominence even gods dependent upon the acts and will of men, especially of those men who were familiar with the ancient songs and the conduct of the sacrifice-the Priests.— The Teaching of the Vedas, Maurice Phillips, London Mission, Madras, Longmans, Green And Co, 1895 2.. The sacrifice is indeed called the food of the gods (SB. 8,1,2,10 yajna u devaanaam annam; similarly, 11,1,8,2) and their self or principle of life (14,3,2,1sarvesaam devaanaam aatmaa); 8,6,1,10 etc.).— Change and Continuity in Indian Religion, J. Gonda, Munshiram Manoharlal, New Delhi, (1965) 1985, p.67 3.. … The earlier portions of the Veda teach mainly a sacrificial religion. If is no doubt true that the sacrificial religion of the Brahmans is commercial and utilitarian based on the principle of reciprocity as between men and God. This is the principle underlying Vedic ritualism, which marks the beginnings of religion. The beneficent Gods had to be pleased and maleficent Gods had to be appeased. And the recognized mode of pleasing and appeasing was the sacrifice. The essence of sacrifice is to surrender (tyaga) one’s substance to God, though at first for a selfish purpose with faith (sraddha).— T,M,P. MAHADEVAN, OUTLINES OF HINDUISM,Bombay, Chetana Limited, pp. 41-43 4.. …if the sacrifices were performed with the strictest accuracy, then the material advantages for which they were performed were bound to come regardless of the good will or the ill will of the gods to whom the prayers were offered—— S.N. Dasgupta, HINDU MYSTICISM, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, (1927), 1992 p.6 …For with the Vedic people, the sacrifices were more powerful than the gods….—— S.N. Dasgupta, HINDU MYSTICISM, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, (1927), 1992 p.6 5.. …Yaaga [sacrifice] is constituted by dravya [material], devataa [deity] and tyaagaand yaaga means abandonment of dravya intending it for a deity; homa means the offering of dravya in the fire intending it for a deity….- P.V.Kane, History ofDharmasaastra, Vol.II. Part.II. Ch.XXIX. p.983. 6.. One feature of Vedic sacrifice is the great importance of controlling the language of the Vedic mantra, because the efficacy of the ritual depended on the exactness with which the mantra was uttered. Accordingly, no less than four of the Vedic sciences {Vedangas} are concerned with linguistic issues (phonetics, meter, etymology, and grammar), and linguistic analysis was the subject in which ancient Indian Civilization was more advanced than any other….—— Thomas R. TrautmannIndia: Brief History of a Civilization. New Delhi, Oxford, 2011. p. 120 I am thankful for this information to Dr. Hoefer. Personal communication through email, dt. 21-6-2016 8.. …Aap.Dh.S. gives the following interesting information: “Formerly men and gods lived together in this world. The gods went to heaven owing to sacrifices (i.e. as a reward of sacrifices that they performed), but men remained behind…–Kane, op. Cit. vol. IV, Ch. IX. p. 349. This is from Satapata Brahmana, ‘The sacrifice fled away from the gods. They gods called out after it, ‘Listen (aa-sru) to us! Come back to us!’ It replied, ‘So be it!’ and returned to the gods; and with what had thus returned to them, the gods worshipped; and by worshipping with it they became the gods they now are. [1.5.2.6.]— Julius Eggeling, trs. Satapatha- Brahmana. Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, (1882), 1988, Sacred Books of the East. Ed. F. Max Morigins of modern posture practice, Mark Singleton. uller, Vol. 12, According to the text of the Maadhyandina school. Part I, Books I and II, p. 140 9.. …Then there is the story (SB 1.6.2.1-3) of the gods who managed to get to heaven by means of the sacrifice. Prior to that they had lived on earth in the company of humans. In an effort to prevent humans from following them to heaven, the gods erased all traces of the sacrifice on earth. The seers, however, searched for the sacrifice by praising (arcanath) and toiling (sramyantah), “for by toil (srama) the gods indeed gained what they desired to gain, and so did the seers”…— Patrick Olivelle, The Asrama system The History and Hermeneutics of a Religious InstitutionNew York, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993, p. 10 vid. Satapata Brahmana, ‘‘Verily, by means of the sacrifice the gods gained this conquest. When they had conquered, they said, “How may this (celestial region) be made unattainable by men?” They then sipped the sap of the sacrifice, as bees would suck out honey; and having drained the sacrifice and effaced the traces of it with the (sacrificial) post, they concealed themselves.’ They (the Rishis) thereupon set about searching for it. [1.6.2.3]— Eggeling, op. cit. Part I, Books I and II, p. 161. Also see: 2.5.4.11, 3.1.4.3 10.. The highest fruit of sacrifice is haven. (p.48).… The universality of death does not mean a universality of heaven. Only those who perform sacrifices that is, only the loyal members of the Vedic community are admitted. Those who do not sacrifice are thrown down by Varuna into a dark abyss from which they never return.[ RV IV, 5, 5.] (p.50 )—Klaus K. Klostermaier, MYTHOLOGIES AND PHILOSOPHIES OF SALVATION IN THE THEISTIC TRADITIONS OF INDIA, Published for the Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion/Corporation Canadienne des Sciences Religieuses by Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984, pp. 48 & 50 11.. Yajna is the “act of rta”—it has its power because of this. Thus the effect of the sacrifice is due to an immanent power, a power which is also present in tapas. Yajnaand tapas are the two great means to control cosmic power. Yajna, therefore, is not an act of submission to the gods but an entering into the stream of power circulating through all beings. Through yajna man himself becomes powerful, and also through tapas. Anrtya, sin, makes man weak to get rid of sin man has again to perform yajna. The function of yajna is understood in the Upanisads as the function of truth: “When a sin is confessed, it becomes less-since is becomes truth.”[Brahadaranyaka Upanisad II, 5,2,20.] —Klaus K. Klostermaier, MYTHOLOGIES AND PHILOSOPHIES OF SALVATION IN THE THEISTIC TRADITIONS OF INDIA, Published for the Canadian Corporation for Studies in Religion/Corporation Canadienne des Sciences Religieuses by Wilfrid Laurier University Press, 1984, p.48 …At a more philosophical level, the universal order itself was continually recreated, and chaos averted, through the sacrifice.— Thomas R. Trautmann India: Brief History of a Civilization. New Delhi, Oxford, 2011. p. 34 …Vanaparva [Mahabharata,303.16] says ‘a brahmana {Brahmin} is the highest light, he is the highest tapas; the sun shines in heaven on account of the salutations made by the brahmin.’ This and similar dicta closely follow what was expressed in the Vedic period long before e.g. ‘the sun would not rise if the brahmana did not make sacrifice’ [Satapatha Brahmana, II.3.1.5]….—Kane, op. cit. Vol. II. Part. I. p.136. vid. Satapata Brahmana, 13.. …The Visnu Dharma Sutra [19.20-22] says ‘the gods are invisible deities, but brahmins are visible deities; the worlds are supported by brahmin; the gods stay in heaven by the favour of brahmin; words spoken by brahmin never come to be untrue’….— P.V.Kane, History of Dharmasaastra, p. Vol. II. Part. I. p. 136 and ‘Verily, there are two kinds of gods; for, indeed, the gods are the gods; and the Brahmans who have studied and teach sacred lore are the human gods….[2.2.2.6.]— Eggeling, op. cit. Part I, Books I and II, p. 309. 14.. In fact Satapata Brahmana goes even to the extent of promising heaven by giving gifts to the Brahmins: ‘Now, truly, there are two kinds of gods; for the gods, forsooth, are the gods; and the learned Brahmans versed in sacred lore are the human gods. And the sacrifice to them is twofold, oblations (being the sacrifice) to the gods, and gifts to the priests being that to the human gods, to the learned Brahmans versed in sacred lore. With oblations, forsooth, one gratifies the gods, and with gifts to the priests the human gods, the learned Brahmans versed in sacred lore. These two kinds of gods, when gratified, convey him to the heavenly world.[4.3.4.4.]— Eggeling, op. cit. Part 2, Books III and IV, (1885), Reprint 1988, p. 341 15.. Kaamyaah Pasavah:-Just as several kaamyaistis were prescribed for securing various desired objects so various animal [p.1131] sacrifices are found in the texts prescribed for the attainment of such objects as prosperity, villages, eloquence etc. Tai.S. [II.1.1-10] refers to several such sacrifices. For example, Tai.S.II.1.1.1 says ‘one who is desirous of prosperity should offer a white pasu to Vayuu; one who is desirous of a village should sacrifice an animal to Vayuu Niyutvat; one who having command over speech or words is not able to speak eloquently should offer an ewe to Sarasvatii’ [II.1.2.6]….-Kane, op. Cit. Vol. II. Part. II. p.1131-1132. 16.. For obvious reason, I am not giving the detailed information about this, as the way it is described is very graphic. Those who are interested to know the details can refer, Patrick Olivelle, The Asrama system The History and Hermeneutics of a Religious Institution New York, Oxford, Oxford University Press, 1993, p.45 and for real ‘hot’ stuff, Wendy Doniger, The Hindus An Alternative History, New Delhi, Penguin/Viking. 2009, p. 177. 17.. Cremation a Sacrifice: When the preliminaries are finished, the cremation begins, which is regarded as an offering into the Sacred Fire, conducing the corpse to heaven as a sacrificial gift [A.G.S.iv.1-2; Bh.G.S.i.2]. When the pile is ready to be lighted, a fire is applied to it with the prayer, “Agni (p.253) consume not this body to cinders; nor give it pain, nor scatter about its skin or limbs! O Jaatavedas, when the body is fairly burnt, convey the spirit to its ancestors.” [R.V.x.16.1]. The prayer is followed by an address to the organs of the dead which runs as follows: “May the organ of vision proceed to the sun; may the vital air merge in the atmosphere; mayest thou proceed, according to the virtuous deeds to heaven or earth or the regions of water, whichever place is beneficial to thee; mayest thou there, provide with food, exist in corporeal existence.’ [A.V.xviii.2.7]. This is a touching scene when the survivors send off their dead relative to the next world for ever but with every solicitude for his or her future happiness.— Rajbali Pandey, Hindu Samskaras: Socio-Religious Study of the Hindu Sacraments, Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, (Second Revised Edition, 1969), Reprint, 1987, pp.253-4 18.. 15. Elephants are the Ritwijas of that sacrifice [war], and horses are its Addhyaryus. The flesh of foes are its libations, and blood is its liquid offering….17. Masses of blazing, sharp, and well-tempered lances and spears, of swords and darts and axes form the ladles of the sacrifices….19. Sheathed in scabbard made of tiger skin and equip with in ivory handle, and capable of cutting off the elephant’s trunk, the sword forms the wooden-sticks of this sacrifice….21. The blood that runs over the field for the fury of the attack, forms the final libation…. 22. ‘Cut, Pierce,’ and such other sounds, that are heard in the front ranks of the army, are the Samanssung by its Vedic chaunters in the abode of Yama. 23. The front ranks of the enemy’s army form the vessel for keeping libations. The number of elephant and horses and men equip with shields form the Shyenachit fire of that sacrifice. 24. The headless trunks that rise up after thousands have been killed form the octagonal stake, made of Khadira (p. 144) wood, for the hero who celebrates that sacrifice. 25. The cries of the elephant when urged on with hooks, form its Ida Mantras. The kettle-drums, with the striking of palms forming the Vashats…are its Trisaman Udgatri…26-37. The sages have said that that warrior, who considers the van of the hostile army as the quarters of his wives, who regards the van of his own army as the vessel for the preservation of sacrificial offerings, who takes the warriors standing to his south for his courtiers and those to his north as his holders of fire, and who regards the hostile army as his married wife, succeeds in acquiring all regions of felicity. 38. The open space, lying between two armies drawn up for fight, forms the altar of such a sacrificer, and the three Vedas are his three sacrificial fires. Upon that altar, helped by the recitation of the Vedas, he celebrates his sacrifice. [Indra to Amvarisha]— M.N.[Manmatha Nath] Dutt, Mahabharata, Delhi, Parimala Publications, 7 vols. 1988, Shanti Parva, Ch. XCVIII, 5. P. 145: 19.. From early Vedic times five daily observances called mahaayajnas were prescribed. The Sat.Br. [XI.5.6.1] says `there are only five mahaayajnas, they are like great sacrificial sessions, viz. the sacrifice to beings, the sacrifice to men, the sacrifice to the Fathers, the sacrifice to the gods, the sacrifice to brahman [Veda]’…[p.696] According to Manu III.68-71, Visnu Dh.S.59.19-20, Sankha V.1-2, Haariita, Matsyapuraana 52. 15-16 and others every householder causes injury or death to sentient beings every day in five places, viz. the hearth, the grinding mill, broomstick, winnowing basket and similar household gear, mortar and pestle, and water-jar. The five dailyyajnas were devised by the great sages as atonements for the sins arising from these five sources of injury to life. These five are: brahmayajna which consists in the study and teaching of the Veda, pitryajna which consists of tarpana, daivayajna which consists in offerings made into fire, bhuutayajna which is offering oblations to beings and manusyayajna which consists in honouring guests. He who performs these daily according to his means is never tainted by the sin of the injuries arising from the five places mentioned above…-Kane, op. Cit. Vol. II. Part. I. Ch. XVII. Panca–Mahaayajnas. pp.696-698. —…(pancha maha–yajnas). These five sacrifices are intended to expiate the sins committed by a grihastha, and which, as a grihastha, he cannot but help committing, at the five ‘slaughter-houses”, as it were, which exist in each home, viz., the hearth (chulli), the grinding-stone (peshani), the broom (upaskarah), the pestle and mortar, and the water-vessel. While using these implements and tools in the home, he would wittingly or unwittingly cause destruction of so many creatures, like ants, worms, etc…..— Pandharinath H. Prabhu, Hindu Social Organization: A Study in Socio-Psychological and Indeological Foundations, Bombay, Popular Prakashan, [1940], Reprint 2004, p. 212 20.. Sexual intercourse between a man and a woman [that are strangers to the sacrifice] takes place in a screened shed to the south of the maarjaaliiya shed [according to Kaat.XIII. 3.9] This probably is a symbol for indicating creation of the world by Prajaapati to whom the mahaavrata specially appertains…-Kane, op. cit. Vol. II. Part. II. p.1244. 21.. …The crowned queen lies down by the side of the dead horse and both are covered by the adhvaryu with the mantle on which the horse lies and she unites with it [Aap.XXII.18.3-4, Kaat.XX.6.15-16]. The according to Aasv.X.8.10-13 outside thevedi the hotr abuses the crowned queen in obscene language and [p.1234] she returns the abuse along with her one hundred attendant princesses and the brahmaapriest and the favourite wife enter into a similar obscene abuse. According to Kaat.XX.6.18 the four principal priests and the chamberlain enter into an obscene abusive dialogue [given in Vaaj.s.XXIII.22-31] with the queens along with their young female attendants. Vide Sat.Br.XIII.2.9 and Laat.IX.10.3-6. The attendant princesses raise the crowned queen from near the horse with ‘dadhikraavno‘ [Rg.IV.39.6= Vaaj.S.XXIII.32] [p.1235]… the origin of the [Asvamedha] rite is obscure. In it several popular, religious and symbolical elements are inextricably blended and some rites like the queen lying down near the dead horse must be regarded as unaccountable survivals from the hoary past. Various theories have been advanced to account for the origin, but there is, as is to be expected, no agreement among scholars. Vide S.B.E. vol. 44. pp. XVIII-XXXIII, Prof. Keith’s Introduction to Tai.S. pp. CXXXII ff. and ‘Religion and Philosophy of the Veda‘ Part 2 pp.345-347 for the several theories of European scholars. [p.1237]…The description of the sacrifice follows the general outline given above. But there is hardly any detailed or graphic description of the special features of asvamedha and one rather carries the impression that the author [of the Mahaabhaarata] does not depict what he has seen but only what he has heard or read…Draupadii was made to lie by the dead horse [Asvamedhika parva 89.2-3]. There are several points of difference…-ibid. Vol. II. Part. II. pp.1234-38. See also, Eggeling, op. cit.13.5.2.2., Part V, Books XI, XII, XIII and XIV. (1900), 1988,p. 386 22.. …Before the horse was dismembered and the various parts of its body offered to different deities, the king’s wife would symbolically copulate with the dead stallion: divine power from the horse–who is also identified with the deity Prajapati–entering the queen and thereby entering the king and the people.— Gavin Flood, An introduction to Hinduism, Cambridge University Press, 1996, p.44. The importance of Horse sacrifice can be noted by the fact that, ‘…and this, indeed, is the atonement for everything, the remedy for everything. Thereby the gods redeem all sin, yea, even the slaying of a Brahman they thereby redeem; and he who performs the Asvamedha redeems all sin, he redeems the slaying of a Brahman. [13.3.1.1.]— Eggeling, op. cit. Part V, Books XI, XII, XIII and XIV. (1900), 1988, 23.. When the sacrificial victim was consigned to the fire, the following formula was addressed to it, “Thou are the annulment of sins committed by the gods. Thou are the annulment of sins committed by the Fathers. Thou are the annulment of sins committed by men. Thou art the annulment of sins committed by ourselves. Whatever sins we have committed by day or by night, thou art the annulment thereof. Whatever sins we have committed sleeping or waking, thou art the annulment thereof. Whatever sins we have committed knowing or unknowing, thou art the annulment thereof. Whatever sins we have (p.191) committed sleeping or waking, thou art the annulment thereof. Whatever sins we have committed knowing or unknowing, thou art the annulment thereof. Thou are the annulment of sin”.(Tandya Br.) – Maurice Phillips, The Teaching of the Vedas, London Mission, Madras, Longmans, Green and Co, 1895, pp. 191-92. In fact confession of sin is part of yajna ritual also. Vide Satapata Brahmana: He offers in the southern fire, with the text (III, 45), ‘Whatever (sin we have committed) in the village and forest,’—for both in the village and in the forest sin is committed;–‘whatever in society and in our own self,’—by ‘whatever (we have committed) in society,’ he means to say ‘against man;’ and by ‘whatever in our own self’ (indriya), he means to say, ‘against the gods;’—‘whatever sin we have here committed, that we expiate by offering, Svaahaa!’—whereby he says ‘whatsoever sin we have committed, from all that we rid ourselves.’[2.5.2.25]— Eggeling, op. cit. Part I, Books I and II, pp.398-99. See further, 12.9.2-4, Part V, Books XI, XII, XIII and XIV. (1900), 1988, pp. 265-66 24..Kane, op. cit. vol. IV. p. 44. 25.. The Renouncer Tradition, Patrick Olivelle, in The Blackwell Companion to Hinduism, Gavin Flood (ed.), UK, Blackwell Publishing Ltd, Indian Reprint 2003, p. 276. Note the following comments by Dr. Hofer, ‘In contrast, I agree with you that Phillips is making a huge mistake in projecting that God initiated the Old Testament rituals as predictions of Christ’s sacrifice. He works within the understanding and mentality of the times: What did these practices mean to the people of the time in terms of their worldview?—Personal communication through email dt. 21-06-2016 27.. Maurice Phillips, The Teaching of the Vedas, London Mission, Madras, Longmans, Green and Co, 1895, pp. 223-24 28a.. NAAMA DRURY, THE SACRIFICIAL RITUAL IN THE SATAPATHA BRAHMANA, Delhi, Mothilal Banarasidass, 1981, p. 17 Kane gives further detail about this: …The adhvaryu throws one of the two blades taken up by him to the west of thesaamitra fire, the victim is held over that blade with its head to the west [or to the east, according to Kaat.VI.5.17] and feet to the north. Then its mouth is firmly held so as to stop its breathing and choke it to death or it is strangled to death without allowing it to give out a cry by using a halter round its throat. The adhvaryu says ‘kill it without allowing it to utter a cry’ and then he along with the pratiprasthaatr, aagniidhra and the sacrificer come back to the aahavaniiya which they face, turn from left to right and remain with their backs to the animal that is being killed [i.e. they do not see the actual slaying of the animal [p.1122]…There is some divergence as to the limbs of the victim that are cut off and are used as avadaanas and since animal sacrifices became rare or were altogether stopped in medieval times, the commentators do not explain all the words used in the ancient texts in the same way [vide Aap.VII.22.6, Kaat.VI.7.6-12 and Baud.IV.8] [p.1126]…—Kane, op. cit. Vol. II. Part.II. Ch.XXXII. Pasubandha., pp. 1122 & 1126. And Sarma’s accounts gives the contemporary information further, ‘…My father said that, during the fire ceremonies, the sacrificial beast—that is, the goat—is killed by sealing its nine holes; he said it was called shaamitam. During the ceremonies, Sudras are made to kill the beast. In some places, Brahmin shaamitam prevails; but it is rare. The sacrifice takes place in secrecy, during the ceremony. In the fire altar, the meat is wastefully burnt away….’—— Rani Siva Sankara Sarma, The Last Brahmin: Life and Reflections of a Modern-day Sanskrit Pandit.. Translated y D. Venkat Rao. Ranikhet. Permanent Black. (2007) First paperback 2012. . Originally published in Telugu, edited by Aruna and Sauda (Hyderabad: New Syllabus, 2002). p. 97 28b..It is beyond the scope of this article or my ability to take the points by several scholars on this subject which is recorded in a dialogue on scholarly level in Andreas Bsthe (ed.), Hinduism questioning Christianity: Christian Faith in the Encounter with Hinduism, vol. 1, Modling, 2007, St Gabriedl Publications, originally first published in German: A. Bsteh (ed.,), Der Hinduismus als Anfrage an christliche Theologie und Philosophie (Studien Zur Religionstheologies; 3). Modling, 1997, Translation by Ingeborg Bogensberge, Vienna, in cooperation with John MMercer and Adrianne Nagy DaPonte, Boston, 28c..In fact, in the present (orthodox) Hinduism, even the actual animal is replaced as Oberhammer says: ‘…With regard to the real sacrificial performance, however, there are difficulties, because the Hindu is forbidden to kill animals. In Pune, in the 1950s and 1960s, in performing sacrifices of this kind, the solution was to make animals out of dough and then also to kill them in this form.’—ibid. Jan C. Heesterman, The Vedic Sacrifice, Questions and Interventions, [Study Group 1], pp. 11-42, p.26 29.. Toward Freedom; The Autobiography of Jawaharlal Nehru. Copyright 1941 by the John Day Company. Boston. First published as a Beacon paperback in 1958, p. 225 30.. T. G. Mainkar, Comparative Study of the Commentaries on The Bhagavadgita, New Delhi, Motilal Banarsidass, 2^nd Edition, 1969, pp. 24-25 31.. Kane, op. cit. Vol. V, Part II,. p. 855. 32.. ibid. vol. IV. Ch. XIII. pp. 622-23 33.. Even in Israel there is little to suggest that the sacrificial institution was understood to have a principally vicarious or subtitutionary element. Redemption of the firstborn and Passover would be notable exceptions on the fringe of the sacrificial institution.— John H. Walton; Victor H. Matthews & Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament, Downers Grove, Illinois, 2000, GENESIS p.53 From Walton:

From Walton:

22:13-19. sacrifice as replacement. In this section the ram is offered as a sacrifice in the place of Isaac. The concept of substitution in sacrifice is not as common as we might think. In the ancient Near East the sympathetic magic of incantation rituals would often include substitution of an animal that would be killed to remove a threat to the human subject. But the concept behind the regular institution of sacrifice was generally either to offer a gift to deity or to establish communion with deity. Even in Israel there is little to suggest that the sacrificial institution was understood to have a principally vicarious or subtitutionary element. Redemption of the firstborn and Passover would be notable exceptions on the fringe of the sacrificial institution.— John H. Walton; Victor H. Matthews & Mark W. Chavalas, The IVP Bible Background Commentary, Old Testament, Downers Grove, Illinois, 2000, GENESIS p.53

12:7. function of blood. In primitive religions blood is often used to ward off evil powers, whereas in Israelite ritual the blood served as a purifying element. While the former could certainly have been superstitiously believed by Israelites who retained these primitive elements in their religious thought and practice, the latter was the intended function. Door frames of Mesopotamian houses were often painted red because the color was believed to ward off demons.—ibid. EXODUS, p.85

1:2. animal sacrifice. … The history of animal sacrifice is difficult to trace. Earliest Sumerian literature, specifically the Lugalbanda Epic, attests that sacrifices (better considered “ritual slaughter”) originated as a means of permitting meat consumption. Sharing the meat with the deity allowed people to slaughter the animal for their food. Earliest archaeological evidence for sacrifice comes from the altars of the Ubaid period in fourth millennium B.C. Mesopotamia. Through most of Assyrian and Babylonian history, ritual slaughter was carried out in order to obtain the entrails, believed to provide omens.—ibid. LEVITICUS,p.120

1:4. atonement. … Many scholars now agree, however, that “atonement” is not the best translation for the concept on either the ritual or the theological level. Perhaps most convincing is the fact that in the ritual texts the object of “atonement” is neither the sin nor the person, but a holy object connected with God’s presence, such as the ark or the altar. A second important observation is that in a number of cases this “atonement” is necessary even though no sin has been committed (for instance, the ritual impurity of women each month). For these and other reasons recent scholars have preferred “purification” or, more technically, “purgation,” as the translation. So the altar would be purged on behalf of the offerer whose sin or impurity had ritually tarnished it. The purpose was to maintain the sanctity of God’s presence in their midst. The ritual, like a disinfectant, is normally remedial, but it can be preventative. The agent is usually blood, but not always. This decontamination of the sanctuary renders the offerer clean and paves the way for his reconciliation with God. The purging of objects (including cities, houses, temples and persons) from ritual contamination or evil influence by wiping or rubbing on a substance is also known in ancient Near Eastern practice, though these are mainly magical rites.—ibid. LEVITICUS, p.120

1:5. importance of blood. Blood serves as the mechanism for ritual cleansing in Israel—a concept not shared by its ancient Near Eastern neighbors….—ibid. LEVITICUS, p.120

3:11. burned “as food.” The language here again shows that the sacrificial terms used in Israel were influenced by non-Israelite notions of sacrifice. It is clear from passages such as Psalm 50:12-13 that the Israelites were not to consider sacrifices as food needed by God. Since the terminology is used only in this particular offering, perhaps it represents God’s inclusion in the communal meal more than the meeting of any need for nourishment.—ibid. LEVITICUS, p.122

4:4-12. laying on of the hands. The laying on of the hand is an important part of the sacrificial ritual. It is not designed to transfer sin, for it is used in sacrifices that do not deal with sin. Other possibilities are that the offerer in (p.122) some way identifies with the animal, perhaps as his substitute, or identifies the animal as belonging to him. Most occurrences of the ritual confirm that either transferring or designating is taking place (or both), but it is not always clear what is being transferred or designated, and it may vary from one situation to another.—ibid. LEVITICUS, pp.122-23

4:13-32. forgiveness. Forgiveness is the intended result of the purification and reparation offerings. The verb forgive has only God as the subject, never humans, and does not rule out punishment (see Num 14:19-24). We must therefore conclude that the concept concerns relationship rather than the judicial issue of punishment. The one who is offering these sacrifices seeks reconciliation with God, not pardon from punishment.—ibid. LEVITICUS, p.123

16:6-10. purpose of the day. Though other cultures of the ancient Near East have rituals to dispose of evil, in all of those the evil is of a ritual or demonic nature, while in Israel all of the sins of the people are included…. The sins are placed on the head of the “scapegoat,” which carries them away. The goal of the regular purification offerings was forgiveness. In contrast, this annual ritual is intended to dispose of the sins of the people.—ibid. LEVITICUS, p.131

16:8. Azazel. The Hebrew word translated “scapegoat” is azazel. This translation results in dividing the Hebrew word into two words—an unlikely solution. Since verse 8 identifies one goat as “for Yahweh” and the other goat as “for Azazel,” it is most consistent to consider Azazel a proper name, probably of a demon. Early Jewish interpreters had this understanding, as is demonstrated in the book of Enoch (second century B.C.). This goat is not sacrificed to Azazel (consistent with 17:7) but released “to Azazel” (v.26). Babylonians believed in alu-demons that lived in deserted wasteland, and this may be a similar concept. In Ebla tablets there is a purification rite for a mausoleum using a goat which is then released into the steppe country.—ibid. LEVITICUS, p.131

16:8. scapegoat concept in the ancient Near east. … the Israelite practice shows no intention to appease the anger of deity or demons, whereas this is the most common motivation of the ancient Near Eastern rituals.—ibid. LEVITICUS, p.131

17:4. guilty of bloodshed. Domestic animals suitable for sacrifice could not be ritually slaughtered for fellowship offerings except at the tabernacle/temple. This prohibition would help prevent the offering of these sacrifices to other gods or at unapproved shrines. It would also hinder the concept that the blood of an animal slaughtered away from the sanctuary could be considered as appeasing netherworld deities. It was this spilling of blood in illicit rituals that the individual would be guilty of.— ibid. LEVITICUS, p.132

19:2-10. significance of the red heifer. The animal designated for sacrifice and whose blood will be mixed with ashes to serve as a means of purifying persons who have come in contact with the dead is a young cow. The color red may symbolize blood , but that is uncertain…. (p.155) The blood and the innocence of the animal are the keys to purification.— ibid. LEVITICUS, pp.155-56

10:17. gods accepting bribes. In the religious beliefs of the ancient Near East the gods could be manipulated because they were believed to have needs. Sacrifice and temple upkeep were part of a program of taking care of them and feeding them. By providing the food, clothing and shelter that the gods needed, an individual could win the favor of the deity. This text makes it clear that Yahweh is not to be thought of in the same way as the gods of Israel’s neighbors. This also reflects the picture of Yahweh as a just judge who refuses to distort justice for personal gain.— ibid. DEUTERONOMY, p.181

12:20. eating meat. The promise that the Israelites would be able to eat their fill of meat is tied to the covenantal promise of land and fertility. This society, however, was generally never so rich in animals that they could be slaughtered indiscriminately. Animal sacrifice was therefore both a sacred and a solemn occasion. The meat of the sacrifice might be the only meat eaten for weeks at a time.— ibid. DEUTERONOMY,p.183

14:6-10. criteria for classification of animals. … A popular traditional explanation suggested that the animals prohibited had some connection to non-Israelite rituals. In fact, however, the sacrificial practices of Israel’s neighbors appear strikingly similar to Israel’s. A recent promising suggestion is that the Israelite diet is modeled after God’s “diet”—that is, if it could not be offered in sacrifice to God, then it was not suitable for human consumption either.— ibid. DEUTERONOMY,p.184

11:31. burnt offering. In all of the over 250 occurrences of the term used here, it refers to an actual sacrifice literally burnt on an altar. It is never used figuratively or symbolically…. It is the word used in Genesis 2:2 and in 2 Kings 3:27, where human sacrifice is in view.—ibid. JUDGES p. 263

9:13. blessing the sacrifice. No other passage in the Old Testament speaks of blessing the sacrifice. Blessing is usually the offering of kind words that it is hoped the deity will bring about. Since sacrifices were often associated with petitions, Samuel’s blessing may have reflected the hope that the petition be granted.— ibid. 1 SAMUEL p.294

10:8. purpose of sacrifices. Burnt offerings and fellowship offerings are two of the most general types of sacrifices. The former often accompanied petition, while the latter served as an opportunity for festive celebration and a communal meal before the Lord….— ibid. 1 SAMUEL p.295

2:4. consecrated bread. … This sacrifice symbolized both God’s presence as well as the promise of fertility found in the covenant. It was common practice in the ancient Near East to set food before the gods, though Israelite practice in this regard was quite different from that of her neighbors (see comment on Lev 1:1-2).—ibid. 2 CHRONICLES p.423

…. We know that Israel’s worship centered around sacred space (the temple), sacred times (Sabbath, festivals), sacred rituals (sacrifice) and sacred words (prayers)…..—comments on Psalms, p. 513

…. The temple idea was not invented so that there would be a place to offer sacrifices. Rather, several of the sacrifices existed as a means of maintaining the temple….—comments on Psalms, p. 513

… In the ancient Near East most people saw worship as serving the needs of the gods by providing them with food (sacrifice), clothing (placed on the idols) and shelter (luxurious and ornate temples). The God of Israel did not have needs, but it was still appropriate to serve him, as, for instance, the priests and Levites did.—comments on Psalms, pp.514

51:1-2. mechanism for removing sins. In the ancient Near East it was not sins that were removed but the deity who was appeased. The individual only became aware of sin when he or she experienced circumstances considered the punishment of deity. The goal then became to relieve the anger of the deity (whether such anger was believed to be justified or not). When they asked for sins to be removed (“strip off my misdeeds like a garment”), they meant that the deity should be willing to overlook their sin, put away wrath and restore his favor. The rituals that accompanied this sort of approach to deity were meant to purify the individual and pacify the deity. The ritual did not remove sin; it only enabled the individual to hope that the deity would offer absolution from the sin. In Israel we should think in terms not of sins being eternally removed but of the sacrifices cleansing ways the desecration of God’s presence caused by sin (see comment no Lev 1:4, “atonement”). The rituals paved the way for forgiveness (see comment on Lev 4:13-32). This psalm is not talking about that process (v.16). Only God’s gracious act would remove a sin for the record books. It is understood that the penitent can only ask, not demand, absolution of sins (see Ps 32:10). What is asked for is a display of God’s compassionate mercy based on the supplicant’s trust and the covenantal promise to Israel. God’s favor may then “blot out” sin in much the same way that a parchment scroll is scraped clean or a clay tablet is either washed clean (see Num 5:23) or broken….—Psalm, p.531.

51:16. no delight in sacrifice. Like Jeremiah’s direct attacks on what he considered a totally corrupt cultic system in Jerusalem (Jer 6:20; 7:4; 31:31-35), the psalmist denies the value of animal sacrifice without an ethical dimension to sustain it. The Egyptian Instruction of Merikarecontains this same sentiment: “More acceptable is the character of one upright of heart than the ox of the evildoer.”….—Psalm, p.533.

1:11. burnt offerings. … Many in the ancient world viewed sacrifice as providing food for the gods. If one had a special request to set before the gods, it was judged proper protocol to provide a meal. In Israel even though the burnt offerings were associated with petitions, the “meal for the gods” mentality had been theoretically discarded. As Isaiah and other prophets demonstrate, however, the revised view had not taken hold very firmly and there were frequent lapses into the popular (p.584) syncretism. The problem with the “feeding the gods” mentality was that it presupposed that God had needs that worshipers could meet and therefore procure his favor.—ibid. ISAIAH, pp.584-85

34:18.cutting a calf in two. The ritual of severing an animal body as part of a covenant-making ceremony is found only here and in Genesis 15:9-10 (see the comment on this passage). Ancient Near Eastern parallels from the Old Babylonian Mari letters and the eight-century Aramaic text of the Sefire Treaty between Abban and Yarimlim both describe cutting an animal in two. The symbolic aspect of this type of sacrifice is to provide a graphic picture of what would happen to the covenant-breaker….—ibid. JEREMIAH p. 668

From Kane:

The animal to be sacrificed is bathed with scented water, is led between the caatvaala andutkara and brought in front of the yuupa to the east with the animal’s face to the west. The animal is a he-goat [chaaga] which must not have a broken horn and must not be devoid of an ear or eye or tooth or tail, must not be lame nor have only seven hoofs [instead of eight, as each of the feet has two hoofs]. If the animal is defective in any one of these ways an expiatory offering of aajya has to be made to Visnu or Agni-Visnu or Sarasvatii or Brhaspati [Aap.VII.12.3]. Then follows Pasuupaakarana which may be done in two days. He takes a darbha blade other than from those spread on the vedi with ‘upaaviir-asi‘ [Vaj.S.VI.7] and touches the animal [that stands facing the west] there with the verse ‘near the gods’ [upa devaan, Vaj.S.VI.7]. Another way [according to Aap.VII.12.5-8] is: he takes two blades of kusa reciting ‘ise tvaa’ [Tai.S.I.1.1.1] and takes a branch of plaksa tree that has many leaves and twigs, that is not dry at the end and is not hollow and touches the victim with the blades and the branch and repeats the two mantras ‘upo devaan-daiviir-visah‘ and ‘prajaapater-jaayamaanaa [Tai.S.I.3.7.1 and III.1.1.4] and the words ‘I assign thee, who are dear to Indra and Agni’. Then he produces fire by churning from thearanis and offers homa in accordance with the procedure of the Vaisvadeva-parva. Aap. [VII.12.11] says that upaakarana may be done after the production of fire. He makes a loop of the [p.1116] girdle which has two strands and which is two vyaamas in length; he twines the loop round the right fore-leg of the animal and then fastens tightly the girdle on the right horn with the mantra ‘rtasya tvaa‘ [Vaaj.S.VI.8, Tai.S.I.3.8]; and ties the rasanaa [girdle] round theyuupa towards its north with ‘devasya tvaa‘ [Vaaj.S.VI.9 or Tai.S.I.3.8.1]. He sprinkles water over it with ‘adbhyas-tvausadhiibhyo‘ [Vaaj.S.VI.9]. Then he makes the victim drink water [by holding below its mouth the agnihotra-havanii filled with water] for the last time with ‘aapam perurasi‘ [Vaaj.S.VI.10, Tai.S.I.3.8.1]. Then he sprinkles water over the upper limbs and lower limbs [such as its heart and belly] and over the whole of its body. Then he performs all the procedure of thedarsa-puurnamaasa beginning from the direction to the hotr to repeat a verse when the fire is being kindled up to the prayaajas [i.e. the saamidheniis, pravara-varana by the hotr,devataahvaana, aaghaaras and pravaravarana by the adhvaryu].

The pasu is meant either for Indra-Agni or Suurya or Prajaapati and one has to dedicate the victim throughout one’s life in every pasubandha to that deity which one chooses at the first animal sacrifice [Kaat.VI.3.29-30]. He anoints the victim with aajya from the juhuu ladle on its forehead, its shoulders and its hind parts after the last aaghaara is offered [as in darsa-puurnamaasa] and before dhruvaa-samanjana [ladling aajya in the dhruvaa ladle with the juhuuthrice, once with a mantra and twice silently]. While the animal stands he offers the prayaajas,that are eleven in the pasubandha [while in darsapuurnamaasa they are only five and in caaturmaasyas they are nine][p.1117]…After ten prayaajas are offered, the adhvaryu says to the slaughterer of the victim ‘bring your two-edged knife.’ The adhvaryu takes the svaru [chip of wood] and anoints the svaru and one edge of the knife with the clarified butter from the bill-like [or spout-like] part of the juhuu ladle [according to Aap.VII. 14.10 the svaru is anointed thrice] and holding the svaru below the knife touches with both the head of the victim [forehead, according to Kaat.VI.5.12] with a mantra [Vaaj.S.VI.11, Tai.S.I.3.8.1]. After placing back the svaruwhence it was taken the adhvaryu gives the knife back to the slaughterer [samitr] with the words ‘let this edge be marked by you’ [Sat.Br.III.8.1.5]. The animal when killed is cut up by the slaughterer with the un-anointed edge and the flesh when roasted is cut up with the edge that is anointed [p.1119]…The hotr then recites the famous [but long] adhrigupraisa, which is an invocation to divine and human slaughterers [p.1121] calling upon them to bring the animal to the holy doors of the sacrificial place, wishing that the parents, relatives and friends of the victim will consent to its death and expressing the hope that its several organs and limbs, such as the eyes and ears, will be merged in divinities like the sun and giving directions as to how its parts are to be cut and disposed of. On reciting this solemn formula the hotr, while still occupying his seat, turns to the right [i.e. he comes to face the west] and has the sacrificial place behind his back and the maitraavaruna does the same. The adhvaryu throws one of the two blades taken up by him to the west of the saamitra fire, the victim is held over that blade with its head to the west [or to the east, according to Kaat.VI.5.17] and feet tot he north. Then its mouth is firmly held so as to stop its breathing and choke it to death or it is strangled to death without allowing it to give out a cry by using a halter round its throat. The adhvaryu says ‘kill it without allowing it to utter a cry’ and then he along with the pratiprasthaatr, aagniidhra and the sacrificer come back to the aahavaniiya which they face, turn from left to right and remain with their backs to the animal that is being killed [i.e. they do not see the actual slaying of the animal [p.1122]…There is some divergence as to the limbs of the victim that are cut off and are used asavadaanas and since animal sacrifices became rare or were altogether stopped in medieval times, the commentators do not explain all the words used in the ancient texts in the same way [vide Aap.VII.22.6, Kaat.VI.7.6-12 and Baud.IV.8] [p.1126]…Then the idaa [to be eaten by the priests] is brought between the yuupa and the aadavaniiya fire. After the idaa is invoked, the six priests and the sacrificer partake of it, but there are special portions assigned to each viz. thevanisthu is given to the aagniidhra, the adhyuudhnii to the hotr and the chest to brahmaa…- P.V.Kane, History of Dharmasaastra, -Vol.II. Part.II. Ch.XXXII. Pasubandha. pp.1116-1129.

From Walton:

1:5. importance of blood. Blood serves as the mechanism for ritual cleansing in Israel—a concept not shared by its ancient Near Eastern neighbors….—ibid. LEVITICUS, p.120

From Kane:

Oh hi there 👋 It’s nice to meet you.

Oh hi there 👋It’s nice to meet you.

Sign up to receive my new blog posts by email.

Comments

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Oh hi there 👋
It’s nice to meet you.