Thou Shalt Not Kill

suchandra · 05-16-2008, 02:17 PM

The present situation of humanity rejecting the vedic understanding that animals have a soul hasn't changed very much since Vaishnavism came to the West in 1966.
The French Cardinal Danielou brought it to the point, if God created nature like this that one species of animals lives by killing another species, God could have meant only one thing - there's only biological life within animals, but no spirit soul. (" But why does God create some animals who eat other animals? There is a fault in the creation, it seems.")
When Prabhupada presented the general framework he surely expected that in future the Vaishnavas would work out additional findings. Somehow this was overslept by struggle for existence to maintain the institutions.
Yet another example that an efficient preaching force doesn't take shape by thriving for position. No pain, no gain.

Thou Shalt Not Kill Or Thou Shalt Not Murder?

At a monastic retreat near Paris, in July of 1973, Srila Prabhupada talked with Cardinal Jean Danielou: "... the Bible does not simply say, 'Do not kill the human being.' It says broadly, 'Thou shalt not kill.'... why do you interpret this to suit your own convenience?"

Srila Prabhupada: Jesus Christ said, "Thou shalt not kill." So why is it that the Christian people are engaged in animal killing?
Cardinal Danielou: Certainly in Christianity it is forbidden to kill, but we believe that there is a difference between the life of a human being and the life of the beasts. The life of a human being is sacred because man is made in the image of God; therefore, to kill a human being is forbidden.
Srila Prabhupada: But the Bible does not simply say, "Do not kill the human being." It says broadly, "Thou shalt not kill."
Cardinal Danielou: We believe that only human life is sacred.
Srila Prabhupada: That is your interpretation. The commandment is "Thou shalt not kill."
Cardinal Danielou: It is necessary for man to kill animals in order to have food to eat.
Srila Prabhupada: No. Man can eat grains, vegetables, fruits, and milk.
Cardinal Danielou: No flesh?
Srila Prabhupada: No. Human beings are meant to eat vegetarian food. The tiger does not come to eat your fruits. His prescribed food is animal flesh. But man's food is vegetables, fruits, grains, and milk products. So how can you say that animal killing is not a sin?
Cardinal Danielou: We believe it is a question of motivation. If the killing of an animal is for giving food to the hungry, then it is justified.
Srila Prabhupada: But consider the cow: we drink her milk; therefore, she is our mother. Do you agree?
Cardinal Danielou: Yes, surely.
Srila Prabhupada: So if the cow is your mother, how can you support killing her? You take the milk from her, and when she's old and cannot give you milk, you cut her throat. Is that a very humane proposal? In India those who are meat-eaters are advised to kill some lower animals like goats, pigs, or even buffalo. But cow killing is the greatest sin. In preaching Krsna consciousness we ask people not to eat any kind of meat, and my disciples strictly follow this principle. But if, under certain circumstances, others are obliged to eat meat, then they should eat the flesh of some lower animal. Don't kill cows. It is the greatest sin. And as long as a man is sinful, he cannot understand God. The human being's main business is to understand God and to love Him. But if you remain sinful, you will never be able to understand God--what to speak of loving Him.
Cardinal Danielou: I think that perhaps this is not an essential point. The important thing is to love God. The practical commandments can vary from one religion to the next.
Srila Prabhupada: So, in the Bible God's practical commandment is that you cannot kill; therefore killing cows is a sin for you.
Cardinal Danielou: God says to the Indians that killing is not good, and he says to the Jews that...
Srila Prabhupada: No, no. Jesus Christ taught, "Thou shalt not kill." Why do you interpret this to suit your own convenience?
Cardinal Danielou: But Jesus allowed the sacrifice of the Paschal Lamb.
Srila Prabhupada: But he never maintained a slaughterhouse.
Cardinal Danielou: [Laughs.] No, but he did eat meat.
Srila Prabhupada: When there is no other food, someone may eat meat in order to keep from starving. That is another thing. But it is most sinful to regularly maintain slaughterhouses just to satisfy your tongue. Actually, you will not even have a human society until this cruel practice of maintaining slaughterhouses is stopped. And although animal killing may sometimes be necessary for survival, at least the mother animal, the cow, should not be killed. That is simply human decency. In the Krsna consciousness movement our practice is that we don't allow the killing of any animals. Krsna says, patram puspam phalam toyam yo me bhaktya prayacchati: "Vegetables, fruits, milk, and grains should be offered to Me in devotion." (Bhagavad-gita 9.26) We take only the remnants of Krsna's food (prasadam). The trees offer us many varieties of fruits, but the trees are not killed. Of course, one living entity is food for another living entity, but that does not mean you can kill your mother for food. Cows are innocent; they give us milk. You take their milk--and then kill them in the slaughterhouse. This is sinful.
Student: Srila Prabhupada, Christianity's sanction of meat-eating is based on the view that lower species of life do not have a soul like the human being's.
Srila Prabhupada: That is foolishness. First of all, we have to understand the evidence of the soul's presence within the body. Then we can see whether the human being has a soul and the cow does not. What are the different characteristics of the cow and the man? If we find a difference in characteristics, then we can say that in the animal there is no soul. But if we see that the animal and the human being have the same characteristics, then how can you say that the animal has no soul? The general symptoms are that the animal eats, you eat; the animal sleeps, you sleep; the animal mates, you mate; the animal defends, and you defend. Where is the difference?
Cardinal Danielou: We admit that in the animal there may be the same type of biological existence as in men, but there is no soul. We believe that the soul is a human soul.
Srila Prabhupada: Our Bhagavad-gita says sarva-yonisu, "In all species of life the soul exists." The body is like a suit of clothes. You have black clothes; I am dressed in saffron clothes. But within the dress you are a human being, and I am also a human being. Similarly, the bodies of the different species are just like different types of dress. There are soul, a part and parcel of God. Suppose a man has two sons, not equally meritorious. One may be a Supreme Court judge and the other may be a common laborer, but the father claims both as his sons. He does not make the distinction that the son who is a judge is very important and the worker-son is not important. And if the judge-son says, "My dear father, your other son is useless; let me cut him up and eat him," will the father allow this?
Cardinal Danielou: Certainly not, but the idea that all life is part of the life of God is difficult for us to admit. There is a great difference between human life and animal life.
Srila Prabhupada: That difference is due to the development of consciousness. In the human body there is developed consciousness. Even a tree has a soul, but a tree's consciousness is not very developed. If you cut a tree it does not resist. Actually, it does resist, but only to a very small degree. There is a scientist named Jagadish Chandra Bose who has made a machine which shows that trees and plants are able to feel pain when they are cut. And we can see directly that when someone comes to kill an animal, it resists, it cries, it makes a horrible sound. So it is a matter of the development of consciousness. But the soul is there within all living beings.
Cardinal Danielou: But metaphysically, the life of man is sacred. Human beings think on a higher platform than the animals do.
Srila Prabhupada: What is that higher platform? The animal eats to maintain his body, and you also eat in order to maintain your body. The cow eats grass in the field, and the human being eats meat from a huge slaughterhouse full of modern machines. But just because you have big machines and a ghastly scene, while the animal simply eats grass, this does not mean that you are so advanced that only within your body is there a soul and that there is not a soul within the body of the animal. That is illogical. We can see that the basic characteristics are the same in the animal and the human being.
Cardinal Danielou: But only in human beings do we find a metaphysical search for the meaning of life.
Srila Prabhupada: Yes. So metaphysically search out why you believe that there is no soul within the animal--that is metaphysics. If you are thinking metaphysically, that's all right. But if you are thinking like an animal, then what is the use of your metaphysical study? Metaphysical means "above the physical" or, in other words, "spiritual." In the Bhagavad-gita Krsna says, sarva-yonisu kaunteya: "In every living being there is a spirit soul." That is metaphysical understanding. Now either you accept Krsna's teachings as metaphysical, or you'll have to take a third-class fool's opinion as metaphysical. Which do you accept?
Cardinal Danielou: But why does God create some animals who eat other animals? There is a fault in the creation, it seems.
Srila Prabhupada: It is not a fault. God is very kind. If you want to eat animals, then He'll give you full facility. God will give you the body of a tiger in your next life so that you can eat flesh very freely. "Why are you maintaining slaughterhouses? I'll give you fangs and claws. Now eat." So the meat-eaters are awaiting such punishment. The animal-eaters become tigers, wolves, cats, and dogs in their next life--to get more facility."

krsna · 05-16-2008, 02:24 PM

Quote:

...an efficient preaching force doesn't take shape by thriving for position. No pain, no gain.

What does all this mean, my dear sir???

suchandra · 05-16-2008, 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krsna

What does all this mean, my dear sir???

Well this means that thriving for big positions doesn't mean that people are getting convinced about spiritual knowledge by such big big leaders. In this case, the understanding that animals have a soul. I made the assertion that nothing really happened in this understanding that animals have a soul, people are not confident about it.

Bishadi · 05-16-2008, 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by krsna

What does all this mean, my dear sir???

maybe 'no more dairy products' and it's wide open?

Bishadi · 05-16-2008, 03:17 PM

Quote:

Metaphysical means "above the physical" or, in other words, "spiritual." In the Bhagavad-gita Krsna says, sarva-yonisu kaunteya: "In every living being there is a spirit soul." That is metaphysical understanding. Now either you accept Krsna's teachings as metaphysical, or you'll have to take a third-class fool's opinion as metaphysical. Which do you accept?

often the 3rd class is better with the fools humility

accept nature as the first guide, such that the first meal is 'naturally' from consumption; from even the mother's flesh (think brand new babies first meal)

such as death of the sentient; thou shall not

sentient being experiences choice. As to honor all life is natural; say thank you to mother earth for the sustenance.

Reasoning;
to drink water; a consumption of the microscopic life would be called murder with an over supposition to life's soulness.

honor and appreciation is warranted but failure to honor the evolution oppresses sustanance to build the bodies development. (home of a consciousness)

Could be likened to suppressing knowledge itself; the food that develops Understanding.

cbrahma · 05-16-2008, 03:51 PM

We kill bacteria every time we breathe. Embodied existence is entangled by nature.
The Jewish understanding of the decalogue is that 'Thou shalt not kill' means

Quote:

the verb that appears in the Torah's prohibition is a completely different one, " ratsah" which, it would seem, should be rendered "murder." This root refers only to criminal acts of killing.

We have to contemplate that the translated commandment about killing should encompass all the slaughters and wars that were claimed to be led by God Himself.

bija · 05-16-2008, 06:38 PM

Quote:

Srimad Bhagavatam Purport 1.1.3

Every living entity, beginning from Brahmā, the first-born living being within the material world, down to the insignificant ant, desires to relish some sort of taste derived from sense perceptions. These sensual pleasures are technically called rasas. Such rasas are of different varieties. In the revealed scriptures the following twelve varieties of rasas are enumerated: (1) raudra (anger), (2) adbhuta (wonder), (3) śṛṅgāra (conjugal love), (4) hāsya (comedy), (5) vīra (chivalry), (6) dayā (mercy), (7) dāsya (servitorship), (8) sakhya (fraternity), (9) bhayānaka (horror), (10) bībhatsa (shock), (11) śānta (neutrality), (12) vātsalya (parenthood).

The sum total of all these rasas is called affection or love. Primarily, such signs of love are manifested in adoration, service, friendship, paternal affection, and conjugal love. And when these five are absent, love is present indirectly in anger, wonder, comedy, chivalry, fear, shock and so on. For example, when a man is in love with a woman, the rasa is called conjugal love. But when such love affairs are disturbed there may be wonder, anger, shock, or even horror. Sometimes love affairs between two persons culminate in ghastly murder scenes. Such rasas are displayed between man and man and between animal and animal. There is no possibility of an exchange or rasa between a man and an animal or between a man and any other species of living beings within the material world. The rasas are exchanged between members of the same species. But as far as the spirit souls are concerned, they are one qualitatively with the Supreme Lord. Therefore, the rasas were originally exchanged between the spiritual living being and the spiritual whole, the Supreme Personality of Godhead. The spiritual exchange or rasa is fully exhibited in spiritual existence between living beings and the Supreme Lord.

Quote:

Genesis 1.28

God blessed them, and God said to them, 'Be fruitful and multiply, and fill the earth and subdue it; and have dominion over the fish of the sea and over the birds of the air and over every living thing that moves upon the earth.'

From Srila Prabhupada's words we cannot have rasa with animals or trees etc. We can have 'material' affection etc. with them, but like all material relation is temporary and can lead to suffering...ecology problems, animal slaughter and cruelty etc.

So what is our relationship with animals and nature? What is our permanent relation? In spiritual rasa we can see all things as spirit soul parts of Krsna. In rasa with Krsna we can then encompass all-soul and have divine rasa. (...they are one qualitatively with the Supreme Lord. Therefore, the rasas were originally exchanged between the spiritual living being and the spiritual whole...)

That is much different than dominion in the book of Genesis which apparently only sees the world with material vision. The outer casing of creatures. Man as controller of the environment. Which by the state of the world today seems to be a flawed teaching.

The spiritual visions of Jewish tradition and Vedic tradition are very different it seems on this fundamental point. (the rasas were originally exchanged)

RadheyRadhey108 · 05-17-2008, 05:26 PM

Why are so many people so blind? Who cares if the animal has a soul! It still has nerve endings and can feel pain! It can feel horror! Why are these people so amazingly heartless?!

bija · 05-17-2008, 06:37 PM

Good question? Maybe people dont think or just dont care?

I honestly dont know.

RadheyRadhey108 · 05-17-2008, 08:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bija

Good question? Maybe people dont think or just dont care?

I honestly dont know.

I suppose that most of them don't think. But, when they actually take the time to think and consider 'Which is more important, my unnecessary sense gratification, or the torturous suffering of an animal?' and decide that their sense gratification is more important, it is then that they don't care.

suchandra · 05-18-2008, 02:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RadheyRadhey108

I suppose that most of them don't think. But, when they actually take the time to think and consider 'Which is more important, my unnecessary sense gratification, or the torturous suffering of an animal?' and decide that their sense gratification is more important, it is then that they don't care.

Since Buddhism is by now a well established global org, probably much better than Vaishnavism, the Vaishnavas should remind the Buddhist fellow men that Lord Buddha wanted to establish ahimsa, stop to generate sinful reactions by killing - as the vedas confirm - especially the killing of cows is very sinful.
Now, everywhere we find nowadays humanity thriving for peace, harmony and good living. What they don't know, while accumulating sinful reactions, peace is not possible. For example the inhibition threshold to commit violence is constanly getting lower and lower, even school children get more and more out of control.

Another problem for stopping the killing of animals, the widespread "scientific knowledge" that animals have only biological life - life that is created by chemicals within the cells. Additionally, the big religions teach the same, there's no soul within animals, there's no soul even within members of other religions among human beings.
What is missing, first of all, prove that the understanding of biological life is not scientific, there's no proof what so ever how by chemical interaction within the cells life is generated. It is nothing but a fiction.
I recently told a lady who owns a cat, it is unfortunate that the Church teaches that animals have no soul. She looked at me with disbelieve, "Is this really true?", yes, I replied, they invented the term, "biological life". She couldn't believe it and was actually shocked.
Then she said, "but I know that my cat has a soul, is an individual, how can they say that?" So, this lady is a Catholic, paid church rate for her whole live but as we see they don't even know what is being taught and what is the consequence of this killing. A lot of awareness training has to be done and present Vaishnavas, are they aware of the world they live in?
Right, sometimes the refugees from the tyrant's kingdom start fighting amongst themselves. This makes no sense, the refugees need to stick together.

theist · 05-18-2008, 03:50 AM

Quote:

Since Buddhism is by now a well established global org, probably much better than Vaishnavism, the Vaishnavas should remind the Buddhist fellow men that Lord Buddha wanted to establish ahimsa, stop to generate sinful reactions by killing - as the vedas confirm - especially the killing of cows is very sinful.

If these Vaisnavas that you reference live in the west and drink commercial cows milk it would better for them to stop taking part in animal slaughter themselves before lecturing the Buddhists on ahimsa.

cbrahma · 05-18-2008, 05:40 AM

Krsna kills - he led Arjuna into war. Is this not advocating violence?

suchandra · 05-18-2008, 06:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cbrahma

Krsna kills - he led Arjuna into war. Is this not advocating violence?

Krsna says, "time I am, the great destroyer of the worlds.."
BG 11.32

In other words, when God says that He's the destroyer of the worlds, does this mean we can play God and also start killing? Rather it says, Sri Caitanya-caritamrita (Adi-lila, Chapter 17, verse 166): “Cow killers are condemned to rot in hellish life for as many thousands of years as there are hairs on the body of the cow,” which is also referenced in the Manu-samhita. So an intelligent person will try to avoid this fate and stop accumulating sinful reactions.