View source for One life is, one living being is food for another living being. But that does not mean that you shall kill your son and eat, and it will be supported by the society

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"One life is, one living being is food for another living being. But that does not mean that you shall kill your son and eat, and it will be supported by the society"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Labangalatika}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|15Sep12}}
{{last|15Sep12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:One Life]]
[[Category:Jivo Jivasya Jivanam - One Living Being is Food for Another]]
[[Category:Does Not Mean]]
[[Category:Shall]]
[[Category:Kill]]
[[Category:your]]
[[Category:son]]
[[Category:eating]]
[[Category:Will Be]]
[[Category:Support]]
[[Category:Society]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Philosophy_Discussions" class="sub_section" sec_index="13" parent="Lectures" text="Philosophy Discussions"><h3>Philosophy Discussions</h3>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononHegel_0" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="4" link="Philosophy Discussion on Hegel" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Hegel">
<div class="heading">One life is, one living being is food for another living being. But that does not mean that you shall kill your son and eat, and it will be supported by the society. That is discrimination, that is conscience. The word is to make the best use of a bad bargain.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Hegel|Philosophy Discussion on Hegel]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: I observe in nature that everything is killing something else for eating so it seems only rational that I should be able to eat animals.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Well, that also accepted in the Vedic philosophy, jīvo jīvasya jīvanam. One life is, one living being is food for another living being. But that does not mean that you shall kill your son and eat, and it will be supported by the society. That is discrimination, that is conscience. You can say that "I must eat some, another living entity. That is by nature's law. So I produce my children and I kill them and I eat them so that the population problem will be solved." You can say that. Will you be accepted? So therefore there must be discrimination. That you have to eat another living being, that is nature's law, but if you eat fruit, you don't kill the tree. You take the fruit. If you eat vegetables, you take, still it is growing, and that is a factually not killing. But if you eat animals, you are killing. Actually he is being dead. So things should be done intelligently so that... The word is to make the best use of a bad bargain. So our philosophy is that although you can take that, although it is not killing, it is taking fruits, flowers and vegetables, it is taking from him, it is not killing, and we are offering to Kṛṣṇa and so if there is any responsibility, it is Kṛṣṇa's responsibility. We take the prasāda. Therefore we have no such responsibility and that is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā, bhuñjate te tv agham pāpā ye pacanty ātma-kāraṇāt ([[Vanisource:BG 3.13 (1972)|BG 3.13]]). Anyone who is cooking for himself, he is taking all responsibility for sinful activity even if he is a vegetarian, it doesn't matter. Yajña-śiṣṭāśinaḥ santo mucyante sarva-kilbiṣaiḥ. But if he takes the remnants of yajña—we are offering Kṛṣṇa daily—this is performing yajña. So we are taking the remnants of yajña. This is our philosophy. We are not taking directly. If I take directly, either a vegetarian or non-vegetarian, then I become responsible. Sinful. This is our philosophy. The law is there, but we have to tackle things very intelligently.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>