View source for Where is the difference between you and the animal? Why do you say there is no soul?

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"Animal has no soul? Why? What is the difference between animal and man"|"What, where is the difference, that you say that the animal has no soul"|"Why it is, it has no soul? What is the difference between you and animal"|"how you can say there is no soul? Where is the difference between man's behavior and animal's behavior"|"the child has no soul? What is the difference between the child's behavior and an animal's behavior"|"what is the difference that you say the animals...? How do you say? What is the symptoms of possessing soul"|"where is the difference between you and the animal? Why do you say there is no soul"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|Labangalatika}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|08Jun12}}
{{last|08Jun12}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=4|Con=2|Let=0}}
{{total|6}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Where Is the Difference?|2]]
[[Category:What Is The Difference Between|2]]
[[Category:Animal|2]]
[[Category:Why Do|2]]
[[Category:Do You|2]]
[[Category:Say|2]]
[[Category:There Is No Soul|2]]
[[Category:Animals and the Soul|2]]
[[Category:Questions Posed by Srila Prabhupada|2]]
</div>
<div id="Lectures" class="section" sec_index="4" parent="compilation" text="Lectures"><h2>Lectures</h2>
</div>
<div id="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="0" parent="Lectures" text="Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures"><h3>Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG12122LondonJuly181973_0" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="14" link="Lecture on BG 1.21-22 -- London, July 18, 1973" link_text="Lecture on BG 1.21-22 -- London, July 18, 1973">
<div class="heading">What is this nonsense? Animal has no soul? Why? What is the difference between animal and man? What are the symptoms of possessing the soul? They are all equal. The man also eats, the animal also eats. The man also sleeps, the animal also sleeps, the man also have sex life, the animals also have sex life. The man also defends, the animals also defends. So where is the deficiency that you say that the animal has no soul?
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 1.21-22 -- London, July 18, 1973|Lecture on BG 1.21-22 -- London, July 18, 1973]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Suhṛdaṁ sarva-bhūtānām. A sādhu will not allow any kind of killing. See in the Christian religion, it is first injunction is "Thou shalt not kill." If you want to become religious... They are simply killing, and still, they are claiming "Christian." What kind of Christian? Simply their business is killing. So it is very difficult to find out a Christian, although they are claiming, I am "Christian." It is very difficult. Because their business is killing. And Lord Jesus Christ ordered, first order is, "Thou shalt not kill. Thou shalt not covet." Who is following?</p>
<p>So sādhu is suhṛdaṁ sarva-bhūtānām. Why he should allow animal killing? They are also living entities, but for their benefit, the so-called sādhu says, "The animal has no soul." What is this nonsense? Animal has no soul? Why? What is the difference between animal and man? What are the symptoms of possessing the soul? They are all equal. The man also eats, the animal also eats. The man also sleeps, the animal also sleeps, the man also have sex life, the animals also have sex life. The man also defends, the animals also defends. So where is the deficiency that you say that the animal has no soul?</p>
<p>Imperfect knowledge. Or making adjustment for their own benefit. Now they are making correction: "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not murder." That means it will come to human being. But the actual commandment is "Thou shalt not kill." But these Christian people, they are making some amendment, "Thou shalt not murder." Because murder will apply to the killing of human beings. But Lord Jesus Christ never said like that. "Thou shalt not kill." It is applicable both for human being and for animal or even for trees. Unnecessarily you cannot kill. That is sādhu. Suhṛdaṁ sarva-bhūtānām ([[Vanisource:BG 5.29 (1972)|BG 5.29]]). "Don't kill my brother, but you can kill my neighbors." Not like that. He is not sādhu. Sādhu is kind to all living entities.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="LectureonBG214LondonAugust201973_1" class="quote" parent="Bhagavad-gita_As_It_Is_Lectures" book="Lec" index="68" link="Lecture on BG 2.14 -- London, August 20, 1973" link_text="Lecture on BG 2.14 -- London, August 20, 1973">
<div class="heading">What, where is the difference, that you say that the animal has no soul? Where is the difference? Let us analyze. Soul... The, I mean to say, existence of the soul within the body, how we can understand? That is very easy. Because yena sarvam idam... the proof of the soul existing is that the consciousness is spread all over my body. As soon as I pinch any part of my body, I feel pain. Therefore I understand a soul is there.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on BG 2.14 -- London, August 20, 1973|Lecture on BG 2.14 -- London, August 20, 1973]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Because a human body is very much advanced, has got the power to kill animals, therefore they are speaking this nonsense that the animal has no soul. Why the animal has no soul? What is the symptom of possessing soul? I am spirit soul; I am within this body. Everyone can understand. Understand or no understand, if I am a human being, if I have got my soul, why this poor animal has no soul? What, where is the difference, that you say that the animal has no soul? Where is the difference? Let us analyze. Soul... The, I mean to say, existence of the soul within the body, how we can understand? That is very easy. Because yena sarvam idam... Everything is described in the Bhagavad-gītā. Yena sarvam idaṁ tatam: The soul is existing, spreading its influence all over the body, just like the sun is existing, spreading the sunshine all over the universe. Similarly, God is existing, spreading His consciousness all over the universe, all over the creation. Therefore He knows everything. Similarly, I am also part and parcel of God. I am also soul, like the sun. My shining, my consciousness, is spread all over the body. Yena sarvam idaṁ tatam. Avināśi tu tad viddhi yena sarvam idam. These things, ślokas, will come. "That thing which is spreading all over the body, that is avināśi; that is eternal." Antavanta ime dehāḥ: "But this body is antavat; it is perishable. But within the body, the soul, which is spreading its consciousness all over the body, that is eternal." We shall come to that verse later on. Avināśi tu tad viddhi yena sarvam idaṁ tatam.</p>
<p>Therefore the proof of the soul existing is that the consciousness is spread all over my body. As soon as I pinch any part of my body, I feel pain. Therefore I understand a soul is there. Just like a man who is going to die. So doctor is examining. He sees the pulse. He sees the heart—"Yes, it is beating." That is the sign that still the man is living. Similarly, the soul is there. The proof is that I can feel pains and pleasure on my body. That is explained in this verse. Mātrā-sparśās tu kaunteya ([[Vanisource:BG 2.14 (1972)|BG 2.14]]). Actually the body in touch with the consciousness feeling pains and pleasure. Otherwise body, what is this body? It is a lump of matter. It is a lump of matter, earth, water, fire, air, material combination of matter. Just like you make one doll, combination of matter, earth, water, fire... Or no fire. Yes, still there is fire. Because you dry it in the sunshine, therefore there is fire. Earth, water, fire, and there is air, there is sky—but there is no soul. That is the difference. You can prepare a doll with earth, water, air, fire, all these things, material elements. But you cannot give the soul. That is not possible. That is possible only by Kṛṣṇa.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="1" parent="Lectures" text="Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures"><h3>Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="LectureonSB11542LosAngelesDecember201973_0" class="quote" parent="Srimad-Bhagavatam_Lectures" book="Lec" index="310" link="Lecture on SB 1.15.42 -- Los Angeles, December 20, 1973" link_text="Lecture on SB 1.15.42 -- Los Angeles, December 20, 1973">
<div class="heading">The rascal says that the animals have no soul. Why? Then the child has no soul? What is the difference between the child's behavior and an animal's behavior?
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture on SB 1.15.42 -- Los Angeles, December 20, 1973|Lecture on SB 1.15.42 -- Los Angeles, December 20, 1973]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Dhīras tatra na muhyati. Tathā dehāntara-prāptir dhīras tatra na muhyati ([[Vanisource:BG 2.13 (1972)|BG 2.13]]). Dhīra means sober. What is the difficulty to understand? I was a child, you were a child. Just like these children, talking without any meaning. But they are children, they are excused. But the same child will become a young man, old man. The body has changed. Just like I was also child, you were also child. In childhood we have done so many nonsense things. But in this body I am not doing anything. I have to consider.</p>
<p>So that means the body is different. According to the body... The rascal says that the animals have no soul. Why? Then the child has no soul? What is the difference between the child's behavior and an animal's behavior? Anyone who has got a dog in the family, the dog is also one of the children. He also behaves... The children also behave like the dog. And the children do not find any difference, that a dog is different, he is different. Simple. So if the dog has no soul and if the behavior are the same, as of the dog of the child, so does it mean the child has no soul? How foolish they are. Just see. And they say the animal has no soul. Why? You can say, "The intelligence is not developed." As the child's intelligence is not developed, it will develop with the chance of the body, similarly, the dog also will have developed sense when he will change his dog's body to human body. That is called evolution. He will get the chance. Nature will give the chance.</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="General_Lectures" class="sub_section" sec_index="11" parent="Lectures" text="General Lectures"><h3>General Lectures</h3>
</div>
<div id="LectureDetroitJuly161971_0" class="quote" parent="General_Lectures" book="Lec" index="91" link="Lecture -- Detroit, July 16, 1971" link_text="Lecture -- Detroit, July 16, 1971">
<div class="heading">Why we should refuse nationality to the poor animals? This is called ignorance. He is also... But we have made concoction, law, that "Animal has no soul." Why it is, it has no soul? What is the difference between you and animal? You eat; the animal eats. You sleep; the animal sleeps. You have sex life; the animal has sex life. You also try to defend yourself and the animal also tries to defend himself. So āhāra-nidrā-bhaya-maithunaṁ ca, eating, sleeping, mating, and defending, these four principles, bodily demand, are similar to the animal and to the man. So why the animals should be denied nationality?
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Lecture -- Detroit, July 16, 1971|Lecture -- Detroit, July 16, 1971]]: </span><div style="display: inline;" class="text"><p style="display: inline;">If a child, even of an Indian, if a child is born in your country he gets immediately the citizenship. That is the law. So the conclusion is that anyone who is born in this land, he gets nationality. But why we should refuse nationality to the poor animals? This is called ignorance. He is also... But we have made concoction, law, that "Animal has no soul." Why it is, it has no soul? What is the difference between you and animal? You eat; the animal eats. You sleep; the animal sleeps. You have sex life; the animal has sex life. You also try to defend yourself and the animal also tries to defend himself. So āhāra-nidrā-bhaya-maithunaṁ ca, eating, sleeping, mating, and defending, these four principles, bodily demand, are similar to the animal and to the man. So why the animals should be denied nationality? It is not that because they are less intelligent they should be denied nationality. No. Just like a father has got four boys. Not that everyone is of the same intelligence. But does the father give less protection to the less intelligent son? No. The protection, the family protection, is equal for everyone.</p>
<p>These are the conception, bhāgavata community, equal right to everyone, even to the animals. That is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. Kṛṣṇa consciousness means paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ, learned. One who is Kṛṣṇa conscious, he is fully learned, paṇḍita. So what is the symptom of a paṇḍita, learned man? That is stated in the Bhagavad-gītā:</p>
:vidyā-vinaya-sampanne
:brāhmaṇe gavi hastini
:śuni caiva śva-pāke ca
:paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ
:([[Vanisource:BG 5.18 (1972)|BG 5.18]])
<p>One person is very learned. In our country a brāhmaṇa is supposed to be very learned; therefore he is addressed as paṇḍita. Paṇḍita means very learned. Nowadays he may be a fool number one, but he is called paṇḍita. That is not actually the fact. A brāhmaṇa means very, very learned in Vedic literature. Veda-pathād bhaved vipraḥ. One who has studied the Vedas very nice, he is vipra. So one who is actually paṇḍita, he will see a learned brāhmaṇa, a hog, a dog, and a caṇḍāla, an elephant, like that, everyone, all living entities—that means all living entities—on the equal level because he sees to the soul, not to the body.</p>
</div>
</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="MorningWalkJanuary71974LosAngeles_0" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="3" link="Morning Walk -- January 7, 1974, Los Angeles" link_text="Morning Walk -- January 7, 1974, Los Angeles">
<div class="heading">What is the difference that you say the animals...? How do you say? What is the symptoms of possessing soul? The symptoms of possessing soul is described in the Bhagavad-gītā: yena sarvam idaṁ tatam. The consciousness. The animals have no consciousness? How foolish they are!
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Morning Walk -- January 7, 1974, Los Angeles|Morning Walk -- January 7, 1974, Los Angeles]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Bali Mardana: When I was in Hawaii I gave a lecture at one Catholic college, and the priest in charge, he was asking me if in our philosophy we believe that animals have a soul. He's so foolish...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh?</p>
<p>Bali Mardana: The Christians are so foolish, even though they have big learned positions, they do not understand that the animal also has a soul.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: You told? In that meeting?</p>
<p>Bali Mardana: Yeah.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: What did they say?</p>
<p>Bali Mardana: They could not deny. They could not say anything.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, what is the difference that you say the animals...? How do you say? What is the symptoms of possessing soul? The symptoms of possessing soul is described in the Bhagavad-gītā: yena sarvam idaṁ tatam. The consciousness. The animals have no consciousness? How foolish they are!</p>
<p>Bali Mardana: Just to rationalize their sins.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. No. Rational or not rational...</p>
<p>Bali Mardana: No, to rationalize their meat-eating, they say...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, to support, yes, their sinful activities.</p>
<p>Bali Mardana: Yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: How you can say there is no soul in the animals? What is the reason? What is their reason?</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: At one interview a person said to you, "They do not understand metaphysics, and the human being understands metaphysics."</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Metaphysics. A child also does not understand. So therefore he has no soul? Cut him? They are doing that. They are doing that, so rascal. So do everyone understand metaphysics.</p>
<p>Karandhara: No.</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: They should not be killed if they don't understand.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Eh?</p>
<p>Satsvarūpa: They should not be killed just if they don't understand.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Is that any reason?</p>
<p>Devotee: Actually, they have no philosophical basis for that belief that the animal has no soul. It's just speculation. Yes.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No philosophy. Simply rascaldom. Simply rascaldom. And that is being preached by the priestly class. Priestly class. Just see the society! What third-class society!</p>
</div>
</div>
<div id="1976_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="9" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1976 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1976 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="RadioInterviewJuly271976London_0" class="quote" parent="1976_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="230" link="Radio Interview -- July 27, 1976, London" link_text="Radio Interview -- July 27, 1976, London">
<div class="heading">Scientific because the animal eats, you eat. The animal sleeps, you sleep. The animals have sex, you have sex. The animal defends, you also defend. Then where is the difference between you and the animal? Why do you say there is no soul?
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Radio Interview -- July 27, 1976, London|Radio Interview -- July 27, 1976, London]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Mike Robinson: I was given this literature by some of your people before I came, in which one of the things you say is that "Religion without a rational basis is just sentiment." Can you explain that to us, and the converse of it, which...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Just like they, most religions, they say, "We believe." So what is this believe? You may believe something which is not naturally correct. Just like some of the Christian people, they say "We believe there is no soul of the animal." That is not correct. You have believed because you want to eat the animal. You have discovered philosophy, but that's not the fact.</p>
<p>Mike Robinson: How do you know the animal has a soul?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: You can know also. What is the difference? How do you distinguish that the animal has no soul and the man has soul? How do you distinguish? How do you say the man has soul and the animal has no soul? How do you distinguish?</p>
<p>Mike Robinson: I believe this Christian religion do it because their scriptures say...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Again you believe, don't believe, don't believe. When you say that the animal has no soul, but you believe or you know that man has soul. So what is the distinction between the man and the animal you find so that you say that the animal has no soul? What is your scientific conclusion? How do you say that animal has no soul?</p>
<p>Mike Robinson: As far as the Christian faith is concerned, doesn't it base it...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Why are you bringing Christian?</p>
<p>Mike Robinson: Well, I thought you quoted Christianity. But as far as the Christian faith is concerned, don't they quote their scriptures?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then it is misleading. As soon as you say that "We Christians, we believe," then it is misbelief. It is not scientific.</p>
<p>Mike Robinson: Well how does it become scientific?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Scientific because the animal eats, you eat. The animal sleeps, you sleep. The animals have sex, you have sex. The animal defends, you also defend. Then where is the difference between you and the animal? Why do you say there is no soul?</p>
<p>Mike Robinson: I can see that completely, but what I'm maybe querying is, for instance, the Christian scriptures would say that someone...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Don't bring Christian scripture now. Simply you just try to understand, that animal eats, you eat, and the animal sleeps, you sleep. The animals have sex, you have got sex. He also defends when he's attacked, you also defend. Then if the behavior of a living being is the same, how do you say that the animal has no soul? Why do you say like that? Irresponsibly?</p>
<p>Mike Robinson: I see what you're getting at, but is that also...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: What is your answer, first of all?</p>
<p>Mike Robinson: Well, my...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Apart from your believing as Christian. As we are talking, as a scientist, how do you deny this animal has no soul?</p>
<p>Mike Robinson: But ultimately you're basing all your faith factually, aren't you, on your reasoning?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, no, no. It is quite logic, that the animal can eat, you can eat; the animal can sleep, you can sleep. The animal can have sex, you can have sex; the animal can defend, you can defend; so why do you deny this poor animal soul?</p>
<p>Mike Robinson: Well, perhaps if I put my point perhaps a slightly different way, if, by your reasoning, if.... This is a hypothetical situation, but if you, by your reasoning, could imagine something that seemed contrary to the scriptures that you were reading earlier...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Again scripture, why do you bring scripture?</p>
<p>Mike Robinson: Well, I'm referring to your scripture, not...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Not my scripture, it is common sense, talking.</p>
<p>Mike Robinson: Yes, but everything that you, because in...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, forget that everything, come to the common platform of understanding. The animal is eating, you are eating, the animal sleeping, you are sleeping. The animal is defending, you are defending. The animal is having sex, you have sex. The animal have children, you have got children. You have got a living place, they have got a living place. So why do you say.... If your body's cut, there is blood. If the animal body's cut, there is blood. So all the similarities are there. So why you deny one similarity? Analogy. Analogy means points of similarity. So this is logic. You have read logic? There is a chapter, analogy. Analogy means points of similarity. If the points of similarity are so many things, why one similarity should be avoided? That is not logic. That is not science.</p>
<p>Mike Robinson: But if you take that logic and use it the other way...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Otherwise, there is no other way.</p>
<p>Mike Robinson: No, if you say...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: If you are not on the basis of logic, then you are not rational.</p>
<p>Mike Robinson: Yes, okay. But let's start from another hypothesis. If you say the animal has no soul...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: How you can say?</p>
<p>Mike Robinson: No, hang on, if you started off by saying that, then you'd have to say human beings would have no soul, wouldn't you?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Mike Robinson: And therefore...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: If you accept human being has soul, you have to accept animal has soul. If you accept animal has no soul, then there is no soul.</p>
<p>Mike Robinson: Well what proof have you got, then, that a human being has got a soul?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is your business. We say everyone has soul. The animal has soul and the man has soul.</p>
<p>Mike Robinson: But if you're going to be rational, you've got surely to prove, you see you've got to prove that a human being has a soul.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: This is rational. Because we see all the points of similarity, analogy, therefore the human being has soul and the animal has soul, by points of similarity.</p>
<p>Mike Robinson: Yes, I can see the point you're trying to make about similarity, but what I'm asking is, what proof do you have that a human being has a soul?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: That is, I have already begun. As soon as the soul is gone, what is the value of your this beautiful body? Who cares for this body? You throw it away, kick it out. And now, if I touch your hair, there will be fight. (laughter) Yes. That is the distinction. The soul is there and soul is not there. As soon as soul is not there, it has no value, useless.</p>
<p>Mike Robinson: I see. So what part then do...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Therefore you have to study, that, this.... At the present moment people are so dull-headed, they are not taking the important point, that this body, one minute ago it was so important, and now it has no value. If you kick on his face, nobody will say. But they have no brain to understand what is that thing missing, that it has become so unimportant that within a minute.... They have no brain. The so-called scientists, philosophers, all dull-headed. It is very abominable condition of society. There is no man who is real brain.</p>
<p>Mike Robinson: Are you, sir, writing off all scientists because they've failed to understand the spiritual dimension in life?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Huh? Yes, it is scientific, everything scientific. Science means knowledge, full knowledge.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>