Animal protection (Lectures)

Expressions researched:
"animal" |"animals" |"protect" |"protecting" |"protection" |"protects"

Notes from the compiler: VedaBase research query: "animal* protect*"@10

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Government should give security of life and property. That is government. Not only for the human being, but even for the ant. This is government. Not that I give protection to my brother, and not to others. Just like Parīkṣit Mahārāja, he was giving protection to the animals also.

Lecture on BG 1.1 -- London, July 7, 1973:

So what is the rightful ownership of the living entity? That is to be understood. Birthright, what is called birthright. Just like everyone has got right to live under the protection of the government, everyone. That is good government. Government should give security of life and property. That is government. Not only for the human being, but even for the ant. This is government. Not that I give protection to my brother, and not to others. That is not... Just like Parīkṣit Mahārāja, he was giving protection to the animals also. When he was on his tour, as soon as he saw that a black man was trying to kill one cow, oh, immediately he took his sword, "Who are you? You are trying to kill?"

So this is good government. Unless the government is equal to everyone... Just like God is equal to everyone. The king or the government must be representative of God. Therefore, according to Vedic civilization, king is offered as good respect as to the Supreme Personality of Godhead. King is called nara-deva, nara-deva. That means "God in human form." King is given... Why? Because he acts as the representative of God. He cannot be jealous to any living entity, at least, born in his kingdom. That is called praja. Praja means one who has taken birth, or, in other words, national, national. So that was the duty.

As the kṣatriya's business was to give protection to the citizens, similarly, vaiśya's duty was to give protection to the animals.

Lecture on BG 1.12 -- London, July 13, 1973:

They are described in the Bhagavad-gītā, brāhmaṇa qualification, kṣatriya qualification, vaiśya qualification, śūdra qualification. So... Very nice arrangement, Vedic civilization. Everyone is guided by the superior. The brāhmaṇa guides the kṣatriyas, the kṣatriya guides the vaiśyas, and the vaiśya employs the śūdras. Cātur-varṇyaṁ mayā sṛṣṭaṁ guṇa-karma-vibhāgaśaḥ (BG 4.13). In this way, four divisions of brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya, they manage the whole society so nicely. The kṣatriyas, as the kṣatriya's business was to give protection to the citizens, similarly, vaiśya's duty was to give protection to the animals. Kṛṣi-go-rakṣya-vāṇijyaṁ vaiśya-karma svabhāva-jam (BG 18.44).

Vaiśya, they should engage themselves in agricultural production and giving protection to the cows, especially mentioned, go-rakṣya. Go-rakṣya, cow protection, is one of the items of state affairs. And now there is no cow protection. Poor cows, they deliver milk, and later on they become slaughtered. How much sinful the modern society is, and they still want peace and prosperity. That is not possible. The society must be divided—brāhmaṇa, kṣatriya, vaiśya, śūdra—and they must execute their proper duty. And the vaiśyas, they should give protection to the cows. And the śūdras, they should work under the direction of the higher three divisions. In this way there will be nice management.

It is the duty of the kṣatriya to protect every living entity born in the land, in his kingdom. It is not that, as it is going on now, that only the human beings should be protected and not the animals.

Lecture on BG 2.2-6 -- Ahmedabad, December 11, 1972:

Just like Mahārāja Parīkṣit, Arjuna's grandson, when he was touring in his empire... The whole world was at that time Indian empire. Not Indian exactly. Bhārata-varṣa. Now we have imitated some name, Bhārata, the "Indian," "Hindustan." But formerly the whole planet was known as Bhārata-varṣa. So when he saw that one black man was trying to kill one cow, immediately he took his sword: "Immediately I shall kill you. Who are you, killing cows in my kingdom?" This is kṣatriya's business. So... But there is no kṣatriya now because so many cows are being killed. Nobody is protesting. It is the duty of the kṣatriya to protect every living entity born in the land, in his kingdom. It is not that, as it is going on now, that only the human beings should be protected and not the animals. No animal could be killed except in sacrifice, as prescribed. Unnecessarily, there was no need of killing animals. That is great sin.

To give protection innocent citizen or animals from being injured by the rascals, the government or the king should take his sword and kill immediately.

Lecture on BG 2.36-37 -- London, September 4, 1973:

Kṣatriya means who gives protection the citizens from being hurt by the irreligious person. That is called kṣatriya. Kṣat. Kṣat means injury, and tra means deliver. Just like Mahārāja Parīkṣit. When he saw that a black man Kali was going to kill a cow, so he was going to inflict injury to the cow, and immediately Mahārāja Parīkṣit took his sword, that to give protection to the cow from the injury of black man. So that violence required. Tit for tat. One who is going to commit violence unnecessarily, the king, government, should immediately take the sword and kill that person. That is government's duty. Had it been Vedic culture prevailing now, all these persons who are unnecessarily killing the cows in the slaughterhouse, they would have been killed by the king. "You have done so sinful." So that kind of killing is pious. To give protection innocent citizen or animals from being injured by the rascals, the government or the king should take his sword and kill immediately. This kind of killing is there in the Bhagavad-gītā. Not that general killing. You can capriciously kill anyone and give the evidence, "Oh, it is Bhagavad-gītā. It is there." How... See how rascals, they are interpreting. Therefore we are presenting Bhagavad-gītā as it is, without interpreting in a rascal's way.

Vaiśya means the mercantile community. They are meant for giving protection to the animals, and produce grain, and distribute and make trade on them.

Lecture on BG 2.46-47 -- New York, March 28, 1966:

In the Bhagavad-gītā you will find that the mercantile class... Who are mercantile class? Kṛṣi-go-rakṣya-vāṇijyaṁ vaiśya-karma svabhāva-jam (BG 18.44). Vaiśya means the mercantile community. They are meant for giving protection to the animals, and produce grain, and distribute and make trade on them. That's all. Because formerly there was no industry—people generally depended on agricultural work—therefore the mercantile community, they used to produce food grains and distribute them, and protection of cow was their duty. As the king was entrusted to protect the life of the citizens, similarly, the vaiśya class, or the mercantile class, they were entrusted to protect the life of cow. Why particularly cow is protected? Because milk is very essential food for the human society, therefore cow protection is the duty of the human society. That is the conception of Vedic literature.

Nobody dies of starvation. That is a false theory. Have you seen any animal dying of starvation? Have you got any experience?

Lecture on BG 3.11-19 -- Los Angeles, December 27, 1968:

Guest: How do you account for the fact that man sometimes takes animals and feeds them and protects them, whereas otherwise these animals might have died of starvation or exposure or something?

Prabhupāda: Why you are anxious about the animals being starvation? You take care of yourself. You don't be philanthropic, "Oh, they'll starve. Let me eat." What is this philanthropy? Kṛṣṇa is supplying food. If he dies out of starvation, it is Kṛṣṇa's responsibility. Nobody dies of starvation. That is a false theory. Have you seen any animal dying of starvation? Have you got any experience? Have you seen any bird died of starvation? There is no question of starvation in the kingdom of God. We are manufacturing these theories for our own satisfaction, sense satisfaction. There is no question of starvation in the law of God. Elephant eats hundred pounds at a time. Who is supplying foodstuff? There are millions of elephants in the African jungle, in Indian jungles. They require one hundred pounds at a time to eat. Who is supplying food? So there is no question of starvation in the kingdom of God. Starvation is for the so-called civilized men.

In human society, so-called civilization, we give all protection to the human society, but we don't give any protection to the animal society.

Lecture on BG 4.19-22 -- New York, August 8, 1966:

Just like Arjuna is fighting. Arjuna was afraid of sinful acts by killing his kinsmen and, I mean to say, grandfather. But when he understood that "I am fighting on Kṛṣṇa's account, so I am free." Śārīraṁ kevalaṁ karma kurvan na āpnoti kilbiṣam. If you simply don't try to increase your artificial demands for maintaining this body... You have every right to live, and everyone has got right to live, not only myself. Even the ant has got the right to live. But in human society, so-called civilization, we give all protection to the human society, but we don't give any protection to the animal society.

This Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is for all living entities, not that I shall simply give protection for my brother, my sister, or my father, but even to the lowest animal we shall give protection.

Lecture on BG 5.17-25 -- Los Angeles, February 8, 1969:

Revatīnandana: "Purport: Only a person who is fully in Kṛṣṇa consciousness can be said to be engaged in welfare work for all living entities."

Prabhupāda: Yes. For all living entities. You can open a hospital for the human being but where is your hospital for the tiger? Can any man open a hospital for the tigers, for the snakes? And why not? You are compassionate with living entities. Are they not living entities? This is the frailty of imperfect knowledge. They are giving protection, the state is giving protection, to the national, but the cows are not national. They should be killed. But the definition of national is that one who is born in that land is called national. The cows are not born in this land? Why for them killing, and only for the human being protection? This is imperfect, imperfect knowledge.

So whatever a man is doing, you will find some imperfectness. But this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is so nice that it has no imperfectness. It is all-perfect. It is for all living entities, not that I shall simply give protection for my brother, my sister, or my father, but even to the lowest animal we shall give protection. This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Therefore, "Only a person who is fully in Kṛṣṇa consciousness can be said to be engaged in welfare work for all living entities." Why discrimination? Why protect this and not that? That is imperfectness. The human society cannot give protection to all living entities, but here is a scheme which can give protection to all living entities.

Just like these animals, they have no personal endeavor. They are depending on you. If you cut his throat, you can cut. And if you give him protection, you can give him. But they, the animals has no personal endeavor. That is full surrender.

Lecture on BG 9.34 -- August 3, 1976, New Mayapur (French farm):

Yogeśvara: Śrīla Prabhupāda? How are we to determine how much of our endeavor should be for our own personal progress?

Prabhupāda: There is no personal endeavor. There is no personal endeavor. Just like these animals, they have no personal endeavor. They are depending on you. If you cut his throat, you can cut. And if you give him protection, you can give him. But they, the animals has no personal endeavor. That is full surrender. That is our position. Remain fully surrendered to Kṛṣṇa and He'll give you protection. That you are thinking, how the animal will live, how these children will live. It is not the children's business, not the animal's business. He is fully surrendered, that's all. Man-manā bhava mad-bhaktaḥ. Other things will be done. Kṛṣṇa says yoga-kṣemaṁ vahāmy aham (BG 9.22). "I shall do that." Why your personal endeavor?

Because you are not Kṛṣṇa consciousness, you are discriminating in this way, that the human society should be given protection, the animal society should be slaughtered. Is that very good?

Lecture on BG 18.67-69 -- Ahmedabad, December 9, 1972:

Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya sambhavanti mūrtayo yāḥ (BG 14.4). If you are Kṛṣṇa conscious, then you'll see that "Every living entity, not only human society, but the animal society, the bird society, tree society, the aquatic society—all living entities, they're all sons of Kṛṣṇa. Why shall I kill a fish or a cow, or a goat? He's also son of Kṛṣṇa." This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. And you are doing humanitarian work and sending so many animals, thousands of animals, to the slaughterhouse. What is this? What these poor animals have done? Because you are not Kṛṣṇa consciousness, you are discriminating in this way, that the human society should be given protection, the animal society should be slaughtered. Is that very good? Is that good consciousness? Just like the Christian people say that the animals have no soul—because they want to eat meat. Christ says, "Thou shalt not kill." They interpret in a different way. So you can make your own mental concoction, but if you require to be right person, you have to take direction from the authorities. That is required.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

Just like here, the animals, under the protection of the devotees, at least he has no fear of his life.

Lecture on SB 1.5.18 -- New Vrindaban, June 22, 1969:

So mukunda-sevī. Similarly, anyone who has taken to Kṛṣṇa consciousness, even if he falls down... Generally, he does not, but even, taking for accepted that he, somehow or other, he fallen, still, he'll not have to suffer like others. Just like here, the animals, under the protection of the devotees, at least he has no fear of his life. No devotee will kill. Here the cows, the horse, the dog, they're assured of their life. Therefore they're not like ordinary dogs. They're not ordinary cows. Therefore it is said, Śrīdhara Svāmī says, mukunda-sevī, even if he's degraded, he's not degraded as ordinary man. He's not degraded as... Mukunda-sevī na vrajet aṅga, anyavat kevala karma niṣṭhavat iti vaidharma niṣṭha.(?) Just like other karmīs. They are, according to their karma, they're given birth in a specific species of life. So their case, a devotee's case, is different.

Not that animals should not be given protection, only man should be given protection. No. Prajā. Prajā means one who taken birth in the kingdom.

Lecture on SB 1.8.46 -- Los Angeles, May 8, 1973:

So the king's business is as soon as he sees one undesirable element, immediately he would kill him. That is real protection. Just like when Parīkṣit Mahārāja was going on tour, he saw one black man was trying to kill a cow. Immediately saw, "Who are you? You are trying to kill cow in my kingdom? I shall kill you." He immediately took out his sword. This is king, that... Not that animals should not be given protection, only man should be given protection. No. Prajā. Prajā means one who taken birth in the kingdom. That is called prajā. So animal is also American, man is also American, but there is no protection for the animal by the government. So that kind of government, rascal government, was not there. Equal right. Your country says equality given. Why not equality to the animals? That is defect. It is due to, I mean to say, absence of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. A Kṛṣṇa conscious person will not distinguish like that. For eating animal, they will philosophize that animal has no soul; therefore it can be killed. No. This is nonsense. Everyone has got soul. Even a small ant has got soul. But they have to kill. They have to eat. They are philosophizing different way. Lord Jesus Christ said, "Thou shalt not kill," and now they are interpreting, "Killing means murdering human being." But that is not in the Bible.

They are all cutting all the throats of the cows and animals for eating. So the government cannot give protection.

Lecture on SB 1.15.20 -- Los Angeles, November 30, 1973:

First of all, preaching, these rascals who have forgotten Kṛṣṇa, that "We are very intimately related. I am the father of all living entities. So you come to Me, come to home. You will be happy. I am not poor. I can provide you with all necessities." Eko yo bahūnāṁ vidadhāti kāmān. That one can provide everyone with necessities of life, actually He is doing. What government is doing for the cats and dogs and the ants and the trees? They are not doing anything. Rather, they are cutting. When there is jungle, for their paper mill, they are cutting all the trees. No protection for the trees. They are all cutting all the throats of the cows and animals for eating. So the government cannot give protection. Nobody can give protection. Only Kṛṣṇa can give you protection. Therefore we should always seek the protection of Kṛṣṇa. That is our security, not any other thing.

Go-rakṣya, cow protection is especially recommended, not that animal protection. If you want to eat meat, you can eat many other animals.

Lecture on SB 1.16.1 -- Los Angeles, December 29, 1973:

Vaiśya, they should be trained in three things, productive—kṛṣi-go-rakṣya-vāṇijyaṁ vaiśya-karma svabhāva-jam (BG 18.44)—kṛṣi, agriculture; go-rakṣya, cow protection. Go-rakṣya. That is essential, agricultural and cow protection. And vāṇijyam. Vāṇijyam means trade. If there is excess milk product, if there is excess grain product, then you can sell to others. Nowadays the trade is that you take as much milk as you can, and then kill the animal and sell the flesh to other countries. That is going on. No. Go-rakṣya. Go-rakṣya. Cow protection is very, very essential in human society because it gives the milk, the miracle food. You can prepare hundreds and thousands of preparation, all not only delicious, but brain-maintaining. You can get good brain. Therefore go-rakṣya, cow protection is especially recommended, not that animal protection. If you want to eat meat, you can eat many other animals. There are. But don't eat the cows. This is Vedic civilization. Kṛṣi-go-rakṣya-vāṇijyaṁ vaiśya-karma svabhāva-jam (BG 18.44).

Why these poor animals are being killed? They are also subject to the laws of the state. As the human being requires protection, similarly, the cows... Not only cows, everyone requires protection by the government.

Lecture on SB 1.16.4 -- Los Angeles, January 1, 1974:

So it is the duty of the king, emperor... Immediately detected that "Why these poor animals are being killed? They are also subject to the laws of the state. As the human being requires protection, similarly, the cows... Not only cows, everyone requires protection by the government. Why they should be not protected? Therefore because the protection was not given to the cows and the bulls, he immediately took him, that "This rascal is not a kṣatriya; he's a śūdra. In the dress of a king, he's doing mischievous activities." Immediately punished him. This is government's duty. If anyone... Just like, anyone is breaking law, it is the duty of the government to chastise him, similarly, the law should be... Exact good government law means that anyone who kills an animal without sanction... Of course, they now give sanction, that "Yes, you can kill as many animals in the slaughterhouse as you like." Because the government is śūdra. Government is not kṣatriya. So therefore is no protection. Why animal? Even a human being, if he's being killed on the street, on the Broadway, nobody cares for him. So this is the position. But Parīkṣit Mahārāja was not such a king or such a head of the executive... He immediately punished. Therefore it is mentioned specially: ojasā vīraḥ kalim. Kali is to be punished.

Do the animals do not take their birth in the land? They are also national, but it is your discriminating law that you are giving protection to the human being and not to the animals.

Lecture on SB 6.1.17 -- Denver, June 30, 1975:

It is very difficult to find out a true Christian who is strictly following the words of Lord Jesus Christ. So he is a good example of sādhu. We therefore adore and offer our obeisances to Lord Christ. Sādhu, example. Titikṣavaḥ kāruṇikāḥ suhṛdaḥ sarva-dehinām (SB 3.25.21). This is suhṛdaḥ, not that "My brother will be saved, my family will be saved, and all others should be killed." That is not sādhu's qualification. Sādhu's qualification is he is kind to everyone. It is not that if a human being is killed, the killer is also killed. Why? Even a human being is killer of an animal, he should be killed. That is called suhṛdaḥ sarva-dehinām: friend to everyone. Not that "Only the human being should be given protection, he is national, and others animals and trees should not be given protection." No. That is imperfect knowledge. National means one who has taken birth in that land. So do the animals do not take their birth in the land? They are also national, but it is your discriminating law that you are giving protection to the human being and not to the animals. This is sinful activities. Therefore we say that "No meat-eating." If we give up this meat-eating, then so many lifes of the poor animals will be saved.

A king, monarch is supposed to give protection everyone within the kingdom. It doesn't matter whether he is man or animal. Even trees.

Lecture on SB Lecture -- Melbourne, May 19, 1975:

So Parīkṣit Mahārāja was very pious. That was the system. A king, monarch is supposed to give protection everyone within the kingdom. It doesn't matter whether he is man or animal. Even trees. There was no law, unnecessarily cutting or killing, no. Actually, if you are reasonable, national... National means anyone who is born in that land. At the present moment the governments take care of the man only, not of the animals. What is this nationalism? What the animal has done that they should not be protected? So this is called Kali-yuga, the sinful age. Sinful age. That is increasing. That is increasing. But during Mahārāja Parīkṣit's time, nobody could do anything injustice. Therefore it is said in the śāstra that kāmaṁ vavarṣa parjanyaḥ (SB 1.10.4). Because everything was right, the nature's way of giving us all comforts, all necessaries of life, that was also complete. As soon as you become injurious or harmful or disobedient to the laws of the king or God... King is supposed to be representative of God. Therefore, in India the king is accepted as the representative of God.

Nectar of Devotion Lectures

Whenever we get opportunity, we give protection to the animals. We give them prasādam. We do not prohibit even some animal comes to hear. They also hear some, sometimes.

The Nectar of Devotion -- Bombay, January 4, 1973:

We love everyone, even the animals. But because human beings can understand the Kṛṣṇa philosophy, therefore we hold meetings of the human beings. But still, whenever we get opportunity, we give protection to the animals. We give them prasādam. We do not prohibit even some animal comes to hear. They also hear some, sometimes. The hear, hearing is there. Everyone can hear. Even they do not understand what is Hare Kṛṣṇa, if you chant loudly Hare Kṛṣṇa, even the ants and insect who is hearing, he'll be delivered, because it is spiritual vibration. It will act for everyone. We... Just like fire. The fire will act, either you are human being or insect. If you touch fire, it will do its work. Similarly, Hare Kṛṣṇa mahā-mantra is transcendental vibration. When we chant loudly, anyone who hears—it doesn't matter whether he's man, animal, tree, insect—anyone who will hear, he'll get profit. This is transcendental vibration.

Festival Lectures

The government is supposed to give everyone protection, not that the government is meant for giving protection to the human being and not to the animals. Because it is Kali-yuga, the government discriminates between two nationals.

Sri Vyasa-puja -- New Vrindaban, September 2, 1972:

Formerly if somebody is attacked by another man, many persons will come to help him: "Why this man is attacked?" But at the present moment if one man is attacked, the passersby will not care for it because they have lost their sympathy or mercifulness for others. Our neighbor may starve, but we don't care for it. But formerly the sympathy for other living entities, even for an ant... Just like Mahārāja Parīkṣit, while he was touring on his kingdom, he saw that one man was trying to kill a cow. Parīkṣit Mahārāja saw. Immediately he took his sword that "Who are you? You are killing a cow in my kingdom?" Because the king is supposed, or the government is supposed to give everyone protection, not that the government is meant for giving protection to the human being and not to the animals. Because it is Kali-yuga, the government discriminates between two nationals. National means one who has taken birth in the land. That is called national. That is... You know, everyone. So the trees, they are also born in the land, the aquatics also born in the land. The flies, the reptiles, the snakes, the birds, the beasts, human beings—everyone is born in that land. Suppose your land, America, United States... Why the government should give protection to one class of living entities, rejecting others? This means they have lost their sympathy for others. This is Kali-yuga. Formerly, before Kali-yuga, unnecessarily even an ant would not be killed. Even an ant. There are many instances that a hunter who was taking advantage of killing animals, but when he became a devotee he was not prepared to kill even an ant.

General Lectures

Their national conception, that the human body should be given protection but animal body no protection... Why? The animals are also nationals.

Class in Los Angeles -- Los Angeles, November 15, 1968:

So this misunderstanding, that "I am this body. I belong to this apartment, I belong to this society, I belong to this country, I belong to this nation, I belong to this world, I belong to this universe"—you can expand—that is all misunderstanding. All misunderstanding. If you say, "Oh, now I am not..." Just like big leaders, they say that "My life is for the nation." And some ordinary common man says, "Oh, my life is for my family." And a less important person, just like childlike, he is or she is for this body. That's all. So this expansion from bodily concept of life to family life, or to, from family to community life, from community to society life, or national life, or universal brotherhood life, that is very much appreciated. "Oh, this man is after universal brotherhood." These are all bogus. You see? But this is a misconception. You can expand. However you may expand, the defect will be there. Just like the so-called nationalist or humanitarist or universalist, they are packed up within the boundary of the human being. They have no expansions toward other living entities. Their national conception, that the human body should be given protection but animal body no protection... Why? They are also nationals. But they have no such idea because all these ideas are defective. There is shortcut.

Formerly, when the whole world was under the one king of the Pāṇḍavas, just like Parīkṣit Mahārāja, there was equal protection for the animals and the man. Not that man should be given protection by law, and not the animals. The animals, they're also national.

Hare Krishna Festival Address -- San Diego, July 1, 1972, At Balboa Park Bowl:

The idea is the Mahārāja Parīkṣit was so pious that, that when he was touring in his kingdom all over the world, he found one man, one black man was trying to kill one cow. Immediately, Mahārāja Parīkṣit took his sword and wanted to kill the man. He was Kali. So "Who are you, that you are killing cow in my kingdom?" So formerly, when the whole world was under the one king of the Pāṇḍavas, just like Parīkṣit Mahārāja, there was equal protection for the animals and the man. Not that man should be given protection by law, and not the animals. The animals, they're also national. What is the meaning of "national"? One who is born in that land. Suppose you are American. You are born in this land of America; therefore you are American national. Why not the cats and the dogs and the cows? They are also national. So this is injustice, that to give protection to the human kind and to send the animals to the slaughterhouse. This, this inequality, discrimination between man and animal is due to lack of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. When one becomes actually Kṛṣṇa conscious, he does not make such distinction that a man should be given protection and the animal should be killed. So our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is a, a spiritual movement. It is reformatory movement, inclusive all sides of life. Don't think that we are simply chanting and dancing. Our philosophy includes all different activities of humankind, either it may be religious or political or social or cultural. Anything. Industrial—everything.

Buddha śarīra is also, keśava dhṛta buddha śarīra, to give protection to the poor animals.

Lecture -- Hong Kong, January 31, 1974:

Keśava dhṛta buddha śarīra, ah, keśava dhṛta kalki śarīra. Buddha śarīra is also, keśava dhṛta buddha śarīra, to give protection to the poor animals. Lord Buddha appeared to stop animal-killing. Sadaya-hṛdaya-darśita-paśu-ghātam, nindasi yajña-vidher ahaha śruti-jātaṁ. Lord Buddha, he declined to accept Vedic authority. Why? Because in the Vedas also there is sanction sometimes in yajña, animal sacrifice. But he wanted to stop animal sacrifice, animal-killing. Therefore he denied the authority of Vedas. Because people will give evidence that "You are preaching no animal-killing, but in the Vedas sometimes in sacrifice the animals are sacrificed. How you can stop this?" Therefore Lord Buddha had to deny the authority of Vedas. That is described, nindasi yajña-vidher. The animal-killing is described in the Vedas, in the yajña-vidher, not in the slaughterhouse. In the Yajña-vidher. That also was decried. Nindasi yajña-vidher ahaha śruti-jātam. Because according to Vedic civilization, śruti, Veda, is the evidence. Therefore if Lord Buddha accepts the authority of Vedas, he cannot say, "Stop animal-killing." Then he said, "No. I do not follow Vedic principles." Therefore he is called nāstika. Anyone who defies the authority of Vedas, he is called nāstika.

Brahma-bhūta means he is learned scholar, ahaṁ brahmāsmi, self-realized; therefore he has no such distinction that "Give protection to the human being and send the poor animals to the slaughterhouse. Equality."

Pandal Speech and Question Session -- Delhi, November 10, 1973:

And samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu. Samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu: equally seeing all living entities. Paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ (BG 5.18). Brahma-bhūta means he is learned scholar, ahaṁ brahmāsmi, self-realized; therefore he has no such distinction that "Give protection to the human being and send the poor animals to the slaughterhouse. Equality." What equality? What the poor animals have done that you are sending them to the slaughterhouse? Is that civilization, this rubbish civilization, maintaining hundreds and thousands of slaughterhouse? So simply speaking "love," "fraternity..." Where is your fraternity? Where is your love? This cannot be possible. This may be big talks only—but to be understood by the nonsense. Unless you become brahma-bhūta (SB 4.30.20), self-realized, Kṛṣṇa conscious, God conscious, these things are only stories. It is not possible.

Every animal should be given protection. That is also the Vedic idea.

Sunday Feast Lecture -- Atlanta, March 2, 1975:

In the Bhāgavata it is stated that a householder, before taking his lunch, he should invite on the street, "Sir, if anyone is still hungry, please come at my place. There is still food. You can take it." And he should see that in the household even the lizard he is not hungry. Even there is a snake, he is not hungry. This is Vedic principle, God consciousness, that "Somehow or other, one animal has become lizard. Maybe he is hungry. So at my house he is. Why he should remain hungry? Give him some food." Nobody likes snake, but in the śāstra it is said, "Even there is a snake, you should see that he is not hungry, he is given some food." So of course, it is very high idea, but it is the complete ideal of so-called Communism, real. It is not that nation... American nation, they are concerned with the human being only. Or any nation. Not American, everywhere. And nation means... The definition of "native" means one who has taken birth in that land. That is called native. So the cow is also native. So why this law, that for the benefit of the human being, the cow should be slaughtered? And he is giving milk; he is working for you. What is this philosophy? In Christian religion it is clearly stated, "Thou shalt not kill." And most of the slaughterhouses are in the Christian countries. Why? This is all misunderstanding of spiritual life. Therefore... Just like the discussion went on with the Kazi and Caitanya Mahāprabhu. There was no philosophy. He first asked him that "Cow is your mother. Bull is your father. Why you are killing father and mother? What is your religion? Is that very good philosophy, that you shall kill your father and mother and eat them?" This was the first question. According to Vedic civilization, cow is to be given all protection. The Hindus or followers of the Vedic religion, why they are interested to give protection to the cows, not to the..., not so much to the other animals? And Lord Christ is more liberal. He said, "Thou shalt not kill." He does not name any animal's name. Every animal. Every animal should be given protection. That is also the Vedic idea. Why these poor animals should be killed? By killing, killing, killing, you become sinful and entangled. Therefore now it has begun—one is killing his own child.

Philosophy Discussions

Just like in the Bible, Jesus Christ says the animals are given under the protection of man. So they are thinking, "They are given to us for eating. God has given." Suppose I entrust Brahmānanda Swami that you give him protection, but if you think, "He's in my protection. I can eat him..."

Philosophy Discussion on Gottfried Wilhelm von Leibnitz:

Prabhupāda: So these rascals, foolish, they are thinking material nature is for our enjoyment. That is the materialistic view. There is a flower. "Nature has produced this flower for me. Everything is for me." Just like in the Bible, Jesus Christ says the animals are given under the protection of man. So they are thinking, "They are given to us for eating. God has given." Suppose I entrust Brahmānanda Swami that you give him protection, but if you think, "He's in my protection. I can eat him..." How intelligent! How magnanimous! They are giving protection by eating. And the Māyāvādī philosophers support them, that when they eat animals, Vivekananda's philosophy, "So what is there? I am Brahman, he is Brahman, so we become united." What is that? And I ask him, "Why don't you go to the tiger Brahman?" Because they are thinking that he is Brahman, the goat is Brahman, so when the man Brahman eats the goat Brahman, they unite. So why don't you unite with the tiger Brahman? This is rascaldom. They are all rascals. Anyone who has no trace of Kṛṣṇa consciousness, he is a rascal. There is our challenge.

What is this philosophy? Nonsense philosophy. That you protect your family but you eat the animal family.

Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Śyāmasundara: So far the social ethics are concerned, he says that these begin with the family, then they go to the society or community, and then finally the state. He says that the family is the single entity and is the thesis. The individual finds his real nature only in the presence of others.

Prabhupāda: What about the family of the animals? They have got family. What does he say? The tiger has got family—he has got his wife, cats.

Śyāmasundara: When man finds himself in the presence of his family members he is able to understand himself by relating with others. So...

Prabhupāda: Relations with others, just like you are a family man, you don't encroach upon other families, this is society law. So the animals, they have got their family. Family, what do you mean by family, husband, wife, also two children, that is family. So the animals, they have got. So why you encroach upon the animal family? What is his answer?

Śyāmasundara: Families, when they relate together in communities, are related by certain laws or rights, that one voluntarily abstains from killing and stealing from other families so that no one will do the same to him.

Prabhupāda: Yes.

Śyāmasundara: So but...

Prabhupāda: This is not applicable to the animal family?

Śyāmasundara: No.

Prabhupāda: This is philosophy. (chuckles) What kind of philosopher he is? Our, Lord Buddha preached that if you feel pain when somebody pinches you, you should not pinch (them). He does not say that you should not pinch a human being. Therefore his dharma is ahiṁsā paramo dharmaḥ. This is philosophy, something. What is this philosophy? Nonsense philosophy. That you protect your family but you eat the animal family. This Lord Buddha's philosophy has got meaning, but where is the meaning of this philosophy?

Śyāmasundara: Well, he doesn't consider the animal kingdom at all.

Prabhupāda: And he is a rascal. He is a rascal.