View source for You can kill one insignificant animal, like pigs or goats. It has not very much use. You kill it in your home, before your children and family, and eat. The government may not have any objection. But why should you maintain slaughterhouses?

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"You can kill one insignificant animal, like pigs or goats. It has not very much use. You kill it in your home, before your children and family, and eat. The government may not have any objection. But why should you maintain slaughterhouses"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Labangalatika}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|16Sep12}}
{{last|16Sep12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=1|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:You Can]]
[[Category:Killing Animals]]
[[Category:one]]
[[Category:Insignificance]]
[[Category:likeness]]
[[Category:Pig]]
[[Category:Goat]]
[[Category:Does Not Have]]
[[Category:Not Very Much]]
[[Category:Use]]
[[Category:Your]]
[[Category:Home]]
[[Category:Before]]
[[Category:Children]]
[[Category:Family]]
[[Category:Animal-eating]]
[[Category:government]]
[[Category:May Not]]
[[Category:Not Have]]
[[Category:Any]]
[[Category:objection]]
[[Category:but]]
[[Category:Why Should]]
[[Category:Maintain]]
[[Category:Slaughterhouse]]
[[Category:Questions Posed by Srila Prabhupada]]
</div>
<div id="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="section" sec_index="5" parent="compilation" text="Conversations and Morning Walks"><h2>Conversations and Morning Walks</h2>
</div>
<div id="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="8" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1975 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1975 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkMay101975Perth_0" class="quote" parent="1975_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="65" link="Morning Walk -- May 10, 1975, Perth" link_text="Morning Walk -- May 10, 1975, Perth">
<div class="heading">You are so uncivilized that you are keeping slaughterhouses, regularly. These Africans and other jungle people, they eat meat, but they directly kill. They have no such civilization as to maintain a slaughterhouse. The tigers eat meat, but they do not keep a slaughterhouse. And you are civilized. You are keeping slaughterhouse. Why should you keep? The government shouldn't allow you to keep slaughterhouses. If anyone wants to eat meat, let them eat like tigers and others. Individually, kill one animal—a lower animal, not cows. This should be the government law. You can kill one insignificant animal, like pigs or goats. It has not very much use. You kill it in your home, before your children and family, and eat. The government may not have any objection. But why should you maintain slaughterhouses?
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- May 10, 1975, Perth|Morning Walk -- May 10, 1975, Perth]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: The vaiśyas' business is first to see that in the country there is enough food for eating—both for the human being and the animals. The human being should not complain that there is no sufficient food grains, therefore they're eating flesh. No. Flesh is not for human being. They should live on food grains. Just like dahl. Dahl is as good as meat. It is from food grain. And there is sufficient varieties of dahl they can eat. They can make so many preparations, palatable preparations. Why are the prices of food grains increasing? Because there is shortage. If there is enough food, the price will automatically decrease, because everyone want to sell. So, the price will decrease, naturally. It will be so lavishly available that you can give food grains even to the animals, like cows and goats and other so many animals. Let them eat. That is the business of the vaiśya man. And go-rakṣya. Another business is to protect the cows, and to give them food nicely so the cows will give enough milk. And from milk, you know, so many nice preparations, all full of vitamins. So why they should be killed? You are killing; the blood is not utilized, you are taking the flesh. But flesh is transformation of the blood. And milk is also transformation of the blood. So if you take, just like channa, it is as good as flesh. By taste, by benefit—as good as. So why if you can take the flesh and blood in a human way-blood is transformed into milk, and from milk there are so many good preparations-ghee, yoghurt, burfi, channa, so many preparations are available. This panir, channa, and let the animal live peacefully. Why are you cutting his throat? You require some benefit from the animal. Take this benefit. Why should you kill? If he can live and give better service, then why shall I try to kill? What is this human civilization? Is that human civilization, that I am taking service from you, and I am cutting your throat? Is that humanity? What is the answer?</p>
<p>Jayadharma: No, it's animal civilization.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Anyone who takes milk... Everyone takes milk. The cow is the mother. Mother gives milk. And mother, when she cannot supply milk, mother should be cut up. Is that a very good philosophy? Is it human philosophy? What is the answer? But if you say that somebody wants to, say in your country majority they want to eat meat. So, if you put that argument, then you can eat some lower animals. You can eat the pigs. You are eating also, pigs. Not in a massive scale. Massive scale—if you are Christian you should follow your religious scripture: "Thou shall not kill!" This should be the principle. But if you are a rākṣasa, if you want to eat meat, then at least don't kill the cows. You can eat other, insignificant animals. You are eating also. You are eating everything. Except the moving cars, you are eating all the moving animals. The car also moves, but you cannot eat. Otherwise you are killing everything. You have become so civilized rascal that your business is to kill other animals and eat. You are so civilized. You are still in the crude form of human being, just like in the jungles, the aborigines, the Africans, they do not know how to develop civilization—crude methods, eating the animals. That also, they are not so uncivilized that they keep slaughterhouses. You are so uncivilized that you are keeping slaughterhouses, regularly. These Africans and other jungle people they eat meat, but they directly kill. They have no such civilization as to maintain a slaughterhouse. The tigers eat meat, but they do not keep a slaughterhouse. And you are civilized. You are keeping slaughterhouse. Why should you keep? The government shouldn't allow you to keep slaughterhouses. If anyone wants to eat meat, let them eat like tigers and others. Individually, kill one animal—a lower animal, not cows. This should be the government law. You can kill one insignificant animal, like pigs or goats. It has not very much use. You kill it in your home, before your children and family, and eat. The government may not have any objection. But why should you maintain slaughterhouses? So the agriculturist and the mercantile men, they should produce enough food, give protection to the cows, and if there is excess, sell it. Where there is not enough food grain produced you can make business. That is the instruction given in Bhagavad-gītā, kṛṣi-go-rakṣya vāṇijyam ([[Vanisource:BG 18.44|BG 18.44]]). That is really needed. Nobody is interested. Everyone comes to the city, the mercantile class. They are doing business, big, big skyscraper building, and they have artificial money, paper. And instead of eating food grains they are maintaining slaughterhouses. This is not good civilization. Hare Kṛṣṇa.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>