Date: 05 Sep 2000 00:00:00 GMT
Subject: Re: Human Sacrifice

Subject:  Re: Human Sacrifice
>From: "Baba Eyiogbe" eyiogbe@orishanet.com 
>Date: 9/5/00 0:04 AM EST
>Message-id: 
>
>Ugh! The verse for Baba Irete Meji (Ejelemere) is very long as it is the
>principle verse for one of the Olodus (most major Odus). So I will distill
>it down to it's most basic elements:
>Orunmila was out in hunting a deer for an ebo he needed to do. He caught the
>deer but in the process he fell into a pit with it. No one would help him
>saying "if you are so wise then find your own way out of the hole". Finally
>three women helped answered his pleas. One of them was unsuccessfully trying
>to have a child. He made love to her which produced a child for her.Before
>Orunmila left she asked how she could find him. He gave her directions to
>his house and an exact description.
>In the meantime, he had returned home to Oke Mesi and the woman returned
>home to her husband, the Oba or king of Illa. Years later the boy was
>captured as a slave. He was in fact sold to Orunmila for use as a human
>sacrifice in Oke Mesi.
>A few days before the sacrifice, Orunmila overheard the boy singing a song
>describing the circumstances of his birth which included the exact words
>that Orunmila had used to describe his home. He then realized that this was
>his own son. Orunmila found a suitable replacement for the sacrifice of his
>son and that was a goat. From then on human sacrifice was never practiced
>again in the religion.
>
>As you can see, there was human sacrifice up until the time of Baba Irete
>Meji. But it was halted by Orunmila at that time and it also explains why
>goats are often used as a 'replacement sacrifices' when someone's life is in
>danger. This is the fundamental ese or verse for the Odu and is
>pre-colonial.
>Another thing you should understand, is that for us there are very few
>'Absolutes'. Everyone has their own Odu they came to the world with and
>therefore their own nature or Iwa. And that nature is correct for them. If
>you look around you, you see that everything has it's own nature that's
>right for them. A rattlesnake has a poisonous bite. That is its nature. If
>he refuses to bite, he will starve and have no protection. So poisonous
>bites are right and good for the rattlesnake. But it would be ridiculous for
>a sheep to try to bite just as it would be equally ridiculous for a
>rattlesnake to try to live on grass. Because biting it is not part of the
>sheep's nature and eating grass is not part . So while there are *some*
>fundamental Absolute Truths, much that is true depends on the nature or Iwa
>of that particular person or thing. Perhaps you know someone who thrives on
>socializing and 'partying' and another person for whom such behavior is
>disastrous. Which is right? Well that depends... Recognizing that is one of
>the profundities of Ifa.
>
>Again I hope this helps...
>
>Iboru, Iboya, Iboshishe,
>
>Baba Eyiogbe
>
>
>
>news:20000904200108.11854.00000128@ng-fx1.aol.com...
Subject: ct: Re: Human Sacrifice
>> >From: "Baba Eyiogbe" eyiogbe@orishanet.com
>> >Date: 9/4/00 5:19 PM EST
>> >Message-id: 
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> What if you get a different odu?
>> >
>> >We should differentiate between the aspect of Odu which apply only to the
>> >person who comes with that Odu and the aspect which acts as precedent
>which
>> >applies to everyone in the religion. The part of Irete Meyi referred to
>act
>> >as this sort of precedent and forbids human sacrifice on the part of all
>> >practioners of the religion.
>>
>> That is good to know, and I appreciate your taking the time to reply.
>Perhaps
>> you could elaborate further and quote the specific verse.
>>
>> If there is any history or legends associated with its introduction, that
>would
>> be very edifying as well. I remember the very illustrious babalawo from
>whom I
>> took instruction one time telling the class that verses may be added to
>the Ifa
>> corpus, that there are verses which clearly were introduced following
>Islamic
>> invasion, but that he was not aware of any verses that had been added
>since
>> European colonizers came. One of the things that I would be interested in
>is
>> whether the verse to which you allude was introduced in post-colonial
>times.
>>
>> Something else that intrigues me is the following: was human sacrifice
>"okay"
>> then but not "okay" now, or is it that it was never "okay"? I would like
>to
>> think that Truth is an absolute, which is not to say that it doesn't allow
>for
>> shades of gray, just that that too falls within the Absolute. That human
>> sacrifice falls within the Absolute is not a thought that is abhorrent to
>me,
>> although I am acutely aware of its grayness. After I became a parent, it
>> shocked me the realization that I would readily sacrifice myself for
>either one
>> of my children. So the idea that certain kinds of sacrifice, in particular
>> voluntary sacrifice, might be "okay" is not something that I find
>difficult to
>> defend. Christian martyrs and Islamic jihadists also fall within that
>concept
>> of human sacrifice. So, if the verse "forbids" human sacrifice in the
>manner
>> you describe, I would find it intensely interesting to know the full
>context
>> and background, and whatever "grayness" may attach to the prohibition.
>>
>> If you care to elaborate, that is... I appreciate that it takes a certain
>cast
>> of mind even to raise these questions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
Subject:  Re: Human Sacrifice
>From: "Baba Eyiogbe" eyiogbe@orishanet.com 
>Date: 9/5/00 0:04 AM EST
>Message-id: 
>
>Ugh! The verse for Baba Irete Meji (Ejelemere) is very long as it is the
>principle verse for one of the Olodus (most major Odus). So I will distill
>it down to it's most basic elements:
>Orunmila was out in hunting a deer for an ebo he needed to do. He caught the
>deer but in the process he fell into a pit with it. No one would help him
>saying "if you are so wise then find your own way out of the hole". Finally
>three women helped answered his pleas. One of them was unsuccessfully trying
>to have a child. He made love to her which produced a child for her.Before
>Orunmila left she asked how she could find him. He gave her directions to
>his house and an exact description.
>In the meantime, he had returned home to Oke Mesi and the woman returned
>home to her husband, the Oba or king of Illa. Years later the boy was
>captured as a slave. He was in fact sold to Orunmila for use as a human
>sacrifice in Oke Mesi.
>A few days before the sacrifice, Orunmila overheard the boy singing a song
>describing the circumstances of his birth which included the exact words
>that Orunmila had used to describe his home. He then realized that this was
>his own son. Orunmila found a suitable replacement for the sacrifice of his
>son and that was a goat. From then on human sacrifice was never practiced
>again in the religion.

I hope you won't mind if I quibble a little bit. If I were to put on
lawyerly, or even theological robes, one could argue that the specifics of
the case recounted in the verse do not apply to voluntary human sacrifice.
The boy was "captured as a slave", and "sold for use
as a human sacrifice". In other words, the practice that is implicitly
being condemned is the traffic in human beings as though they were animals,
for the purpose of ebo. I doubt that the victims of such sacrifice
ever volunteered, either before or after they got picked. What the verse
comments upon therefore does not provide precedent for sacrifice of the noble sort,
which at a minimum requires that the person offered as sacrifice be a volunteer
It therefore is not a blanket prohibition, but a prohibition in a narrowly
defined sub-class.

I do not quibble because I would promote any practice of human sacrifice, human
or otherwise, but only because my interest is in the laws of spiritual
science, i.e. in Truth. I am therefore concerned with
two ancillary questions. The first is what is the "power", if
any, derived from human sacrifice. The second is the ethical question,
namely what is the rightness or wrongness of the practice. 

My inner voice tells me that the power of human sacrifice is immense,
and further, depends on whether it is voluntary or not. That wisdom
is clear when you consider: that at the core of Christianity is a
story of human sacrifice; that it was built on martyrdom; that many
parents sacrifice themselves for their children, literally and figuratively; the story of
the fellow whose god told him he required his son as a sacrifice,
and the fellow said, well then take me instead; etc. The
point is that life is not the absolute value that we tend to take
it to be in a post-Christian world, and that sometimes the
purest expression of Love is to offer oneself as a sacrifice, and further
that the one who does that undeniably brings blessings both unto themselves (for
they survive as eternal spirit) and to those for whom they make the
sacrifice. In this context, there is a story circulating on the net
somewhere. It is about a little girl who has some disease and the
doctor says that in order to save the girl, she needs to have
a blood transfusion, and the only suitable donor is the girl's little
brother. The family asks him if he is willing to give his blood
to save his sister. So, he thinks about it a little,
and lips trembling, he finally says, okay, and a look of
serenity then descends on his face. Then as the operation proceeds, and
they are pumping his blood into his sister, after some time he asks
"how much longer before I die?". And then the realization dawns on
the doctor and the boy's family that he felt all along that
by giving his blood, he was also being called upon to give his
life for his sister. How noble! I'm sure that that
boy gained a lot of karmic points for that one. And anyone who
has had a parent that has sacrificed, scrimped, saved and done without
so that some offspring can become a big shot somewhere understands implicitly the power
of human sacrifice. So let us be very clear. Human sacrifice is
part of the grand spiritual scheme of things, and there is a noble
aspect to it, just as surely as there are sorcerers who seek to
draw some of that power in some of their evil practices.

The next question is the rightness of the practice, which I have already
answered. There is nothing wrong with human sacrifice per se. It all
depends. If it requires that you murder someone for the sacrifice to go
through, then it is clearly wrong. And if the victim hasn't
volunteered, then it's murder, pure and simple.

That is a horrific practice, and the verse is a reminder that a
traffic in human beings for the purposes of involuntary human sacrifice can lead precisely
to the situation described in the verse, prompting anyone with a conscience 
(or which Orunmila stands as metaphor) to examine afresh a practice that might
have become culturally ingrained at one time, and therefore removed from much conscious
reflection. It is that cultural practice that one could take as having been
"prohibited" by the wisdom metaphorically imparted in that verse.

There is an additional point. The illustrious babalawo from whom I once took
instruction told the class one time that the verses of odu never prohibit or
forbid anything, except perhaps by inference. There are no "commandments"
in the religion, no "thou shalts" and no "thou shalt
nots". Our divine nature comes necessarily with free will. What there are
are consequences to action, and an in-built moral compass to which
we could look to seek guidance on what, and what not, to
do. When that moral compass is defective, or we are not sure
what the reading is, there are of course the odu and the verses
to help us to get it working again.

>As you can see, there was human sacrifice up until the time of Baba Irete
>Meji. But it was halted by Orunmila at that time and it also explains why
>goats are often used as a 'replacement sacrifices' when someone's life is in
>danger. This is the fundamental ese or verse for the Odu and is
>pre-colonial.

Now there is a historical point. Another quibble. In my understanding of
Irete Meji, the odu, it is timeless as a matter of principle
and would have been revealed at the same time that the entire system of
Ifa divination was revealed. Verses connected with this odu, as with all
odu, would later have accumulated in the way that cultural legends and myths
do. If this was the first verse connected with Irete Meji, then
the the prohibition that it calls for in the traffic in human beings for
the purpose of making ebo, is a prohibition that goes back to pre
historic, let alone pre-colonial times. I would think. Correct
me if I'm wrong. And at the same time, we
have on the evidence of J. Olumide Lucas, "The religion of
the Yorubas", that human sacrifice indeed continued to be performed in Yorubaland even
after the coming of the British. While he, and the British,
condemned the practice as "barbaric", the examples which he gave appeared to
me to be of the voluntary sort, of which I've written
already somewhere in this thread.

>Another thing you should understand, is that for us there are very few
>'Absolutes'. Everyone has their own Odu they came to the world with and
>therefore their own nature or Iwa. And that nature is correct for them. 
> Which is right? Well that depends... Recognizing that is one of
>the profundities of Ifa.

I see your point, and I do not disagree. But to quibble yet
again, my notion of Absolute Truth is the world, all that's
in it, and all the Divine Laws which govern it. That is
Absolute. What is True yesterday is True today, and tomorrow. That
Absolute is unchanging. But within that Absolute, there is all manner of
shades of gray. The best analogy that I can think of is a
game. Football, say. The Absolute consists in the game and its
rules, which are unchanging (well, almost). But within the game
there is an infinity of possibilities, and no two games are ever the
same, although they are all alike. I raised the point because the
question of human sacrifice, its rightness or wrongness, when and under what
conditions, would have to belong to the rules of the game as it
were, to the Unchanging. It couldn't have been right up
until Irete Meji, and thereafter wrong. It was either right before
(under certain conditions, obviously, as earlier discussed) and still right now
or never right. I am leery of "new dispensations" in religion.

>Again I hope this helps...
>
>Iboru, Iboya, Iboshishe,
>
>Baba Eyiogbe
>
>
>
>news:20000904200108.11854.00000128@ng-fx1.aol.com...
Subject: ct: Re: Human Sacrifice
>> >From: "Baba Eyiogbe" eyiogbe@orishanet.com
>> >Date: 9/4/00 5:19 PM EST
>> >Message-id: 
>> >
>> >
>> >
>> >> What if you get a different odu?
>> >
>> >We should differentiate between the aspect of Odu which apply only to the
>> >person who comes with that Odu and the aspect which acts as precedent
>which
>> >applies to everyone in the religion. The part of Irete Meyi referred to
>act
>> >as this sort of precedent and forbids human sacrifice on the part of all
>> >practioners of the religion.
>>
>> That is good to know, and I appreciate your taking the time to reply.
>Perhaps
>> you could elaborate further and quote the specific verse.
>>
>> If there is any history or legends associated with its introduction, that
>would
>> be very edifying as well. I remember the very illustrious babalawo from
>whom I
>> took instruction one time telling the class that verses may be added to
>the Ifa
>> corpus, that there are verses which clearly were introduced following
>Islamic
>> invasion, but that he was not aware of any verses that had been added
>since
>> European colonizers came. One of the things that I would be interested in
>is
>> whether the verse to which you allude was introduced in post-colonial
>times.
>>
>> Something else that intrigues me is the following: was human sacrifice
>"okay"
>> then but not "okay" now, or is it that it was never "okay"? I would like
>to
>> think that Truth is an absolute, which is not to say that it doesn't allow
>for
>> shades of gray, just that that too falls within the Absolute. That human
>> sacrifice falls within the Absolute is not a thought that is abhorrent to
>me,
>> although I am acutely aware of its grayness. After I became a parent, it
>> shocked me the realization that I would readily sacrifice myself for
>either one
>> of my children. So the idea that certain kinds of sacrifice, in particular
>> voluntary sacrifice, might be "okay" is not something that I find
>difficult to
>> defend. Christian martyrs and Islamic jihadists also fall within that
>concept
>> of human sacrifice. So, if the verse "forbids" human sacrifice in the
>manner
>> you describe, I would find it intensely interesting to know the full
>context
>> and background, and whatever "grayness" may attach to the prohibition.
>>
>> If you care to elaborate, that is... I appreciate that it takes a certain
>cast
>> of mind even to raise these questions.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
>

Contents | Previous | Next



Tips for your pocket:

• E-commerce meets network marketing
  
• Get paid for the ads you read