HUMAN SACRIFICES IN INDIA. 155 union of blood is a basis of inter-communion between two human beings, as also between the human and the divine beings even in China-where, perhaps, that idea would be least likely to be looked for. It is a common opinion, that in no part of the world is there a more general prejudice against blood-shedding, or the taking of animal life, than in India. And1 it certainly is a fact, that the great religious systems, of Brahmanism and of Booddhism, which have controlled the moral sense of the peoples of India for a score or two of centuries, have exerted themselves, in the main, to the inculcation of these views as to the sacredness of blood and of life—or of blood which is life. Hence, we would naturally look, in India, only for traces, or vestiges, of the primitive, world-wide idea of inter-communion with God, or with the gods, through a divine-human inter-union by blood. Nor are such traces and vestiges lacking in the religious customs of India. In India, as in China, human sacrifices, especially the sacrifice of the first-born son, were formerly made freely, as a means of bringing the offerer into closer relations with the gods, through the outpoured blood.1 It was the blood, as the life, which was believed to be the common possession of gods, men, and beasts; 1 See Dubois's Des. Man. and Cust. of People of India, Part III., chap. 7; also Monier Williams's Hinduism, p. 36 f. hence the final substitution, in India, of beasts for men, in the blood-covenanting with the gods. On this point, the evidence seems clear. The Vedas, or sacred books of the Brahmans, teach, indeed, that the gods themselves were mere mortals, until by repeated offerings of blood in sacrifice, to the Supreme Being, they won immortality from him; which is only another way of making the claim, put forward by the immortalized-mortal, in the Book of the Dead, of ancient Egypt, that the mortal became one with the gods through an interflow of a common life in the common blood of the two. Mortals gave the blood of their first-born sons in sacrifice to the Supreme Being. Then the Supreme Being gave the blood of his first-born male in sacrifice. Thus, the nature of the favored mortals and the nature of the Supreme Being became one and the same. Dr. Monier Williams cites freely from the Vedas in the direction of this great truth; although he does not note its bearing on the blood-covenant rite. Thus, in "the following free translation of a passage of the Satapathabrahmana: 'The gods lived constantly in dread of Death The mighty Ender-so, with toilsome rites They worshiped, and repeated sacrifices, Till they became immortal.'" "And again in the Taittirīya-brahmana: 'By means of THE SACRIFICIAL PART OF ANIMALS. 157 the sacrifice the gods obtained heaven.'" In the Tandya-brahmanas: "The lord of creatures offered himself a sacrifice for the gods." "And again, in the Satapatha-brahmana: 'He who, knowing this, sacrifices with the Purusha-medha, or sacrifice of the primeval male, becomes everything.'"1 That it was the blood, which was the chief element in the covenanting-sacrifice, is evident from all the facts in the case. Thus, in the Aitareya-brahmana, it is said: "The gods killed a man for their victim [of sacrifice]. But from him thus killed, the part which was fit for a sacrifice went out and entered a horse. Thence, the horse became an animal fit for being sacrificed. The gods then killed the horse, but the part of it fit for being sacrificed went out of it and entered an ox. The gods then killed the ox, but the part of it fit for being sacrificed went out of it and entered a sheep. Thence it entered a goat. The sacrificial part remained for the longest time in the goat; thence it [the goat] became pre-eminently fit for being sacrificed!" Indian history shows that this has been the progress of reform, from the days of human sacrifice downward. "It is remarkable that in Vedic times, even a cow was sometimes killed; and goats, as is well known, are still sacrificed to the goddess Kāli.”2 Kali, also called Doorgā, is the blood-craving goddess. The 1 Monier Williams's Hinduism, p. 35 f. 2 Ibid., p. 37 f. blood of one human victim, it is said, "gives her a gleam of pleasure that endures a thousand years; and the sacrifice of three men together, would prolong her ecstasy for a thousand centuries." 1 The guide cau Bishop Heber indicates the "sacrificial part" of the goat as he saw it offered at a temple of Kālī in Umeer. He was being shown by his guide through that city, on his first visit there, and the guide proposed a look at the temple. "He turned short, and led us some little distance up the citadel, then through a dark, low arch into a small court, where, to my surprise, the first object which met my eyes was a pool of blood on the pavement, by which a naked man stood with a bloody sword in his hand. tioned me against treading in the blood, and told me that a goat was sacrificed here every morning. In fact a second glance showed me the headless body of the poor animal lying before the steps of a small shrine, apparently of Kali. The Brahman was officiating and tinkling his bell. The guide told us, on our way back, that the tradition was, that, in ancient times, a man was sacrificed here every day; that the custom had been laid aside till Jye Singh [the builder of Umeer] had a frightful dream, in which the destroying power appeared to him, and asked why her image was suffered to be dry [It is blood, not flesh, 1 Dubois's Des. of Man. and Cust. in India, Part III., chap. vii. INTER-COMMUNION IN INDIA. 159 that moistens]. The Rajah, afraid to disobey, and reluctant to fulfil the requisition to its ancient extent of horror, took counsel and substituted a goat [in which as well as in man there is blood-which is life-which is the chief thing in a sacrifice Godward] for the human victim; with which the 'Dark goddess of the azure flood, Whose robes are wet with infant tears, Of man delights three thousand years,' was graciously pleased to be contented."1 "I had always heard, and fully believed till I came to India," says Bishop Heber, “ that it was a grievous crime, in the opinion of the Brahmans, to eat the flesh or shed the blood of any living creature whatever. I have now myself seen Brahmans of the highest caste cut off the heads of goats, as a sacrifice to Doorga; and I know from the testimony of Brahmans, as well as from other sources, that not only hecatombs of animals are often offered in this manner, as a most meritorious act (a Rajah, about twenty-five years back [say about A. D. 1800], offered sixty thousand in one fortnight); but that any persons, Brahmans not excepted, eat readily [in inter-communion] of the flesh which has been offered up to one of their divinities."" Clearly, the idea of inter-communion with the gods, 2 Ibid., II., 285. 1 Heber's Travels in India, II., 13 f. |
