# Social Injustice,animal slaughter,enviromental crisis and SP



## Tamah Go Das (Jan 30, 2007)

An interview with Srila Prabhupada - a spiritual master/founder of the American/worldwide wave of the Hare Krsna movement.

"Crela" Prabhupada = Srila Prabhupada

"Kanea" = Krsna,etc. Im computer illiterate so I dont know how to fix this.


For many, the American bicentennial was a great occasion for celebration. In March 1976, in Mäyäpur, India, the editors of Back to Godhead conducted a special interview with Çréla Prabhupäda, who took a hard look at American slogans such as “All men are created equal,” “In God we trust,” and “One nation under God.”
Back to Godhead: Thomas Jefferson put the basic philosophy of the American Revolution into the Declaration of Independence. The important men of the day who signed this document agreed that there are certain very obvious or self-evident truths, the first of which is that all men are created equal. By this they meant that all men are equal before the law and have an equal opportunity to be protected by the law.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes, in that sense men are, as you say, created equal.
BTG: Another point in the Declaration of Independence is that all men are endowed by God with certain natural rights that cannot be taken away from them. These are the rights of life, liberty, and...
Çréla Prabhupäda: But animals also have the right to life. Why don’t animals also have the right to live? The rabbits, for instance, are living in their own way in the forest. Why does the government allow hunters to go and shoot them?
BTG: They were simply talking about human beings.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Then they have no real philosophy. The narrow idea that my family or my brother is good, and that I can kill all others, is criminal. Suppose that for my family’s sake I kill your father. Is that philosophy? Real philosophy is suhådaà sarva-bhütänäm: friendliness to all living entities. Certainly this applies to human beings, but even if you unnecessarily kill one animal, I shall immediately protest, “What nonsense are you doing?”
BTG: The founders of America said that another natural right is the right to liberty, or freedom—freedom in the sense that the government doesn’t have the right to tell you what kind of job you have to do.
Çréla Prabhupäda: If the government is not perfect, it should not be allowed to tell people what to do. But if the government is perfect, then it can.
BTG: The third natural right they mentioned was that every human being has the right to pursue happiness.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes. But your standard of happiness may be different from my standard. You may like to eat meat; I hate it. How can your standard of happiness be equal to mine?
BTG: So should everyone be free to try to achieve whatever standard of happiness he wants?
Çréla Prabhupäda: No, the standard of happiness should be prescribed according to the qualities of the person. You must divide the whole society into four groups: those with brähmaëa qualities, those with kñatriya qualities, those with vaiçya qualities, and those with çüdra qualities.* Everyone should have good facility to work according to his natural qualities.
You cannot engage a bull in the business of a horse, nor can you engage a horse in the business of a bull. Today practically everyone is getting a college education. But what is taught at these colleges? Mostly technical knowledge, which is çüdra education. Real higher education means learning Vedic wisdom. This is meant for the brähmaëas. Alone, çüdra education leads to a chaotic condition. Everyone should be tested to find out which education he is suited for. Some çüdras may be given technical education, but most çüdras should work on the farms. Because everyone is coming to the cities to get an education, thinking, “We can get more money,” the agriculture is being neglected. Now there is scarcity because no one is engaged in producing nice foodstuffs. All these anomalies have been caused by bad government. It is the duty of the government to see that everyone is engaged according to his natural qualities. Then people will be happy.
BTG: So if the government artificially puts all men into one class, then there can’t be happiness.
Çréla Prabhupäda: No, that is unnatural and will cause chaos.
BTG: America’s founding fathers didn’t like classes, because they’d had such bad experience with them. Before the revolution, Americans had been ruled by monarchs, but the monarchs would always become tyrannical and unjust.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Because they weren’t trained to be saintly monarchs. In Vedic civilization, boys were trained from the very beginning of life as first-class brahmacärés [celibate students]. They went to the gurukula, the school of the spiritual master, and learned self-control, cleanliness, truthfulness, and many other saintly qualities. The best of them were later fit to rule the country.
The American Revolution has no special significance. The point is that when people become unhappy, they revolt. That was done in America, that was done in France, and that was done in Russia.
BTG: The American revolutionaries said that if a government fails to rule the people properly, then the people have the right to dissolve that government.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes. Just as in Nixon’s case: they pulled him down. But if they replace Nixon with another Nixon, then what is the value? They must know how to replace Nixon with a saintly leader. Because people do not have that training and that culture, they will go on electing one Nixon after another and never become happy. People can be happy. The formula for happiness is there in the Bhagavad-gétä. The first thing they must know is that the land belongs to God. Why do Americans claim that the land belongs to them? When the first settlers went to America, they said, “This land belongs to God; therefore we have a right to live here.” So why are they now not allowing others to settle on the land? What is their philosophy? There are so many overpopulated countries. The American government should let those people go to America and should give them facility to cultivate the land and produce grains. Why are they not doing that? They have taken others’ property by force, and by force they are checking others from going there. What is the philosophy behind this?
BTG: There is no philosophy.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Roguism is their philosophy. They take the property by force, and then they make a law that no one can take another’s property by force. So they are thieves. They cannot restrict God’s property from being occupied by God’s sons. America and the other countries in the United Nations should agree that wherever there is enough land, it may be utilized by the human society for producing food. The government can say, “All right, you are overpopulated. Your people can come here. We will give them land, and they can produce food.” We would see a wonderful result. But will they do that? No. Then what is their philosophy? Roguism. “I will take the land by force, and then I won’t allow others to come here.”
BTG: One American motto is “One nation under God.”
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes, that is Kåñëa consciousness. There should be one nation under God, and one world government under God as well. Everything belongs to God, and we are all His sons. That philosophy is wanted.
BTG: But in America people are very much afraid of a central government because they think that whenever there’s a strong government there will always be tyranny.
Çréla Prabhupäda: If the leaders are properly trained, there cannot be tyranny.
BTG: But one of the premises of the American system of government is that if a leader has too much power, he will inevitably become corrupt.
Çréla Prabhupäda: You have to train him in such a way that he cannot become corrupt!
BTG: What is that training process?
Çréla Prabhupäda: That training is the varëäçrama-dharma. Divide the society according to quality and train people in the principle that everything belongs to God and should be used in the service of God. Then there really can be “one nation under God.”
BTG: But if society is divided into different groups, won’t there be envy?
Çréla Prabhupäda: No, no. Just as in my body there are different parts that work together, so the society can have different parts working for the same goal. My hand is different from my leg. But when I tell the hand, “Bring a glass of water,” the leg will help. The leg is required, and the hand is required.
BTG: But in the Western world we have a working class and a capitalist class, and there is always warfare going on between the two.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes. The capitalist class is required, and the working class is also required.
BTG: But they are fighting.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Because they are not trained up; they have no common cause. The hand and the leg work differently, but the common cause is to maintain the body. So if you find out the common cause for both the capitalists and the workers, then there will be no fighting. But if you do not know the common cause, then there will always be fighting.
BTG: Revolution?
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes.
BTG: Then the most important thing is to find the common cause that people can unite on?
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes, just like in our Kåñëa conscious society you come to consult me about every activity, because I can give you the common cause. Otherwise, there will be fighting. The government should be very expert to know the aim of life—the common cause—and they should train the people to work for the common cause. Then they will be happy and peaceful. But if people simply elect rascals like Nixon, they will never find a common cause. Any rascal can secure votes by some arrangement, and then he becomes the head of the government. The candidates are bribing, they are cheating, they are making propaganda to win votes. Somehow or other they get votes and capture the prime post. This system is bad.
BTG: So if we don’t choose our leaders by popular election, how will society be governed?
Çréla Prabhupäda: You require brähmaëas, kñatriyas, vaiçyas, and çüdras. Just as when you want to construct a building, you require engineers. You don’t want sweepers. Isn’t that so? What will the sweeper do? No, there must be engineers. So if you follow the division of varëäçrama, only kñatriyas are allowed to govern. And for the legislative assembly—the senators—only qualified brähmaëas. Now the butcher is in the legislative assembly. What does he know about making laws? He is a butcher, but by winning votes he becomes a senator. At the present moment, by the principle of vox populi, a butcher goes to the legislature. So everything depends on training. In our Kåñëa conscious society, we’re actually doing that, but in the case of politics, they forget it. There cannot be just one class. That is foolishness, because we have to engage different classes of men in different activities. If we do not know the art, then we will fail, because unless there is a division of work, there will be havoc. We have discussed all the responsibilities of the king in the Çrémad-Bhägavatam. The different classes in society should cooperate exactly as the different parts of the body do. Although each part is meant for a different purpose, they all work for one cause: to maintain the body properly.
BTG: What is the actual duty of the government?
Çréla Prabhupäda: To understand what God wants and to see that society works toward that aim. Then people will be happy. But if the people work in the wrong direction, how can they be happy? The government’s duty is to see that they are working in the right direction. The right direction is to know God and to act according to His instructions. But if the leaders themselves do not believe in the supremacy of God, and if they do not know what God wants to do, or what He wants us to do, then how can there be good government? The leaders are misled, and they are misleading others. That is the chaotic condition in the world today.
BTG: In the United States there has traditionally been the separation of church and state.
Çréla Prabhupäda: I am not talking about the church. Church or no church—that is not the point. The main thing is that the leaders have to accept that there is a supreme controller. How can they deny it? Everything in nature is going on under the Supreme Lord’s control. The leaders cannot control nature, so why don’t they accept a supreme controller? That is the defect in society. In every respect, the leaders are feeling that there must be a supreme controller, and yet they are still denying Him.
BTG: But suppose the government is atheistic...
Çréla Prabhupäda: Then there cannot be good government. The Americans say they trust in God. But without the science of God, that trust is simply fictitious. First take the science of God very seriously, then put your trust in Him. They do not know what God is, but we do. We actually trust in God.
They’re manufacturing their own way of governing. And that is their defect. They will never be successful. They are imperfect, and if they go on manufacturing their own ways and means, they will remain imperfect. There will always be revolutions—one after another. There will be no peace.
BTG: Who determines the regulative principles of religion that people should follow?
Çréla Prabhupäda: God. God is perfect. He does that. According to the Vedic version, God is the leader of all living entities (nityo nityänäà cetanaç cetanänäm). We are different from Him because He is all-perfect and we are not. We are very small. We have the qualities of God, but in very small quantity. Therefore we have only a little knowledge—that’s airplane, but you cannot manufacture a mosquito. God has created the mosquito’s body, which is also an “airplane.” And that is the difference between God and us: we have knowledge, but it is not as perfect as God’s. So the leaders of the government have to consult God; then they will rule perfectly.
BTG: Has God also devised the most perfect government?
Çréla Prabhupäda: Oh, yes. The kñatriyas ruled the government in Vedic times. When there was a war, the king was the first to fight. Just like your George Washington: he fought when there was a war. But what kind of president is ruling now? When there is a war, he sits very securely and telephones orders. He’s not fit to be president. When there is war, the president should be the first to come forward and lead the battle.
BTG: But if man is small and imperfect, how can he execute God’s perfect orders for a perfect government?
Çréla Prabhupäda: Although you may be imperfect, because you are carrying out my order, you’re becoming perfect. You have accepted me as your leader, and I accept God as my leader. In this way society can be governed perfectly.
BTG: So good government means first of all to accept the Supreme Being as the real ruler of the government?
Çréla Prabhupäda: You cannot directly accept the Supreme Being. You must accept the servants of the Supreme Being—the brähmaëas or Vaiñëavas [devotees of the Lord]—as your guides. The government men are kñatriyas—the second class. The kñatriyas should take advice from the brähmaëas or Vaiñëavas and make laws accordingly. The vaiçyas should carry out the kñatriyas’ orders in practice. And the çüdras should work under these three orders. Then society will be perfect.
The Peace Formula
Amid the antiwar protests of late 1966, Çréla Prabhupäda put out a mimeographed leaflet (among the very first of his publications in America) from his small storefront temple on New York’s Second Avenue. Çréla Prabhupäda’s followers and sympathizers handed this leaflet out by the thousands on the streets of New York, and later in San Francisco, Montreal, and other cities. His “Peace Formula” was an entirely new approach to the antiwar question, and for thousands of Americans, it provided the perfect solution.
The great mistake of modern civilization is to encroach upon others’ property as though it were one’s own and to thereby create an unnecessary disturbance of the laws of nature. These laws are very strong. No living entity can violate them. Only one who is Kåñëa conscious can easily overcome the stringency of the laws of nature and thus become happy and peaceful in the world.
As a state is protected by the department of law and order, so the state of Universe, of which this earth is only an insignificant fragment, is protected by the laws of nature. This material nature is one of the different potencies of God, who is the ultimate proprietor of everything that be. This earth is, therefore, the property of God, but we, the living entities, especially the so-called civilized human beings, are claiming God’s property as our own, under both an individual and collective false conception. If you want peace, you have to remove this false conception from your mind and from the world. This false claim of proprietorship by the human race on earth is partly or wholly the cause of all disturbances of peace on earth.
Foolish and so-called civilized men are claiming proprietary rights on the property of God because they have now become godless. You cannot be happy and peaceful in a godless society. In the Bhagavad-gétä Lord Kåñëa says that He is the factual enjoyer of all activities of the living entities, that He is the Supreme Lord of all universes, and that He is the well-wishing friend of all beings. When the people of the world know this as the formula for peace, it is then and there that peace will prevail.
Therefore, if you want peace at all, you will have to change your consciousness into Kåñëa consciousness, both individually and collectively, by the simple process of chanting the holy name of God. This is a standard and recognized process for achieving peace in the world. We therefore recommend that everyone become Kåñëa conscious by chanting Hare Kåñëa, Hare Kåñëa, Kåñëa Kåñëa, Hare Hare/ Hare Räma, Hare Räma, Räma Räma, Hare Hare.
This is practical, simple, and sublime. Four hundred and eighty years ago this formula was introduced in India by Lord Çré Caitanya, and now it is available in your country. Take to this simple process of chanting as above mentioned, realize your factual position by reading the Bhagavad-gétä As It Is, and reestablish your lost relationship with Kåñëa, God. Peace and prosperity will be the immediate worldwide result.
Spiritual Communism
In 1971, during his historic visit to the Soviet Union, Çréla Prabhupäda was introduced to Professor Grigoriy Kotovsky, head of the India Department at the U.S.S.R. Academy of Sciences and chairman of the Indian studies department at the University of Moscow. As they sat informally in Dr. Kotovsky’s office, the spiritual leader and the communist scholar vigorously discussed topics of mutual concern, and Çréla Prabhupäda proposed a radical reformation within modern communism.
Çréla Prabhupäda: The other day I was reading the paper, Moscow News. There was a Communist congress, and the President declared, “We are ready to take others’ experience to improve.” So I think the Vedic concept of socialism or communism will much improve the idea of communism. For example, in a socialistic state the idea is that no one should starve; everyone must have his food. Similarly, in the Vedic concept of gåhastha [householder] life it is recommended that a householder see that even a lizard or a snake living in his house should not starve. Even these lower creatures should be given food, and certainly all humans should. It is recommended that the gåhastha, before taking his lunch, stand on the road and declare, “If anyone is still hungry, please come! Food is ready!” If there is no response, then the proprietor of the household takes his lunch. Modern society takes the people as a whole as the proprietor of a certain state, but the Vedic conception is éçäväsyam idaà sarvam—everything is owned by éça, the supreme controller. Tena tyaktena bhuïjéthäù—you may enjoy what is allotted to you by Him. Mä gådhaù kasya svid dhanam: but do not encroach upon others’ property. This is the Éçopaniñad—Veda. The same idea is explained in the different Puräëas. There are many good concepts in the Vedic literature about communism. So I thought that these ideas should be distributed to your most thoughtful men. Therefore I was anxious to speak.
Prof. Kotovsky: It is interesting that here in our country there is now great interest in the history of old, old thought. From this point of view, our Institute translated into Russian and published many literary monuments of great Indian culture. You will be interested to discover that we published some of the Puräëas and parts of the Rämäyaëa. There are volumes in Russian of Mahäbhärata and also a second edition of Mahäbhärata, translated in full. We have also published the full translation of Manu-småti with Sanskrit commentaries. Interest in these publications was so great that they sold out in a week. They are now completely out of stock. It was impossible to get them in the book market after a month. There is great interest among reading people here in Moscow and the U.S.S.R. toward ancient Vedic culture, and from this point of view we published many such books.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Among these Puräëas, the Çrémad-Bhägavatam is called the Mahä-Puräëa.
Prof. Kotovsky: Mahä-Puräëa.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes. We have translated the full text—first we present the original Sanskrit text, its transliteration, the English equivalent for each word, then the translation, and then a purport, or explanation of the verse. In this way, there are eighteen thousand verses in Çrémad-Bhägavatam. We are translating everything literally. You can see. Each and every verse is being done like that for the whole Bhägavata Puräëa. The opinion of the äcäryas, the great saintly sages who are the preachers of the Bhägavata philosophy, is nigama-kalpa-taror galitaà phalam: this is the ripened fruit of the Vedic desire tree (Çrémad-Bhägavatam 1.1.3). It is accepted by all the Indian scholars, and Lord Caitanya especially preached this Bhägavatam. So we have the complete Bhägavatam in its English translation. If you want to see it, I can show you.
Prof. Kotovsky: It seems to me that in the Moscow and Leningrad libraries we have nearly all the major texts of ancient Indian culture, beginning from the Vedas, the original texts in Sanskrit. For instance, in the Leningrad branch of our Institute there are six or eight editions of Manu-småti. This Institute was founded in Imperial Russia in Leningrad, so in Leningrad we now have a branch of our Institute dealing mainly with the history of Asiatic culture. You will find here an account of what is being translated and what studies are being done on the history of Indian religion and also the state of Indian religion, Hinduism, in Hindu India today.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Hinduism is a very complex topic.
Prof. Kotovsky: Oh, yes. [They laugh.] Really, to my understanding, it is not a religion, from the European point of view; it is a way of life—religion, philosophy, a way of life, whatever you want.
Çréla Prabhupäda: This word Hindu is not a Sanskrit word. It was given by the Muhammadans. You know that there is a river, Indus, which in Sanskrit is called Sindhu. The Muhammadans pronounce s as h. Instead of Sindhu, they made it Hindu. So Hindu is a term that is not found in the Sanskrit dictionary, but it has come into use. But the real cultural institution is called varëäçrama. There are four varëas (social divisions)—brähmaëa, kñatriya, vaiçya, and çüdra—and four äçramas (spiritual divisions)—brahmacarya, gåhastha, vänaprastha, and sannyäsa. According to the Vedic concept of life, unless people take to this system or institution of four varëas and four äçramas, actually they do not become civilized human beings. One has to take this process of four divisions of social orders and four divisions of spiritual orders; that is called varëäçrama. India’s culture is based on this age-old Vedic system.
Prof. Kotovsky: Varëäçrama.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Varëäçrama. And in the Bhagavad-gétä—perhaps you have read the Bhagavad-gétä?
Prof. Kotovsky: Yes.
Çréla Prabhupäda: There, in the Bhagavad-gétä (4.13), is the statement cätur-varëyaà mayä såñöam: this system was created by Viñëu [God]. So since varëäçrama is a creation of the Supreme, it cannot be changed. It is prevalent everywhere. It is like the sun. The sun is a creation of the Supreme. The sunshine is there in America, in Russia, and in India—everywhere. Similarly, this varëäçrama system is prevalent everywhere in some form or another. Take, for example, the brähmaëas, the most intelligent class of men. They are the brains of the society. The kñatriyas are the administrative class; then the vaiçyas are the productive class, and the çüdras are the worker class. These four classes of men are prevalent everywhere under different names. Because it is created by the original creator, so it is prevalent everywhere, varëäçrama-dharma.
Prof. Kotovsky: It is interesting that in the opinion of some European and old Russian scholars, this varëäçrama system is a later creation, and if you would read the old texts of Vedic literature, you would find a much more simple and agrarian society. It is the opinion of these scholars that the varëäçrama system was introduced in Indian society in the late age of the Vedic era but not from the beginning. And if you would analyze the old texts, you would find that in the old classical India it was not so prevalent.
Çréla Prabhupäda: As far as we are concerned, it is mentioned in the Bhagavad-gétä. Cätur-varëyaà mayä såñöam [Bg. 4.13]. The Bhagavad-gétä was spoken five thousand years ago, and in the Bhagavad-gétä it is said, “This system of the Bhagavad-gétä was spoken by Me to the sun-god.” So if you take an estimation of that period, it comes to forty million years ago. Can the European scholars trace back history five thousand years? Can they go back forty million years? We have evidence that this varëäçrama system has been current at least five thousand years. The varëäçrama system is also mentioned in the Viñëu Puräëa (3.8.9). Varëäçramäcäravatä puruñeëa paraù pumän. That is stated in the Viñëu Puräëa. Varëäçrama-dharma is not a phenomenon of a historical period calculated in the modern age. It is natural. In the Çrémad-Bhägavatam the comparison is given that just as in the body there are four divisions—the brain division, the arms division, the belly division, and the leg division—so by nature’s way these four divisions are existing in the social body. There exist a class of men who are considered the brain, a class of men who are considered the arms of the state, a class of men who are called the productive class, and so on. There is no need of tracing history; it is naturally existing from the day of creation.
Prof. Kotovsky: You have said that in any society there are four divisions, but they are not so easy to distinguish. For instance, one can group together different social classes and professional groups into four divisions in any society; there is no difficulty. The only difficulty is, for instance, in the socialistic society—in our country and other socialist societies—how you can distinguish the productive group from the workers.
Çréla Prabhupäda: For example, we belong to the intellectual class of men. This is a division.
Prof. Kotovsky: Intelligent class, brähmaëas. And you can also put together all the intelligentsia in that department.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes.
Prof. Kotovsky: And then the administrative class.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes.
Prof. Kotovsky: But who are the vaiçyas and çüdras? That is the difficulty. Because all others are workers—factory workers, collective farm workers, and so on. So from this point of view there is a great distinction, in my opinion, between socialist society and all societies preceding socialism, because in modern Western society you can group all social and professional classes in these particular class divisions—brähmaëas, kñatriyas, vaiçyas, and çüdras: intellectuals, productive class, owners of the productive system (factory owners, for instance), and menial workers. But here you have no vaiçyas because you have administrative staffs in factories, and you can call them kñatriyas, and then there are the çüdras, the workers themselves, but no intermediate class.
Çréla Prabhupäda: That is stated. Kalau çüdra-sambhavaù. In this age practically all men are çüdras. But if there are simply çüdras, the social order will be disturbed. In spite of your state of çüdras, the brähmaëa is found here, and that is necessary. If you do not divide the social order in such a way, there will be chaos. That is the scientific estimation of the Vedas. You may belong to the çüdra class, but to maintain social order you have to train some of the çüdras to become brähmaëas. Society cannot depend on çüdras. Nor can you depend on the brähmaëas. To fulfill the necessities of your body, there must be a brain, arms, a stomach, and legs. The legs, the brain, and the arms are all required for cooperation to fulfill the mission of the whole body. So in any society you can see that unless there are these four divisions, there will be chaos. It will not work properly. It will be mäyä, and there will be disturbances. The brain must be there, but at the present moment there is a scarcity of brains. I am not talking of your state or my state; I am taking the world as a whole. Formerly the Indian administration was a monarchy. For example, Mahäräja Parékñit was a kñatriya king. Just before his death, he renounced his royal order. He came to the forest to hear about self-realization. If you want to maintain the peace and prosperity of the whole world society, you must create a very intelligent class of men, a class of men expert in administration, a class of men expert in production, and a class of men to work. That is required; you cannot avoid it. That is the Vedic conception, mukha-bähüru-päda jäù (Çrémad-Bhägavatam 11.17.13). Mukha means “the face,” bähu means “the arms,” üru means “the waist,” and päda, “the legs.” Whether you take this state or that state, unless there is a smooth, systematic establishment of these four orders of life, the state or society will not run very smoothly.
Prof. Kotovsky: Generally it seems to me that this whole varëäçrama system to some extent created a natural division of labor in the ancient society. But now division of labor among people in any society is much more complicated and sophisticated. So it is very confusing to group them into four classes.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Confusion has come to exist because in India, at a later day, the son of a brähmaëa, without having the brahminical qualifications, claimed to be a brähmaëa; and others, out of superstition or a traditional way, accepted him as a brähmaëa. Therefore the Indian social order was disrupted. But in our Kåñëa consciousness movement we are training brähmaëas everywhere, because the world needs the brain of a brähmaëa. Although Mahäräja Parékñit was a monarch, he had a body of brähmaëas and learned sages to consult, an advisory body. It is not that the monarchs were independent. In history it is found that if some of the monarchs were not in order, they were dethroned by the brahminical advisory council. Although the brähmaëas did not take part in politics, they would advise the monarch how to execute the royal function. This is not too far in the past. How long ago was Açoka?
Prof. Kotovsky: That would be equal to what we call, in our terminology, ancient and medieval India.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes.
Prof. Kotovsky: In old and feudal India—you are right—it was very open, and the major part of the high administrative staff in the legislative department were brähmaëas. Even in the Mogul era there were brähmaëas to advise the Muslim emperors and administrators.
Çréla Prabhupäda: That is a fact—the brähmaëas were accepted. They formed the advisory committee of the king. For example, Candragupta, the Hindu king, was in the age of Alexander the Great. Just before Candragupta, Alexander the Great went from Greece into India and conquered a portion. When Candragupta became emperor, he had Cäëakya as his prime minister. Perhaps you have heard this name Cäëakya?
Prof. Kotovsky: Yes.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes, he was a great brähmaëa politician, and it is by his name that the quarter of New Delhi where all the foreign embassies are grouped together is called Cäëakya Puré. Cäëakya Paëòita was a great politician and brähmaëa. He was vastly learned. His moral instructions are still valuable. In India, schoolchildren are taught Cäëakya Paëòita’s instructions. Although he was the prime minister, Cäëakya Paëòita maintained his brähmaëa spirit; he did not accept any salary. If a brähmaëa accepts a salary, it is understood that he has become a dog. That is stated in the Çrémad-Bhägavatam. He can advise, but he cannot accept employment. So Cäëakya Paëòita was living in a cottage, but he was actually the prime minister. This brahminical culture and the brahminical brain is the standard of Vedic civilization. The Manu-småti is an example of the standard of brahminical culture. You cannot trace out from history when the Manu-småti was written, but it is considered so perfect that it is the Hindu law. There is no need for the legislature to pass a new law daily to adjust social order. The law given by Manu is so perfect that it can be applicable for all time. It is stated in Sanskrit to be tri-kälädau, which means “good for the past, present, and future.”
Prof. Kotovsky: I am sorry to interrupt you, but to my knowledge all of Indian society in the second half of the eighteenth century was, by order of the British administration, under a law divergent from Hindu law. There was a lot of change. The actual Hindu law that was used by the Hindus was quite different from the original Manu-småti.
Çréla Prabhupäda: They have now made changes. Even our late Pandit Jawaharlal Nehru introduced his own Hindu code. He introduced the right of divorce in marriage, but this was not in the Manu-saàhitä. There are so many things they have changed, but before this modern age the whole human society was governed by the Manu-småti. Strictly speaking, modern Hindus are not strictly following the Hindu scriptures.
But our point is not to try to bring back the old type of Hindu society. That is impossible. Our idea is to take the best ideas from the original idea. For example, in the Çrémad-Bhägavatam there is a description of the communist idea. It is described to Mahäräja Yudhiñöhira. If there is something good, a good experience, why shouldn’t you adopt it? That is our point of view. Besides that, modern civilization is missing one all-important point—the aim of human life. Scientifically, the aim of human life is self-realization, ätma-tattva. It is said that unless the members of human society come to the point of self-realization, they are defeated in whatever they do. Actually it is happening in modern society, despite all economic advancement and other advancement: instead of keeping peace and tranquillity, they are fighting—individually, socially, politically, and nationally. If we think about it in a cool-headed way, we can see that in spite of much improvement in many branches of knowledge, we are keeping the same mentality that is visible in the lower animal society. Our conclusion, according to the Çrémad-Bhägavatam, is that this human body is not meant for working hard for sense gratification. But people do not know anything beyond that. They do not know about the next life. There is no scientific department of knowledge to study what happens after this body is finished. That is a great department of knowledge.
In the Bhagavad-gétä (2.13) it is said, dehino ’smin yathä-dehe. Deha means “this body.” Dehinaù means “the one who owns this body.” Dehino ’smin yathä dehe kaumäraà yauvanaà jarä. The dehé, the owner of the body, is within, and the body is changing from one form to another. The child has a certain type of body that changes to another type when he is older. But the owner of the body still exists throughout. Similarly, when this body is completely changed, we accept another body. People do not understand this. We are accepting different bodies, even in this life, from babyhood to childhood to boyhood to youth. That is a fact—everyone knows it. I was a child, but that childhood body is no more. I have a different body now. What is the difficulty in understanding that when this body will be no more, then I will have to accept another body? It is a great science.
Prof. Kotovsky: As you know, there are two quite opposite approaches to this problem. The approach is slightly different according to different religions, but at the same time, any religion recognizes and searches for the change-of-place experience, or transmigration of spirit. In Christian religion, in Judaism, in...
Çréla Prabhupäda: I am not talking religions with you. I am talking science and philosophy. One religion may accept one way; that is not our concern. We are concerned with the point that if the owner of the body is permanent in spite of different changes of body, there should be no difficulty in understanding that when this body changes entirely, the owner of the body will have another body.
Prof. Kotovsky: Another approach is that there is no separation. There are no two phenomena—the body and the owner of the body are the same.
Çréla Prabhupäda [emphatically]: No.
Prof. Kotovsky: When the body dies, the owner also dies.
Çréla Prabhupäda: No, no. But why is there no department of knowledge in the university to study this fact scientifically? That is my proposition—they are lacking. It may be as you say or it may be as I say, but there must be a department of knowledge to study this. Recently a cardiologist in Toronto, a doctor, has accepted that there is a soul. I had some correspondence with him, and he strongly believes that there is a soul. So there is another point of view, but our process is to accept knowledge from authority. We have Kåñëa’s statement on this subject, and He is authoritative. Kåñëa is accepted as the authority by all the äcäryas. The Bhagavad-gétä is accepted by scholarly and philosophical circles all over the world. Kåñëa says:
dehino ’smin yathä dehe
kaumäraà yauvanaà jarä
tathä dehäntara-präptir
dhéras tatra na muhyati
“Just as the soul gives up the childhood body and comes to the boyhood body and then to youth, the soul also gives up this body and accepts another body.” (Bg. 2.13) This statement is given by Kåñëa, the greatest authority according to our tradition of knowledge. We accept such a statement without argument. That is the way of Vedic understanding.
Prof. Kotovsky: The difficulty is that our approach is that we do not believe in anything without argument. We can believe only things based on argument.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes, that is allowed. That is stated in the Bhagavad-gétä (4.34). Tad viddhi praëipätena paripraçnena sevayä. Paripraçna, argument, is allowed—but not in the challenging spirit, but rather with the spirit to understand. Argument is not denied. But as far as Vedic statements are concerned, they are infallible, and the scholars of the Vedas accept them in that way. For example, cow dung is the stool of an animal. Now, the Vedic statement is that as soon as you touch the stool of any animal—even if you touch your own stool—you are impure and have to purify yourself by taking a bath. According to the Hindu system, after evacuating one has to take a bath.
Prof. Kotovsky: That is quite understandable hygienic knowledge.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes.
Prof. Kotovsky: Yes, that is right.
Çréla Prabhupäda: But in another place it is stated that cow dung, although the stool of an animal, is pure. Even if you apply it to an impure place, that place becomes purified. This is superficially contradictory. In one place it is said that the stool of an animal is impure and as soon as you touch it you have to be purified, and in another place it says that cow dung is pure. According to our knowledge, it is contradictory—but still it is accepted by those who are followers of the Vedas. And the fact is that if you analyze cow dung, you will find that it contains all antiseptic properties.
Prof. Kotovsky: This I don’t know.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes, one professor in a medical college analyzed it, and he found it full of antiseptic properties. So Vedic statements, even if found contradictory, if analyzed scrutinizingly will prove correct. There may be an exception. But it is accepted, and when scientifically analyzed and examined, it is found to be correct.
Prof. Kotovsky: Yes, if you analyze from the scientific point of view, that is right.
Çréla Prabhupäda: There are other instances—for example, the conchshell. The conchshell is the bone of an animal, and according to Vedic instruction if you touch the bone of an animal you become impure and have to take a bath. But this conchshell is kept in the Deity room, because it is accepted as pure by the Vedas. My point is that we accept Vedic laws without argument. That is the principle followed by scholars. If you can substantiate your statements by quotations from the Vedas, then they are accepted. You are not required to substantiate them in other ways. There are different kinds of pramäëas, or evidences. Proof by Vedic quotation is called çruti-pramäëa. As in the legal court if you can give statements from the law book your statement is accepted, so all statements you give, if supported by çruti-pramäëas, are accepted by scholars. I think you know the Vedas are known as çrutis.
Prof. Kotovsky: Yes.
Çréla Prabhupäda:
çruti-småti-puräëädi-
païcarätra-vidhià vinä
aikäntiké harer bhaktir
utpätäyaiva kalpate
[BRS 1.2.101]
Any system we accept must be supported by evidences of çruti, småti, the Puräëas, and Païcarätra. That which is not proved by these pramäëas is a disturbance.
Prof. Kotovsky: Could I just say one thing? What is in the Vedas could also have been proved in a scientific way. Today, suppose there is a scientific laboratory. What is said by that lab is true. That it is true you accept, without going into the propriety of it. Suppose you have a scientific workshop or institution; if this workshop or scientific institution says, “This is not good,” the general body will take it for granted: “Yes. The scientific body has said so, so it is understood.”
Çréla Prabhupäda: Similarly, Vedic authoritative statements are accepted by the äcäryas [great teachers]. India is governed by the äcäryas—Rämänujäcärya, Madhväcärya, Çaìkaräcärya. They accept the Vedas, and their followers accept them. The benefit is that I do not waste my time to research whether cow dung is pure or impure; rather, because it is stated in the Vedas to be pure, I accept it. I save my time by accepting the çruti-pramäëa. In that way there are different statements in the Vedas for sociology and politics or anything, for veda means “knowledge.”
sarvasya cähaà hådi sanniviñöo
mattaù småtir jïänam apohanaà ca
vedaiç ca sarvair aham eva vedyo
vedänta-kåd veda-vid eva cäham
(Bg. 15.15)
Prof. Kotovsky: May I put one question to you? Have you many branches of your society in the world?
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes.
Prof. Kotovsky: Where is your main center, and where are the branches of the Kåñëa consciousness society?
Çréla Prabhupäda: Of course, I have over sixty-five branches. accepted the principles. Just like these boys. [Çréla Prabhupäda points to his two secretaries.]
Prof. Kotovsky: But does that mean that these students abstain from normal Western, European universities? For instance, can a normal student from one of the various universities who is attending lectures in the normal way also be initiated and admitted to your community?
Çréla Prabhupäda: If you want to live in our community and be initiated, we welcome you. If not, come try to understand our philosophy, read our books—there are so many books, magazines, questions, and answers. Try to understand the philosophy. It is not that all of a sudden a student comes and becomes our disciple. He first of all comes, associates, and tries to understand. We do not canvass. He voluntarily says that he wants to be a disciple.
Prof. Kotovsky: What happens if, for instance, one is not a student but a young worker or the young son of a farmer? Would he renounce his whole life and join your community in a given center? How would he maintain himself in his day-to-day life, in material life?
Çréla Prabhupäda: As I told you, this propaganda is meant for creating brähmaëas all over the world, because the brähmaëa element is lacking. One who seriously comes to us has to become a brähmaëa, so he should adopt the occupation of a brähmaëa and give up the occupation of a kñatriya or çüdra. But if one wants to keep his profession and also at the same time understand our movement, that is allowed. We have many professors following our movement. There is Howard Wheeler, a professor at Ohio State University. He is my disciple. He is continuing with his professorship, but almost all the money he is getting he is spending for this Kåñëa consciousness. Gåhasthas, those who are in householder life outside, are expected to contribute fifty percent of their income for our society, keep twenty-five percent for family, and keep twenty-five percent for personal emergencies. But Lord Caitanya Mahäprabhu teaches that it does not matter whether one is a gåhastha (householder), or in the renounced order, or a brähmaëa, or a çüdra. Lord Caitanya says, “Anyone who understands the science of Kåñëa becomes My spiritual master.” The actual words in Bengali are kibä vipra, kibä nyäsé, çüdra kene naya. Do you understand a little Bengali?
Prof. Kotovsky: A little.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes, as a vibration. Yei kåñëa-tattva-vettä, sei ‘guru’ haya. “Anyone who understands the science of Kåñëa can become a spiritual master.” (Caitanya-caritämåta, Madhya 8.128)
Prof. Kotovsky: But by creating brähmaëas from different social classes of society, you deny the old prescription of the Hindu scriptures.
Çréla Prabhupäda: No, I establish it.
Prof. Kotovsky: According to all scriptures—the Puräëas, etc.—every member of one of these four classes of varëas has to be born within it.
Çréla Prabhupäda: No, no, no, no.
Prof. Kotovsky: That is the foundation of all the varëas...
Çréla Prabhupäda: No, no. I am sorry.
Prof. Kotovsky: The foundation of all the varëas...
Çréla Prabhupäda: You have spoken incorrectly. With great respect I beg to submit that you are not speaking correctly. In the Bhagavad-gétä (4.13) it is stated, cätur-varëyaà maya-såñöaà guëa-karma-vibhägaçaù. “These four orders of brähmaëas, kñatriyas, vaiçyas, and çüdras were created by Me according to quality and work.” There is no mention of birth.
Prof. Kotovsky: I agree with you that this is the addition of later brähmaëas who tried to perpetuate these qualities.
Çréla Prabhupäda: That has killed the Indian culture. Otherwise there would have been no necessity of the division of part of India into Pakistan. Not only that, but from the historical point of view this whole planet was Bhärata-varña, and it was controlled by one flag up to the time of Mahäräja Parékñit. Then it gradually separated. This is history. Lately they have separated Pakistan. So Bhärata-varña is now crippled into a small piece of land. Otherwise, according to Vedic scripture, this whole planet is called Bhärata-varña. Formerly it was named Ilävåta-varña. But since Emperor Bhärata ruled this planet, it is called Bhärata-varña. So this culture, Kåñëa consciousness, was always existent. Consider any religion—Christian, Muhammadan, Jewish. They are at most two to three thousand years old. But you cannot trace out the beginning of this Vedic scripture. It is therefore called sanätana, eternal. This culture is for this whole human society. It is not a religious faith. Religious faith you can change, but real dharma you cannot change. Try to understand Kåñëa. In the Bhagavad-gétä (18.66) He says, sarva-dharmän parityajya mäm ekaà çaraëaà vraja: “Give up all other forms of religion and just surrender to Me.” That is real knowledge—to surrender to the Supreme. You or I—anyone—is surrendered to someone. That is a fact. Our life is by surrender, is it not? Do you disagree with this point?
Prof. Kotovsky: To some extent you surrender.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes, to the full extent.
Prof. Kotovsky: You have to surrender to the society, for instance. To the whole people.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes, to the whole people, or to the state or to the king or the government or whatever you say. This surrender must be there.
Prof. Kotovsky: The only difficulty is that we cannot half surrender to a government or a king. The principal difference is of surrender to a king, to a person, or to the society.
Çréla Prabhupäda: No, that is only a change of color. But the principle of surrender is there. Whether you surrender to monarchy, democracy, aristocracy, or dictatorship, you have to surrender; that is a fact. Without surrender there is no life. It is not possible. So we are educating people to surrender to the Supreme, wherefrom you get all protection, just as Kåñëa says (sarva-dharmän parityajya mäm ekaà çaraëaà vraja [Bg. 18.66]). No one can say, “No, I am not surrendered to anyone.” Not a single person. The difference is where he surrenders. The ultimate surrendering object is Kåñëa. Therefore in the Bhagavad-gétä (7.19) Kåñëa says, bahünäà janmanäm ante jïänavän mäà prapadyate: “After surrendering to so many things birth after birth, when one is factually wise he surrenders unto Me.” Väsudevaù sarvam iti sa mahätmä sudurlabhaù: “Such a mahätmä is very rare.”
Prof. Kotovsky: But at the same time it seems to me that surrender is to be accompanied by revolt. The history of mankind has proved that mankind has developed only by revolt against some kind of surrender. In the medieval age there was the French Revolution. It was revolt against surrender. But this revolution itself was surrender to the rank and file of the people. You are agreed?
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes.
Prof. Kotovsky: So it is not enough to come to a full stop. Surrender is to be accompanied with revolt against some and surrender to other people.
Çréla Prabhupäda: But the surrender will be fully stopped when it is surrender to Kåñëa.
Prof. Kotovsky: Ah, ah.
Çréla Prabhupäda: That is full stop—no more surrender. Any other surrender you have to change by revolution. But when you come to Kåñëa, then it is sufficient. You are satisfied. I’ll give you an example: a child is crying, and people move him from one lap to another. Oh, he does not stop. But as soon as the baby comes to the lap of his mother...
Prof. Kotovsky: It stops.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes, full satisfaction. So this surrender, these changes, will go on in different categories. But the sum total of all this surrender is surrender to mäyä. Therefore, in the Bhagavad-gétä it is said that this surrender, neglecting Kåñëa, is all mäyä. Either you surrender to this or to that, but final surrender is surrender to Kåñëa; then you will be happy. The process of surrender is there, but surrender to Kåñëa keeps one quite satisfied, transcendentally.
Prof. Kotovsky: Haven’t you come across hostile attitudes to your teachings from orthodox Hindus or brähmaëas in India?
Çréla Prabhupäda: We have subdued them.
Prof. Kotovsky: Ah.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Any orthodox Hindu may come and challenge, but we have our weapons—the Vedic literatures. So no one has come. Even Christian priests in America love me. They say, “These boys are American, Christian, Jewish, and now they are so much after God. But we could not deliver them.” They are admitting it. Their fathers and their parents come to me, offer their obeisances, and say, “Swamiji, it is our great fortune that you have come here to teach God consciousness.” So on the contrary, I have been well received. In India also, since you inquired of India, all other sects are admitting that before me many kinds of svämés went to the Western countries, but they could not convert even a single person to Kåñëa consciousness. They are admitting that. As far as I am concerned, I don’t take any credit, but I am confident that because I am presenting the Vedic knowledge as it is, without adulteration, it is being effective. That is my confidence. If you have the right medicine and you administer it to a patient, you must be sure that he will be cured.
Prof. Kotovsky: How many out of your one thousand disciples do you have in India itself? How many of your community do you have in India?
Çréla Prabhupäda: In India?
Prof. Kotovsky: Yes.
Çréla Prabhupäda: In India there are many Kåñëa conscious persons—hundreds, thousands, millions. In India there is no question. There is not a single Hindu who is not Kåñëa conscious.
Prof. Kotovsky: Yes, I understand.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Vaiñëavas. This is called the Vaiñëava cult. You have been in India, so as it is commonly known, there are many millions of Vaiñëavas. For example, this gentleman [an Indian gentleman present] is the commander of Air India airlines. He is not my disciple, but he is a Vaiñëava, Kåñëa conscious. Similarly, in India there are millions of Kåñëa conscious persons. There are even Muhammadans who are Kåñëa conscious. At Gorakhpur University there is a Muhammadan professor who is a great devotee of Lord Kåñëa. So this is natural. It is said in the Caitanya-caritämåta that Kåñëa consciousness is everywhere, in everyone’s heart. It simply has to be awakened by this process. That is all. It is there in your heart also. It is not that it is foreign to you. In everyone’s heart there is Kåñëa consciousness. By this process we have to awaken it. It is just like the way the sun rises. It is not that all of a sudden the sun comes from nowhere. It is there, but it rises in the morning. Similarly, this Kåñëa consciousness is everywhere, but some way or another it is now covered. By this process it is reawakened and aroused by association.
Prof. Kotovsky: You came yesterday to Moscow. Have you seen something here in Moscow?
Çréla Prabhupäda: No, I am not very much interested in sight-seeing.
Prof. Kotovsky: But in any case, just to stay in an old-style hotel is not interesting—not many people to see. And you are leaving the day after tomorrow?
Çréla Prabhupäda: That is my program.
Prof. Kotovsky: You are leaving for the United States or for Europe?
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes, for Europe. Paris. And we have two very big ceremonies in London and San Francisco. They are making arrangements for the Ratha-yäträ Car Festival. This car festival is observed in Jagannätha Puré. You have been to Jagannätha Puré?
Prof. Kotovsky: Yes, the car festival has been held from immemorial times. A very old tradition. Huge cars.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes, and it has now been introduced in the Western countries in London and San Francisco, and gradually maybe we will introduce it in other countries also.
Prof. Kotovsky: In London there is a large Indian community.
Çréla Prabhupäda: No, no. This is organized by the Englishmen and Americans. The Indian communities in London and San Francisco are trying to become—you know the word? Sahib?
Prof. Kotovsky: [Laughs.] Westernized. [They both laugh.] A very great social anthropologist at the university has written something very interesting. He says there are two processes—the process of Westernization among brähmaëas, mainly the upper class, and the process called Sanskritization, which is the process of adopting brähmaëa rituals, etc., by so-called lower classes, even untouchables. It is a very interesting process in India just now. But India’s position, unfortunately, is problematic.
Çréla Prabhupäda: The difficulty is that India is nowhere. They are trying to imitate Western life, but from a materialistic or technical point of view, they are one hundred years back.
Prof. Kotovsky: Yes, that is right. But what to do for India?
Çréla Prabhupäda: There is one thing I am experiencing. If India’s spiritual asset is distributed, that will increase India’s honor. Because everywhere I go, people still adore Indian culture. If this treasure-house of India’s spiritual knowledge is properly distributed, at least people outside of India will understand that they are getting something from India.
Prof. Kotovsky: Of course, you’re right. The Indian cultural heritage is to be made known everywhere. But at the same time, in what way would this benefit the Indian masses themselves? They are sitting in India, and they have nothing to gain from the spreading of the Indian cultural heritage all over the world. Indian villages have to have fertilizers, tractors, etc.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Yes, we do not object to that.
Prof. Kotovsky: Yes, I don’t think you can object, but at the same time, something has to be done in India. One may call it Westernization, but this introduction to an industrial technological revolution is needed in all fields of Indian life—agriculture, industry, etc.
Çréla Prabhupäda: Arjuna, before understanding the Bhagavad-gétä, was a fighter, and after understanding the Bhagavad-gétä he remained a fighter. So we don’t want to change the position. For example, you are a respectable professor, a teacher. We don’t say that you must change your position. We have come to convince you about our philosophy. That is all. Arjuna was refusing to fight. “Kåñëa, I don’t want to kill my relatives. I do not want this kingdom.” But he was taught the Bhagavad-gétä, and at the end when Kåñëa inquired, “What is your decision now?” he said, kariñye vacanaà tava—“Yes, I shall act as You say.” [Bg. 18.73]. That means that his consciousness changed. He was a fighter, and he remained a fighter, but he changed his consciousness. We want that. We don’t want to disturb the present condition of society. We are not against technology. No, but we try to make one understand this Kåñëa consciousness. That is our program.
Prof. Kotovsky: Of course, at the same time the final goal of any consciousness is to change the society—to make it a better society.
Çréla Prabhupäda: That is automatic.
Prof. Kotovsky: I am not really so happy that the ultimate goal is not to disturb society, because in modern society there are many things to be changed through consciousness.
Çréla Prabhupäda: That preliminary change is to follow rules and regulations of austerity. For example, don’t take intoxicants.
Prof. Kotovsky: No indulging in intoxicants—simplicity, etc.
Çréla Prabhupäda: So if one takes to this process...
Prof. Kotovsky: Then the others will come automatically.
Çréla Prabhupäda: One’s whole life will change, because these four things—illicit sex life, intoxicants, meat-eating and gambling—are very great impediments to social improvement.
Prof. Kotovsky: That will automatically make life simpler, because a person who does not indulge in illicit sex, intoxicants, and such other things has to lead a comparatively simple life.
Çréla Prabhupäda: The other day I was speaking in Bombay with a respectable gentleman. I was telling him that Kåñëa says:
mäà hi pärtha vyapäçritya
ye ’pi syuù päpa-yonayaù
striyo vaiçyäs tathä çüdräs
te ’pi yänti paräà gatim
“Even those who are lowborn [päpa-yonayaù]—stré, vaiçyas, and çüdras—are also included by accepting Me. By accepting My shelter they are also elevated to the transcendental position.” (Bg. 9.32) Now why have the higher classes of Hindu society neglected this injunction of the Bhagavad-gétä? Suppose one is päpa-yonayaù, lowborn. Kåñëa says that he can be “elevated to the transcendental position if he accepts Me.” Why wasn’t this message propagated by the higher class of people so that the so-called lowborn could be elevated? Why did they reject them? The result was that instead of accepting the Muhammadans, the Indians rejected them, and now they are partitioned off. They have become eternal enemies of India. So for the first time we are trying to elevate persons to the higher position of Kåñëa consciousness, even if one is lowborn. Because the soul is pure. In the Vedas it is said that the soul is untouched by any material contamination; it is simply temporarily covered. This covering should be removed. Then one becomes pure. That is the mission of human life—to uncover ourselves from this material environment, come to spiritual understanding, and surrender to Kåñëa. Then life is perfect.

Post edited by: Tamah Go Das, at: 2007/02/02 13:55


----------



## circle_b (Jan 30, 2007)

*Social Injustice,animal slaughter,enviromental crisis and*

wow, what an authoritarion.


----------



## Tamah Go Das (Jan 31, 2007)

*Social Injustice,animal slaughter,enviromental crisis and*

Srila Prabhupäda: "If the government is not perfect, it should not be allowed to tell people what to do. But if the government is perfect, then it can."

authority wouldnt be a curse word if people werent ignorant about the aim of life.

Post edited by: Tamah Go Das, at: 2007/02/02 13:54


----------



## xmattx (Apr 12, 2007)

*Social Injustice,animal slaughter,enviromental crisis and*

*Tamah Go Das wrote:*


> authority wouldnt be a curse word if people werent ignorant about the aim of life.



i don't need some kid sitting in a temple telling me the aim of life. i just can't tolerate shit like this, you pick up a book and think you know whats better for me than i do? i don't think so.


----------



## Tamah Go Das (Apr 15, 2007)

*Social Injustice,animal slaughter,enviromental crisis and*

*xmattx wrote:*


> *Tamah Go Das wrote:*
> authority wouldnt be a curse word i...s better for me than i do? i don't think so.
> 
> well, this philosophy isnt for you than but why blindly and ignorantly blast something you dont know anything about?that makes you worse than the ppl you probably think your against. try not to be so prejudice - dont worry theres plenty of sheep in the heard for you to join just read Maximum Rocknroll and follower the leader.I do believe in the age-old Vedic philosophy wich encourages tolerance,humility and non-violence for the most part but Im not so tolerant myself of ignorant little extremist left wing nazi hypacrits personally. What I know about life didnt come solely from books -it comes from lifetimes and experiences of wich it may take you alot of to realize that theres more to life than eating,fucking,getting fucked up,sleeping and and talking shit.I will be distributing vegan sandwiches at STP fest.Feel free to ever try and find me and express your views -we can have a nice litle philosophical discussion - this message board isnt a place for internet shit-talking cowards.
> ...


----------



## Matt Derrick (Apr 16, 2007)

*Social Injustice,animal slaughter,enviromental crisis and*

honestly, i haven't even read the start of this thread, because it deals with something im not really into (religion) and it's way, way to long.

i just wanted to say... that "wich" is actually spelled "which". sorry, it's just that you never spell that right... ever! :lol:


----------



## Bendixontherails (Apr 16, 2007)

*Social Injustice,animal slaughter,enviromental crisis and*

which is saying something... he uses that a lot.

"Oh, no... he said the word, too. Ahh! He said it again. Now I said it! I can't stop saying it."
- The Knights Who say 'Ne'


----------



## 5ifth (Apr 16, 2007)

*Social Injustice,animal slaughter,enviromental crisis and*

*MattPist wrote:*


> honestly, i haven't even read the start of this thread, because it deals with something im not really into (religion) and it's way, way *to* long.
> 
> i just wanted to say... that "wich" is actually spelled "which". sorry, it's just that you never spell that right... ever! :lol:



actually there should be an apostrophe for the contraction "I'm" and the correct use of the word "to" (as in also) would be too in this situation

uh oh, uh oh, someone dropped the dime
grammer police!!
everybody run!

Post edited by: 5ifth, at: 2007/04/16 16:11


----------



## Matt Derrick (Apr 16, 2007)

*Social Injustice,animal slaughter,enviromental crisis and*

*5ifth wrote:*


> actually there should be an apostrophe for the contraction "I'm" and the correct use of the word "to" (as in also) would be too in this situation
> 
> uh oh, uh oh, someone dropped the dime
> grammer police!!
> everybody run!



hahaha... oh damn! i been schooled!


----------



## xmattx (Apr 17, 2007)

*Social Injustice,animal slaughter,enviromental crisis and*

*Tamah Go Das wrote:*
well, this philosophy isnt for you than but why blindly and ignorantly blast something you dont know anything about?that makes you worse than the ppl you probably think your against. try not to be so prejudice - dont worry theres plenty of sheep in the heard for you to join just read Maximum Rocknroll and follower the leader.I do believe in the age-old Vedic philosophy wich encourages tolerance,humility and non-violence for the most part but Im not so tolerant myself of ignorant little extremist left wing nazi hypacrits personally. What I know about life didnt come solely from books -it comes from lifetimes and experiences of wich it may take you alot of to realize that theres more to life than eating,fucking,getting fucked up,sleeping and and talking shit.I will be distributing vegan sandwiches at STP fest.Feel free to ever try and find me and express your views -we can have a nice litle philosophical discussion - this message board isnt a place for internet shit-talking cowards.


-heres where either a)Matt closes the topic
b)Some sheep cowardicely hops on the bandwagon and further enforces the gang opinion
--or--
c)All of the above
[/quote]

we're in agreement: none of this krishna bullshit is for me. there's no chance you can sit there and tell me i'm worst than anyone who thinks they know how i should live my life and i'll take it with a straight face. thats just ridiculous. tolerating things that i hate, humility in the face of gods, and restricting myself to non-violence tactics are not things that are of interest to me, plain and simple. you seem to be doing A LOT of 'internet shit-talking,' so lets start by dispelling a few things. 

-i don't read maximum rock and roll.
-contrary to your insinuation, i'm straightedge and don't get 'fucked up.' 
-i'm not a leftist. the left bases itself in the social order and seeks to preserve it.
-i'm not a nazi. i've been doing antifascist work for way long.
-i'm been strictly vegan for six years. while you didn't jump at this, i'm sure your throwing in 'distributing vegan sandwiches' was a weak attempt to claim a moral high ground on me. it didn't work. 
i won't even touch the topic of hypocrisy because its not worth it (and i partially embrace it). nor will i comment on your spelling and grammar (which is way worse than mine).

if i make it out to stp fest, i will eat your sandwiches but, i probably won't bother bickering with you about your krishna bullshit.


----------



## Tamah Go Das (Apr 23, 2007)

*Social Injustice,animal slaughter,enviromental crisis and*

"we're in agreement: none of this krishna bullshit is for me. there's no chance you can sit there and tell me i'm worst than anyone who thinks they know how i should live my life and i'll take it with a straight face. thats just ridiculous."




when and where did I say you were worse than anyone about anything-do you have some sort of shame or guilt complex?




"tolerating things that i hate, humility in the face of gods, and restricting myself to non-violence tactics are not things that are of interest to me, plain and simple. you seem to be doing A LOT of 'internet shit-talking,' so lets start by dispelling a few things. 

-i don't read maximum rock and roll.
-contrary to your insinuation, i'm straightedge and don't get 'fucked up.' 
-i'm not a leftist. the left bases itself in the social order and seeks to preserve it.
-i'm not a nazi. i've been doing antifascist work for way long.
-i'm been strictly vegan for six years. while you didn't jump at this, i'm sure your throwing in 'distributing vegan sandwiches' was a weak attempt to claim a moral high ground on me. it didn't work. 
i won't even touch the topic of hypocrisy because its not worth it (and i partially embrace it). nor will i comment on your spelling and grammar (which is way worse than mine).

if i make it out to stp fest, i will eat your sandwiches but, i probably won't bother bickering with you about your krishna bullshit.[/quote]




your making this all complicated- its very simple: 

I posted an essay addressing issues commonly discussed amongst people who care about the world situation from an obscure perspective (though the oldest not that you give a shit and thats just fine)and you responded in a derogatory way that I seriously doubt you would to my face in person.I dont recall ever asking you any personal information about your lifestyle choices or what you think as I dont give a fuck.A question:Are you familiar with / able to detect sarcasm?Im not the sharpest tool in the shed but I am bright enough to know that fascists are not left-wing.

The reason I mentioned that I will be distributing sandwiches at STP Fest was solely to let you know who I am so that you can express your derogatory "shit-talking" opinion to my face rather than safely and cowardicely behind a computer screen as I myself am not an examplery "Hare Krishna" and not so good at the "tolerance,humility,and non-violence" thing myself.And yes now Im talking shit but only because (heres where this officially becomes childish bickering) - you started it.

By the way you wont be eating any of my sandwiches and theyre gonna be good to.


----------



## Bendixontherails (Apr 23, 2007)

*Social Injustice,animal slaughter,enviromental crisis and*

any chance you guys could do this through the private message system, so as not to tie up the board?
Just a thought.b


----------



## Kendall (Apr 23, 2007)

*Social Injustice,animal slaughter,enviromental crisis and*

Tamah Go Das - *states ridiculously long opinion that nobody read*

xmattx - *states honest opinion contradictory to Tamah Go Das'*

Tamah Go Das - "NUH UH, NUH UH!!!" *begins new tactic of baseless assumptions*

-------------------------------------------------------

You guys are fighting over the internet, fucking hell.


----------



## Bendixontherails (Apr 23, 2007)

*Social Injustice,animal slaughter,enviromental crisis and*

I can't decide what's worse...

inane arguing over the internet
OR
Commenting on inane argument over the internet.


----------



## Kendall (Apr 23, 2007)

*Social Injustice,animal slaughter,enviromental crisis and*

hehehe

or commenting on my comment

ect ect. Now I'm guilty too.


----------



## Bendixontherails (Apr 23, 2007)

*Social Injustice,animal slaughter,enviromental crisis and*

damn... this shit's like domestic violence... just a vicious cycle.:evil:


----------



## Matt Derrick (Apr 24, 2007)

*Social Injustice,animal slaughter,enviromental crisis and*

*long sigh* ... yeah, i think this would be more productive if left to the pm system. im really tired of it. topic locked.


----------

