View source for Does that mean you are calling Jesus Christ a hypocrite (how can you support Christ that if he has done killing business himself and he instructs others not to kill)?

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"Does that mean you are calling Jesus Christ a hypocrite"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|MadhuGopaldas|Rishab}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|21Jun11}}
{{last|08May12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=1|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Questions asked to Srila Prabhupada]]
[[Category:Questions asked to SP... 1974]]
[[Category:Questions On... Jesus]]
</div>
<div id="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="section" sec_index="5" parent="compilation" text="Conversations and Morning Walks"><h2>Conversations and Morning Walks</h2>
</div>
<div id="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="7" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1974 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1974 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="MorningWalkApril221974Hyderabad_0" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="70" link="Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad" link_text="Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad">
<div class="heading">Hypocrite... You want to support your sinful activities by proving Christ as hypocrite. This is your business. You are such a Christian. And your love for Christ is such... That, we have to follow the instruction of the superior. Even if he acts something against the instruction, you should not follow it. You have to follow his words. You cannot imitate his action. That is real obedience.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad|Morning Walk -- April 22, 1974, Hyderabad]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Pañcadraviḍa: ...vegetables are also alive.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, everyone... We are not talking of everyone. We are talking of you. You love God. So why you are killing? No, killing... There is open declaration, "Thou shall not kill." So you are deliberately disobeying. Then where is the love?</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: "But even if I become vegetarian, still, I will..."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, that is not questioned. God says that you shall not kill. But you are killing. Where is your love? You cannot argue with God. Then you do not love. You cannot put your argument, logic, "What God has said I must do." That is not...</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: "But God did not mean us not to eat. We must eat."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: God did not... That means you have to eat only meat. You have nothing to eat?</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: But if I eat a plant, it is also killing.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is your argument. But God says that "Thou shalt not kill." You cannot argue. This is the first theory... Suppose if I say something to you, order, you cannot argue. That is not obedience. Obedience means without argument accepted. That is obedience. That is love.</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: The other important point is that we love God not for getting some reward. You say that the other important thing is that this person claims to be pious, but he approaches God for material reward.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, that is business. That is not love. I go to somebody and flatter him to get something. Just like a shopkeeper does also like that. He flatters the customers in so many ways to sell goods so that he can make some profit. So there is no question of love.</p>
<p>Akṣayānanda: But that "I am following Jesus Christ and I am a vegetarian," so that's all right, isn't it?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: I am following Jesus Christ?</p>
<p>Akṣayānanda: That "I am a vegetarian. I do not eat meat. I don't kill. I do not kill."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Oh, therefore I am a better Christian, better than you. Love... Therefore the Bhāgavata is perfect. Bhāgavata says that... Bhagavad-gītā says... Kṛṣṇa says that patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyaṁ yo me bhaktyā prayacchati ([[Vanisource:BG 9.26 (1972)|BG 9.26]]). So we are obeying Kṛṣṇa. We offer patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyaṁ. And we eat the remains of the foodstuff. Therefore we love. That is the proof. But you are not loving Jesus Christ because you are disobeying the order.</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: How disobeying if the person says, "I am vegetarian. I do not kill. I am a Christian, but I am vegetarian, I do not kill animals?"</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then you are all right. But they... Who put forward the argument that "You are also killing vegetable?" Then how can kill vegetable?</p>
<p>Nitai: In Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa... Just as you quoted.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: The thing is that we must eat something. And vegetables also have got life. The nature's way is that one living entity is eating another living entity. It may be animal or it may be vegetable. The question is the obedience to the order of God. So when Jesus Christ says that "Thou shalt not kill," it means bigger animals. Killing is applied, from dictionary, if I kill a man, if I kill an animal, then this word is used. So he meant like that. And that is very reasonable. Because I am eating another living entity, that does not I can eat another man. So therefore Kṛṣṇa has specifically mentioned, patraṁ puṣpaṁ phalaṁ toyaṁ yo me bhaktyā prayacchati ([[Vanisource:BG 9.26 (1972)|BG 9.26]]). After all, we have to eat. And if you take that all killing is the same, even by ordinary law, if I kill one tree, and if I kill one man, does it mean it is of the same degree? Even taking killing of plant, so there are comparative. But it is also necessity that we must eat something. So therefore here, perfect thing in the Bhagavad-gītā, that He says that "You offer Me." "Offer Me" means "After My eating, you shall eat." Yajña-śiṣṭāśinaḥ santo mucyante sarva-kilbiṣaiḥ. Even by killing vegetable, you are also as sinful as killing animal, but because we offer to Kṛṣṇa, therefore we are not sinful. Kṛṣṇa wants it. Just like Kṛṣṇa wanted Arjuna to fight and kill the other party. Therefore Arjuna is not infected with the sin. So here Kṛṣṇa is asking, "Give me this foodstuff," and Kṛṣṇa knows that I will eat the remnants of the foodstuff. So I am not responsible. We have no very much study of the Muslim, but instead of criticizing others, better we shall preach our own cult. But if there is occasion when somebody attacks, then we should be prepared. But our positive business should be to inform people what is the nature of God, as they are stated in Bhagavad-gītā and in Bhāgavatam.</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: When we run into those people... Sometimes we run into Muslims, Jains, Christians, and usually what we do is we approach them on the basis of our welfare work. Because we have got our work where we are feeding persons in Māyāpur, we are doing different..., opening schools. So we approach them that God is also one. There is one God and we are doing work for bringing all the people to God. In Māyāpur we are feeding so many Muslims every day.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, that is good preaching. But when there is argument, when somebody says, you should be prepared to argue with them. It stopped? We shall go another round?</p>
<p>Akṣayānanda: I think it has stopped.</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: No rain.</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: (break) ...dressed in shiny saffron. He is dressed in black. He looked like nescience and you look like the sunshine, standing next to him. He is wearing all this black with a little bit of red trimming on it, looked like nightime. (break) ...I met a Christian, and he said "You have got your guru and you are following him. He teaches you by his example. We have got our pope. He is our example of what Christianity is. He is the head of Christian order, and he himself is eating meat. Now how you can say...?"</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then how he can be pope?</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: "But how you can say he is not the best Christian? He is the head of all the Christians."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But that means you are foolish and pope is also foolish. If he does not follow the orders of Jesus Christ, then how he becomes a pope? Therefore you are foolish. You have elected some foolish, another foolish man as your pope. That should be the right answer, that "If he does not follow Christ, how he becomes pope?"</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: He is not killing.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then why he is appointed as head? He must order. Otherwise if you are not following pope, then you are not Christian. He does not kill, then you should not kill. And why does he not order?</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: He himself is eating meat. So it must be all right.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then how he is pope?</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: But he is knowing what Christianity is the best. Therefore he is in charge. He says it is all right to eat meat.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, how... Then first of all how you can elect him as in charge? Then you are fool.</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: All the popes for hundreds of years have all eaten meat.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then hundreds of years you are fool. Therefore you are intelligent? Does it mean?</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: But when Jesus said, "Thou shalt not kill," he meant humans; he did not mean animals.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is your interpretation.</p>
<p>Akṣayānanda: But Jesus was a shepherd and there were many, many sheep. What did they do with all the sheep?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: They eat?</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: They must.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: They must. That is your inference.</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: What else...? In the middle of desert...? Babylon, Israel is all desert country. What will they do with sheep? They are not making wool coats.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then why he has said, "Thou shalt not kill"? Then hypocrisy. Then you reject Jesus complete. He is a hypocrite. Yes. That is the conclusion. How can you follow hypocrite? Huh? Is that all right? If Jesus Christ himself killed animals and he said, "Thou shalt not kill," then he is a hypocrite. Then he cannot preach. He is a hypocrite. You are bringing Christ for condemnation. But how a hypocrite can be the head or can be the religious man or can be...</p>
<p>Akṣayānanda: It is not that we are saying he is a hypocrite.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: He is proving.</p>
<p>Akṣayānanda: He himself, the Christian is saying that Jesus Christ is a hypocrite.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Akṣayānanda: So why is he following?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: They still eat the sheep.</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: The main thing they usually say is that kill means murder. That man at Bhaktivedanta Manor, that priest, he said the original Hebrew, the word means "murder." So this is an instruction to mankind not to murder, but it is not... But they have other places in the scripture where they point out that the animal is allowed for man to eat. So they just were showing us their scriptures.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: It is said, "It is murder."</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: Yes, that "Thou shalt not murder." That it has been changed to "kill."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Originally it was murder?</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: That is what that priest said to you in Bhaktivedanta Manor.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, no, he may say. What was previously, we are not concerned. But you have left already this Jewish Old Testament. You have got New Testament. You are not Jewish. So why do you bring that Jewish for your defense? You have already rejected it.</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: But they say we accept both Old and New Testament. The Christians do not say we only have New Testament. They say we accept the old and the new.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then why you have changed?</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: Because the Old Testament never mentions Christ, but the New Testament is all about Christ.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then it is rejected. If you have changed the tenets of Old Testament, that means you have rejected.</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: No, not changed. In Old Testament the messiaḥ, he is predicted, but activities of the messiaḥ, they are not given.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: The question is the Old Testament, you say that there was the word "murder." Why you have changed? You accept Old Testament or reject?</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: Accept the statement should be "murder."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: But why it is "kill"?</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: Wrong translation.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Wrong translation.</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: Yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: They are fools, all set of fools. Useless. See one thing and write one thing. Then you are not perfect. Bhrama pramāda. You commit mistake. Therefore your instruction is useless, useless. Because you commit mistake, therefore your instruction is useless. And that actually they are doing. As it is suitable, they are changing the words of Bible. They are useless. Things which are changeable, that cannot be accepted as scripture. Scriptural injunction means you cannot change. Just like we accept the Vedic scripture but don't change it. That example I have given many times. Because Lord Buddha wanted to change Vedic literature, therefore he is rejected. Although Lord Buddha is so... We worship him as incarnation of..., but he was rejected. You cannot change. Immediately you are rejected. (break)</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: ...Christians, they were arguing with me they said, "God has given us the pig to eat."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: It is said in the Bible?</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: No.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then where is this nonsense? How he can say? Actually, Christians cannot eat any meat because the word is "Thou shalt not kill." (break)</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: Christ Himself was distributing fish, to the hungry, to the poor. He gave out so much fish.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That was not killing fish. That is my support.</p>
<p>Pañcadraviḍa: We do not kill the fish either. We simply purchase it in the supermarket.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Directly, fish, as soon as taken from the water, he dies. And Christ... Then how can you support Christ that if he has done killing business himself and he instructs others not to kill?</p>
<p>Akṣayānanda: Does that mean you are calling Jesus Christ a hypocrite?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Hypocrite.</p>
<p>Akṣayānanda: Who is calling him a hypocrite, us or you?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: You want to support your sinful activities by proving Christ as hypocrite. This is your business. You are such a Christian. And your love for Christ is such. (break) ...that we have to follow the instruction of the superior. Even if he acts something against the instruction, you should not follow it. You have to follow his words. You cannot imitate his action. That is real obedience. You should... If he has done something against his instruction, you should know that might have been some particular occasion he has done it, but we are not concerned with that. We are concerned with his order. That is obedience. He has not ordered me to do this thing. So my duty is what he has ordered to me. That is my only duty. What he has done in particular occasion, that is not my duty to see. Just like there is a Bengali verse,</p>
:yadyapi nityānanda sūri bari jaya
:tathāpi sei amara nityānanda rāya
<p>That sūri bari means wine shop where wine is distilled and sold. That is called sūri bari. And those who are wine sellers, they are called sūri. So I see that Nityānanda is going to a wine shop. So if I say, "Oh, Nityānanda is now spoiled. He is going to wine shop." No. We should not see that. We should know Nityānanda is pure. If he is going to sūri bari, wine shop, he has some business. But because he is going to the sūri bari he is not polluted. I shall not follow him, "Because Nityānanda has gone sūri bari, therefore I shall go." Kṛṣṇa danced with young girls, other's wives always. That does not mean I shall imitate that. What Kṛṣṇa has said, we have to follow that. That's all. Kṛṣṇa never said that "You also dance like me in rāsa dance." Has He said anywhere? Then how can you do that? Whatever He does, He has got purpose. His work is all right. But I cannot imitate His work. The example is given that the sunshine is soaking urine. Can you imitate that, you drink urine? So tejīyasāṁ na doṣāya ([[Vanisource:SB 10.33.29|SB 10.33.29]]). If Christ has done something, he is Lord Jesus Christ, he might have done it for some purpose, but we cannot follow that. We have to follow what he has ordered. That's all. (break)</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>