C. Hennis: One of the obstacles is just plain poverty. One of the obstacles is overwork.
Prabhupāda: No, no. A human being should be considerate. Everyone has got religion. Either he is Hindu or Muslim or Christian, it doesn't matter, there must be discrimination between sinful activities and pious activities. Human being should be engaged for pious activities, not for sinful activities. That is human society. If the human being does not discriminate what is pious activities and what is sinful activity, that means lack of brain. He has no brain. He is no better than the animals.
Yogeśvara: Perhaps to make it clear for you, one of the natural results of this system is that a man that might be considered today impoverished, as you were mentioning for example some of the problems, a poor man, by our standards is not necessarily poor if he is Kṛṣṇa conscious. For example, in the Vedic culture, we are learning that a man is considered to be wealthy if he simply has a small patch of land and a cow and God consciousness, because his God consciousness will lead him to be satisfied by growing his own foods, taking milk from the cow. This is wealth, according to Vedic standard.
Prabhupāda: Therefore cow is specially recommended, go-rakṣya, because very important animal to the society. If those who are meat-eaters, they can eat the hogs and dogs, they can eat. The Vedic injunction is not prohibiting them. If you actually . . . actually, a human being does not require to eat meat. He has got many other substitutes. But still if he wants to eat, let him eat the less important animals. Just like dog, hog, from the social point of view it has no utility. But why killing cows? It is delivering such a nice nutritious food, milk. Not only milk. According to Vedic system, the cow is so important, even the urine, even the stool of cow is important.
C. Hennis: Certainly. Certainly. It's important as a source of meat for . . .
Prabhupāda: So such an important . . . and besides that, from moral point of view, you are drinking the milk of cow, and after that you are sending to the slaughterhouse. Do you like to send your mother to the slaughterhouse?
C. Hennis: Hmm. No.
Prabhupāda: And the bull is giving you . . . producing your food. Nowadays they have invented tractor or engaging sometimes horse. But in India still, the bulls are engaged for tilling the ground, the field, and produces. So from moral sense, the bull is producing your food and the cow is giving milk to you; therefore father and mother. Just like father produces food for the children and the mother gives the milk. So if the human society has not this simple brain of understanding, then where is brain?
C. Hennis: Of course, when you speak of the distinction to be made between pious activities and sinful activities, there has to be a . . .
Prabhupāda: They have no such distinction. There is no such distinction.
C. Hennis: You have to establish first of all a consciousness of sin.
Prabhupāda: No, it is already there. It is already there. Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā it is said that kṛṣi-go-rakṣya-vāṇijyam (BG 18.44). Those who are interested in producing means of living or foodstuff in the society, say, the mercantile, the agriculturist, they should give protection to the cows. That is very essential, that milk is so important thing. If you get . . . now we have, in your Western country, we have introduced such ideas in West Virginia. We have started one community project where we are keeping cows also. The cows are giving more milk than in other farm. They are so jubilant. Even up to eighty pounds milk they are giving, because they know that, "These people will not kill me." They know it. They are very happy. We don't kill their calves. In other farms, as soon as the calf is there, in front of the mother they are killed. You see? So if these things go on without any brain, without any intelligence, you may make hundreds of organization, the society will never be happy. This is our verdict.
Yogeśvara: Your point was that the people need to be taught what is sin and what is pious activities?
C. Hennis: Well, they can't be accused of engaging in sinful activities when they don't think that what they are doing is sinful.
Prabhupāda: (laughs) Therefore, if they have no knowledge what is sinful, simply by instruction, "Don't do something sinful," so what is the use? They must know. We give in the beginning, in our Society, "These are sinful activities." What is that? "Meat-eating, sinful activity. And gambling, illicit sex and intoxication. You must give it up." All these European and American boys, they were habituated to all these things from the very birth. They did not know they are sinful. But since they have come to me, I have said: "These things are sinful," they have given up. And just compare with their character, with their behavior . . . (break)
- daivī hy eṣā guṇamayī
- mama māyā duratyayā
- mām eva ye prapadyante
- māyām etām (taranti te)
- (BG 7.14)
So we must know what is the law of nature, what nature wants. Nature does not want at least human being should be sinful. Then you will be punished.
C. Hennis: I think that there, in your whole philosophy, there must be a very large number of points of coincidence with the more materialist activities that we engage in. But, well, they're just trying to give people a fair share of the material things of life—proper wages, decent houses, decent opportunities for feeding and for leisure.
Yogeśvara: All that must be there, but without proper instructions simultaneously as to what is the goal of life . . .
C. Hennis: Yes, but I don't think you can properly expect to indoctrinate people. I don't think that . . . at least, you can't expect an international organization to indoctrinate people at the national level. I'm sure that the . . .
Prabhupāda: No, it is not national; it should be international. Just like everyone . . . United Nation, it is meant for international activity. Our only proposition is that as the international organization, United Nation, they should keep a class of men who should act as brain. Then it will be all right. Without brain, simply legs and hands working, no direction, that is not very good.
C. Hennis: I think you'd have to see the secretariat of the United Nations and the United Nations family of organizations, not so much as leaders and bosses and generals, if you like, but rather as the servants of mankind. I don't go . . .
Prabhupāda: We can see, provided we get the chance.
C. Hennis: I don't consider myself to be a leader of mankind. I am very much a servant of mankind with a view to helping people to reduce the differences between them, with a view to helping people to understand one another better. In my own particular branch in which I'm concerned we endeavor to make people understand one another in the manner of an interpreter, if you like, to show that they can . . . to allow people to speak and understand with one another, and to enable them to comprehend each other's problems and understand why there is . . .
Prabhupāda: No. If there is actual brain, there is no problem. Just like if I have got good brain . . . I want to take this thing in my pocket. But if I have got brain, "No, this will be stealing," then I can refrain from it. But if I think that "It is lying here. I can take," what is that?
C. Hennis: I think that your effort of philosophy and teaching must really be directed, in the present state of affairs where countries are organized in the form of national states, must really be directed to the national leaders: the government, the people who exercise temporal and spiritual power in the various sovereign states. And the United Nations is a forum for these sovereign states. The International Labour Organization is a forum for the sovereign states on certain subjects related to labor and the protection of . . .
Prabhupāda: No, whatever subject may be, our point is the same. You just try to understand. If . . . you can organize so many, but if there is lack of brain, the brain is not in order, then any amount of suborganization, organization, will never be successful. That is my point.
C. Hennis: Yes, but there some people are better endowed with brains than others. Some people haven't got brains or not much brains.
Yogeśvara: But at least the direction must have brains. That's the point.