Talk:Animal sacrifice in Hinduism/Archive 1

Categories

First off explain to me how this is a "philosophical concept" as opposed to a "tradition" and how this does not fall under "traditional meat processing" (which by the way is an existent category, that includes other forms of ritual slaughter).Pectore^talk 17:46, 29 July 2010 (UTC)

RE: Merge With Jhatka/Ritual Goat Sacrifice in Sikhism

This article cannot be merged with Jhatka. Firstly since a distinction need to be made between Sacrifice and Method. Bali is the sacrifice. The method is either Jhatka, strangulation or piercing of the heart. Although Jhatka can be used for Bali, Bali is not always associated with Jhatka. Furthermore, Jhatka has been used as an antithesis to ritual slaughter. Thanks --Sikh-History 09:39, 30 July 2010 (UTC)

Where did you read this? This is revisionist view of Sikh trad--History Sleuth (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)ition propounded by neo Tat Khalsa. It seems like you have read too much of Kala Afghana, Bhai Sahib Singh, et al. Jhatka or goat slaughter is very much part of Nihang Sikh ritual. Generally, it is preceded by recitation of Chandi di Var which is a liturgical text. Look at the video of actual sacrifice at Hazur Sahib, one of the holiest Sikh shrines. It is very much a ritual.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G8gUr9fIKc

Sikhs share this ritual with Rajputs. This ritual entered Sikhism during the time of Guru Hargobind. The fact that the meat resulting from Jhatka is called Mahaprashad and distributed among the devotees as Langar proves that it is very much part of Nihang Sikh ritual framework and is an offering to the deity (Sri Bhagauti Ji). Thanks

--History Sleuth (talk) 02:53, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Not at all History Sleuth. A Jhatka means literally a blow. It is not the name of the ritual. The ritual at Hazur Sahib is called Shastar Tilak, and is from Kshatriya/Rajput origins. I have extensively researched this issue. I too was under the illusion that Jhatka was actually a ritual. It is actually the method. Other forms of Bali are piercing the heart of the animal with a spike (siphya) and also strangulation. Kala Afghana does not even feature in this, and don't knock everything he states, some is valid, although a lot is jibberish. Your references are very useful and I am going to use them in the Jhatka article as well as the Langaar article. Thanks--Sikh-History 08:44, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Also please have a read of this and this. These guys seem pretty informed and they reference all of their articles well. Thanks--Sikh-History 09:10, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Oppose merge: This article about the notion of animal sacrifice in Hinduism. Jhatka is a way of killing animals, not necessarily for sacrifice. --Redtigerxyz ^Talk 15:59, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Hi Redtigerxy and Sikh History, please read the following comments which I also posted on dispute resolution page. I am not for or against the merge but Jhatka is also practiced as religious ritual within Sikhism:

Sikh History, lets agree to disagree on this. Many of Hindu and Sikh practices are clearly interlinked and need no debate. With regard to goat slaughter at Hazur Sahib, i.e. Tilak, it is very much a religious ritual. The blood of the goat is offered to Bhagauti embodied in the weapons (swords) which are placed before Guru Granth Sahib. This is very much a religious sacrament, preceded by liturgical recitations from Chandi Di Var. People can see in the You Tube video and judge for themselves...the blood of slaughtered goat is part of an elaborate ritual:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G8gUr9fIKc&feature=related

It is also noteworthy that Hazur Sahib does not follow rewritten Rehit Maryada which SGPC tried to impose on other Sikh groups after 1922. Hazur Sahib and Patna Sahib being outside Punjab retained their earlier Sikh practices in original form while Sikh pracitices in Punjab fell under heavy influence of Singh Sabha revisionism. There are clear Shakta influences in Dasham Granth which are acknowledged even by revisionist Sikhs who are now trying to disown this scripture and erase Shakta influenced practies like Jhatka and Tilak still followd by Hazuri Sikhs.

If goat slaughter and Tilak were not religious ceremonies why else would goat meat be distributed as Mahaprashad as part of the Langar?

"The most special occasion of the Chhauni is the festival of Diwali which is celebrated for ten days. This is the only Sikh shrine at Amritsar where Maha Prasad (meat) is served on special occasions in Langar" The Sikh review, Volume 35, Issue 409 - Volume 36, Issue 420, Fauja Singh, Sikh Cultural Centre., 1988

Why would blood be offered to swords representing Bhagauti in an elaborate sacrament (also shown in the above Youtube video?

BTW:, the link you provided itself acknowledges that Jhatka is a religious sacrament which involved recitation of Sikh hymns:

When performing Jhatka on a goat, first the goat is bathed, then Japji Sahib and Chandi Di Var are read. One Singh stands by the head of the goat and upon the final lines of Chandi Di Var being read, ‘Those who sing this divine ballad will be liberated from the realm of life and death’, at this moment the goat is decapitated with one blow and the soul of the goat is liberated. The goat itself lowers its head to receive salvation”. (Giani Thakur Singh, Asa Di Var Viakhya Part 25)

--History Sleuth (talk) 16:55, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

It does not mention Bali anywhere. Please refrain from including this. You are adding WP:Synthesis See here:

WHY JHATKA MEAT?

What is Jhatka Meat and Why?

Jhatka meat is meat in which the animal has been killed quickly without suffering or religious ritual.

http://www.sikhphilosophy.net/sikh-sikhi-sikhism/8828-fools-who-wrangle-over-flesh.html

We must give the rationale behind prescribing jhatka meat as the approved food for the Sikhs. According to the ancient Aryan Hindu tradition, only such meat as is obtained from an animal which is killed with one stroke of the weapon causing instantaneous death is fit for human consumption. However, with the coming of Islam into India and the Muslim political hegemony, it became a state policy not to permit slaughter of animals for food, in any other manner, except as laid down in the Quran - the kosher meat prepared by slowly severing the main blood artery of the throat of the animal while reciting verses from the Quran. It is done to make slaughter a sacrifice to God and to expiate the sins of the slaughter. Guru Gobind Singh took a rather serious view of this aspect of the whole matter. He, therefore, while permitting flesh to be taken as food repudiated the whole theory of this expiatory sacrifice and the right of ruling Muslims to impose iton the non-Muslims. Accordingly, he made jhatka meat obligatory for those Sikhs who may be interested in taking meat as a part of their food. Sikhism, A Complete Introduction, Dr. H.S.Singha & Satwant Kaur, Hemkunt Press

And one semitic practice clearly rejected in the Sikh code of conduct is eating flesh of an animal cooked in ritualistic manner; this would mean kosher and halal meat. The reason again does not lie in religious tenet but in the view that killing an animal with a prayer is not going to enoble the flesh. No ritual, whoever conducts it, is going to do any good either to the animal or to the diner. Let man do what he must to assuage his hunger. If what he gets, he puts to good use and shares with the needy, then it is well used and well spent, otherwise not. Sikhs and Sikhism, Dr. I.J.Singh, Manohar Publishers.

The actual act of Jhatka means one blow. It has NO religious connotation for Hindu's or Sikhs. The actual sacrifice is Bali. What the Nihungs do is not Bali, or an offering to God. It merely a thanks to God. The same is done to Kara Parshad. That is not a sacrifice is it. Please do not confuse the issue. This has been discussed many times over and this was the consensus reached.

Thanks --Sikh-History 19:17, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Sacrifice and ritual killing is known as Kutha meat, which is strictly forbidden for Sikhs. Thanks--Sikh-History 19:37, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

C'mon Sikh History. You need not post such lenghty denials to something which is so obvious and acknowledged by Sikhs themselves. You are trying to push a view of history which is revisionist, or as some call "reformist". However, if something walks like a duck and quacks like a duck, it is a duck and no WP:SYN is violated in calling such a thing duck. But if you would insist the words "ritual sacrifice" directly mentioned in a citation, here is your smoking gun:

"The tradition of ritually sacrificing goats and consuming Mahaparshad remains alive not only with the Nihang Singh Dals, but also at Sachkhand Sri Hazoor Sahib and Sachkhand Sri Patna Sahib (two of the Sikhs holiest shrines). "

Source: http://www.nihangsingh.org/website/trad-jhatka.html

Now please do not raise WP:RS objection, because this is the same source which you had used support your own point earlier. Whether you call it Bali or something else, the point is that goat sacrifice is ritual found within Sikh traditions since 6th Guru. Kindly, keep your responses brief and to the point within WP:TLDR. Hope you will stay constructive on this and not engage in edit war. thanks--History Sleuth (talk) 23:56, 16 August 2010 (UTC)

Yes and an aeroplane flies like a bird, soars like a bird, glides like a bird, but is NOT a bird. This is clearly WP:ORR and WP:Synthesis, the emphasis is on you to find a source that specifically refernces Bali as a sacrifice that Sikhs do. Also, Please discuss the article and not the editor. As stated before, I made exactly the same argument as you before. I lost that argument as as was explained to me, Nihungs do not make a "sacrifice" to God or "Bali", that would contradict even the Nihung Code of conduct (forget Sikhism). They bless the goat before killing it. The same blessing is made prior to distribution of Kara Prashad, hence why it is called Mahaprashad. Kara-Prashad, Mahaprashad get it? It took me a while to get this point. Bali, in Hinduism, is a totally different concept. It is a blood sacrifice to a God. There is no blood sacrifice to a God amongst Nihangs. In fact if you tried to describe to Nihangs or Hazoori Sikhs, what they do as Bali, you would be met with a volatile reationA western Sikh, witness to the goat sacrifice this year during the celebrations had to bear the brunt of the local Sikhs when he objected to this ritual. He was beaten up badly and was saved by devotees gathered there. I will not issue a warning in this instance, but will do if you keep adding such WP:Synthesis and WP:ORR. Find a refrence that states exactly that it is a Bali Sacrifice (i.e. Bali is mentioned) that Sikhs do and we will include it. Thanks--Sikh-History 09:25, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

University of Princeton Quotation

Please discuss, prior to any deletion of referenced material. It is clear WP:UNDUE does not apply here at all, so please state reasoning behind deletions. Thanks --Sikh-History 07:32, 11 August 2010 (UTC)

Structure

I propose the following structure for this article:

1. Definition of Bali Sacrifice
2. History of Sacrifice in Hinduism
3. Religious texts on sacrifice in Hinduism
4. Development of Sacrifice Animal and Vegetable
5. Sects and Sacrifice in Hinduism
6. Indian Regions and Sacrifice
7. Non-Indian Hindu Sacrifice in Hinduism
8. Caste Variations and Sacrifice in Hinduism

Thanks--Sikh-History 08:39, 15 August 2010 (UTC)

I agree. "DrYouMe"→"Mrt3366" ^(Talk?) 11:18, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

Goat sacrifice in Sikhism

"The most special occasion of the Chhauni is the festival of Diwali which is celebrated for ten days. This is the only Sikh shrine at Amritsar where Maha Prasad (meat) is served on special occasions in Langar"

The Sikh review, Volume 35, Issue 409 - Volume 36, Issue 420, Fauja Singh, Sikh Cultural Centre., 1988

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8G8gUr9fIKc

Move

since the intended topic is clearly animal sacrifice in Hinduism, can we please retitle the article to animal sacrifice in Hinduism? It would save us from the tedious and fruitless task of collecting all possible applications of the generic Sanskrit term bali. --dab (𒁳) 12:46, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

OK, lets agree. Thanks--Sikh-History 12:50, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

so, with the new focus it turns out we need to cover three items,

• the historical decline of animal sacrifice in India in the first millennium AD (probably mostly in connection with Shankaran Advaita Vedanta in the 8th century ff.? or due to Buddhist/Shramana influence on early Hinduism?)
• animal sacrifice in Shaktism
• animal sacrifice in folk Hinduism (local tribal traditions)

--dab (𒁳) 13:06, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

Also

1. Regional traditions East India-Orissa, Bengal. Also non-Indian traditions Bali (country) and Nepal.
2. Caste variations (Kshatriya/Rajpu/Sudra)

Thanks--Sikh-History 13:21, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

The main problem with this article is that the sources you have brought forward are all useless. Seriously, please try to find some sort of quotable source discussing animal sacrifice in Hinduism instead of cobbling this together from random snippets found on the internet.

What is even the meaning of "Kshatriyas practice this too"? Kshatriyas aren't a Hindu denomination, they are a historical caste. Today, it isn't even clear anymore who is or isn't "Kshatriya", as the caste system has been abandoned for three generations. What sort of reference is "One" or "9" purporting to substantiate this? Of course Kshatriyas have practiced animal sacrifice, 1000 or 1500 years ago. I am sure that would be interesting in a "history" section. But don't conflate the discussion of current practice with accounts of medieval Rajput kings. --dab (𒁳) 17:56, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

My additions are based around Fullers research at Princeton University. That is neither cobbled or random. It is also mentioned here Thanks --Sikh-History 18:04, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

So if I may be so bold, you're citing one professors book that barely mentions animal sacrifice and then use entries "written by second year university students at the University of Lethbridge who were in their first semester-long course on Hinduism" to justify your edits.Pectore^talk 22:39, 17 August 2010 (UTC)

May I be even more bolder, and suggest you order Fullers book, and try reading it. You may even enjoy it. Thanks--Sikh-History 08:22, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Fuller (2004) is a monograph on popular Hinduism. It would be very helpful to the development of the popular Hinduism article. It would also be helpful if we could base this on Fuller's book directly instead of some essay hosted at mahavidya.ca. So far, this article uses Fuller simply for the statement that "Animal sacrifice is still practiced widely and is an important ritual in popular Hinduism". This is fair enough, a valid reference, but it doesn't make for a full article. It is also unclear what you mean by things like "4", "One" or "9" in your references. Can't you just cite page numbers like everyone else? --dab (𒁳) 08:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

dab what I am attempting to demonstrate with this link was that my references were not cobbled together. If you scroll down the article, you will see they have quoted similar references as mine. What they have done in effect is taken Fullers book, and looked at his references and used those (i.e. Primary sources). I am not saying that article is valid or anything. A lot of people are assuming I have some sort of agenda. I have none. I am a Hindu convert to Sikhism and a vegetarian, and it was a recent visit to India, that led to my dismay as to how ancient Hindu practices are being ridiculed. They are still practiced, but the media in India seems to be controlled by Vashnavite leaning people with a North West Indian bias, hence much of these practices (which happen regularly even today), are not reported. Fuller has done a great service by analysing and researching these practices. I would have wikipedia of all places to have done justice to all the facets of Hinduism (which is a diverse and dynamic faith), but I seem to have encountered the same brick wall, which I encountered with my Jat bretheren and their fixation with Kshatria-ism. Lets separate the wood from the trees. Hinduism is a vast faith, and let us comment on it openly, honestly and with intergrity. We have nothing to hide.Thanks--Sikh-History 10:47, 18 August 2010 (UTC)

Dispute:Bali is still used imprecisely

The article's use of the term "bali" as having an "original" meaning of animal sacrifice requires more clarification. The article cites "Rodrigues, Hillary; Sumaiya Rizvi (10th June 2010)" which is simply a web page, seemingly a violation of WP:RS. The web page has the sentence "The term bali refers to blood offerings and/or animal sacrifice (Fuller 84)." My concern is that the usual meaning of the term has nothing to do with animal sacrifice.

The word बलिः (baliḥ) has a variety of meanings defined in Apte's "The Practical Sanskrit-English Dictionary", pp. 695-696. Definition 1 for the word is "An oblation, a gift or offering (usually religious)." Apte's definition 2 for the word clarifies the common meaning of the term as I personally understand it: "The offering of a portion of the daily meal (of rice, grain ghee &c.) to all creatures (also called भूतयज्ञ (bhūtayajña), one of the five daily Yajñas to be performed by a householder (see Manusmrti 3.67, 91); it is usually performed by throwing up into the air, near the house door, portions of the daily meal before partaking of it." Several other specialized meanings are given, including #5, "a victim offered to a deity". While meaning #5 does associate bali with animal sacrifice, that is not the common meaning of the term. Evidence that a bali is generally a food offering appears in the compound forms listed on p. 696 such as balidāna (बलिदान) which literally means bali-giving as "presentation of an offering to a deity" or "offering oblations to all creatures." From an orthodox point of view, the use of the term in Manusmrti as cited by Apte would be considered authoritative to understand the common meaning of the term. I checked the text of Manusmrti as cited by Apte, and it is consistent with Apte's summary.

Apte's definition of the common meaning of bali as a food offering is confirmed by Margaret Stutley's "The Illustrated Dictionary of Hindu Iconography" (p. 18) which says bali is "A technical term for an offering of grains or rice to particular gods, household divinities, spirits (bhūtas), birds, animals, and inanimate objects. The bali offering is part of the daily worship carried out by householders." In this definition the reference to the daily worship by householders seems to me to again be a reference to the standard five offerings specified in Manusmrti, as cited by Apte.

The above term बलिः (baliḥ) should not be confused with बलिन् (balin) which means strong or powerful, and is also a term for bulls, buffalos, and some other animals.

In checking for the use of the term "bali" among Western academics, I found it used a term specifically for animal sacrifice in Gavin Flood's "An Introduction to Hinduism", p. 216, where he says: As we have seen, there are two kinds of offerings made to deities, 'vegetarian' offerings of fruit, vegetables, rice and so on, which all deities accept, and, in contrast, non-vegetarian offerings or the sacrifice of animals (bali), which only some hot deities accept. Animal sacrifice has always been an important dimension in the history of Hindu traditions. Though often frowned upon within modern Hinduism, the sacrifice of fowls, goats, and sometimes buffalos is an integral part of the worship and appeasement of certain deities, notably the ferocious, violent or hot goddesses such as Māriyamman and Kālī." Flood's use of the term bali specifically for animal sacrifice surprised me, since it differs from my own understanding of the term which is closer to Apte. I would be interested to know other citations that apply the specific meaning of animal sacrifice in this way. Flood notes that bufffalo sacrifice was outlawed by the Indian government since 1947.

Here are three other citations which may be relevant to the issue of animal sacrifice, which is best dealt with elsewhere.

Axel Michael's "Hinduism: Past and Present", p. 34, in discussing the early Vedic period (c. 1750-1200 BCE) says "Animal sacrifices and cattle sacrifices were common..." which I think is a non-controversial statement. The same could be said of Semitic religions during the same time period.

Burjor Avari's textbook on Indian history, "India: The Ancient Past" (p. 141) in discussing the development of Hinduism in the post-Mayuran centuries notes the emergence of Vaishnava and Shaiva traditions as alternatives to Vedic Brahmanism that specifically rejected animal sacrifice.

The survival of animal sacrifice in the cult of Kālī is mentioned by Gandhi in his Autobiography (1940, pp. 171-172), where he describes observing the sacrifice of sheep at a Kālī temple in 1901. Gandhi is horrified by the practice and writes "It is my constant prayer that there may be born on earth some great spirit, man or woman, fired with divine pity, who will deliver us from this heinous sin, save the lives of innocent creatures, and purify the temple."

Buddhipriya (talk) 22:31, 22 August 2010 (UTC)

The thing is that

Saying that the Vedas permit beef-eating and cow-slaughter amounts to striking a lethal blow to a Hindu’s soul. Respect for bovine animals or livestock is a core tenet of Hinduism.

But, Once you are able to convince a hindu of flaws in the foundation of this core tenet and make him feel stupid/guilty, he becomes an easy prey for the predator faiths.

There are millions of ill-informed Hindus who are not empowered to counter argue and hence quietly surrender (and convert).

Vegetarianism is an integral part of most schools of Hinduism.

The Vedas are also accused of animal sacrifice in sacrificial ceremonies popularly known as the YAJNA. Interestingly a section of home-bred intellectuals claiming to have deep study of ancient India has also come up, who cite references from works of western indologists to vindicate such untrue accusation against the Vedas.

The Vedas have not condoned the practice of killing animals anywhere,. But, due to the rise of dilettantism fused with a plethora of societal changes, influence of external cultures and severe lack of awareness about real Vedic injunctions, the role of religion has withered over the years.

But alas, thanks to all the slanderous and conjectural accusations heaped upon the Vedas that can be attributed mainly to the interpretations of commentaries written by Mahidhar, Uvat and Saayan in the medieval times; and to what Vam-margis or the Tantra cult propagated in their books in the name of the Vedas, animal Sacrifice is rashly associated with Hinduism (as if the religion itself promotes violence against animals).

In the more recent times, Swami Dayananda Saraswati – known as the grandfather of modern India – interpreted the Vedas as per the correct grammars of the language and authentic evidences. His literature, which includes commentary on the Vedas, Satyarth Prakash (loosely translated as "Light of Truth"), An Introduction to the Vedas and other texts led to widespread social reformation based on Vedic philosophy and dispelling of myths surrounding the Vedas.

Some verses of Vedas prohibiting killing animals:

Those who feed on human, horse or animal flesh and those who destroy milk-giving Aghnya cows should be severely punished.

— Rigveda 10.87.16

O human! animals are Aghnya [animal which must not be killed] Protect the animals

— Yajurveda 1.1

Protect the animals.

— Yajurveda 6.11

May all bipeds and quadrupeds gain strength and nourishment

— Yajurveda 11.83

Protect the bipeds and quadrupeds

— Yajurveda 14.8

May all living beings look upon me as their friends and may I too treat them as my own friends. Oh God, do arrange things in such a way that all (living beings) behave with one another like true friends.

— Yajurveda 26.18

It is definitely a great sin to kill innocents. Do not kill our cows, horses and people.

— Atharvaveda 10.1.29

We ought to destroy those who eat cooked as well as uncooked meat, meat involving destruction of males and females, foetus and eggs.

— Atharvaveda 8.6.23

Some verses from other Hindu scriptures prohibiting Killing animals:

The devotees of the Lord are released from all kinds of sins because they eat food which is offered first for sacrifice. Others, who prepare food for personal sense enjoyment, verily eat only sin.

— Srimad Bhagavad Gita 3.13

The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge, sees with equal vision a learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater [or outcaste].

— Srimad Bhagavad Gita 5.18

One who is not envious but who is a kind friend to all living entities, who does not think himself a proprietor, who is free from false ego and equal both in happiness and distress, who is always satisfied and engaged in devotional service with determination and whose mind and intelligence are in agreement with Me—he is very dear to Me.

— Srimad Bhagavad Gita 12.13-14

Those who permit slaying of animals; those who bring animals for slaughter; those who slaughter; those who sell meat; those who purchase meat; those who prepare dish out of it; those who serve that meat and those who eat are all murderers.

— Manusmriti 5.51

How can he practice true compassion Who eats the flesh of an animal to fatten his own flesh?

— The Tirukural, Verse 251

All that lives will press palms together in prayerful adoration Of those who refuse to slaughter and savor meat.

— The Tirukural, Verse 260

Like Buddhipriya wrote above, "Yajna" is not same as "animal sacrifice" in the sense popularly understood. Yajna in the Vedas meant a noble deed or the highest purifying action.

Having said all these, anybody with a soul is encouraged to modify the current article and insert the section posted above as they deem fit. I won't do it myself. I'm retiring from wikipedia. --"DrYouMe"→"Mrt3366" ^(Talk?) 11:06, 13 April 2012 (UTC)

This sounds like WP:SYNTHESIS to me. SH 19:07, 20 April 2012 (UTC)

• (Late reply)Maybe it's because you don't hear too well. Mrt3366 ^(Talk?) 13:35, 27 June 2012 (UTC)

Or maybe it's a question of WP:GAME or WP:LAWYER. Still reads like WP:SYNTHESIS to me. Thanks SH 09:42, 28 June 2012 (UTC)

Agni and soma

[1] Aitraya Brahmana or the rituals' prominence is not described anywhere in this book.[2] Delibzr (talk) 03:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Furthermore [3] is not stating how the sacrifice is 'permitted'. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 04:41, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

OccultZone you removed my edit at Animal sacrifice in Hinduism. Animal sacrifice and meat eating is permitted in some Hindu scriptures and they are already mentioned in the article. The sources used for saying Hinduism forbids animal sacrifices are mostly books campaigning againat non-vegetarian diet. Plus since it has article sources already given which state that animal sacrifice is mentioned and permitted, there is no reason to remove my edits. The whole of information was backed up by reliable sources and in was no way "outdated". Read the whole article first and then make changes. Besides many of edits had contained spelling errors but I wonder why you just removed the line "Hinduism forbids animal sacrifice". Another thing you should learn that the lead section of an article does not require any sources if the text in the lead is already backed up in rest of the article. The google books sources are reliable and there was nothing wrong in my edits. If you remove my edits without any valid explanation again I will complaint about you at ANI. Do not remove verifiable information. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC) Moved from my talk page.OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

A reference from 1876 that is not supporting your information "and are also permitted" must not be included. You are not introducing any new information to the article except a bunch of original research. You cannot remove the the text concerning prohibition unless you have a reliable source that make any claims about Hinduism allowing animal sacrifice. We have already discussed this many times as you can see above and for years, those sentences remain unchanged. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 05:04, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not original resarch. All of the info I added were backed up by reliable sources. If you really think Hinduism completely forbids it then ask the authors of the books. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You know that a mention has to do nothing with the allowance of the practice. Those rites are mentioned in scriptures only for noting down that how they were performed and in what circumstances. None of them are prescribed in any sense and those who animal sacrifice are well presented and pictured in the article. It makes no sense when you are removing the sources religious and cultural sources of publishers like BRILL. Delibzr (talk) 05:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

But you do accept that they were mentioned. Instead of outright removing my edits you could simply have just removed the word "permitted" and just leave it as animal sacrifices were practiced in ancient India and are mentioned in some scriptures. Not only that you also removed the correct information of animal sacrifice being practiced in villages before local deities and powerful form of Devi. Also please look at the bottom most of the book [4]. Aittriya Brahmana is mentioned there. In the text of the book there is a number 2 and at the bottom there is also a number 2 describing in which scriptures this goat sacrifice is mentioned. It's a kind of a style adopted by writers where sources are mentioned at bottom of the page like Wikipedia. Also goat sacrifice is called 'Prkrti' so I assumed it might be prominence. I do not know what this 'Prkrti' means to signify about the sacrifice. But the other info was backed up.KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:29, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Ok and how it changes anything or bring anything new? Article is already mentioning the situation of these sacrifices and when they were carried out. You are already repeating what is already noted. Aitraya Brahmana or any Brahmana are not mentioned in page.324. It is mentioned in other pages but it has to do nothing with Animal sacrifice. Delibzr (talk) 05:43, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

It is mentioned at the bottom of the page. Please look carefully. The style used in the book for mentioning the original source of info used is similar to that of Wikipedia. I won't try to make any changes in the legality of animal sacrifice in Hinduism but will add back information about some of the sacrificed that aren't mentioned in the article and the methods in short by which they were performed. If you find anything wrong in the info I add please do tell me. I will also describe my changes on detail here. I was only here to add reliable info here but this got turned into something entirely unexpected. I might have made a few mistakes so I will correct them now. Let us cooperate into making this article better togethet. Happy editing and if I offended you or angered you in any way I'm sorry. Also forgive my spellin errors. I'm editing on mobile so they are sometimes difficult to botice because of small space. Thank you and happy editing!:) KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:12, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

You can tell here and propose your content that you would like to be added on the main page. Delibzr (talk) 06:25, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

That is not how things work. It is unnecessary harassment Dblitzer. People don't have to go by your rules to add content to the article. Everybody has the right to edit an article I already told I will mention the changes I am going to make here before editing. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:39, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Changes in article

@Delibzr * Right now I am only making small changes in the article like spelling and grammar correction. Additionally not everything mentioned in the scriptures is mythology. Therefore, changing heading of section from "In History and Hindu Mytholgy" to "In history and Hindu scriptures". KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:44, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Adding that sacrifice of animals is performed in front of powerful and terrible forms of Devi with a reliable source. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:56, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Adding additional texts where ashwamedha is mentioned. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:10, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Read and they are better than last few other changes. Delibzr (talk) 07:22, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

Added reliable sources for additional texts. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:38, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Removing dead link for the text that says animal rituals are prohibited in Kaliyuga. Adding citation needed tag to it. Will add a reference later if found. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:53, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Adding info about Nirudha Pashu-Bandha along with reliable source. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:11, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Adding info that animal sacrifices were only performed by the royals and nobility because of high costs. Adding it with a reliable source. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:15, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Adding info about history of animal sacrifice in Tamil Nadu along with reliable sources. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:35, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Ralph T.H. Griffith never wrote any book called The Vedas: With Illustrative Extracts. Since the text Such rituals, including Ashvamedha are one of the prohibited rite for current age (Kaliyuga). has no reliable source, removing it for now until a reliable source for it can be found. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:55, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

• Can't find any reliable sources for Ghusuri Puja and Bali Jatra. Adding citation needed tags. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:59, 1 December 2014 (UTC)

What's the need of "However, popular Hindu sects such as Vaishnavism advocate non-violence and therefore do not support"? Source is particular about Hinduism. It is undue to mention "Animal sacrifice was practiced in ancient India and many Hindu scriptures mention the sacrifices and how they were performed", because it is particularly mentioned under "are mostly associated with Shaktism, and in currents of folk Hinduism strongly rooted in local tribal traditions". As usual, we will require a reliable source that would consider anything otherwise among different sects, or else you are still required to label these teachings under the umbrella of Hinduism, not the particular sects that are not mentioned in all of these sources. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 13:29, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It wasn't me who added about sects like Vaishnavism. Besides how could whole of Hinduism say that it is forbidden? The source never actually says or proves it is forbidden everywhere in Hinduism. It only gives example of scriptures or instances where it is forbidden but does not mention about those scriptures which mention it or it being practiced in ancient India. Additionally I don't see how animal sacrifices being performed in ancient India is necessarily associated with Shaktism or tribal beliefs. Nor I don't see it anywhere where it is mentioned in the line. Scriptures like Rig Veda, Yajurveda, Ramayana, Mahabharata etc mention animal sacrifice being practiced (however I am not saying they necessarily permit it) which has hardly anything to do with Shaktism or tribal beliefs. And animal sacrifices being mostly associated with Shaktism is for modern times not ancient times. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:33, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

The book about The Swaminarayan Religion can't be used here. The book is about the ideology of Swaminarayan and his followers who also considered him an incarnation of God. Only sources mentioning the views on animal sacrifice in scriptures and major sects. KahnJohn27 (talk) 17:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

It is not about the ideology of Swaminarayan, and the author is not an adherent of Swaminarayan, look at the publisher and the author.

None of these sources have claimed any scriptures that allow animal sacrifice, so why we have to mention "most of"? It will directly lead others to believe that we are claiming like Hinduism allows Animal sacrifice, but only sometimes. Guptas, Chalukyas and Cholas didn't sacrificed as per any of the sources.

Follow WP:BRD, don't change the lead without gaining WP:Consensus. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 19:01, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I am really beginning to wonder what is your purpose User:OccultZone. You are reverting edits without properly checking them. This source here states that Guptas, Chalukyas, Cholas performed Ashvamedha. You say my changing of the lead will directly lead some people to believe that it allows animal sacrifice. However I had clearly mentioned that some of the scriptures mention. As a result they will only believe that only some scriptures "do not forbid" them. They actually don't "forbid". From all the sources I have read they say that it wasn't a requirement. Your edit will make people to believe that animal sacrifice is forbidden everywhere conpletely. Have you thought of that? In fact this is mentioned in the beginning of Practice section. A consensus is only needed when there is some valid dispute on the edit. If you are removing the edit even when it has no problems then you are being a destructive editor. I am not editing this article to please somebody's feelings. Wikipedia is an unbiased place and my edits have been removed by you recklessly even though they were sourced. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:07, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

I strongly believe the sentence" Hinduism itself forbids animal sacrifice" should be removed. It is such a sweeping sentence with strong POV ! In order for the sentence to remain, we have to first define what is Hinduism and whether Shaktism is part of it or not ? Like it or not, a very significant population of Hindus practice animal sacrifice to placate various Godess' with local or even wide following such as Tuljapur Bhavani or the Kali in Bengal. Are these people breaking the tenets of Hinduism ?Jonathansammy (talk) 23:04, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Are you saying that those references are POV? Article must present the way it is. Animal sacrifice is more common with those who are Shaktism, but no scriptural evidence from 'shaktism' allows animal sacrifice. A minority view of shaktism, that holds no authority is far from the religious rule that were established against the animal sacrifice. This article only defines that animal sacrifice existed, however it was allowed only for an earlier age, but it is still practiced by a small minority who have no factual basis for this practice. Delibzr (talk) 23:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Sources about forbidden animal sacrifice

@User:OccultZone I have examined all your sources carefully and found that none of them even ever said anything about "Hinduism (completely) forbidding animal sacrifice and meat processing". You are either lying OccultZone or you actually never cared to check the sources which is completely irresponsible. I am removing all false and incorrect sources.

• This source doesn't say anywhere Hinduism (completely) forbids animal sacrifice. The only line about forbidden animal sacrifice is "Again animal sacrifice is forbidden". Additionally it only mentions the Padma Purana and Panchtantra forbidding them. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:23, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• This source only states about views of animal sacrifice in Vaishnavism. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:30, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• This source only states that according to one Hindu belief Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu for preaching non-violence and forbidding animal sacrifice in religious ceremony. Nowhere it says whole of Hinduism forbids animal sacrifice. Removing it. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:36, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• This source nowhere says Hinduism forbids animal sacrifice. It only talk about Bhagvad Gita forbidding it. Removing it.KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)
• This source is about teachings of Swaminarayan. These vows of non-violence are only mentioned being followed by Sadhus of Akshar Purushottam Sanstha at this page. This has nothing to with this article. It can be separately mentioned that Swaminarayan Hinduism forbids it. I am therfore removing it. KahnJohn27 (talk) 23:45, 7 December 2014 (UTC)

• This whole book[5] does not even mention Swaminarayan, and you claim that whole book is about Swaminarayan. It is probably more comfortable to say that you want to claim Hinduism allow animal sacrifice, but you have got no reference for such absurd. A view about Gita is what Hinduism is, a statement of Swaminarayan about the authoritative rules is actually about Hinduism. If 'one belief' says that it forbids animal sacrifice, then we cannot claim about other until it allows animal sacrifice. This source speaks well. That Hindu religion prohibits animal sacrifice.
• May I know why you have added so much about Ashwamedha? An outdated rite which is highly disputed, whether it required any killing of animals or not. Also that the horse was brought to life through the mantras. [6] You were told to discuss your edits. Delibzr (talk) 03:25, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@User:Delibzr As you asked me earlier, now I ask which scripture says the horse was brought back to life? And even if he was it is still counted as sacrifice. I had mostly added scriptures mentioning Ashvamedha and he examples where it was performed. And may I ask who are you to tell others your permission should be taken? Are you master of this article? I will discuss but you seem to be more interested in strong arming me. One does not always need approval for legit edits. You have removed a large amount of legit edits without any valid reasons and you're reasons have been ridiculous from the start. If you don't know something then ask instead of reverting. Please stop your destructive edits and edit warring and don't try to command others. If you do not improve your behaviour then I will report you because enough is enough. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:23, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

@User:Delibzr Also please stop lying. The page of the same book mentions it is about teachings of Swaminarayan and the vow of non-violence was referring to Swaminarayan sadhus. And I never was talking about animal sacrifice frbidden or not. I only talked about the sources. And your second book about Buddhism does not cite any source to support itself. Either you don't know much about sourcing or you are lying. Either way it's wrong. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:35, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I am not lying, you had yourself claimed "This source is about teachings of Swaminarayan. These vows of non-violence are only mentioned". Check your absurd before you accuse others of lying.

We stick to references, not to your questions. Your extended description about Ashwamedha, is WP:UNDUE because it is not sure that it required killing of a horse. I don't disagree with the current version, but it should be described that these sacrifices were meant only for pre-present age, just like these references assert. Delibzr (talk) 06:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

In Mahabharatha, it says "Man loses merit earned from other penance by resorting to sacrificial killing. Men who are engaged in killing animals deserve to go to hell."[7] Here is better reference:- http://books.google.com/books?id=_LldeLvqQNsC&pg=PA163&dq=Shantiparva+of+the+Mahabharata+animal+sacrifice&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ck-FVN_BH4usUYfNgxA&ved=0CC8Q6AEwAw , it says 'according to vedas, the sacrificial material ought to be the grain only'.

It is disputed that these rituals required killing of animal, now you got why we didn't inserted any of these? If they are saying at one stage that animal killing is not allowed, and the meaning of these 'sacrifices' is far different from killing animal, it becomes more of a mystery than a fact. Delibzr (talk) 07:19, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Didn't I agree that mentioning does not mean permitting? Besides all the sources clearly say as day they were sacrificed. What were they done with if not killed just held up? I already know Vidura said that. Many of the Hindu scriptures describe it as a sin. But tht does not mean it wouldn't have been practiced. I've already read these sources very earlier before you even mentioned them. One of the sources for Hinduism forbidding animal sacrifice not only quotes Vidura but also says "He who eats the meat of sacrifice is freed from all sins while he who eats for personal satisfaction commits a sin". All the sources I've added about mention the killing of the horse. Besides when did I mention anything about Ashvamedha? I only added the scriptures where it is mentioned and the instances where it is performed. I'm a Jew but I've taken pain to add reliable info to a Hindu artice and that too on a mobile. Do you know how difficult it is to edit on a mobile. Your edits show that you are inexperienced. I suggest you try to learn instead of disruting edits. Do you know what I actually meant by Swaminarayan's teaching? I said the page of the book which is being used as a source for legality of animal sacrifice, actually is saying it is forbidden for the Sadhus of Swaminarayan Hinduism to perform animal sacrifice or eat meat because of their vow of non-violence. It wasn't saying anything about it being forbidden in Hinduism. Can't you understand that. I am sick of you making ridiculous mistakes and errors and I have to suffer for them. I was here to edit not to get involved in a stupid edit war. You are an inexperienced editor. Rather than simply reverting everything try to learn and edit carefully. I have been on Wikipedia for more than 7 years (5 years as unregistered editor) and I'm still learning. I am not touching the lead at all without a discussion but other edits were removed for totally ridiculous reasons. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:37, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

This section should also contain about these refs, that sacrifices are allowed in the present age, I am not sure right now but we can also write that some have taken wrong meaning of these sacrifices and add a reliable ref. Not as the main facts, but as attribution. Start with 'It is heatedly debated whether these sacrifices involved the killing of animal or not' or insert in second/third sentence, in the section where we have asserted about ancient times and mythology. Delibzr (talk) 07:43, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

I checked the source saying it is not allowed in present times but it doesn't cite any original source or research. Which Veda? Where? However, I never removed the line that animal sacrifices were only meant for earlier times despite its source never citing any original source. I only removed the one saying animal sacrifices aren't allowed in Kaliyuga because its source didn't even exist and according to Wikpedia rules uncited content can be removed. I read somewhere on Google books much earlier that one of the Puranas forbids it in Kaliyuga but I don't remember which one. I would have probably found in which book animal sacrifice was forbidden by one of the Puranas in Kaliyuga had it not been for your continuou disruptive reverts. I am going to try to find it now. KahnJohn27 (talk) 07:56, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Yes, the Brahmanda Purana forbids it in Kaliyuga. Also the Brahmanda Purana says that while people should not sacrifice animals to him, he will still accept the sacrifice if it is performed with devotion since Vishnu resides in every living being.

http://books.google.co.in/books?id=3Z8CGJBo3z4C&pg=PA117&dq=purana+kaliyuga+animal+sacrifice&hl=en&sa=X&ei=lVqFVNrDB4OiugTMj4GwBQ&ved=0CCYQ6AEwAg KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:08, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Oh sorry it was the Bhagavata Purana not Brahmanda Purana. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:18, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Where you read about the Vishnu? Including these, [8] [9] purana prohibits too. [10] It includes all of those 5 rites, that are prohibited in Kaliyuga. Delibzr (talk) 08:28, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

Read the page in the link i just gave. Bhagvada purana says animal sacrifices should not be performed but Vishnu will accept it still since he lives in the soul of sacrifical animal. These are in different sentences. In another paragraph it says an animal can only be taken in sacrifice and not violently(which ofcourse doesn't include sacrifice). It will be absurd that the Puranas barred animal sacrifices if they weren't performed. Please stop making ridiculous theories. Anyway thanks for the links I already knew they'll be in other Purnas too. However you reduced the time for finding the books. Thanks. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:44, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

It is actually Krishna and not Vishnu. I only said that these sacrifices were not meant for Kaliyuga, before that Kaliyuga they did. Delibzr (talk) 08:57, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

While Krishna says that animal should not be sacrificed however, the word Vishnu is used in the sentence of living in the soul of sacrificial animal. This is most likely because Krishna being an avatar of Vishnu. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:12, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

this source doesn't say which of Vedas described animal sacrifice for earlier age only. Even if it were all of them they should have been mentioned. I don't see the need to remove the line "Vedas describe animal sacrifices only for the earlier times" but the source seems ambiguous at best. KahnJohn27 (talk) 09:30, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

You can remove it if you like to. Delibzr (talk) 10:22, 8 December 2014 (UTC)

The Adi Purana which I linked to in this article is actually a Kannada text describing the ten lives of first Jain tirthanakara, Rishabha. The real Hindu scripture by the name of Adi Purana does not have any article on Wikpedia. Removing the link to Adi Purana in the article now. KahnJohn27 (talk) 02:35, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

@User:Delibzr You have misread this source http://books.google.co.in/books?id=_LldeLvqQNsC&pg=PA163&dq=Shantiparva+of+the+Mahabharata+animal+sacrifice&hl=en&sa=X&ei=Ck-FVN_BH4usUYfNgxA&redir_esc=y . The source actually says "the Rishis insisted that according to Vedas, the sacrifical material ought to be grain only". Also you should have read the whole paragraph and the first two lines of the next page because the book itself says that the line is part of a debate between rishis and gods in the Shantiparva of Mahabharata. KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:48, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I said how it was according to Mahabharata, and that's how it was explained by the Rishi. Delibzr (talk) 15:49, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead section of article

I have examined all the sources in the lead carefully and found that none of them even ever said anything about "Hinduism (completely) forbidding animal sacrifice and meat processing". They are only talking about it being forbidden in some scriptures or sects.

• 1 This source doesn't say anywhere Hinduism (completely) forbids animal sacrifice. The only line about forbidden animal sacrifice is "Again animal sacrifice is forbidden". Additionally it only mentions the Padma Purana and Panchtantra forbidding them.
• 2 This source only states about views of animal sacrifice in Vaishnavism(however this sect is followed by most Hindus).
• 3 This source only states that according to one Hindu belief Buddha was an incarnation of Vishnu for preaching non-violence and forbidding animal sacrifice in religious ceremony. Nowhere it says whole of Hinduism forbids animal sacrifice. It shouldn't have been used.
• 4 This source nowhere says Hinduism forbids animal sacrifice. It only talk about Bhagvad Gita forbidding it.KahnJohn27

Again as I say, the sources are not reliable. Also I really think the line "However Hinduism forbids animal sacrifice" should be changed. While other scripture who mention it do not necessarily "permit" it they also do not necessarily forbid it. Also the word Hinduism cannot be used here. Hinduism is composed many sects and scriptures. I think the line should be changed to "Most of Hindu scriptures and sects forbid animal sacrifice" especially since in regions like Nepal, Tamil Nadu and some tribal areas and villages animal sacrifice is rooted in tradition. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:17, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

Gita is authoritical, that's why it is treated as a representation of Hinduism. I had found a ref[11] that said about Hinduism prohibiting animal sacrifice. Those who do animal sacrifice, they have no factual basis. It is disputed that animal sacrifice involved killing of animal or not, Dayanand Saraswati but it is clearer that they are not allowed for the Kaliyuga. Lead should not even start like this, it should mention that 'According to scripture evidence, animal sacrifices were carried out in ancient India, although they didn't required any killing of an animal. Hinduism forbids animal sacrifices for the current age and any meat processing based on ahimsa. To this day the adherents, though minority, participate in animal sacrifice'. Delibzr (talk) 15:57, 9 December 2014 (UTC)

I don't know why after you failed to prove that animal sacrifice was not performed you are now falsely saying that it is disputed whether the animal was killed. There is no dispute. See the perfomance of the Ashvamedha in this source. Some of the flesh of the horse was offered to gods and some eaten by participants in the sacrifice. Even if there was a dispute in actual you can't say "although they didn't require any killing of an animal" because it is giving the wrong and false information of which especially there is no evidence. Even though there's direct evidence killing was involved I still favored the use of line "Animal sacrifice was practiced in ancient India". Also actually the Bhagwad Gita being authoritative (there's no word such as authoritical) is an opinion. Again I really think you're being biased here. I believe you are treating animal sacrifice as some kind of "very evil" thing and my edit might make it seem that Hinduism permits animal sacrifice. First of all I think, you should look it at from a neutral perspective instead of viewing animal sacrifice as "evil". Second, I don't see any reason why any will think that some of Hinduism permits animal sacrifice? My religion permits animal sacrifice (although it is no longer practiced) and I don't see it as some kind of "evil" thing nor I care what people will think about my religion because of it permitting animal sacrifice. Besides whose Hinduism are we talking about? You fail to take into account the Hindus of Tamil Nadu, Nepal and tribes. A large religion like Hinduism is not the same for everybody and not everybody considers Sanskritic texts authoritative. This article should stand for all strands of Hinduism not simply of those derived from Sankritic texts. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:15, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Also I don't see this ref of yours [12] anywhere saying Hinduism forbidding animal sacrifice. KahnJohn27 (talk) 08:16, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

It reads "animal sacrifice is prohibited in Hindu religion", before the bold texts. OccultZone (Talk • Contributions • Log) 08:25, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

If this article was about treatment of women in Hinduism, you would be recognizing those who are going against its laws about women, you can't if they have no factual basis. Since it is just a minority with no factual basis, it has to be ignored when you are talking about the laws as a whole. If Gita says that animal sacrifice is forbidden in Hinduism and no other scripture says that 'it is allowed', then you have to stick to it as the representation of whole religion. It is disputed whether they required any killing of an animal or not, while it is not same with any other sacrificing theories. I had told about the dispute that exists. Delibzr (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Is Manan Sharma a recognized authority on Hinduism ? His book doesn't have any footnotes or inline citations. We can not say "animal sacrifice is prohibited in Hindu religion" just based on his opinion. Also, I keep on reading here that it is mainly the tribal folks who practice it. But then there are references that say Brahmin worshippers of Kali / Durga in Bengal or the Great Hindu king Shivaji's descendants personally sacrificed a Male Buffalo on the day of Dasarahttp://www.jstor.org/stable/3087499?seq=3]] . Also check this out[[13]],[[14]]. All the communities mentioned in the references profess to be Hindu. I agree that the biggest Hindu sect of Vaishnavism does not require sacrifice but then you have many Hindu folks who believe in Shakti, Vishnu and other Gods at the same time. I also read that there is campaign in India to stop animal sacrifice at a number of temples in India with varying degree of success. In years to come animal sacrifice might come to an end in Indian Hindu temples but that does mean we should bend the truth now for this Wikipedia article Jonathansammy (talk) 14:33, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

There are more than those references, read Sacred Animals of India by Nanditha Krishna, a historian and professor. Those minorities that you have named have no authority on any ruling of Hindus, they are far from the religious rule that were established against the animal sacrifice. I don't know when did we 'bend' any truth on this article that animal sacrifices are not done by Hindus, its just that they have no factual base for what they are doing, nor they present majority but small minority. Delibzr (talk) 17:19, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

User Delibzr, the Marathas and other castes that offer animal sacrifice now or did in the past constitute the majority of Maharashtrian Hindus! I am sure Hindu people of Bengal, Orissa and Assam who offer animal sacrifice constitute even bigger majorities in their respective regions. These people are self-identified caste Hindus and I don't think their Hindu religion "forbids" animal sacrifice. If that was the case, thousands of the poor creatures whose throats are slit will be spared a painful death!Jonathansammy (talk) 19:08, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

Nanditha Krishna in her book clearly states that there is no central authority in Hinduism that can issue an edict banning animal sacrifice. The ancient texts also have contradictory messages on the issue. If you equate Hinduism = Vedic religion then the "forbid" sentence may make sense. Otherwise it is, as I said before, a POV statement.Jonathansammy (talk) 19:29, 10 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no fatwa among Hindus to stop animal sacirfice, that's what Naditha Krishna said. Not that there is any allowance in Hinduism for animal sacrifice, she was just highlighting that it is still done by a minority.

What is the latest evidence of Marathas and those other classes that they have carried animal sacrifice in large amount, and their scriptural 'Hinduism' allows it. Since there is none, we cannot say that 'many scriptures forbids', because none allows. Later Hinduism is made up of the teachings from Gita, Puranas. These books forbids too. Delibzr (talk) 01:28, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, you said it my friend. We should say "Scriptures revered by Hindus forbid animal sacrifice" or " Hindu scriptures forbid animal sacrifice" . That would get us away from saying "Hinduism forbids Animal sacrifice" . Think about it !Jonathansammy (talk) 17:01, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

Well, here are several examples of animal sacrifice taking place in Hindu temples across India now and the campaigns to stop the practice! This still does not change my position regarding "Hinduism forbids animal sacrifice" [[15]], [[16]] [[17]], [[18]], [[19]],[[20]],[[21]],[[22]],[[23]],[[24]],[[25]],[[26]],[[27]],[[28]][[29]] Jonathansammy (talk) 23:41, 11 December 2014 (UTC)

@User:OccultZone However it does not cite any example or original research, you forgot to notice that. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:18, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@User:Jonathansammy, User:Delibzr, User:OccultZone As already said there is no central authority in Hinduism and Hinduism is not the same for everybody. There are many Hindus who do not hold either the Gita or the Sanskrtic scriptures as authoritative. And besides some Sanskritic scriptures do not explicitly "forbid" it. As I already said I think animal sacrifice is being viewed as an "evil" practice here. Please view this from a neutral perspective. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:26, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

So JonathanSammy, what type of lead you will propose? Thanks Delibzr (talk) 10:27, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I have recently edited the lead of the article. I have removed the highlight of the word "animal sacrifice" and removed the words "indeed any" from the sentence "and indeed any meat processing,". There is no need to highlight any word in the lead section nor is there any need to use the words "indeed any" before meat processing. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:33, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@User:Delibzr Don't know about JonathanSammy and others, but I think this article should talk about all different strands of Hinduism. Saying "Hinduism forbids animal sacrifice is inaccurate. Besides what about those who do not regard or follow the Sanskritic texts and do not hold them as authoritative. We should also talk about Hinduism of Tamil Nadu and tribals. The Sangam literature for example does not forbid animal sacrifice. Many of the tribal Hindus do not follow or hold Sanskritic scriptures as authoritative. Many of the rural people sacrifice animals before local deities irrespective of whether they follow Sanskritic texts or not. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:47, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

'Animal sacrifices were carried out in since the ancient times in India. Hindu scripture forbids animal sacrifices and any meat processing based on ahimsa. To this day the hindus in India and Nepal, though minority, participate in animal sacrifice.' Something like this lead would be a choice, I would also like to hear the opinion of JonathanSammy, who points that it is afterall scriptures who forbid, but not Hindus since some of them still practice, just like you have explained. Delibzr (talk) 12:55, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

@User:Delibzr I agree with your choice. I still suggest the modification "Most of the Hindu scriptures and sects forbid animal sacrifice" and I think it is more appropriate since all of the scriptures do not explicitly "forbid" it as already proved. Also I'll like to add a correction. "Animal sacrifices were carried out in since the ancient times in India". You can't use the words "in" and "since" together. Now let's get moving on the lead already shall we? KahnJohn27 (talk) 13:41, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

There is no official or legal characterization of sects in Hinduism, anyone can mix up with just any other and no one says anything. No other scripture allows animal sacrifice, we can say that 'Hindu scriptures, including Gita, Puranas forbids'.. Delibzr (talk) 13:49, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I agree with the last modification " Hindu scriptures including Gita and Puranas forbid animal sacrifice". Thanks Jonathansammy (talk) 16:05, 13 December 2014 (UTC)

I too agree. Now please let's get moving already. KahnJohn27 (talk) 10:12, 14 December 2014 (UTC)

User Delibzr, I went through all your references in the lede again and could not find any of them directly supporting the statement, "Hindu scriptures including Gita and Puranas forbid animal sacrifice". Am I missing something or what ? I know we jointly agreed on the statement but I am sure others may notice the discrepancy and remove the statement and the references.To avoid that, please provide reliable sources that say that Gita forbids animal sacrifice. Again , when you say puranas, which ones are we talking about ? The Tantrik puranas will on the other hand, describe in minute details how the animal sacrifice rituals should be performed. Please let me have your thoughts on this. Thanks. Jonathansammy (talk) 20:40, 19 December 2014 (UTC)

Kahnjohn27 verified the sources and suggested that they do support Gita and Purana forbidding animal sacrifices. Names of those Puranas are also mentioned below article. Delibzr (talk) 00:27, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Delibzr, Jonathansammy I think the line "Most Hindus today do not practice or acknowledge animal sacrifice however a minority of Hindus practice it." should be added to the lead of the article. Please express your opinion about it. KahnJohn27 (talk) 06:24, 24 December 2014 (UTC) @KahnJohn27 (talk),Delibzr We can not say that only a minority practice animal sacrifice without providing statistics from a reliable source. As I dig deeper, I keep on getting more and more references and anecdotal evidence of animal sacrifice now and in recent past. And this is not restricted to any particular Hindu community or region of India. It is an All Indian practice. The only thing which may have gone down is buffalo sacrifice which may very well be for economic reasons rather than any enlightened attitude !Jonathansammy (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Delibzr,did use Kahn really say that Gita forbids Animal sacrifice. Please point out the message which says that, Thank and Happy Holidays !. Jonathansammy (talk) 19:34, 24 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy The Gita does forbid animal sacrifice. Concerning the Puranas, I said that "some Puranas forbid the animal sacrifice in the Kaliyuga", not that they had completely forbidden it. They only say that it is forbidden in Kaliyuga. The Puranas forbidding animal sacrifice in Kaliyuga are Bhagwada Purana, Brahma Vaivarta Purana, Adi Purana, Brihan-naradiya Purana and Aditya Purana. Also Jonathansammy as I have already said stop thinking of animal sacrifice as some kind of an "evil" practice. You are being biased. You should discuss this topic from a neutral perspective. KahnJohn27 (talk) 00:36, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

My dear friend, If I thought, it was an evil practice then I would not waste my time asking to replace just one sentence in the lead! Having said that, a number Animal Rights campaigners in India do not like it and are persuading temples to stop the practice. I will be adding a section on that topic when I get time Jonathansammy (talk) 06:24, 25 December 2014 (UTC)

Lead section of article part 2

I generally agree with most of the lead section of article. However I think that it is missing an important part concerning it's practice in modern times. It should be mentioned that most of the Hindu society does not practice or acknowledge animal sacrifice although a minority of Hindus like some Hindus in Tamil Nadu, Nepal, tribal areas practice it. KahnJohn27 (talk) 14:52, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

KahnJohn27: If you say minority then that should be preceded by the adjective "Significant" because tribals are not the only ones who sacrifice animals. In Bengal, Assam, and Maharashtra, and I am sure in many other states too, caste Hindus also follow the practice.Jonathansammy (talk) 16:56, 16 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy I don't think using the word "significant" is needed at all. It is unnecessary and is a POV. User:Delibzr had earlier also commented about adding that although a majority of Hindus do not practice it however a minority of people do. I think it is important to add this statement as it concerns to its practice in modern times. KahnJohn27 (talk) 12:56, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

'public surveys show that only a minority is vegetarian' should not classify vegetarians as minority as reference is not classifying, you can write about the percentage of people who are vegetarian. Delibzr (talk) 14:20, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@User:Delibzr That is a very stupid rationale. The info that most of the Hindus do not practice or acknowledge animal sacrifice and only a minority of Hindus still practice it is already reliably sourced. There is a difference between animal sacrifice and vegetarianism and the same parameters can't be used in both cases. Besides it is concerning practice of animal sacrifice in modern times. I really think it should be mentioned. See the article about Korban which mentions in the lead section about animal sacrifice by Jews in modern times. KahnJohn27 (talk) 15:01, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

You haven't even checked what I had written. There is a sentence under a section that 'public surveys show that only a minority is vegetarian', it should instead mention that how many percentage of Hindus are vegetarian, as the source says. None of the nonsense that you are blabbering. Delibzr (talk) 15:08, 17 December 2014 (UTC)

@Delibzr Remain in civil behavior please. I thought you were remark about vegetarianism was concerning not adding the practice of animal sacrifice by few people in modern times in the lead section of the article. I didn't know you were actually referring about actually mentioning the percentage of Hindu who are vegetarians. Keep to the point please. Don't stray from the topic and please talk about the topic of discussion only. We have already stayed from topic during discussion in this article and a lot of time was wasted in some unnecessary things. Everybody's opinion is important here. If you will, please add your thoughts and opinion about the topic of adding this line - "Most of Hindus do not practice or acknowledge animal sacrifice however a minority like in areas of Nepal, Tamil Nadu and some rural and tribal areas still practice it." KahnJohn27 (talk) 04:48, 18 December 2014 (UTC)

@Jonathansammy, @Delibzr I've removed the line "Contrary to the image of India as a predominantly vegetarian country, public surveys show that only a minority is vegetarian." This does not actually have much to do with the topic of the article. It is not necessary vegetarianism and animal sacrifice are always related to each other plus the line strayed from the topic. This article is not about vegetarianism in Hinduism. Please stick to the point and the topic only. Also this line makes the article looks biased. There is no reason it should be here. Therefore I have removed it. KahnJohn27 (talk) 05:12, 18 December 2014 (UTC)