Buddhism and Cattle Sacrifice

The Buddhist rejected the sacrifices of animals and stressed on the point that animals should not be injured and it assumed a new importance in the context of the demands of new agriculture. Some later Vedic references reveal an indistinct protest against sacrifice. A milk-giving cow is termed as aghnya or ‘not to be killed’ in the rig. Veda, and it is mainly seen in the later portions of the text.^[1] In the Atharva Veda^[2], similar term is also used for cattle at many places, which supplies notable proof of agriculture, but various references to cattle sacrifice propounds that the Vedic ideology approved the killing of animals with the inclusion of various cattle. After contrasting to this it was implied by Gautama Buddha that there is no merit in the production of the sacrifices of the animal. He was in support of a yajna for him was to distribute charity. There is a story of a rich brahmana named Uggatasarira, who released the animals which were collected for sacrifice at the advice of the Buddha. This brahmana was asked to raise sacrificial fires for the sake of parents; for wife, children, servants and retainers (the gahapaataggi); and for holy men and recluses.^[3]

Vedic sacrifices in which animals were killed were opposed by Buddha. Once a great sacrifice was initiated when he visited shravasti by Prasenajit, the king of Kosala. This sacrifice included five hundred oxen, five hundred male calves, five hundred female calves and five hundred sheep, which were all tied to the sacrificial post for sacrifice.^[4] The slaves, messengers and hired labourers of the king were reluctantly preparing for this sacrifice with tears in their eyes^[5] because of the king’s fear and force. When this incident was revealed to the Master, he said that the ashvamedha, purusamedha, vajapeya, etc., did not produce good results. Those sacrifices which included the killing^[6] of numerous beings such as goats, sheep and cattle were not recommended by sages of good conduct but those sacrifices which did not include the killings^[7] of goats, sheep and cattle were recommended by the great sages of good conduct.

The early Pali texts register the most assertive protest against the animal sacrifice. Non-violence is contemplated as the greatest virtue by the suttanipata, the earliest Buddhist text, and this virtue has to be instilled among the lay devotees or the upasakas. Another virtue is the non-aceptance of anything which is not given by somebody, or to respect private property. Buddha teaches the protection of cattle through a story in the Brahmanadhammika sutta of the suttanipata. He further states that ideal brahmanas of older time performed a sacrifice which included the presence of cattle, and not its killing.^[8] The growth of plants is dependent upon cattle and so they are our great friends like mother, father, brother or other kinsmen. They provide food, strength, beauty and happiness. The Buddha asserts that the realization helped the brahmanas in prohibiting the killing of cows.^[9] It is now obviously comprehended that cattle wealth was dependent upon agriculture. The stress on protecting the cattle was undoubtedly revolutionary teaching at a time when cattle were slaughtered either for food or religion or both. Jainism also showed a strong rejection of animal sacrifice. In one of the earliest Jain canonical texts, the Uttaradhyayana sutra, we find the following lines in the 25^th chapter: ‘The slaughter of animals is prescribed in all the Vedas, and it is mixed with a sinful act. These sinful acts of the sacrificer cannot protect him (the sacrificer).^[10] It is very well known that the practicing of hon-violence was more rigorous by the Jains in comparison to the Buddhists. If the demands of animal husbandry are kept in mind, these Jain and Buddhist teachings can be admired properly.

The householder’s (gahapati) primary function is gorakkha or protection of cattle, and perhaps the derivation of brahmanical emphasis on goraksha is from Jain and Buddhist teachings. In the early Pali texts, the gahapati Nikaya^[11] as many as eleven qualities of a cowherd are counted. A cowherd is supposed to be well versed in material shapes, skilled indistinguishing marks, is able to remove flies’ eggs, and knows how to attend to sores and can perform fumigation. Familiarity with fords is required by him as well as watering places and pastures, and should be capable of spotting the bulls that can lead the hard.^[12]

The preservation of cattle wealth is necessary for agriculture but at the same time dietary needs had also to be met.^[13] Pork was more preferable to beef for the Buddhists. This hypothesis was supported by at least two references. It has been asserted that a householder of Vaishali, named Ugga, offered rice, cakes, flesh of pigs, and Kasi robes^[14] to the Buddha; the tradition concerning the death of Buddha as a result of eating pork is well known.

Footnotes and references:

[1]:

RV, I.164.27; VII.68.9; IX.80.2; X.60.11, 87.16.

[2]:

AV, III.30.1; cf. XVIII.3.4, 4.49.

[3]:

Uggatasarira, Dictionary of Pali Proper Names, i.337.

[4]:

Panca ca vasabhasatani panca ca vacchatarasatani panca ca vacchatarisatani panca ca urabhasatani thunupanitani honti yonnatthaya. S.N., i. 75-76.

[5]:

Ibid., p. 76.

[6]:

assamedham purisamedham sammapasam vajapeyam nirggalam maharambha n ate honti mahapphala. Ajelaka ca gavo ca vividha yattha rannare, na tam sammaggata yannam upayanti mahesino. Ibid.

[7]:

Ibid., p. 76.

[8]:

suttanipata (Varansi edn), Brahmanadhammikasuttam, 12 (p. 24).

[9]:

yatha matha pita anne vapi ca ntaka gavo no parana mitta yasu jayanti osadha balada ceta vannada sukhada tatha, etamathavasam antva nassu gavo hanimsu te. Ibid., 13-14 (p.74).

[10]:

Pasubandha save veya jattham ca pavakammuna, na tam tayanti dussilam kanramani balavantihi, quoted in Dharmananda Kosambi, op. cit., p. 224.

[11]:

MN (PTS), I; 220.

[12]:

AN, ii, 49-51.

[13]:

I learn from Dr. Prem Singh that the younger Avesta (c. 600 B.C.) mentions agricultural implements made of iron, and emphasizes on the protection of cattle wealth.

[14]:

AN, ii, 49-51.