Prabhupāda: Yes. Just see. And he was persecuted, and still, he was kind. He was kind. Still, he was praying to God that "These rascals are doing. They cannot kill me, but they are thinking that I will be killed. So they are committing offense." So this is toleration, and kāruṇikāḥ. Similarly, there are many examples. Titikṣavaḥ kāruṇikāḥ, and suhṛdaḥ sarva-dehinām (SB 3.25.21): friend of all living entities. Lord Christ said, "Thou shall not kill." He never said that . . . Now they are interpreting in a different way: "The animal has no soul, and you can kill animals and keep slaughterhouse." So who is a Christian? I do not know who is a Christian. They profess to be Christian. 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-bhūtānām (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-bhūtānām: 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.
So that is sādhu, no meat-eating. Here you will find. In Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement you will find, nobody is meat-eating. Nobody is prepared to kill even an ant, what to speak of big animal. They put argument that "You are vegetarian, and you are also killing vegetable life." Of course, we are killing. But we are not killing vegetables. First of all, vegetables are not killed. If I take a fruit from the tree, the tree is not killed. Or if I take the grains from the plant, before the grains are ripe the plant dies. So actually there is no question of killing. Although the law is. . . nature's law is that "One living entity is the food for another living entity." Jīvo jīvasya jīvanam. But a human being should be discriminative. If I can live by eating fruits and grains and milk, why shall I kill animal? This is human consciousness. Milk, if you get milk, you can prepare hundreds of nice preparations, all full of vitamins and nourishing. In our New Vrindaban we are maintaining cows and having so many nice preparations—rābṛi and lugdu and this peḍā and burfī and sandeśa and rasagullā and yogurt—varieties enough. The other farmers they come, they are surprised, that "Such nice preparation can be made from milk?" Yes, you do not know. You do not know how to utilize the animal. Ignorance. The milk is also produced out of the blood.
So it is intelligence. You are drinking the blood in a different way, produced by nature with more vitamin values and more taste and more gentleman. Why should you kill one cow and try to drink the blood? The blood is there already, but in a different form, without any violence. And we have seen it. It is practical experience that if the cows are assured they would not be killed, they will give you double milk. That we have experience. And it is stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam that siṣicuḥ . . . We have not got here the verse. The purport is that during Mahārāja Yudhiṣṭhira's time, the cows were so happy and jubilant that from their milk bag always drop milk, so that the pasturing ground became muddy with milk.
So this science is unknown to the rascal civilization, how to utilize things for the best purpose. So in the Bhagavad-gītā you will find, kṛṣi-go-rakṣya-vāṇijyaṁ vaiśya-karma svabhāva-jam (BG 18.44). Vaiśyas . . . First-class men, brāhmaṇa; second-class men, the kṣatriya; third-class men, the vaiśyas; and fourth-class men, all others, the worker class, śūdras. So the first-class men, the brāhmaṇa, they should give instruction, nice instruction, so that the whole human society will profit. By seeing the character of the brāhmaṇa, the behavior of the brāhmaṇa . . . Śamo damaḥ satyaṁ śaucaṁ titikṣā kṣāntir eva ca, jñānaṁ vijñānam (BG 18.42). A brāhmaṇa is not. . . never recommended a brāhmaṇa will make some trade or become a engineer. No. Śamo damas titikṣā, these are the qualification, characteristics, of brāhmaṇa. And śāstra says, yasya yal lakṣaṇaṁ proktaṁ puṁso varṇābhivyañjakam, tat tenaiva vinirdiśet (SB 7.11.35). When there is characteristics of a brāhmaṇa, then you should accept him as a brāhmaṇa. Not whimsically. Similarly, kṣatriya, he must be very strong and chivalrous and never be go, I mean, fly away from battle. They should come forward when there is some battle, riot. They should give protection. They are kṣatriyas. And vaiśya means . . . Now, the brāhmaṇas, they are not going to produce food or other things. They are simply for knowledge, giving the best knowledge to the human society. There is a need of brāhmaṇa. Everyone śūdra, simply working hard, and because they are accusing, "Oh, you people are escaping . . ." What is escaping? We are giving the best knowledge to the human society.