Суд над Бхагавад-гитой / Attempt to ban Bhagavad-gita

http://www.vaniquotes.org/wiki/I_put_this_question_to_Professor_Kotovsky,_that_%22What_is_the_difference_between_your_philosophy_and_our_philosophy%3F_You_are_Leninist;_you_are_following_the_leader_Lenin,_and_we_are_following_the_leader_Krsna._So_where_is_the_difference_in_philosophy%3F%22
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures
That was the talk with Professor Kotovsky in Moscow. I asked him, "Now, you have got your Communist philosophy. We have got our Kṛṣṇa philosophy. Where is the difference in philosophy? You have surrendered to Lenin, and we have surrendered to Kṛṣṇa. Where is the difference?" Everyone has to surrender.
Lecture on BG 4.7 -- Bombay, March 27, 1974: So dharma means, as Kṛṣṇa says in the Bhagavad-gītā, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). This is dharma. This is dharma. And our dharma, our characteristic is also there.

Because every one of us, we have surrendered to somebody. Analyze everyone. He has somebody superior where he has surrendered. It may be his family, his wife, or his government, his community, his society, his political party. Anywhere you go, the characteristic is to surrender. That you cannot avoid. That was the talk with Professor Kotovsky in Moscow. I asked him, "Now, you have got your Communist philosophy. We have got our Kṛṣṇa philosophy. Where is the difference in philosophy? You have surrendered to Lenin, and we have surrendered to Kṛṣṇa. Where is the difference?" Everyone has to surrender. It doesn't matter where he is surrendering. If the surrendering is correct, then the things are correct. If the surrendering is not correct, then things are not correct. This is the philosophy. So we are surrendering.
"You have to accept one leader, head, and we also accept one head. Then where is the difference between communism and other ism? The difference is that you have accepted Lenin as your head and we have accepted Kṛṣṇa as our head."
Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Hyderabad, April 27, 1974: The Māyāvādī philosophy, they say, "Everyone is God." That's all right. But you are not the head God. Head, there... If there is god, there are so many gods, there must be one head God. That is our natural experience. Anywhere you go, there are so many people, but there is some leader, head. I had some talks with one Russian professor, Professor Kotovsky in Moscow. So we had very long talks. At last I asked him, "Mr. Kotovsky..." I forget to..., "comrade." (laughter). But I said, "mister." (laughs) "So where is the difference between your philosophy and my philosophy, or our philosophy? You have to accept one leader, head, and we also accept one head. Then where is the difference between communism and other ism?" So he was stopped. He appreciated very much. "The difference is that you have accepted Lenin as your head and we have accepted Kṛṣṇa as our head."
I asked this question to Professor Kotovsky, that "Your communist philosophy and our Kṛṣṇa consciousness, where is the difference? You have selected your leader and you have sold yourself to the orders of Lenin. And we have also bowed down to Kṛṣṇa and we have sold ourselves to Kṛṣṇa. So on principle, where is the difference?"
Lecture on BG 13.3 -- Paris, August 11, 1973: So in this way we have to acquire knowledge. Not like blind men. But unfortunately we prefer to become a servant of a blind leader instead of Kṛṣṇa. This is our disease. We shall serve. I asked this question to Professor Kotovsky, that "Your communist philosophy and our Kṛṣṇa consciousness, where is the difference? You have selected your leader and you have sold yourself to the orders of Lenin. And we have also bowed down to Kṛṣṇa and we have sold ourselves to Kṛṣṇa. So on principle, where is the difference?" There is no difference. You have to select one leader. We have also selected one. Now if the leader is perfect, then my life is perfect. If the leader is wrong, then your life is wrong. So he could not answer this.

The principle is there. You have to select one leader and you have to act by his order. That is, that is our nature. Because Caitanya Mahāprabhu says: jīvera svarūpa haya nitya-kṛṣṇa-dāsa (Cc. Madhya 20.108-109). Every living entity is eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa. When he forgets Kṛṣṇa he becomes servant of māyā. That is our position. We have to serve. Therefore self-realization means to understand oneself that "I am dependent on Kṛṣṇa. I am eternal servant of Kṛṣṇa, let me engage myself to the service of the Lord." That is perfection of knowledge.
Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures
I challenged him that "What is the difference between your philosophy and our philosophy? You have to obey some person, and I have to obey some person. So you are obeying Lenin, and I am obeying Kṛṣṇa. So where is the difference between you and me in philosophy? Now, the things remain to be judged, whether by following Kṛṣṇa I shall be happy or by following Lenin you shall be happy."
Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- Calcutta, February 26, 1974: Dharma means the natural instinct. The natural instinct is to obey the superior person. Every one of us, we are meant for obeying the Supreme. Is anyone... Who can say that "I haven't got to obey any superior person"? Is there anyone? That cannot be. You have to obey. That was the subject matter of my topics in Moscow, with Professor Kotovsky. I challenged him that "What is the difference between your philosophy and our philosophy? You have to obey some person, and I have to obey some person. So you are obeying Lenin, and I am obeying Kṛṣṇa. So where is the difference between you and me in philosophy? Now, the things remain to be judged, whether by following Kṛṣṇa I shall be happy or by following Lenin you shall be happy. That is to be judged, not that you, Communist party, you can do without following a superior person. That you cannot do. That is not possible." That is natural. Therefore Caitanya Mahāprabhu said, jīvera svarūpa haya nitya-kṛṣṇa-dāsa (Cc. Madhya 20.108-109). Our real formation, constitutional position, is to obey the orders of Kṛṣṇa. But we have selected disobeying Kṛṣṇa. We are obeying Lenin. That is the difficulty. We have to obey somebody. But you have selected not to obey Kṛṣṇa but to obey Lenin. In India disobedience is very prominent now. But in that way you shall not be happy. Therefore Bhāgavata says, sa vai puṁsāṁ paro dharmo yato bhaktir adhokṣaja (SB 1.2.6). If you learn how to obey the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Kṛṣṇa, then you will be happy. Yayātmā suprasīdati. This is fact.
Just like I told Professor Kotovsky that "Your Communism, what is the difference between your Communism and our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement? You have selected Lenin as your leader, or master, and we have selected Kṛṣṇa as our leader, master. So on the principle, where is difference?" The professor could not answer.
Lecture on SB 1.3.1 -- Vrndavana, November 14, 1972: You cannot give up your position as servant. In the Bengali proverb there is a ḍheṅki. Svarga gela dan bange.(?) Means a ḍheṅki, that machine, that wooden machine, which... Husking machine? So if you send it to the heaven, then what he'll do? The same business. It does not mean the ḍheṅki, while it is promoted in the heaven, he can become soul or anything else. No. Similarly, we living entities, we have desire to enjoy this material world, but our position is servant. We have not changed our position. We revolted to serve Kṛṣṇa. That is all right. But what is your position here in the material world? That is also servant. Just like I told Professor Kotovsky that "Your Communism, what is the difference between your Communism and our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement? You have selected Lenin as your leader, or master, and we have selected Kṛṣṇa as our leader, master. So on the principle, where is difference?" The professor could not answer.

So the professor could not answer, but he was impressed, that actually what is this meaning of Communism? You simply change of, change of master. That's all.
I have talked many times that "Leader must be followed." When I was talking with Professor Kotovsky in Moscow, I asked him, "Where is the difference between your philosophy and our philosophy? You are following Lenin. We are following Kṛṣṇa. So we have to follow one leader. You cannot avoid it."
Lecture on SB 1.10.1 -- Mayapura, June 16, 1973: So yaḥ śāstra-vidhim utsṛjya vartate kāma-kārataḥ na sa siddhim avāpnoti: (BG 16.23) "Anyone who avoids or disregards the injunction of the śāstras and acts whimsically, he will never get perfection." Na sukhaṁ na parāṁ gatim. Therefore our principle is, this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement means we strictly follow Kṛṣṇa. Our leader is Kṛṣṇa. Nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). So everyone requires a leader. I have talked many times that "Leader must be followed." When I was talking with Professor Kotovsky in Moscow, I asked him, "Where is the difference between your philosophy and our philosophy? You are following Lenin. We are following Kṛṣṇa. So we have to follow one leader. You cannot avoid it." So he was silent. He could not reply. So to become perfect, to achieve perfection, one has to follow a leader. So why should we follow the misleaders, the rascal leaders? Let us follow the perfect leader, Kṛṣṇa, and become perfect.
"So you are following the dictates of Lenin or Stalin or Molotov or this or that. We are following the philosophy or the instruction of Kṛṣṇa. So on principle, where is the difference? There is no difference."
Lecture on SB 1.16.21 -- Hawaii, January 17, 1974: Professor Kotovsky. I asked him that "Where is the difference of philosophy between your Communist philosophy and our Kṛṣṇa consciousness philosophy? You have to accept one chief man, that Lenin or Stalin, and we have also selected one chief man, or God, Kṛṣṇa. So you are following the dictates of Lenin or Stalin or Molotov or this or that. We are following the philosophy or the instruction of Kṛṣṇa. So on principle, where is the difference? There is no difference." So the professor could not answer that. You cannot conduct your daily affairs without being dictated by somebody else. That is to be accepted.

So that is the law of nature. So nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām (Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13). Then why don't you accept the supreme authority? This subordinate authority... We have to accept somebody as our leader. It is not possible that we can live without leadership. That is not possible.
When I was talking with Professor Kotovsky, so I asked him this question, that "After all, you are required, you are in need of a leader. So you are being led by your Lenin philosophy and we are being led by Kṛṣṇa philosophy. So where is the difference in the procedure?"
Lecture on SB 7.12.4 -- Bombay, April 15, 1976: Andhā yathāndhair upanīyamānāḥ (SB 7.5.31). This is a civilization where a blind man is guiding a few others or many other blind men. So what is this civilization? The leader, he is a rascal. He does not know what is the aim of life, and he has become leader. So many talking. When I was talking with Professor Kotovsky, so I asked him this question, that "After all, you are required, you are in need of a leader. So you are being led by your Lenin philosophy and we are being led by Kṛṣṇa philosophy. So where is the difference in the procedure? You require a leader; we require a leader. That is wanted. Without leader we cannot go. But if you select a bad leader, blind leader, then you remain blind." That, our Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement, is that you have to accept one leader. That you cannot avoid. Either you become communist or capitalist or this or that, you have to accept one leader. So take the best, first-class, perfect leader: Kṛṣṇa. Then you'll be happy. Otherwise it is not possible.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures
I put this question to Professor Kotovsky, that "What is the difference between your philosophy and our philosophy? You are Leninist; you are following the leader Lenin, and we are following the leader Kṛṣṇa. So where is the difference in philosophy?"
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.101-104 -- Bombay, November 3, 1975: Just like in our, this Kṛṣṇa consciousness society—it is a society—I happen to be the leader. Similarly, there are other parties, political parties, and business parties. Everywhere there is a leader. You cannot avoid the leader. That is not possible. You may... I put this question to Professor Kotovsky, that "What is the difference between your philosophy and our philosophy? You are Leninist; you are following the leader Lenin, and we are following the leader Kṛṣṇa. So where is the difference in philosophy?" You have to follow one leader. That you cannot avoid. Without leader you cannot be guided, you cannot form a party. Everywhere you go... Just like in our country we followed the leadership of Mahatma Gandhi, so we became a nation. So everywhere you will find: there must be a leader. Without leader you cannot become a community or a nation. Similarly, who is the supreme leader? That is God, or Kṛṣṇa. Therefore He is described in the Vedas, nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānāmv. He is the leader.
General Lectures
I met one great professor in Moscow. The subject matter was freedom, Communism. So my last question was that "You people, Communists, you have surrendered to Lenin, and we have surrendered to Kṛṣṇa. Then where is the difference?"
Lecture -- Bombay, March 18, 1972: Everyone is trying to be the lord of all I survey. That is competition. Why I want to become the lord of all I survey? Because I want to gratify my senses to the greatest extent. This is going on. But actually our position is not to lord it over. Our position is to be lorded by the Lord. That is our position, actually. If you don't agree to be predominated by the Supreme Lord, then you shall be predominated by other agent, other energy, the material energy. I met one great professor in Moscow. The subject matter was freedom, Communism. So my last question was that "You people, Communists, you have surrendered to Lenin, and we have surrendered to Kṛṣṇa. Then where is the difference? You have selected a personality like Lenin or Stalin or Marx. We have selected a personality, Kṛṣṇa. Now, so far the principle of surrender is concerned, it is there in Communism and our Vaiṣṇavism. Now it has to be seen whether Kṛṣṇa is good or Lenin or good. That is a different question." So actually we are trying to be free, but we surrender to some rascal, that's all. Instead of surrendering to Kṛṣṇa we prefer to surrender to some rascal or fool. That is māyā.
You cannot live without a leader or God. I cannot live without a leader or God. That's a fact. Then where is the difference? Now it is to be judged whether Lenin is good or Kṛṣṇa is good. That is another thing. But your position is that you have to accept one leader, either Lenin or Jawaharlal Nehru or Hitler or this or Churchill. You have to accept.
Lecture at Indo-American Society 'East and West' -- Calcutta, January 31, 1973: If you think this is a movement, sentimental move... It is not sentimental movement. It is a most scientific movement. Any scientist come to me. I can convince him that it is a scientific movement. I asked similarly to Professor Kotovsky in Moscow that "My dear Professor, what is the difference between your movement, communist movement, and my movement? You, you have selected Lenin as God. I have selected Kṛṣṇa as God. Where is the difference of principle? You cannot live without a leader or God. I cannot live without a leader or God. That's a fact. Then where is the difference? Now it is to be judged whether Lenin is good or Kṛṣṇa is good. That is another thing. But your position is that you have to accept one leader, either Lenin or Jawaharlal Nehru or Hitler or this or Lord (?) Churchill. You have to accept. You cannot work independently. Therefore you have got so many parties. So here is also one party, Kṛṣṇa party. So where is the difference in philosophy? There is no difference in philosophy. Now let us study whether Kṛṣṇa party is good or Lenin party is good. Then whole solution is there."
Philosophy Discussions
This question also I asked to Professor Kotovsky, that "Where is the difference between your philosophy and our philosophy? You accept leader, Lenin. We accept leader, Kṛṣṇa. So where is the difference in the process?"
Philosophy Discussion on Carl Gustav Jung:
Hayagrīva: "One thing was clear. Freud, who had always made much of his irreligiosity, had now constructed a dogma, or rather in the place of God, whom he had lost, he had substituted another compelling image, that of sexuality."

Prabhupāda: Yes, that's a fact. He has taken sexuality as God. But our position is that we must accept a leader. That is our natural tendency. So he gave up the leadership of God and took the leadership of sex. That is his position. Leadership we must have. That is..., this question also I asked to Professor Kotovsky, that "Where is the difference between your philosophy and our philosophy? You accept leader, Lenin. We accept leader, Kṛṣṇa. So where is the difference in the process?" So this is the nature of human being, to accept a leader. But this man, unfortunately, he lost the leadership of God and he took leadership of sex. That is his position.
When we accept the leadership of God and His direction, that is religion. I don't think on principle the Communist can change this idea. The same leader is Lenin or Stalin, and he is giving his direction, and people must follow it. So where is the difference of philosophy?
Philosophy Discussion on Karl Marx:
Prabhupāda: Our point is that religion is not sentiment. Leadership has to be accepted, either by the Communist or the theist or atheist. There is leadership. So when the leadership is selected and the direction given by the leader, you can take it as some "ism." So religion is the same thing. When we accept the leadership of God and His direction, that is religion. I don't think on principle the Communist can change this idea. The same leader is Lenin or Stalin, and he is giving his direction, and people must follow it. So where is the difference of philosophy? Similarly, Kṛṣṇa is there, His instruction is there, and we are following. So where is the difference in fact?

Hayagrīva: In either case there is authority.

Prabhupāda: Authority. So where is the difference in principle? There is no difference, but everyone will say that "I am the best leader." But who will select the best leader? What is the criterion of best leader?
I asked Professor Kotovsky in Moscow, that "You are following Communism, and we are following, say, Kṛṣṇa-ism, but your leader is Lenin and our leader is Kṛṣṇa, that so far the philosophy is concerned we have to accept a leader." So there is no difference in the basic principle of philosophy that we must have a leader.
Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte:
Hayagrīva: Well he, following Kant, he emphasized inner reality...

Prabhupāda: He may, he may follow Kant and I may follow Kṛṣṇa, but if there is contradiction, then which one is morality? How it will be decided, and who will decide? He may follow somebody. That this question I asked Professor Kotovsky in Moscow, that "You are following Communism, and we are following, say, Kṛṣṇa-ism, but your leader is Lenin and our leader is Kṛṣṇa, that so far the philosophy is concerned we have to accept a leader." So there is no difference in the basic principle of philosophy that we must have a leader. Now who shall be the leader and who will decide it? Regards to both of us, we have got a leader. Now which leader is perfect? If both of them are perfect, then why there is difference of opinion—one leader does not agree with the other leader? So who will answer this question that who is the best leader? Leader you have to follow. That you cannot avoid. Either you follow Kant or you follow Kṛṣṇa. Either you follow Lenin or you follow Kṛṣṇa. What is the answer? Who is the perfect leader? You cannot avoid leader, either you say according to Kant, I say according to Kṛṣṇa.
Conversations and Morning Walks
1973 Conversations and Morning Walks
As we are worshiping Kṛṣṇa, they are worshiping Lenin. So I asked Professor Kotovsky: "Where is the difference in principle? You are also worshiping somebody. So you, you have not been able to stop worshiping. How you can be Godless. You have made your God, that's all."
Morning Walk -- April 29, 1973, Los Angeles:
Prabhupāda: Many visitors are waiting to see the tomb of Lenin. Yes. They were worshiping Lenin. As we are worshiping Kṛṣṇa, they are worshiping Lenin. So I, I asked Professor Kotovsky: "Where is the difference in principle? You are also worshiping somebody. So you, you have not been able to stop worshiping. How you can be Godless. You have made your God, that's all. Somebody false God." I did not say him also that: "This is your false God," but I said that: "You are worshiping Lenin. We are worshiping Kṛṣṇa." Where is the difference in philosophy? "You have to worship somebody." Now it is my selection whether I shall worship Lenin or Kṛṣṇa. That is different thing. But the principle of worshiping is there in you and in me." He could not answer. What he'll answer? Everywhere it is going on.
Just like I talked with Professor Kotovsky in Moscow. So I asked him that "Where is the difference between your communist philosophy and our philosophy? The communist philosophy, they have created their own god, Lenin." Lenin is their God. We have seen in Moscow.
Room Conversation with Two Buddhist Monks -- July 12, 1973, London:
Prabhupāda: We are talking of the principle. God is one. God cannot be two. Then there is no meaning of God. Now, if I present Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead, if you disagree, then you'll have to present your god. Now, we have to consider who is actually God. Just like I talked with Professor Kotofsky in Moscow. So I asked him that "Where is the difference between your communist philosophy and our philosophy? The communist philosophy, they have created their own god, Lenin." Lenin is their God. We have seen in Moscow.

Buddhist Monk (1): Yes, I've been...

Prabhupāda: Every street, every a...

Buddhist Monk (1): Every street. I know, all over.

Prabhupāda: Lenin, Lenin's picture, Lenin's book.

Buddhist Monk (1): Yes, yes, yes, yes. That's right.

Prabhupāda: So I told him that "You have created your own god, Lenin. And we have got our own God, Kṛṣṇa. Now, the principle of accepting somebody as God is there, in your philosophy and in my philosophy. So that you cannot avoid. Your communistic philosophy cannot avoid the conception of God, the leader."
When we were talking, I asked him one question, that "Professor Kotofsky, you are communist, I am Kṛṣṇite. So where is the difference of philosophy? Because you have to accept one authority, leader. So you have accepted Lenin as leader; we have accepted Kṛṣṇa as leader. So where is the difference on the principle?"
Room Conversation with Sanskrit Professor, Dr. Suneson -- September 5, 1973, Stockholm:
Prabhupāda: Now, I, when we were talking, I asked him one question, that "Professor Kotofsky, you are communist, I am Kṛṣṇite. So where is the difference of philosophy? Because you have to accept one authority, leader. So you have accepted Lenin as leader; we have accepted Kṛṣṇa as leader. So where is the difference on the principle?" So he could not answer. But he very much appreciated this, that "Where is the difference between these two principles." But now we have to consider whether the leadership of Lenin is good, or the leadership of Kṛṣṇa is good. That is another thing. But you have to accept one leader. You cannot do without leader. That is not possible.

Professor: Well, well, to some extent it's possible.

Prabhupāda: No, every extent. Anyone, anyone calling... So many philosophy or ism, he has got leader. That you cannot avoid. The Buddhists, they are following Lord Buddha. Christians, they are following Lord Jesus Christ. Mohammedans, they are following Mohammed. Similarly the communists, they are following Lenin, or Max. What is?

Devotees: Marx.

Paramahaṁsa: Karl Marx.
1975 Conversations and Morning Walks
This argument I put forward with Professor Kotovsky that, "After all, we have to follow leader. So your leader is Lenin. And my leader is Kṛṣṇa. So where is the difference between the process? You have to accept some authority.
Morning Walk -- December 12, 1975, Vrndavana:
Prabhupāda: "They take," they... Don't quote them, they are all rascals. You come to your own reason. They say, then you accept them as authority. Then why don't you accept authority of Bhagavad-gītā, rascal? You are quoting some rascals and fools, and I am quoting from Bhagavad-gītā. Then whose quotation is favorable? "They say." And when we say, "Kṛṣṇa says," that is nothing! Just see, how foolish. "They say." These rascals, meat eaters, huh? Bachelor daddies, (laughter) they say something, that is authority. And (if) Kṛṣṇa, the Supreme Personality of Godhead says, (then) "Oh, that we cannot accept." Just see nonsense. That I... This argument I put forward with Professor Kotovsky that, "After all, we have to follow leader. So your leader is Lenin. And my leader is Kṛṣṇa. So where is the difference between the process? You have to accept some authority. Now it is to be seen whether Lenin is perfect or Kṛṣṇa is perfect. That is another thing, but you have to follow some authority. So you are stopped."
1977 Conversations and Morning Walks
I asked this question to Professor Kotovsky, that "You believe Lenin; we believe Kṛṣṇa. Then where is the difference between philosophy?" Now it is to be judged whether Lenin is all right or Kṛṣṇa is all right. That is another thing. But the principle is there.
Evening Conversation -- January 25, 1977, Puri:
Prabhupāda: You have not done. You have no experience. So one man you believe authority.

Gurukṛpā: But we saw the television. They showed on the television.

Prabhupāda: No. Television could not show that. You can arrange in the laboratory such television, cheat others. And you have done it. But anyway, television or man or newspaper—you believe on others. You have not personally gone. So you believe some authority. We believe some authority. What is the difference. You take newspaper as authority. We take Vedic literature as authority. Where is the difference? You have personally not gone. How do you believe? The difference is that you believe somebody, we believe somebody. I asked this question to Professor Kotovsky, that "You believe Lenin; we believe Kṛṣṇa. Then where is the difference between philosophy?" Now it is to be judged whether Lenin is all right or Kṛṣṇa is all right. That is another thing. But the principle is there. "You believe in Lenin; we believe in Kṛṣṇa. The process is the same. So where is your improvement?"

Satsvarūpa: They say that theirs can be shown not just to a disciple but to the whole world in general, not just...

Prabhupāda: Nobody believes in Lenin. Then there would have been everyone Communist. You believe, a section. Then why there are two parties? You are not all in all. That is going on everywhere. How you can say that you are correct, I am not correct? The process is the same.

http://www.vaniquotes.org/wiki/Fanaticsim
Bhagavad-gita As It Is
BG Chapters 1 - 6
BG 3.3, Purport: The Lord has explained, also in the 39th verse, that by working by the principles of buddhi-yoga, or Kṛṣṇa consciousness, one can be relieved from the bonds of action; and, furthermore, there is no flaw in the process. The same principle is more clearly explained in the 61st verse—that this buddhi-yoga is to depend entirely on the Supreme (or more specifically, on Kṛṣṇa), and in this way all the senses can be brought under control very easily. Therefore, both the yogas are interdependent, as religion and philosophy. Religion without philosophy is sentiment, or sometimes fanaticism, while philosophy without religion is mental speculation. The ultimate goal is Kṛṣṇa, because the philosophers who are also sincerely searching after the Absolute Truth come in the end to Kṛṣṇa consciousness. This is also stated in the Bhagavad-gītā. The whole process is to understand the real position of the self in relation to the Superself.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta
CC Madhya-lila
CC Madhya 8.90, Purport: If one does so out of a poor fund of knowledge, his mellow with the Lord becomes spiritually faulty and is called rasābhāsa, an overlapping of transcendental mellows. The advanced devotee who has actually realized the transcendental features of the Lord will not commit the mistake of creating a rasābhāsa situation by using one name for another. Because of the influence of Kali-yuga, there is much rasābhāsa in the name of extravagance and liberal-mindedness. Such fanaticism is not very much appreciated by pure devotees.
Lectures
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures
Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Ahmedabad, December 13, 1972: So Bhagavad-gītā is that, religion combined with philosophy. If you simply take philosophy, it is dry speculation. No juice. Carvita-carvaṇānām: "Chewing the chewed." There is no benefit. And if you take, simply take religion without basis of philosophy, then it is fanaticism. That's all. So both should be combined. Religion based on philosophy and logic, that is religion. So that combination is Bhagavad-gītā. So here in the Seventh Chapter, beginning, opening chapter, it is said, bhagavān uvāca. You are searching after God.
Lecture on BG 7.1 -- Bombay, December 20, 1975: So the Bhagavad-gītā is not meant for the loafer class. It is to be understood by the heads of the society: yad yad ācarati śreṣṭhas tat tad evetaro janaḥ (BG 3.21). So those who are claiming to be the leaders of the society, they must learn Bhagavad-gītā, how to become practical and actual leader, and then the society will be benefited. And if we follow the instruction of Bhagavad-gītā and Kṛṣṇa, then all problems will be solved. It is not a sectarian religious sentiment or fanaticism. It is not that. It is a science—social science, political science, cultural science. Everything is there.
Lecture on BG 7.1-3 -- Stockholm, September 10, 1973: Religion means a kind of faith. It is not faith. It is a science. Science must be based on logic and philosophy. Science means that. And religion means sometimes sentiments. So religion without philosophy is sentiment, and philosophy without religion is mental speculation. Both must be combined. Then it is perfect. You cannot have religion without philosophy. That is sentiment, fanaticism. And if you simply take philosophy without religion, without sense of God, this is mental speculation. So religion must be on the basis of science and logic. That is first-class religion.
Lecture on BG 7.14 -- Hamburg, September 8, 1969: Now, here is the solution of problem, as Kṛṣṇa says in the fourteenth verse, Seventh Chapter of Bhagavad-gītā: "It is very difficult to surmount the problems offered by the laws of material nature, but one who surrenders unto Me, he overcomes." Therefore we are teaching this Kṛṣṇa consciousness to solve the problems of life. It is not sentiment or fanaticism or any sectarian religion. It is a fact that if you want to solve the problems of life, you have to become Kṛṣṇa conscious. There is no other alternative.
Lecture on BG 8.28-9.2 -- New York, November 21, 1966: Whatever knowledge we get from Bhagavad-gītā, we should not think that it is sentimentalism or fanaticism. No. They're all vijñānam, science. Jñānaṁ vijñāna-sahitaṁ yaj jñātvā: "If you become well versed in this confidential part of knowledge, then the result will be mokṣyase aśubhāt." Aśubhāt. Aśubha means inauspicious. Our stage of life, our existence in this material world, is aśubha, inauspicious, always miserable. Mokṣyase: "You shall be liberated from this miserable life of material existence if you understand this knowledge."
Lecture on BG 8.28-9.2 -- New York, November 21, 1966: Whatever knowledge you acquire, that is permanent. That is not going to be finished with the finish of your body. It is such a nice thing. So we are trying to impart this philosophy in your country. So we invite your cooperation. As Lord Kṛṣṇa says, it is very nice thing. Susukhaṁ kartum avyayam (BG 9.2). And vijñānam. Vijñānam means it is scientific. It is not a sentiment or fanaticism. It is scientific. So try to understand this philosophy of Kṛṣṇa consciousness from Bhagavad-gītā and help yourself, help your countrymen, help the world. There will be peace and prosperity.
Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures
Lecture on SB 1.2.6 -- Delhi, November 12, 1973: So this verse is very important. It is quoted from Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Dharmaḥ svanuṣṭhitaḥ. Dharma means... I do not wish to take your more time. Dharma means your occupational duty. Dharma means it is a fanaticism. That is not. That is not the meaning of dharma. The meaning of dharma, in English, it is called "religion." And religion is a kind of faith. So faith may be wrong or right. That is not dharma. Dharma means your constitutional position and duty. That is called dharma.
Lecture on SB 1.2.9-10 -- Delhi, November 14, 1973: Bhakti does not mean stop your work. Bhakti does not mean sentimental fanaticism. That is not bhakti. Bhakti means to engage all your senses for the satisfaction of the proprietor of the senses. That is called bhakti.
Lecture on SB 1.10.3-4 -- Tehran, March 13, 1975: Everything is there, provided they take it. Everything will be all right. So this is not a sentimental fanaticism, religious movement. This is scientific movement for the good of the whole world. That we have to convince by our character, by our behavior. Then people will accept it. They think it is another type of religious... So religious means fanaticism. It is not that. Just like they fought, the Mohammedans and the Christians.
Lecture on SB 1.16.12 -- Los Angeles, January 9, 1974: This is religion, to surrender to God. It doesn't matter what religion you profess. It doesn't matter. But you must learn how to obey the Supreme Lord. That is religion. Religion does not mean that you stamp some stereotype religion, "I am Christian," "I am Hindu," "I am Muslim," "I am Buddhist," and then fight. That is not religion. That is fanaticism. Religion means how one has become devoted to God.
Lecture on SB 2.3.17 -- Los Angeles, July 12, 1969: Simply try to understand Kṛṣṇa, how He appears, how He disappears, what is His constitutional position, what is my constitutional position, what is the relationship with Kṛṣṇa, how to live. Everything. Simply if you understand these things, Kṛṣṇa says, janma karma me divyaṁ yo jānāti tattvataḥ... Tattvataḥ means reality, scientifically. Not by whims or sentiments or fanaticism. No. Everything. Kṛṣṇa consciousness is everything scientific, solid scientific. It is not bogus. It is not imagination.
Lecture on SB 2.3.19 -- Los Angeles, June 14, 1972: Therefore, in the beginning of Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam it is said dharmaḥ projjhita-kaitavo 'tra (SB 1.1.2). Atra śrīmad-bhāgavata. "In this Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam, cheating type of religious system is kicked out." Kicked out. In religion where there is no discrimination of foodstuff, what is that religion? What is that religion? This is fanaticism. That is not religion. Religion is to understand God. And one cannot understand God, the purest of all pure, unless one is pure.
Lecture on SB 7.5.1, Pandal Lecture -- Bombay, January 12, 1973: So our books are being very much welcome in the Western countries, especially the Bhagavad-gītā As It Is. So this movement is very important movement. It is not a fanaticism. It is based on science, philosophy and authority and Vedic principles. And all the students, they are following strictly the Vedic principles. They do not indulge in illicit sex life, meat-eating, intoxication up to drinking of coffee, tea and smoking. They have given up. This is Vedic principles. And they do not take part in gambling. They regular chant Hare Kṛṣṇa, Hare Kṛṣṇa, Kṛṣṇa Kṛṣṇa, Hare Hare, sixteen rounds. In this way we are training.
Lecture on SB 7.6.6-9 -- Montreal, June 23, 1968: But the Vedic literature, the Vedic civilization, they direct, tad-vijñānārthaṁ sa gurum evābhigacchet: (MU 1.2.12) "If you want to understand that science, you must approach a bona fide spiritual master." This is very simple thing. If you want to learn engineering, then you must admit yourself in engineering college. If you want to be a medical man, you must admit yourself in a medical college. Similarly, if you want to understand Kṛṣṇa, then you must approach a person who knows Kṛṣṇa. It is not fanaticism or mental speculation. You have to learn the art scientifically.
Lecture on SB 7.9.33 -- Mayapur, March 11, 1976: So our, this Kṛṣṇa consciousness movement is authorized. We have printed one pamphlet, "Kṛṣṇa Consciousness Movement Is Authorized." It is not a sentiment, fanaticism. No. It is scientific, authorized. So I am very glad that you European and American boys, you have taken so much trouble to come here, but you'll be benefited if you come here and try to take lessons from Caitanya Mahāprabhu as He gave it to Sanātana Gosvāmī. Sanātana Gosvāmī inquired, "Who am I?" and He replied very simple thing: jīvera svarūpa haya nitya kṛṣṇa dāsa (Cc. Madhya 20.108-109). This is the beginning of our lesson, so we must understand very nicely this point.
Sri Caitanya-caritamrta Lectures
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.124-125 -- New York, November 26, 1966: We have given you the list, twenty-six qualifications. As we become advanced in devotional service, all these good qualities will develop automatically. There is no need of legislation. There is no need of, but, anything, but all those good qualities will develop. Otherwise, what is the meaning of Kṛṣṇa consciousness? Is it a sentiment or fanaticism? No. It is a science. If you follow the rules and regulation and systematically, then all these qualities will develop. You'll practically see it. And as soon as these qualities are there, then you become actually lover of your country, you become a lover of your fellow man. You become friend, God, everything.
Lecture on CC Madhya-lila 20.125 -- New York, November 27, 1966: Similarly, we have got our father, the Supreme, and He is the supreme proprietor of everything. If we try to find out our father and father's property by the ritualistic process—there are ritualistic processes in every religion and in every scripture—but if we stick to that, then the result will be they will be entrapped by the search, fanaticism, and it will be not possible to make progress. This is called dakṣiṇa system. Dakṣiṇa, dakṣiṇa means if he is giving him instruction that "Your house is bounded by east side, west side, north side and south side. So if you go to the south..." South is translated into Sanskrit, dakṣiṇa. And dakṣiṇa also means giving something to the priest in respect of his service for performing rituals.
Festival Lectures
Govardhana Puja Lecture -- New York, November 4, 1966: So Kṛṣṇa did not recommend that you should do something under superstition. No. You must do it for practical result. This dogmatism, fanaticism—"Oh, why I shall chant Hare Kṛṣṇa? I am Christian. I am Jews"—this is fanaticism. If you find actually ecstasy by chanting Hare Kṛṣṇa, why should you not? Why should you not? "No. I am Jew." "I am Christian." "I am Muhammadan." Well, it is transcendental vibration from the spiritual platform.
General Lectures
Lecture -- Seattle, October 18, 1968: So love of Godhead on the basis of perfect knowledge is real love of God. Otherwise it is fanaticism. So the fanatics, they may fight. That is not love of Godhead. (pause) Of course, it is very difficult to come to that stage, but one should try. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. We are all student. We are trying.
Address to Indian Association -- Columbus, May 11, 1969: So this movement is not like that is a sentimental movement. Don't think that these boys are dancing in some religious sentiment or fanaticism. No. We have background. We have background, highest philosophical and theosophical. Whatever you like.
Pandal Lecture -- Delhi, November 20, 1971: This very word is used in the śāstra, ātmahā. So our request to everyone is that you try to understand Kṛṣṇa scientifically. Kṛṣṇa-tattva vijñānam. It is not a sentiment or philosophical speculation or fanaticism. It is not that. It is a fact. Now, one should have intelligence to understand, that's all. But the method is so simple that we are fortunate, we accept immediately the version of Kṛṣṇa, sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇam (BG 18.66), then our life is successful immediately.
Pandal Speech and Question Session -- Delhi, November 10, 1973: So everywhere this is going on; therefore there is necessity of awakening this God consciousness of the people. It is not a childish thing or sentimental fanaticism. It is real science. Because this human life is meant for understanding "What I am," ahaṁ brahmāsmi. "I am not this body; I am spirit soul."
Conversations and Morning Walks
1968 Conversations and Morning Walks
Interview -- February 1, 1968, Los Angeles:
Prabhupāda: Anyone who wants to understand this movement philosophically, scientifically, they will be very much satisfied with this. The idea is that any religious movement without philosophical basis, it is simply sentiment or fanaticism. And philosophy without idea of God is simply mental speculation. Therefore religious principles combined with philosophy, that is perfect. So the younger section become attracted to this movement because we are giving some religious principle based on philosophy.
1969 Conversations and Morning Walks
Room Conversation with Allen Ginsberg -- May 12, 1969, Columbus, Ohio:
Prabhupāda: We have got authoritative scripture, description, answers, everything is there. It is not blind following. It is not religious fanaticism. It is actually solid ground. Simply one has to understand nicely. That's all. And there is no difficulty. So simple. Now, this... Our recommendation is simply, chant Hare Kṛṣṇa. So far the Sanskrit word is, that is not a problem. Everyone is chanting. So what is the difficulty? Bring any religious principle.
1974 Conversations and Morning Walks
Morning Walk -- February 22, 1974, Bombay:
Prabhupāda: Yes. Duty. Dharma means duty.

Dr. Patel: "You give up all other actions and do actions for Me."

Prabhupāda: Dharma does not mean so-called some religious fanaticism. Dharma means occupational duty. Just like you are medical man. You have practiced medical dharma. Medical dharma.
Morning Walk -- April 17, 1974, Bombay:
Prabhupāda: Here religion has become fanaticism and political degradation. It is not possible. Now see in our political paper how they are seriously doing and people taking seriously. Whatever program I give them, they are systematically doing. Here there is no assistance. (break) ...cry, "Oh, we are in, put in this condition, put in this..." Complain. But what is the remedy, we do not take. That is India's position. Mr. Kanunda(?), he's the son of late governor of Gujarat(?). He came to offer me a land in Bhuvaneśvara. So he said... He's the manager of the coal organization.
Room Conversation -- June 20, 1974, Germany:
Prabhupāda: Anyway, when they boil this onion, up to ten miles the good smell is (indistinct). (laughter) And the whole atmosphere is (indistinct) Similarly, they are trying to refine oil and the refuse will be thrown in the Yamunā and the River Yamunā will be spoiled, nobody will go there. (indistinct) They think that these so-called spiritual fanaticism of India is the cause of India's material deficiencies.
1976 Conversations and Morning Walks
Morning Walk -- March 10, 1976, Mayapur:
Puṣṭa Kṛṣṇa: He's saying that sometimes the brahmacārīs, even the sannyāsīs, they may have a very strong aversion towards association with women and/or householder life, things of this nature. And sometimes the gṛhasthas will criticize the sannyāsīs and brahmacārīs that "This is fanaticism," or it's, to the other end, "It's just as bad as the enjoying spirit, because you're meditating on the same thing, but only you're averse to it." So what is the...? Bhāgavata dāsa's question is "What is the condition?" Is it better to be neutral or to be averse?

Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: Neutral.

Prabhupāda: These are all fanaticism. Real unity is in advancing Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Kalau nāsty eva nāsty eva... In Kali-yuga, you cannot strictly follow, neither I can strictly follow. If I criticize you, if you criticize me, then we go far away from our real life of Kṛṣṇa consciousness.
Morning Walk -- April 9, 1976, Vrndavana:
Prabhupāda: The real aim is tam abhyarcya, how to become Kṛṣṇa conscious. Everyone is.... Brāhmaṇa is guiding, kṣatriya is ruling, and vaiśya is producing food, and śūdra, they have no brain; they are helping. In this way the society is very peaceful, and everyone is advanced in Kṛṣṇa consciousness. This is India's civilization. Now, due to this association of the rākṣasas... Even up to Mohammedan time this civilization was being continued. Mohammedan did not touch the Indian culture. Sometimes by, what is called, fanaticism, there was fight.
Morning Walk -- April 14, 1976, Bombay:
Prabhupāda: No, they are doing.... They are doing in their own countries. In France the Roman Catholics and the Protestants, they are fighting and cutting each other's head. And still going on, it is. This is fanaticism.

Indian man: Political fanaticism.

Prabhupāda: (Hindi)

Dr. Patel: Yes, and said Sītā was a prostitute. I don't know.... And still, the government could, I mean, support them. It's too much of a joke.

Prabhupāda: But these.... You cannot.... Even on religious principle or so-called religion, you cannot make equality. The rogues will always remain, either Hindu, Muslim.
1977 Conversations and Morning Walks
Room Conversation -- January 21, 1977, Bhuvanesvara:
Prabhupāda: You see? And we have to tolerate this?

Rāmeśvara: Well, what about all these artificial divisions, "this nation," "that nation," "this land"?

Prabhupāda: That is also another fanaticism.

Rāmeśvara: Nationalism.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is another fanaticism, gundaism. Not nationalism. Gundaism. "Everything belongs to God. We are sons of God. We must enjoy everywhere. You cannot check."

Rāmeśvara: It seems that eventually, then, the Kṛṣṇa conscious movement will establish one world government.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is wanted. Actually that is the meaning.
Room Conversation -- January 27, 1977, Bhuvanesvara:
Prabhupāda: They are dogmatic teachings.

Satsvarūpa: So they take us like that too, another religious explanation.

Prabhupāda: No. Our religion is not faith. It is science. That is the fault. Fanaticism of Christianism, Muhammadanism, has created this godlessness. But Vedic knowledge is not that. It is really knowledge.
Correspondence
1969 Correspondence
Letter to Hayagriva -- Los Angeles 31 July, 1969: Actually, we don't decry any religious way of the world, but we are simply advocating that people should learn to love God by following their religious principles. If one is not fortunate to be learning how to love God, then his religious principles are simply fanaticism, without any value. We are presenting the same thing practically by which one can learn very quickly how to love God, and then his life becomes sublime. So our process is a system, following which any man from any religious sect may come and join and learn how to love God.
1970 Correspondence
Letter to Krsna dasa -- Calcutta 6 October, 1970: The next point is that religion without philosophy is sentimentalism or fanaticism. Simply performing empty ritual without understanding is condemned by Srila Rupa Goswami in his Bhaktirasamrta sindhuh—pure devotional service which ignores the injunctions of the scriptures is simply a disturbance to the society. In Bhagavad-gita it is stated "One should approach a spiritual master and inquire from him submissively, render him all kinds of service. The self-realized soul can impart knowledge unto you because he has seen the Truth."
1972 Correspondence
Letter to Bhavananda -- Honolulu 9 May, 1972: So far your observation that the Bengalis have been degraded by bogus so-called sadhus, yes, the Bengali's are generally fish-eaters and some are flesh-eaters, so the Ramakrishna Mission gave this concession that there is nothing harmful in eating flesh. The Bengalis got this appetite for eating flesh and fish and at the same time becoming one with God. This foolish theory and fanaticism has killed the Bengali culture. Not all, but a few percentage.
1973 Correspondence
Letter to Indira Gandhi -- New Delhi 6 November, 1973: So we in our humble way are trying to spread this cult of Bhagavad-gita all over the world, and my American and European disciples, two samples of them are meeting with you, are helping me in this connection. After all, Bhagavad-gita is the sublime cultural knowledge, and of course religion is included there, but it is not fanaticism or sentimental religion. It is based on pure science, philosophy, and logic.
1974 Correspondence
Letter to Bhakta Dennis -- Calcutta 25 September, 1974: So you have scientific mind and you want to use it in the service of Krsna. This is very good, and this I want that scientists step forward and preach Krsna consciousness. We are not preaching something fanaticism nor dry philosophy. Krsna consciousness is jnanam and vijnanam, practical knowledge. So I have given all the points in my books, and you should read them thoroughly.
1975 Correspondence
Letter to Giriraja -- Vrindaban 15 September, 1975: Religion is described in the English dictionary as a kind of faith. Of course when we accept Krishna's instructions perfectly we become automatically perfectly religious person. Therefore Krishna consciousness movement is not a sentimental fanaticism of so-called religion. But, it is the perfect culture for peace and happiness of the whole human society.

http://www.vaniquotes.org/wiki/Category:Meat-eating
According to our Indian system, their enjoyment is not meat-eating as in the Western countries. Their enjoyment is eating ghee more, become chubby, fatty
Actually the whole world is presently fallen into material existence. Everyone is a meat-eater, drunkard, woman-hunter, gambler and whatnot. People are enjoying material life by committing the four basic sins
Addicted to meat-eating
Anyone from a meat-eating community is called a yavana
D
Demons are very much fond of sucking blood. Indeed, all of them are meat-eaters and bloodsuckers
G
Generally Westerners are addicted to meat-eating, drinking, gambling and illicit sex; therefore their taking up Krsna consciousness is astonishing
Generally Westerners are addicted to meat-eating, drinking, gambling and illicit sex; therefore their taking up Krsna consciousness is astonishing. In India, especially, there is much astonishment at this
I
I don't accept any cheap student or cheap disciple. My first condition is that there is no illicit sex life, there is no intoxication, there is no gambling, and there is no meat-eating
I have already tested how the people here like the Vegetable Prasadam prepared by me. They will forget meat eating and they will pay for the expenses
If Krishna would have eaten meat, we would have also eaten His meat Prasadam. We are concerned with Krishna Prasadam
If one is addicted to illicit sex life, if one is addicted to meat-eating and if one is addicted in intoxicants, then he is immediately fallen from the standard of human society
If people want to be saved from the killing business life after life, they must take to Krsna consciousness and cease sinful activity. ISKCON recommends that everyone abandon meat-eating, illicit sex, intoxication and gambling
If the Krsna consciousness government is there, no meat-eating, no smoking, no illicit sex, so many no's, the demons will die. (laughter) That is the position
If we go on eating meat, then we revolt against the will of God, because God is the father of all living entities
If we want a happy and tranquil political situation, we must select leaders who eat krsna-prasadam. Otherwise the leaders will eat meat and drink wine, and thus they will be asamskrtah, unreformed, and kriya-hinah, devoid of spiritual behavior
If you want to eat meat, you can kill an animal at your own house, but state is not going to commit these sinful activities, statewise. That is changed in every respect
Illicit sexual indulgence, meat-eating, gambling and intoxication, are an integral part of the lives of the mlecchas and yavanas. Being bound by such sinful activities, one cannot make any advancement in God realization
In this age there are very few scholars. Almost everyone is a fallen meat-eater, drunkard, woman-hunter or gambler. Such persons are never considered learned scholars, even if they pose as such
Instead of making them drunkard, woman-hunter, meat-eaters, we are making them Krsna conscious. That is the best help
Is the objection to eating meat based on transmigration from animal to man?
It is a very good idea for people to come to our vegetarian restaurant and take so many nice things, especially the panir, fried cheese, and sandesh, kachori, rasagulla, samosa and in this way they will forget their meat-eating
It is no longer considered abominable to be a drunkard, woman-hunter, meat-eater, thief or rogue, for these elements have been assimilated by human society
It is not that a gambler or a meat-eater or a man addicted to illicit sex life, he cannot love Krsna. It is not that. But that is very rare case I cont.
It is not that all our students were free from this alcoholic habit or meat-eating or illicit sex, no. They were habituated. But because they have taken to the devotional service, this is all finished
J
Jesus and meat-eating
K
Kali does not eat meat, but it is the sastra's injunction that those who are unable to give up meat-eating, they may sacrifice one goat, not cow, one small animal before the goddess Kali, on amavasya (new moon) day, night, not day, and they can eat it
Krsna consciousness means to become kind to everyone. Therefore we say, "No meat-eating"
M
Many businessmen are also dissatisfied because we teach our students to abandon intoxication, meat-eating, illicit sex and gambling. If the Krsna consciousness movement spreads, the so-called businessmen will have to close their slaughterhouses
Many thousands of boys and girls in the Western countries are seriously taking to this movement sacrificing many things. Especially they do not indulge in illicit sex life, gambling, meat eating, and intoxication
Meat-eaters, according to their different positions and the directions of the sastra, are allowed to eat flesh, but never the flesh of cows
Meat-eating and intoxication excite the senses more and more, and the conditioned soul falls victim to women. In order to keep women, money is required, and to acquire money, one begs, borrows or steals
Meat-eating sannyasis
N
Nobody will die without sex life. Nobody will die without meat-eating. Nobody will die without intoxication. Nobody will die without playing gambling. These are learned by association only. By bad association we learn how to drink, how to smoke
Nonvegetarian diet means fish and meat
O
One time you were explaining that Caitanya Mahaprabhu, when He was speaking with the Kazi, He convinced him about that the Koran does not actually advocate meat-eating
P
People all over the world should refrain from the four principles of sinful life-illicit sex, meat-eating, intoxication and gambling-and in a pure state of existence should perform the simple yajna of chanting the Hare Krsna maha-mantra
S
Simply becoming vegetarian is no great qualification. Somebody is taking meat and somebody is taking vegetable, it does not make any difference
So far foodstuffs offered do the needful. Whatever is available and also very nice, that is offerable, as long as no meat, fish, eggs, garlic, onions, or other very objectionable foodstuffs are there
Sometimes the living entity is interested in the yellow stool known as gold and runs after it. That gold is the source of material opulence and envy, and it can enable one to afford illicit sex, gambling, meat-eating and intoxication
Sometimes the question is put before us: "You ask us not to eat meat, but you are eating vegetables. Do you think that is not violence?"
T
That is the defect of Western civilization. Vox populi, taking opinion of the public. But what is the value of this public? Drunkards, smokers, meat-eaters, woman-hunters
The Kali begins with this animal killing. That is Kali-yuga. Meat-eating. Therefore, to avoid the influence of Kali we have to give up this habit
The Krsna consciousness movement is not very popular with the karmis because this movement recommends that one refrain from illicit sex, meat-eating, gambling and intoxication. These are restrictions that karmis very much dislike
The duty of a pure devotee is to regret his past sinful activities in illicit sex, intoxication, meat-eating and gambling
The first principle of Vedic civilization is the avoidance of meat-eating and intoxication
The jugglery and magic is here present: all these meat-eaters, drunkards, woman-hunters, now Vaisnava. This is real magic
The killing of animals in sacrifice to the demigods, who are expansions of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, is sanctioned for those who eat meat T cont.
The main principle of Lord Buddha's preaching was ahimsa - non-violence, no animal-killing, no meat-eating
The same mentality is involved in trying to blow-up a slaughterhouse as is there in meat-eating. Such things will not stop people from unnecessary animal slaughter
The same thing: stool this side and that side. They are eating meat, and Hindu shop is pure, Muslim shop is impure. These are mental concoction
The world is full of Jagais and Madhais; namely drunkards, women-hunters, meat eaters and gamblers, and we will have to approach them at the risk of insult, injury and similar other rewards
There is no ideal character. Everyone is drunkard and meat-eater or woman-hunter. What is the civilization? Hog civilization
These are the basic pillars, four pillars of sinful activities: illicit sex life and intoxication, meat-eating and gambling. Striya-suna-pana-dyuta yatra papas catur-vidhah
They have standardized their happiness on these principles - illicit sex, meat-eating, gambling. That is the standard. And if you deny that, they say, "Oh, it is impossible. These are the primary principles of life"
This is our process, no illicit sex, no meat eating, no intoxication, no gambling. Unless one is married, there is no sex. And unless one is going to beget child, there is no sex. Not for pleasure. This is our regulative principle
Those who are fond of eating fish and meat, they can eat when the animal is dead. Not killing
Those who desire to eat meat may satisfy the demands of their tongues by eating lower animals, but they should never kill cows
W
We are not advocating meat eating. You do not understand. We are saying that even if you don't eat meat, you cannot decry the arrangement in the Vedas
We first advise all the disciples in our Krsna consciousness movement to avoid illicit sex, which is the beginning of all abominable life and which is followed by meat-eating, gambling and intoxication, one after another
We had fallen into abominable lives as meat-eaters, drunkards and woman hunters who performed all kinds of sinful activities, but now we have been given the opportunity to chant the Hare Krsna mantra
We have no quarrel with the meat-eaters
We prescribe to our students no illicit sex-life, no meat-eating, no intoxication, no gambling, but they are not ends in themselves; the real end is how to serve Krishna and sacrifice everything for Him
We should know, whenever there is sanction in the sastra for meat-eating, for sex intercourse, or for drinking, it is not for encouraging; it is for prohibiting, restricting
Western country youngsters giving up illicit sex, intoxication, meat eating and gambling is certainly a great reverse in the activities of maya. Therefore she took advantage of my old age weakness and gave me a death dash
When I went to America, I went by ship. So it stopped at the Commonwealth Pier in Boston. So I was thinking that if "I say that 'No illicit sex, meat-eating, intoxication, and gambling,' so these people will immediately say, 'Please go home' "
Why we cannot eat meat - to answer this question the straight reply is, "because Krishna does not eat meat''
Why you create the cause of cancer disease? You accept these four principles of life - no meat-eating, no intoxication, no illicit sex - there will be no cancer
Y
You cannot imitate. You can follow only. "Because Ramacandra ate meat, so I am eating meat. I become Ramacandra." And why don't you construct a bridge on the ocean?
You inquire, "Then why you restrict, 'No meat-eating'?"

Related categories

This category has the following 7 related categories, out of 7 total. A

[+] Amisa (1)

[+] Animal-eating (21) B

[+] Butcher (14)
E

[+] Eating Fish (7)
F

[+] Flesh-eating (16) K

[+] Killing Animals (129)
Q

[+] Questions on... Meat-eating (6)

Categories: Meat | Eating | Nonvegetarian | Vegetarian | Nutrition and Health - Umbrella Category | Bodily Activities - Umbrella Category | No Intoxication, Gambling, Meat-eating, or Illicit Sex - Umbrella Category