approaching _ahims[=a]_ doctrine of 'non-injury.' At most one finds a
contemptuous allusion, as in a pitying strain, to the poor plants and
animals that follow after man in reaping some sacrificial benefit from
a ceremony.[46] It does not seem to us that a recognized respect for
animal life or kindness to dumb creatures lies at the root of proxy
sacrifice, though it doubtless came in play. But still less does it
appear probable that, as is often said, aversion to beast-sacrifice is
due to the doctrine of _karma_, and re-birth in animal form. The
_karma_ notion begins to appear in the Brahmanas, but not in the
_sams[=a]ra_ shape of transmigration. It was surely not because the
Hindu was afraid of eating his deceased grandmother that he first
abstained from meat. For, long after the doctrine of _karma_ and
_sams[=a]ra_[47] is established, animal sacrifices are not only
permitted but enjoined; and the epic characters shoot deer and even
eat cows. We think, in short, that the change began as a sumptuary
measure only. In the case of human sacrifice there is doubtless a
civilized repugnance to the act, which is clearly seen in many
passages where the slaughter of man is made purely symbolical. The
only wonder is that it should have obtained so long after the age of
the Rig Veda. But like the stone knife of sacrifice among the Romans
it is received custom, and hard to do away with, for priests are
conservative. Human sacrifice must have been peculiarly horrible from
the fact that the sacrificer not only had to kill the man but to eat
him, as is attested by the formal statement of the liturgical
works.[48] But in the case of other animals (there are five
sacrificial animals, of which man is first) we think it was a question
of expense on the part of the laity. When the _soma_ became rare and
expensive, substitutes were permitted and enjoined. So with the great
sacrifices. The priests had built up a great complex of forms, where
at every turn fees were demanded. The whole expense, falling on the