This is the story of sage Kapila and a rishi by the name of
Syumarasmi and the conversation between them. Kapila is asked to perform a
sacrifice which involves sacrifice of a cow. (Please remember that in Sanskrit
the word pasu stands for all animals and not just the cow). Kapila is
distraught because of the need for killing an animal. Syumarasmi enters the body of the sacrificial
cow’s body to discuss with Kapila questions such as knowledge (gnana) vs action
(karma) and conflicting instructions in the Vedas.
Kapila does not want to follow the idea of killing an animal
to fulfill an injunction from the Vedas. Syumarasmi (S) asks Kapila: “If you
say that one part of the Vedas need not be followed and is not authoritative,
how can you accept other parts as authoritative? Both the “do”s and the “don’t
s” come from the Vedas and all of them have to be followed”.
Kapila (K) says: “I do not condemn or censure the Vedas.
Vedas say “do” certain things and “don’t do” certain things. If not doing
certain things (the don’t s) is meritorious, doing that act must be bad. But,
how do you know its context and its relative importance? It is difficult to
know the strengths and weaknesses of verbal Vedic declarations. If you know
something that is superior to Ahimsa (non-injury) please tell me. But, it must
be based on direct evidence and not a quote from the Vedas”.
In my reading, I was amazed at the level of sophisticated
thinking and questioning. We can also learn that one can arrive at different
conclusions based on the means of acquiring knowledge. Caravaka system accepted
direct perception only; not inference. It became an atheistic system. Nyaya and
modern science require direct evidence and inference for acceptance. When the
opinion of a Wise person or an expert or a scripture is accepted, we encounter
controversies and dogmas.
Coming back to the conversation, S says that we have to
accept both the “do’s” and the “don’t s” and both the knowledge portion
(Aranyaka and Upanishad parts) and the action portion (Samhita and Brahmana)
portion of the Vedas.
S: “Srutis ask us to perform sacrifices to attain moksha.
Srutis also say that animals and plants are the limbs of sacrifices. The Lord
created sacrifice and also plants and animals which may be used for sacrifice.
Seven domestic animals and seven wild animals are fit for sacrifice. We see all
the time that life eats life. That is the nature of this world. If you perform
sacrifice because the Srutis demand you to do them and not for any personal
gain such as attaining heaven, it is acceptable to sacrifice animals”.
As an aside, the Old Testament says that God made humans
“masters of the fish, birds and all the animals” (Genesis 1:28).
Obviously, S just quoted the book and did not give an answer
based on evidence as requested by Kaplia.
Kapila says that all modes of life (ashrama) lead to “high
end” (moksha). “People observing the Vedic injunctions and performing
austerities and penances obtain results which are impermanent. It is better to take
the gnana marga (Path of Knowledge) and reach Brahman. When
self-realization is possible why go after the duties of a domestic life,
sacrifices etc?”
S says: “If one lets go of domestic life and become a
sannyasin following the Gnana marga, who will perform the sacrifices? Who will
take care of the other varnas? How can there be progeny? Children (sons) are
needed for the salvation of the ancestors (pitris). And, “grahastasrama
is the only approved way for progeny. Besides, Devas depend on humans for their
sustenance. When humans offer their oblations of plants and animals in the fire
during sacrifice (yagna), the devas get what they need. They are pleased and reward
us with rain and food. The animals and plants offered in sacrifice also benefit
because they attain heaven.” (the only way animals can attain heaven).
This is one of the prime beliefs in the Vedic system. I have
problem with the explanation that animals offered in sacrifice benefit because
they go to heaven. Indeed, there are Vedic passages in which the performer of
the sacrifice requests the animal to takes his place as the oblation, promising
the animal “moksha”! Obviously, it is a justification and, not a reason.
K says: “If acts (karma, sacrifice, oblations etc) are
obligatory, why is it the Vedas recommend a path to knowledge also? Why are
acts associated with cruelty to animals?” He then gives a list of virtues followed
by the followers of the wisdom-path (gnana marga) such as non-violence,
truth telling, non-stealing, control of senses and desires which are
well-described in the srutis. He goes on to say: “There are no such clear
instruction for sacrifices. Even if clear, they are difficult to follow. Even
if one can follow, the results are temporary and not worth the effort compared
to the bliss of the wisdom path”.
Syumarasmi reveals himself to Kapila and says that he
entered the body of the animal to acquire knowledge and wisdom from Kapila and
asks for more teaching.
The gist of the discussion seems to be that it is not
correct to perform actions and sacrifices with a desire for the fruits such as
moksha. Attainment of knowledge and performing sacrifices with detachment is
superior. Sacrifice should not cause cruelty to animals.
Kapila is clearly in
favor of knowledge over action. Kapila then goes on to emphasize control of
one’s senses and mind, mindfulness in thoughts and speech, good conduct, moderation
in food, not coveting other’s properties and devoting oneself to
contemplation. One can then attain
moksha in this life when one reach the state of “eithathmikam”, being one with Brahman. Compared to this bliss,
heaven and other kinds of benefits are impermanent.
At one point, Brahman is defined as virat (all
encapmassing), sutra (the thread woven into the universe as it is woven
into cloth), antaryamin (one who dwells inside) and suddha (pure).