Specific religions

Hinduism and ritualistic animal killings

• Dharmaranya Purana (13th Century CE)
• Brahmins = perform sacrifice
• Jains = ahimsa
• Is sacrificing animals a microcosm of everyday violence?
• Approaching violence not as communication with supernatural, but coping
with preconditions
• Ritual is a metaphor
Ritual as pacification
• Killing turns the animal (and sometimes the human sacrifice) from victim
to willing participant.
• Sangyapan: Killing via strangulation + “you’re not being harmed, but going to the
gods” = simulate consent of the animal; Literal translation: “taking the consent”
• 3 takeaways: (1) catharsis thru drama (2) euphemism (3) supplication
prayer for the yajaman
• Euphemism for death. Anticipation of the yajaman’s own death.
Application of Karma.
• “It is through sacrifice that man ransoms his being from the gods” (Dhavamony
1973)
• By whose lens should we consider an act to be “violent” or “cruel” or
“peaceful”?
Regeneration
• Purusha Sukta from the Rigveda= Rebirth
• Original man, purusha, made the first sacrifice, creating the universe. (Caste
system= brahmin mouths, Kshatriya arms, Vaishya stomach, Shudra feet
• Mahabarata = Cycle of death
• snake sacrifice. Instead of the horse being sacrificed, king says burn every
snake in the pyre to avenge death of his father
Noncruelty
• Ghandian Ahimsa: I respect the cow as I respect my fellowmen. But if
I fight a Muslim in order to save a cow, I will become an enemy of
both.
• Mahabarata: noncruelty or anrishansya is the highest dharma.
• Noncruelty, not nonviolence. If violence is inevitable, let it be humane.
• What does it mean to relate to the other if the self is lost in the process?
• The epics are present in the day to day.
• Noncruelty as religion’s self-correction into compromise between
extremes.
Buddhism
• Started in india, influenced by Jain and Brahmin
• Buddhist karma is based on violence, especially murder.
• Not killing is so entrenched in buddhism. It’s one of the panchashila or 5
moral precepts (and then stealing, lying, vices, and sexual misconduct)

• BUT exception: empower kings and rulers.

• Rationalizing the previous violence of Buddhist Rulers (like Ajatashatru who
killed Bimbisara his father) or Buddhist States like Japanese imperialism
during the Meiji era
Exceptions
• Where did they come from?
• Intent of the person
• Nature of the victim (human, animal, supernatural? And who defines it?)
• Stature of the person committing the violence
Theraveda and the degrees of condemnation
• It’s not wholesome. But some violence are more unwholesome than
others.
• Monastic codes, Vinaya: a monk should be condemned for violence, but how
much depends on (a) success (b) intent
• King Dutthagamani killing millions of Tamils was a-ok according to the monks
• Buddhist monk Kittiwutto in the 70s Thai campaign vs communism. Not a
person, so not a big sin.
• Mauryan emperor, Ashoka— super violent before and after buddhism, but
history says that his reign became praiseworthy after turning to buddhism
• Why? Early days of Buddhism, Gautama got most support from kingdoms.
Mahayana (East Asians)
• Based on the sutras.
• It’s all based in the mind. So intent matters the most. If murder is
compassionate, it’s okay. Most of the time, dapat bodhisattva ka, but
sometimes just saying I didn’t mean anything bad was ok.
• Brush fires daw (Chan Buddhism)
• Japanese Zen: it must be empty. It ends the passions of the mind.
• Self-immolation of a bodhisattva in “The Original Acts of the Medicine
King” was good daw because he himself is the offering, bringing rest
to his own mind.
Judaism
• Yeah the bible is v violent. Oral Torah as the intermediate.
• The Talmund is substitute which focused on the application of the oral
torah to historical realities.
• Adaptation to changing circumstances.
Legacy of Rebellion