Wherever we encounter people looking to engage with Indo-European religions – seemingly, no matter whether it’s ‘revivalist’, or the still-living since ancient times sort … there’s fairly inevitably some kind of brew-up claiming that something somebody’s doing is somehow ‘inauthentic’ – often accompanied by demands that everybody “RETURN TO TRADITION” … 

… with the “TRADITION” in question usually being a very specific interpretation (or, if you prefer, ‘imagination’) of the interlocutor in question. 

Now, to be fair – there’s absolutely a place for discussion around whether a given (modern-day) ritual understanding is a) ‘orthodox’ (where applicable), b) ‘metaphysically viable’, and c) concordant with either i) what it’s ‘supposed to be’ and/or ii) what we’ve got in relation thereto from archaic source-materials. 

There’s also a very legitimate realm of crucial, critical discussion to be had as to how far and in what ways one might end up ‘compromising’ with ‘Modernity’, local conditions, etc. before the whole thing is irreducibly, irrecoverably ‘compromised’ instead. [And that isn’t simply an armchair-style ‘theoretical’ or even ‘just’ a ‘neo-pagan’ concern, either. In the course of having certain powerful Vedic Rites done recently, the differing availability as to certain ritually required plants here in New Zealand as compared to India (whether because things simply don’t grow / aren’t available here – or because being in the Southern Hemisphere with seasons around the other way means some things aren’t in bloom quite yet) meant I found myself having exactly this suite of discussion with the head of the very traditional orthodox Vedic Brahmin clan we had been working with, with a view to remedying these and other ‘logistics’ issues – a great education ! ] 

However there’s also a lot of misapprehension. 

And instead of continuing to talk in vague generalities, I’d like to bring the focus in upon one pretty essential (and intriguing) area of the Indo-European religious experience: that of Sacrifice.

Now, the importance of this ought prove more than readily apparent. When it comes to actually having a religion – rather than a set of esoteric reading materials and niche aesthetic interests, possibly with an attendant roleplaying game (live-action or otherwise) – sacrifice is almost a sine qua non requirement for ‘actual engagement’ with the Gods.

‘Do Ut Des’ , that ancient Latin Maxim (or, in Sanskrit – ‘Dehi Me, Dadami Te’, per TS 1.8. 4.1 / VS 3.50), translatable as ‘I Give, So That You Might Give’, is an eminent guide. 

And, of course, this is also one of those areas wherein things start to get rather ‘controversial’, rather quickly. 

For instance – in India today there is a big sphere of back-and-forth even in the law courts as applies animal sacrifice … what we would term ‘Pashu Bali’. 

Pashu, as a brief point of perhaps comparative interest, is etymologically cognate with Proto-Germanic *Fehu, as well as the ‘Pecu’ that in Latin becomes ‘Pecuniam’ ; in essence, it is a term which does ‘double-duty’ of a sort … for ‘Cattle’ or ‘Domestic Animals’, and also, in these European languages in particular, for ‘Wealth’. 

Now, in ‘Revivalist’ spheres, there are similar disagreements – albeit not usually wending their way through the legal system. 

Some people absolutely insist that unless you have ‘blood sacrifice’ involved, it ain’t legitimate – and others are adamant that they do not wish to participate in operations or devotions that feature the killing of animals or men. 

Who’s right? 

Well, to put it bluntly – nobody who is taking their cues entirely from whether there’s blood-sacrifice or not, is likely to be ‘in the right’ of things. 

Because that’s starting back to front, at best. With the thing that’s salient for us in our modern imagination or our modern and personal values – rather than what’s actually (religiously) correct. 

And, to phrase it more bluntly – it’s effectively avoiding taking the time and effort to look into what’s actually there before coming to pseudo-rhetorical blows upon the matter. We have – and you have, no doubt – seen it many times.

This doesn’t just include ‘whether or not’ something is a thing – but also in what context it’s appropriate (or is inappropriate) as well as how something is to be properly done. That can change things quite immensely!

For example – some months ago there was a bit of a kerfuffle on Hindu Twitter due to a rather … ‘enthusiastic’ “Neo-Indra” chap, who insisted that he was ‘bringing back’ the archaic Vedic offering to Indra – by cutting his hand and offering the resultant blood as a sacrifice thereto. 

Except here’s the problem – whilst Vedic ritual operations do include blood-letting (albeit not to kill the victim thereof – it’s something which ensues post-mortem) … take a look at what the texts , the actual Vedic ritual manuals have to say upon the matter:

From the Shatapatha Brahmana:

“And where he skins (the victim), and whence the blood spirts out, there he smears it (the bottom part with blood) on both ends with (Vâg. S. VI, I6), ‘Thou art the Rakshas’ share!’ for that blood is indeed the Rakshas’ share.
Having thrown it away (on the utkara), he treads on it with, ‘Herewith I tread down the Rakshas! herewith I drive away the Rakshas! herewith I consign the Rakshas to the nethermost darkness!’ “
[SBr III 8 2 14-15, Eggeling translation]

Or:

“Thereupon the Gods obtained possession of the whole of the sacrifice, and dispossessed those (Asuras) of it by (giving them) what was the worst part of the sacrifice, to wit, with the blood of the victim (They dispossessed them) of the animal sacrifice, and with the refuse of the rice of the haviryagña.
‘May they be duly dispossessed of the sacrifice,’ They thought for he indeed is duly dispossessed, who is dispossessed even while obtaining a (worthless) share.
He, on the other hand, who is dispossessed without any share whatever, hopes for a while, and when it occurs to him, he says, ‘What share hast thou given me?’
Hence what share the Gods set apart for those (Asuras), that same share he now makes over to them in pouring (the refuse of the rice) right under the black antelope skin.
He thereby casts it into blind darkness, where there is no (sacrificial) fire. And in the same way he casts the blood of the victim into blind darkness, where there is no fire; thinking, ‘Thou art the Rakshas’ share!’
For this reason they use not the gore of the victim (for sacrificial purposes), since it is the Rakshas’ share.”
[SBr I 9 2 35, Eggeling translation]

And, from the Aitareya Brahmana:

“Present the evil spirits with the blood ! 
For the Gods having deprived (once) the evil spirits of their share in the Haviryajnas (such as the Full-and New-Moon offerings) apportioned to them the husks and smallest grains, and after having them turned out of the great sacrifice (such as the Soma and animal sacrifices), presented to them the blood.
Thence the Hotar pronounces the words: Present the Evil Spirits with the Blood !
By giving them this share he deprives the evil spirits of any other share in the sacrifice.”
[Ait. Br.  II 7 Haug translation] 

Phrased more succinctly … yes, there absolutely IS a ‘blood offering’ which takes place in the course of various Vedic rites … it’s just that it is quite pointedly not there for the Gods – but rather to placate (and/or ‘distract’) the Demons. 

Pretty much exactly the opposite as to that which the young “Neo-Indra” hand-cutter would have been going for. 

So, as we can see – a little understanding as to the ‘How’ and the ‘Why’ of such things is a rather vital predicate to actually being able to do them in any shape approaching ‘properly’. And to not end up inadvertently producing something that may be rather … counterproductive (at best). 

(Which is not, of course, to suggest that there’s no scope for a more ‘legitimate’ ‘blood offering’ in either the general Hindu conceptual milieu – nor the more broadly considered Indo-European one … but subjects for another time)

Now, with all of that preamble out of the way … it is probably about time that we get on down to that which I am actually intending to speak about to you this evening. Which is something completely different. 

That being a perhaps unexpected – yet, as you shall soon discover, entirely authentic and pervasively attested – paradigm of Indo-European ritual sacrifice. 

Which, curiously enough, should also seem to be rather more ‘concordant’ with certain modern mores than one might, perhaps, have thought plausible. 

What is it? 

‘Ritual Substitution’.

What is that?

Well, put simply – it’s the offering of something, as one might assume, as a substitute for something else. The substitute ‘stands in’ for the originally demarcated article – and this is not something which is thought upon ‘out of the blue’ or purely as a matter of individual happenstance, much less convenience. Instead, it is an undertaking done often according to archaic formulas which set out the appropriate substitute as well as, usually, some measure as to the ‘how’ and the ‘why’ of the substitution first having been undertaken and its consequent, ensuing legitimation. 

To expand upon that a bit – it should really come as no surprise to us that something like this should exist within the archaic canons of Indo-European mythic as well as ritual conceptry. In part, we might simply succinctly observe that the immense migrations of various groups of Indo-Europeans all the way from the Urheimat to wherever they eventually ended up – would quite naturally require some adaptation and alteration as to ritual proceedings due to the changing (non-)availability of certain elements previously deemed integral thereto. This just extends that concept somewhat – some might argue.

However, I feel that we can do rather better than this (not illegitimate, yet nevertheless saliently incomplete) attempted explication. 

As we have so often had cause to observe – a foundational precept of Indo-European religious operation is often that of, as Eliade termed it, the ‘Eternal Return’. Which we have tended to call the ‘Mythic Resonance’ or ‘Mythic Recurrence’. 

Phrased more simply – rituals (particularly when we are, say, going through the manuals (especially the Brahmanas) setting out how and why things are to be done in the manner that they are therein) tend to be ‘re-enactments’ … particular, regular(ized), carefully (re-)constructed ‘performances’ which pointedly seek to ‘resonate’ with some prior and Mythic scenario’s unfurling – so as to thence re-immanentize its anticipated, (‘mytho-historically’ or ‘historo-mythically’, perhaps) attested  outcome (or parts thereof) back out into this (loka-lized) (and sidereal) realm of ours. 

When considered within this view, seemingly almost every major element engaged in the ritualistic undertaking is already part and parcel of a ‘ritual substitution’ effort, into the bargain. We cannot re-do the original and archaic … literally downright Mythic … ‘mighty deed’ in question (often because this would require re-running a part of the universe all over again, and entail a truly massive Special Effects budget, even before we contemplate the fact that we are not, generally speaking, the Gods of Old, capable of literally Cosmological-scale actions that thence reshape everything that is yet to come, &c.). And so, instead, we ‘stand in’ for the particular great Worthies Who did the thing the first time around – our ritual operations forming a miniature ‘resonance’ as to their ‘macro’ scaled originals. Or, more properly, it’s actually a meso- scaled undertaking that we are engaged within – the macrocosmic being the broad, general, and the mythic; the microcosmic being the sphere of the sidereal and the individual; and in between the most delicious ‘mesocosmic’ space that is the seeming ‘interface’ betwixt the two, wherein otherwise and previously ‘microcosmic’ beings are able to ‘enter in’ and undertake actions that have a far broader ‘resonancy’ with the Above, and thence out and all around in that afore-implied mythic-metaphysical manner. But I digress!

In essence, the fact of various Indo-European ritual conceptry as efforts in ‘Eternal Return’ or ‘Mythic Recurrence / Resonancy’ means that we have already tacitly understood that as we cannot perfectly re-enact the original ‘template-ed’ Deed, we must therefore undertake to do something else that is nevertheless still fundamentally ‘resonant’ with the archaic archetype whose result we hope to (in some measure) re-secure. Something ‘symbolic’ – yet which nevertheless does not merely suborn things down to the empty and two-dimensional displacement by mere ‘visages’ (or mirages) of ‘essences’. Symbols, after all, are not ‘lies’, nor are they ‘hallucinations’. They are, rather, more ‘subtle’ bearers of the mental – and often also metaphysical – essence of the thing … when properly considered and ’empowered’ (and, of course, UNDERSTOOD !).

Most important (for our purposes here at this moment) of all – it is vital to recollect that merely because something is ‘Symbolic’ … in no way means that it is also axiomatically ‘Inauthentic’, now, into the bargain. Contingent, one supposes, upon just how ‘good’ and ‘worthy’ of a symbolic representation the thing in question actually is … but again, we digress.

To return to the core theme of our contribution … the specific sort of Ritual Substitution operation that we’re interested in, for the moment, is that wherein a living sacrifice – whether man or beast – is to be substituted for. Obviously, this is not the only form of ‘ritual substitution’ which one might encounter. And within the Hindusphere, there are an array of formulas and ‘standardized’ understandings for this kind of thing. Utilizing Akshat (uncooked, whole rice that’s been treated with a paste of vermillion – the name, interestingly enough, is something of a functional cognate for ‘atom’, insofar as it is ‘undivided’ ; although also ‘unbroken’, ‘uninjured’, etc. ) in lieu of various other standard offering elements, for example, should those be unavailable at the time.

But for obvious reasons, this is the particular dimension of great interest to many people – both now and in antiquity. After all, animals (whether of the four-legged or two-legged-and-trouser-wearing variety) are a rather obviously finite ‘resource’ ; and therefore it is entirely understandable that conceptry was arrived at so as to enable Proper Piety to be undertaken without having to at all times have a truly impressive quotient of livestock, special species which might prove rather hard to come by, or the right sort of persons to be offering up , etc. 

The latter dimension is not a uniquely Indo-European thing, either – our correspondent, Er. Shailesh Bharadwaj, had drawn our attention to the situation encountered in Imperial China wherein at the tail-end of the Warring States era appears to have conspicuously de-emphasized human sacrifice in favour of utilizing figurines instead. Whilst it was suggested by another that “Confucian ideals” having disapproved of the former custom might have been the reasoning – I , and I think E.S.B. , had inferred that the conflict-riven situation of the previous period and its consequent significant pressures upon the supply of men about the place, might have had an impact.

Certainly, the end of a large-scale war-period means that the prospects for acquiring prisoners of war to utilize in such a fashion – as was done, rather memorably, by the Hindu Vijoy Manikya of Tripura with both the lion’s share of a thousand Pathan cavalrymen and a (similarly Muslim) general in service of the Sultan of Bengal (other sources demarcate Gaur), in the mid-1500s. One just simply does not tend to come across dozens if not hundreds of men ‘surplus to requirements’ in such a way otherwise. 

But again, we digress !

And, perhaps more to the point – there are serious legal (not to mention, in most cases, moral) considerations that would, especially today, stand in the way of one carrying out such a thing amidst the modern world. 

All of which therefore makes it rather unutterably handy that we have these variformly well-attested ancient approaches that can enable us to sidestep the difficulty – truly, ‘Bronze Age Solutions For Modern Problems’ (with a slight caveat that we may potentially be meaning Early Iron Age, for the most part, because I can’t be bothered delving too far into various of the Hittite bits and pieces that do also come up within this sphere). 

Now, I’m going to leave most of the Hindu conceptry in this area for later in the piece … but there’s one element to our own custom that I do wish to briefly bring to the fore – that being the utilization of figures moulded from Ghee (‘clarified butter’) in substitution for animal offerings. Manusmriti V 37 attests this – whilst also, as it should happen, noting that flour (‘Pista’ / पिष्ट ) also presents another option for the constituent component to the ‘animal’ substitute. 

The reason why I wish to begin there is quite simple. Because it’s the ‘essence’ of the thing. Quite literally, as it happens – the relevant term utilized in the Brahmanas (the ‘ritual manual / explication’ texts within the Vedas) tends to be ‘Medha’ (मेध ). 

A good exemplar for this is provided for us by Shatapatha Brahmana XIII 3 6 2 – which, per the Eggeling translation:

“He performs it with ghee; for ghee is life-sap, and the Aśvastomīya is life-sap: by means of life-sap he thus puts life-sap into it. He performs with ghee, for that–to wit, ghee–is the favourite resource of the Gods: he thus supplies Them with Their favourite resource.”

The word which Eggeling has chosen to render as “life-sap” is, of course, ‘Medho’ (and, so Nyāyaratnasiṃha informs me, Ājya ( आज्य ) for the Ghee) . The actual meaning for the former term, Medha, is effectively just exactly that – the ‘essence’ (or even ‘marrow’), the ‘offering’, the sacrifice and the sacrificial victim , and in potentially not all that different context, so Monier-WIlliams informs us, a “nourishing or strengthening drink” … certainly, given the impressively nutrient-dense nature of Ghee, that should seem rather apt as a result. 

Phrased another way – what we observe in SBr XIII 3 6 2 is that the Sacrifice is performed with Ghee (and note – this is not just any sacrifice, nor is it being done with a ritual substitute … it is a verse from the extolling of the proper process for the Asvamedha, the Horse-Sacrifice – and note that ‘Medha’ on the end, there, as well … ), precisely because the Ghee is the essence of Sacrifice, in most general terms. This is not just because of the obvious – that when we light, say, a Diya Lamp for an Aarti Flame, that the fuel for the blaze and thus the illumination is the Ghee housed therein, or even to expand things upwards in scale, because the mighty Vedic Havan and Agni Himself is to be (em)powered therethrough, as well. 

But rather, it is due a much broader suite of attested saliencies for the Ghee within our Vedic metaphysical view. 

For instance – we find quite some repeated attestations within the Shatapatha Brahmana for Ghee being as a ‘Thunderbolt’ [‘Vajra’, indeed] within the ritual context. That is to say it is useful for the purposes of warding against Demons (an ever-present Vedic ritualine consideration – the Demons seek to disrupt the sacrifice and make off with its offerings for their own ill-gotten consumption and consequent empowerment) ; and, given the way in which various Vedic ritual operations are, most overtly, ‘weaponized’ in their saliency … well, think of it as the ‘Fuel’ in the ‘Fuel Air Bomb’, we might suggest. 

Some examples. 

SBr III 6 4 15:
“Upon the [tree-]stump he then offers ghee, ‘lest the evil spirits should rise therefrom after (the tree):’ ghee being a thunderbolt, he thus repels the evil spirits by means of the thunderbolt, and thus the evil spirits do not rise therefrom after it. And ghee being seed, he thus endows the trees with that seed; and from that seed (in) the stump trees are afterwards produced.”
[Eggeling translation] 

SBr III 4 4 8:
“They have clarified butter for their offering material. For ghee is a thunderbolt, and by that thunderbolt, the ghee, the Gods clove the strongholds and conquered these worlds. And so does he cleave these worlds by that thunderbolt, the ghee, and conquer these worlds; therefore they (the Upasads) have ghee for their offering material.”
[Eggeling translation] [And for those of you who have just joined us – go take a look at my work in relation to the Upasads, the ‘Rites of Siege’, sometime] 

A very useful substance ! Truly multipurpose ! 

However there is an even more foundational reasoning to the integrality of Ghee as a potential component to both Rites and Ritual Substitution. 

SBr VII 2 3 4 tells us quite directly: 

” […] but that ghee is the life-sap (essence) of this Universe, for it is the life-sap of both the waters and plants: he thus gratifies Him by the life-sap of this Universe. And as far as the life-sap extends, so far extends the body: he thus gratifies Him by this universe. […]”

Hence, the Ghee which we are discussing is ‘Universal Fuel’ in at least two senses – both as ‘Fuel for the Universe’, as well as an essence at the heart of things : to the point that it may feasibly be utilized as a ‘substitute’ for other such sources of energy within the concourse of the Rite. 

A great array of constituent components to the universe are depicted as effectively running off Ghee – in a manner not entirely (nor coincidentally) reminiscent to how any Food Chain diagram for the natural world shall ultimately have (almost) all of those energy-transmission chains (mediated by something eating something else, for the most part – whether animal consuming animal, or animal consuming plant ) leading on and downwards from the Sun. So, ‘go back to the Source’, then. (This is, as it happens, something of the ‘opposite direction’ to that which seems to underpin another prominent Vedic ritual substitution framework – that of the crop-derived element that we shall seek to elucidate in due course, and which I suspect rather strongly to correlate with the Manusmriti’s Pista (‘flour’) substitution optioning; but more upon that later once we have introduced some comparative Roman conceptry.)

There is, admittedly, some debate about just how far you can go with this – and whether in some cases other styles of rite might be better approaches rather than simply applying a ritual substitution to a particular rite that otherwise demands animal (Pashu – cognate with Fehu) offering.

Yet this should not be taken as vitiating the general principle – which is that whilst sacrifice is, yes, vitally important … it is the essence as to the thing which truly matters. 

And, in-line with that – that as applies the general necessities as to ‘functional piety’, one is ill-served via the mere ‘mechanistic’ (non-)comprehension that would seek to assert the sort of … unilateral standard (to phrase things charitably) which one guy on twitter took of, and I quote: “sacrifice the animal or die a cuck.” (He was commenting, apparently, on Roman religion – and more on his stance in Part Two)

In sum – once it becomes readily apparent just why a particular ritual substitution may be advised, the whole thing starts to look significantly less like what some probably awkwardly feel to be ‘cheating’ or a ‘cop-out’ or a ‘charade’ … and much more like something which actually does have some considered, archaic, and above all – resonant, working – metaphysics essential to it. 

Exactly that which one needs with a view towards the carrying forth even into the Modern Age of these most Ancient of Flames of ours.