View source for The animal has no soul? So imperfect knowledge. So on the basis of imperfect knowledge this ethic or this humanitarian, what is the value?

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"So on the basis of imperfect knowledge this ethic or this humanitarian, what is the value"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Labangalatika}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|13Mar12}}
{{last|13Mar12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=1|Con=0|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Animals and the Soul]]
[[Category:Imperfect Knowledge]]
[[Category:On The Basis Of]]
[[Category:Ethical]]
[[Category:Humanitarian]]
[[Category:What Is The]]
[[Category:Value]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Philosophy_Discussions" class="sub_section" sec_index="13" parent="Lectures" text="Philosophy Discussions"><h3>Philosophy Discussions</h3>
</div>
<div id="PhilosophyDiscussiononSorenAabyeKierkegaard_0" class="quote" parent="Philosophy_Discussions" book="Lec" index="11" link="Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard" link_text="Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard">
<div class="heading">So why the animal has no soul? So imperfect knowledge. So on the basis of imperfect knowledge this ethic or this humanitarian, what is the value? We do not give any value to all this understanding. Where is the ethics? If you protect the human life by giving him something by killing—there are so many medicines, but the killing is very prominent—then next point should be that if you say that the human life is important, so nonimportant animal-killing can be supported to save the important. Then the question will be, "Why it is important? Why consider the human life is important and the animal life is not important?" These are the questions of ethical law. Where are these discussions on the ethical laws?
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard|Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Śyāmasundara: He says that it's not so much the fact of the decision but how the decision is made: if it's made with integrity and self-confidence.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: How the decision... Why, how the decision is made, that I still don't know. How? Why? Why they make such decision? One man is running on a slaughterhouse. He's killing only. Another man is after humanitarian work, giving food, giving them chance to live. So what is the ultimate decision?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: The decision is...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: There are two sides. There are two kinds of people are going. The same man, he is giving charity for feeding poor man or giving relief to the distressed man, but at the same time he's encouraging animal-killing. So what is the ethics? What is the ethical law in these two contradictory activities? One side... Just like our Vivekananda. He is advocating daridra-nārāyaṇa sevā, "Feed the poor," but feed the poor with mother Kālī's prasāda, where poor goats are killed. Just like, another, one side feeding the poor, another side killing the poor goat. So what is the ethic? What is the ethical law in this connection? Just like people open hospitals, and the doctor prescribes, "Give this man," what it is called," (Hindi), ox blood, or chicken juice." So what is this ethic? And they're supporting that "Here is chicken juice." Just because animal has no soul, so they can be killed. This is another theory. So why the animal has no soul? So imperfect knowledge. So on the basis of imperfect knowledge this ethic or this humanitarian, what is the value? We do not give any value to all this understanding. Where is the ethics? If you protect the human life by giving him something by killing—there are so many medicines, but the killing is very prominent—then next point should be that if you say that the human life is important, so nonimportant animal-killing can be supported to save the important. Then the question will be, "Why it is important? Why consider the human life is important and the animal life is not important?" These are the questions of ethical law. Where are these discussions on the ethical laws?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: He gives importance not so much to the facts of the...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then if there is no fact, then what is the use of such philosophy? It is not based on fact.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Yeah. He gives stress on how the decision is made.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: When decision is made, then you should go farther. How the decision is made, that is our question. How is this made this decision, that you kill somebody and by killing somebody you protect somebody? How this decision is? That is our question. What is the answer?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: His answer is that you make the decision by inwardness, by turning inward...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: And what is that inward mean? Why you are thinking that "I shall give protection to my brother by killing another gentleman"? Why you are thinking like this? What is the ethic? What is the value of ethic? That is our question.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Well, perhaps his ethical man would not make that  decision. Perhaps his ethical man would make the decision to protect the cow also. Because the idea is that through a passionate, feeling, awareness inside that one will come to the right decisions, that, that...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But he has no standard of right decision. What is the standard of right decision?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: His... It's... It's not so much... His motto is not so much "Know thyself" as to "Choose thyself." He's not so much saying that what you...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So how you can make your choice if you do not know yourself? You make your choice, "This is good, this is bad." So this choice is made when you know yourself. So this is my interpretation. I have interest in this; therefore it is good. That, so without knowing yourself, how you can make this choice? How you can make your decision?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: He says that you will know yourself when you begin choosing yourself. And when you begin making choices and examining them, you find the right choice for you, and you will begin to know yourself. That this passionate, inner awareness when one becomes engaged in life, in doing things actively, and making decisions...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: So this choice, when you know yourself, so how you can know yourself unless you go to somebody who knows things as they are? Just like people know that "I am this body." But this kind of knowing is animal knowing. This kind of knowing, that "I am this body," yasyātma-buddhiḥ kuṇape tri-dhātuke ([[Vanisource:SB 10.84.13|SB 10.84.13]]). If one understands that "I am this body," then he is no better than an ass. The animals, the ass, the ass also thinks, "I am this body," and you also think that you are body, then what is the difference between you and the ass? And what is the value of the philosophy of an ass if you are in the bodily concept of life?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: This particular philosophy puts emphasis on the act of deciding, that whatever is decided doesn't matter, but...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But you cannot decide without your aim. What is the aim of life?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Well, he says that because we cannot know the aim or...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then how we can make decision?</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Then we must make a choice, either this or that.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is childish. That is childish. Just like a child, he does not know. He sometimes plays with these things, sometimes plays with these things, sometimes plays with that. That's all. That is child.</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Well, his idea is that you choose one fact and stick to it, whether..., no matter what it is, but that it must be..., your decisions must be free, full of passion, tension and integrity.</p>
<p>Tamāla Kṛṣṇa: What about someone like Hitler, who chose...</p>
<p>Śyāmasundara: Just like, just like Hitler, they might say, or actually the whole hippie philosophy comes from these men, these existentialists. It's not... It doesn't matter what you do, it's that you do it with conviction, determination, passion, freedom.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: However foolish it may be. That is nice. (laughter) However foolish it may be, you go on.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>