On dragons and human sacrifice

the custom of Sati for instance


That’s true, Jātakas are not widely known. I think maybe in some former times they were more common. These days, I think Journey to the West probably plays a little similar role.

Here are a few related passages:

The striking thing about both of these passages is that they appear quite isolated in the text, and are not supported by other passages. Notice also that the passage in the Śūraṅgama Sūtra even contains bits at the end that contradict those at the beginning.

Concerning egoless self-sacrifice, though, probably the most well-known passage is the following:

Interestingly, I think at least one Chinese monk who went to India asked the monks there about these sort of practices. They replied that “the bodhisattva” did these things, but we don’t have to do them.


A post was split to a new topic: On the authenticity of the Jatakas

I feel that it’s exactly the same as how Buddhism disappeared from India.

Buddha taught the middle path, which is balancing between self and others, harming others for selfish reasons can be as bad as harming oneself for others. But human beings by nature are extreme, they either become materialistic easily or have the romantic idea of sacrifice self for the benefits of others.

I remember my friend said that people do charity for selfish reasons, so that they feel good about themselves, it’s not selfless at all. I was like “what’s wrong with helping others to feel good?”. Also look at the story of Abraham in bible where he prepared to sacrifice his own son for god and christians all around the world are OK with it.

At least they still have wisdom to protect themselves :laughing:

that episode could be viewed as harbinger of a much more grandiose imminent sacrifice of soteriological significance in the future, namely that of the God’s son Jesus by the God himself

and Christians apparently are OK with that too

Okay, well, I’m trying to stop myself, but it appears I can’t. :smirk:

The notion of substitute sacrifice was established by Frazer, and in my view is one of the most well-grounded and significant findings in mythology.

The basic story is that in the past a crueler sacrifice was required—typically human sacrifice—but that this requirement was dropped by the gods who came to accept a gentler sacrifice. In the case of Abraham it was a goat rather than his son. In the Buddhist texts, it’s usually a vegetarian sacrifice, such as ghee and rice.

Since we read these stories from the wrong end of history, we misjudge what’s going on (often such misjudgments are found in the texts themselves). We get outraged at the idea that God wanted Abraham to sacrifice his son. But that’s not the point; it’s just the normal, bog-ordinary behavior of gods. It’s what they, and their followers, expect.

The point is that god comes to accept a “lesser” sacrifice. In the Abraham story this comes from God’s own choice. In the Buddhist texts it’s typically because the yakkha is converted to Buddhism, or at least harmlessness, by the Buddha, a disciple, or the bodhisattva (if it’s a Jataka).


As is the way of mythology, the story is told a gajillion times, and each telling retains the same essential pattern, while revealing different interpretations due to the details. In Greek mythology, perhaps the best known example is Tantalus, who murdered his son and fed him to the gods. It didn’t turn out well.

Once animal sacrifice becomes seen as repulsive as human sacrifice, a purely symbolic sacrifice becomes possible, as in the Christian host. But this story is not just part of major religions, it’s everywhere, in paganism and folklore around the world. The sacrificial murder ends up as childrens’ games.

Children in England prepare for the Guy Fawkes bonfire

Just as we miss the twist in the plot, we miss the moral of the story. Which is, in fact, that the story has a moral. Again, due to our late perspective we cannot disentangle morality and religion. But the two have nothing essentially to do with one another, and in fact are fundamentally opposed.

If God’s will is truly unfettered, how can he be checked by considerations of morality or kindness? He can’t. (Or she can’t; I don’t want to imply that gods are any more vicious and heartless than goddesses. They’re not; the gentle goddess of herbal tea and yoga is a modern paganist fiction.)

A deity is an absolute narcissist. They’re not subject to the rule of law, the rule of morality, or anything else. The world spreads itself out from them as a manifestation of their own ego, which is perfection itself. If the world doesn’t get that, it’s the world’s problem. The only duty a narcissist has is to help free the world from this delusion. All the world has to do is acknowledge that the narcissist is in fact the true and only source of all that is good and sacred, and its problems will be solved. But if the follower refuses to obey an order, even if that order is to murder their only child, their disobedience must be punished.

Warning! The following material may be traumatic for some readers. Seriously, if you thought the photo of the Guy Fawkes with kids was creepy, don't click this. ![image](upload://2wOjjKamHHNuwBIvWUcsAGbLyES.jpeg)

In my time as abbot of a monastery, I met more than one person who honestly believed this. One student actually told me, after being there a week or so, that if I gave the monastery to her to run, all our problems would be solved within a week.

The story of the substitute sacrifice is ultimately the story of the death of god. The god(dess) becomes subject to human considerations like ethics and compassion, and no longer has absolute power. They’re like a constitutional monarch, on the slow road to democracy. If the god themselves is subject to morality, how can they be the source of morality? This is the beginning of the problem of evil. And much of theology is a working out of a defense of how god and morality can coexist.

Since Buddhism is not a religion in the sense I am discussing here—i.e. it is not a cult of sacrifice to forces greater than ourselves—this problem does not exist. Heck, the Buddha actively seeks out a higher authority than himself to honor, and ends up honoring the Dhamma. This is the philosophical reason why Buddhas appear again and again: the Buddha is a part of the natural order. They are subject to the Dhamma just like you or I.


and in mundane and realistic terms the punishment is psychological, by doubt, uncertainty, hesitation, insecurity whereas complete surrender to the god’s will manifested in particular in the facts of life is extremely liberating, conciliatory and pacifying

Complicated and brutal ways of divinity in the past/myth :no_mouth:

I’m sticking with simple yet profound Dhamma.


Dear Bhante,

Scary picture indeed! :grin:

with respect and gratitude,


I was reading a book on the theology of the Idabi Islam and came across a couple of pointseminded me of that post of yours. In the ʾAshʿarīyya theological school of Islam God is considered to be always just not because he is subject to the moral laws but because he created this very law, and is, therefore, above any moral or ethical considerations and his every action is per definitionem just. So, the substitute sacrifice is not the story of ‘taming God’ or subjugating his actions to the ethics, but rather a story of a divine whim. He could have just as well not ordered the substitute sacrifice and it still would have been a perfectly just moral action. As some of the ʾAshʿarīyya theologians wrote, even if God would declare anything that is now evil to be good and anything that is good to be evil, there would be nothing to stop Him. The ʾAshʿarīyya school is widely spread in the regions of the Shāfiʿī and Mālikī madhhabs, i.e. is influential for at least 250 million people (possibly more), so as you see the idea of God as the Absolute Ruler is still very much alive.

1 Like

Taking this theme to a tangent, albeit I feel an important one, is the idea that monastics should not be so tied to repulsiveness of the body, or not-self, or self sacrifice, that they neglect their health and fitness. I know of some stories of monks allowing themselves to be fed on by mosquitoes, or bitten by snakes, or medically ill and refusing modern medical treatment. Less harmfully, some monastics feel that their diets are unimportant, or that fitness is not a proper monastic consideration; we then have diabetic and ill monks with preventable diseases.

I’d like to see more of a sense of the Buddha’s magnificent pragmatism, and his sense of acting skillfully, and not foolishly…sometimes letting dengue ridden bugs inject you seems to me silly, when a more skillful approach to mosquitoes might be needed. I’d like to see monks and nuns encouraged to exercise in their kutis, to walk more, and to be allowed ( as one Thai monk did in secret) lift weights to maintain fitness. I’ve heard that Ajahn Passano allows monks to do yoga in their kutis, which I feel is a great idea.

So, to our treasured teacher monks and nuns, our Metta for you overflows, we need and respect you and want you to live long healthy lives. And while none of you may consider self-immolation or finger severing, I for one would like to see self care and fitness emphasized in the Sangha. The lay sangha might be educated a bit as to healthier dana; fewer cakes and sweets, and more protein and veggies. The Buddha lived a mostly fit life to be 80, and we have seen some of our modern great Ajahns live shorter, sicker lives, cut short by lack of self care or a sense that active self care is adhammic. I think of Nanavira Thera as perhaps one tragic example of this.

My two baht for today.


it’s interesting that in the Sabbasava sutta (MN 2) avoidance is prescribed against wild animals, but not insects, who on the other hand are to be met with forbearance

Taints to be Abandoned by Enduring

“What taints, bhikkhus, should be abandoned by enduring? Here a bhikkhu, reflecting wisely, bears cold and heat, hunger and thirst, and contact with gadflies, mosquitoes, wind, the sun, and creeping things; he endures ill-spoken, unwelcome words and arisen bodily feelings that are painful, racking, sharp, piercing, disagreeable, distressing, and menacing to life. While taints, vexation, and fever might arise in one who does not endure such things, there are no taints, vexation, or fever in one who endures them. These are called the taints that should be abandoned by enduring.

Taints to be Abandoned by Avoiding

“What taints, bhikkhus, should be abandoned by avoiding? Here a bhikkhu, reflecting wisely, avoids a wild elephant, a wild horse, a wild bull, a wild dog, a snake, a stump, a bramble patch, a chasm, a cliff, a cesspit, a sewer. Reflecting wisely, he avoids sitting on unsuitable seats, wandering to unsuitable resorts, and associating with bad friends, since if he were to do so wise companions in the holy life might suspect him of evil conduct. While taints, vexation, and fever might arise in one who does not avoid these things, there are no taints, vexation, and fever in one who avoids them. These are called the taints that should be abandoned by avoiding.

that would be good, especially for unhealthy monastics having to be selective in food, but i don’t think monastics are in a position to be picky, as the apposite saying goes ‘beggars can’t be choosers’, so it’s a toll of the homeless life which must be accepted

besides, attitude of contentment in particular with any kind of almsfood as one of the 4 requisites is often praised in the suttas

Therefore, bhikkhus, you should train yourselves thus: ‘We will be content with any kind of robe, almsfood, lodging, medical requisites and we will speak in praise of contentment with any kind of robe, almsfood, lodging, medical requisites, and we will not engage in a wrong search, in what is improper, for the sake of a robe, almsfood, lodging, medical requisites . If we do not get a robe, almsfood, lodging, medical requisites we will not be agitated, and if we get one we will use it without being tied to it, uninfatuated with it, not blindly absorbed in it, seeing the danger in it, understanding the escape.

SN 16.1

i think renunciation means forsaking care about all worldly matters and affairs including diet

when applied to the body the term seems kind of alien and opposite to what the Dhamma stands for, body care would perhaps be more in line with it

Thanks for the reply, LXNDR, my friend. I may have to respectfully agree to disagree with you on this one. While MN2 provides appropriate guidance this text predates knowledge of insects as carriers of deadly disease, so I’d argue we need not take this text as literally as it appears. I still urinate in water every day, though the Vinaya proscribes this, but with modern sanitation, the practice of urinating in water is seen as healthy, not unhealthy, by way of example.

as the apposite saying goes ‘beggars can’t be choosers’, so it’s a toll of the homeless life which must be accepted

I don’t view monastics as beggars, but almsgoers, part of a healthy symbiotic relationship. Just as the lay people depend on the Dhamma being taught as sound, wise, and beneficial, so might as well the dana given in return be the same. I don’t want my Dhamma to be sweetened or without nutritional value. I want it to fuel my life in a beneficial and wise way…so the same for food, in my view.

So, I see the renunciant life as a wise life. We don’t renounce our wisdom, common sense, or our health, but only the aspects of mundane life that draw us away from liberation. I’d like to see our monastics live as long and as healthily as did the Buddha at least, only to pass once their bodies are, naturally, held together like an old cart held together by straps. :wink:

i just quoted it as a curiosity, i don’t think self exposure to bites of insects is prudent when means of protection are handy, probably mosquito nets were unknown to the Buddha’s contemporaries

i just found this particular saying quite apt in relation to bhikkhus, Pali for beggars

there’s another one however ‘don’t look a gift horse in the mouth’

we know that early Sangha monastics couldn’t expect to be offered fresh food, let alone a healthy one

And when he enters a house, some give and some do not. And when they give, some give yesterday’s cooked rice and stale cakes and rancid jelly, sauce and so on. Some, not giving, say, “Please pass on, venerable sir,” others keep silent as if they did not see him. Some avert their faces. Others treat him with harsh words such as: “Go away, you bald-head.”

Visuddhimagga transl. by Ven Nanamoli, pp. 340-341

Today I am fortunate, persevering,
Happy with the scraps in my alms-bowl;
Bhaddiya, son of Godhā,
Practices jhāna without grasping

and so forth

Thag 16.7

1 Like

On this topic of neglect with one owns body.
I think it is worth highlighting that the Vinaya depicts the Buddha constantly getting consulted with Jivaka the doctor and making use of treatments, etc.
Note however that this is what you should expect of a Samma Sambuddha: to extend out of compassion the life of his body so the Dhamma is further spread.

1 Like

and of course we cannot suspect Buddha of self-identification with the body or any of the 5 khandhas for that matter and clinging to them, his status is beyond lay or renunciant

1 Like

A post was split to a new topic: New evidence of human sacrifice in ancient Greece

Another interesting statement about a ‘narcissistic God’ coming from an Islamic preacher. This time, it is a more Salafi / Hanbali oriented scholar. ‘Arrogance is a quality that is not suitable for us, earthly creatures. However, God the Allmighty is beyond reproach and no-one can rival him in anything, so it is suitable for His exalted Person to be arrogant’

Once I asked a certain person what they would feel after death if this particular version of Islam proved to be true. The answer was ‘disappointment’.

1 Like

A recent study confirms the long-held view that human sacrifice, in part, enabled the development of stratified societies.

And I couldn’t resist this:


Here is the U.S., we don’t actually sacrifice our poor and vulnerable in order to maintain the ever-increasingly wide gap between rich and poor, but we do let them starve due to poverty (in the world’s richest country), we let sick people die who cannot gain access to health care, and we have a death penalty that seems not to affect too many from the highest strata of society.

It could have other motivations, including to punish taboo violations, demoralize underclasses, mark class boundaries and instil fear of social elites, all of which aim at building and maintaining social control. For this reason, says Michael Winkelman, an anthropologist now retired from Arizona State University in Tempe, “I suspect that Watts et al. are assessing some general notion of social legitimated killing.”

In modern times, we need not crush people with rocks, but it does seem that the so-called 1 % must get some sense of control or status over seeing people die due to neglect in the US (knowing with the stroke of a pen they could mitigate it), and knowing that these vulnerabilities keep the impoverished in fear and in further poverty, and those close t o the poverty line meek and subservient. So, we don’t exactly crush marginalized people with large rocks anymore, or pull the hearts out of their chests, but the psychology of fear and control and the demoralization of lower classes today seems eerily similar to that of, say, ancient Aztec times.