Please join, like or share our Vanipedia Facebook Group
Go to Vanipedia | Go to Vanisource | Go to Vanimedia


Vaniquotes - the compiled essence of Vedic knowledge

Animals have no soul? (Books and Lectures)

From Vaniquotes

Expressions researched:
"animal has no soul" |"animal has not got soul" |"animal has not soul" |"animal has not soul" |"animal has soul or not soul" |"animal is, has no soul" |"animal, there is no soul" |"animals do not have souls" |"animals have no soul" |"animals have no souls" |"animals having no soul" |"animals, they have no soul" |"animals. They have no soul" |"does not know that the animal has also a soul" |"no soul in the animal" |"no soul in the animals" |"no soul of the animal" |"no soul of the animal" |"no soul of the animals" |"no soul? The animals" |"soul and not the animals" |"soul, but animal does not"

Notes from the compiler: (1) Vedabase query: "animal* no* soul*"@5

Srimad-Bhagavatam

SB Canto 4

According to less intelligent philosophers, animals have no soul. But factually animals have souls. Due to the animals' gross ignorance, however, it appears that they have lost their souls.
SB 4.22.31, Purport:

The living entity, or the soul, is ever existing and eternal. It cannot be lost, but learned scholars say that it is lost when actual knowledge is not working. That is the difference between animals and human beings. According to less intelligent philosophers, animals have no soul. But factually animals have souls. Due to the animals' gross ignorance, however, it appears that they have lost their souls. Without the soul, a body cannot move. That is the difference between a living body and a dead body. When the soul is out of the body, the body is called dead. The soul is said to be lost when there is no proper knowledge exhibited. Our original consciousness is Kṛṣṇa consciousness because we are part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa. When this consciousness is misguided and one is put into the material atmosphere, which pollutes the original consciousness, one thinks that he is a product of the material elements. Thus one loses his real remembrance of his position as part and parcel of the Supreme Personality of Godhead, just as a man who sleeps forgets himself. In this way, when the activities of proper consciousness are checked, all the activities of the lost soul are performed on a false basis. At the present moment, human civilization is acting on a false platform of bodily identification; therefore it can be said that the people of the present age have lost their souls, and in this respect they are no better than animals.

Some rascals put forward the theory that an animal has no soul or is something like dead stone. In this way they rationalize that there is no sin in animal-killing. Actually animals are not dead stone, but the killers of animals are stonehearted.
SB 4.26.9, Purport:

The devotees are pained to see the hunting and killing of animals in the forest, the wholesale slaughter of animals in the slaughterhouses, and the exploitation of young girls in brothels that function under different names as clubs and societies. Being very much compassionate upon the killing of animals in sacrifice, the great sage Nārada began his instructions to King Prācīnabarhiṣat. In these instructions, Nārada Muni explained that devotees like him are very much afflicted by all the killing that goes on in human society. Not only are saintly persons afflicted by this killing, but even God Himself is afflicted and therefore comes down in the incarnation of Lord Buddha. Jayadeva Gosvāmī therefore sings: sadaya-hṛdaya-darśita-paśu-ghātam. Simply to stop the killing of animals, Lord Buddha compassionately appeared. Some rascals put forward the theory that an animal has no soul or is something like dead stone. In this way they rationalize that there is no sin in animal-killing. Actually animals are not dead stone, but the killers of animals are stonehearted. Consequently no reason or philosophy appeals to them. They continue keeping slaughterhouses and killing animals in the forest. The conclusion is that one who does not care for the instructions of saintly persons like Nārada and his disciplic succession surely falls into the category of naṣṭa-prajña and thus goes to hell.

Sri Caitanya-caritamrta

CC Adi-lila

Some of the Christian priests imperfectly answer that the animals have no souls.
CC Adi 17.169, Purport:

Sometimes Christian priests come to us inquiring, "Why are our followers neglecting our scriptures and accepting yours?" But when we ask them, "Your Bible says, "Do not kill." Why then are you killing so many animals daily?" they cannot answer. Some of them imperfectly answer that the animals have no souls. But then we ask them, "How do you know that animals have no souls? Animals and children are of the same nature. Does this mean that the children of human society also have no souls?" According to the Vedic scriptures, within the body is the owner of the body, the soul. In the Bhagavad-gītā (2.13) it is said:

dehino ’smin yathā dehe kaumāraṁ yauvanaṁ jarā
tathā dehāntara-prāptir dhīras tatra na muhyati

"As the embodied soul continuously passes, in this body, from boyhood to youth to old age, the soul similarly passes into another body at death. The self-realized soul is not bewildered by such a change."

Lectures

Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures

Why the sādhu should allow animal killing? They are also living entities, but for their benefit, the so-called sādhu says, "The animal has no soul." So where is the deficiency that you say that the animal has no soul?
Lecture on BG 1.21-22 -- London, July 18, 1973:

Not this rascaldom, daridra-nārāyaṇa. Just like one rascal has manufactured this daridra-nārāyaṇa. The poor man has become Nārāyaṇa, and the goat Nārāyaṇa is killed for their feeding. Not this kind of sādhu. 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?

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?

Of course, in some quarter they say that the cats and dogs and lower animals, they have no soul. No. That is not the fact. Everyone has got soul, but the cats and dogs and animals, they are not advanced in consciousness.
Lecture on BG 2.9 -- Auckland, February 21, 1973:

Unfortunately, at the present moment, people do not know what is the distinction between cats and dogs and a human being. That is another defect of the modern education. The distinction between cats and dogs... They are also living beings. Of course, in some quarter they say that the cats and dogs and lower animals, they have no soul. No. That is not the fact. Everyone has got soul, but the cats and dogs and animals, they are not advanced in consciousness. As soon as there is soul, there must be consciousness. These things are described in the Bhagavad-gītā, and you can perceive also. I am existing in this body; you are existing in your body—how it is known? By the consciousness. If I pinch your body, you feel pain. You pinch my body; I feel pain. Similarly, cats and dogs, they also feel pain or pleasure. So that is the proof of existence of the soul even in cats and dogs and human beings. The only difference is in the human form of life the consciousness is developed.

If you think that "I am the only son of God, and the animal is, has no soul, and let us kill," that is not a very good philosophy. Why not? What the symptoms of possessing soul?
Lecture on BG 2.11 -- Edinburgh, July 16, 1972:

God is the enjoyer. And God is the proprietor. Sarva-loka-maheśvaram. And suhṛdaṁ sarva-bhūtānām (BG 5.29), He's the best friend of everyone. He's not friend only of the human society. He's friend of the animal society. Because every living entity is God's son. How we can be otherwise treating man in some way and animal in other way? No. God is actually perfect friend of all living entities. If we simply understand these three things, then we become peaceful, immediately.

bhoktāraṁ yajña-tapasāṁ
sarva-loka-maheśvaram
suhṛdaṁ sarva-bhūtānāṁ
jñātvā māṁ śāntim ṛcchati
(BG 5.29)

This is the process of śānti. You cannot establish... If you think that "I am the only son of God, and the animal is, has no soul, and let us kill," that is not a very good philosophy. Why not? What the symptoms of possessing soul? The symptoms of possessing soul is the same four formulas: eating, sleeping, mating, and defending. The animals also busy in these four things; we are also busy in these four things. Then where is the difference between animal and me?

You have created so many religious system on the bodily concept of life, bodily concept of life so strong that even big, big learned so-called religionists, they say that the animal has no soul.
Lecture on BG 2.14 -- London, August 20, 1973:

Real religion is that "I am the Supreme Soul, Parambrahma, Kṛṣṇa. And you are My part and parcel. So we have intimate relation, like father and son. So it is the son's duty to obey the father. That is perfection of life." That's all. Sarva-dharmān parityajya mām ekaṁ śaraṇaṁ vraja (BG 18.66). You have created so many religious system on the bodily concept of life, bodily concept of life so strong that even big, big learned so-called religionists, they say that the animal has no soul. The bodily concept of... 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?

So these people say the animals have no soul. But that's all right, but he's feeling pain when you are killing the animal. So you also feel pain. So why should you give pain to others?
Lecture on BG 2.18 -- London, August 24, 1973:

Parīkṣit Mahārāja. He said that God consciousness, Kṛṣṇa consciousness, cannot be understood by the animal killer. Vinā paśughnāt (SB 10.1.4). Nivṛtta-tarṣair upagīyamānāt. You'll find those who are animal killers, the so-called Christians and Mohammedans, they cannot understand. They (are) simply fanatics. Cannot understand what is soul, what is God. They have got some theories and they are thinking we are religionists. What is sin, what is pious activities, these things are not understood by them because they are animal killers. It is not possible. Therefore Lord Buddha propagated ahiṁsā. Ahiṁsā. Because he saw the whole human race is going to hell by this animal killing. "Let me stop them so that they may, in future, they may become sober." Sadaya-hṛdaya darśita: Two sides. First of all he was very much compassionate, that poor animals, they are being killed. And another side, he saw "The whole human race is going to hell. So let me do something." Therefore he had to deny the existence of the soul because their brain will not tolerate such things. Therefore he did not say anything about the soul or God. He said that "You stop animal killing." If I pinch you, you feel pain. So why should you give pain to others? Never mind he has no soul; that's all right. He did not talk anything about soul. So these people say the animals have no soul. But that's all right, but he's feeling pain when you are killing the animal. So you also feel pain. So why should you give pain to others? That is Lord Buddha's theory.

Others think that animal has no soul. They do not accept this morality that animal cannot be killed, it is sinful, it is immoral. They have created their own theory.
Lecture on BG 2.26-27 -- London, August 29, 1973:

So the decision of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇāḥ. Mahad-guṇāḥ. We can find it easily, just like we say that no illicit sex, no meat-eating, we consider this is sinful. But there are others, big, big leaders, politicians, philosophers, even religious priests, they do not think that this is immoral or this is sinful. Meat-eating is sinful. Why? What is the sin there? Illicit sex, what is the wrong there? Intoxication, what is wrong there? They do not find any immorality. So this standard of morality, there cannot be fixed up if one is not God conscious. There cannot be. Standard of morality, standard of goodness, cannot be. That is the decision of the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam. Harāv abhaktasya kuto mahad-guṇāḥ. Lack of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. They think that animal has no soul. They do not accept this morality that animal cannot be killed, it is sinful, it is immoral. They have created their own theory.

Sarvasya. The soul is there. But some rascals, they say the animals have no soul. This is wrong. How you can say the animal has no soul? Everyone. Here the authoritative statement by Kṛṣṇa: sarvasya.
Lecture on BG 2.30 -- London, August 31, 1973:

In the body, he is there. But dehe sarvasya bhārata. This is very important. Not that simply in human body the soul is there and not in other bodies. That is rascaldom. Sarvasya. In every body. Even within the ant, even within the elephant, even within the gigantic banyan tree or within the microbe. Sarvasya. The soul is there. But some rascals, they say the animals have no soul. This is wrong. How you can say the animal has no soul? Everyone. Here the authoritative statement by Kṛṣṇa: sarvasya. And in other place, Kṛṣṇa says, sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya sambhavanti mūrtayaḥ yāḥ: (BG 14.4) In all species of life, as many forms are there, 8,400,000 different forms of life, tāsāṁ mahad yonir brahma. Mahad yonir. Their source of body is of this material nature. Ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā: "I am the seed-giving father." As without father and mother there is no offspring, so the father is Kṛṣṇa and the mother is material nature, or spiritual nature.

It is not that simply in human being there is soul, or in higher demigods there is soul, and poor animals have no soul. No. Everyone has got.
Lecture on BG 2.30 -- London, August 31, 1973:

Therefore, this body, although this is material, coming from the same source, still it is inferior. So when the dehī, or the spirit soul, although by nature it is superior than the material nature, but still, because he's encaged within the material nature, he's forgetful of Kṛṣṇa. This is the process. But, as it is stated here, that dehe sarvasya, sarvasya dehe, the same spirit is there. Therefore, those who are not rascals, those who are intelligent and in complete knowledge, they do not find any distinction between a human being or an animal. Paṇḍitāḥ sama-darśinaḥ. Because he's paṇḍita, he's learned, he knows that the spirit soul is there. Vidyā-vinaya-sampanne brāhmaṇe (BG 5.18). Within the first-class learned brāhmaṇa, there is the soul, the same quality soul. Vidyā-vinaya-sampanne brāhmaṇe gavi, in the cow, hastini, in the elephant, śuni—śuni means the dog—caṇḍāla, the lowest kind of human being, everywhere the soul is there. It is not that simply in human being there is soul, or in higher demigods there is soul, and poor animals have no soul. No. Everyone has got... dehe sarvasya bhārata. So whom we shall accept? The statement of Kṛṣṇa or some rascal philosopher or some so-called religionist? Whom we shall accept? We shall have to accept Kṛṣṇa, the supreme authority, the Supreme Being. He says sarvasya. Many places, Kṛṣṇa says. Therefore, those who are learned, they do not make such distinction, that it has no soul. Everyone has got soul.

We do not accept this theory that the animals have no soul. No. Everyone has got soul. Even the plants, trees, everyone has got soul.
Lecture on BG 7.1-3 -- Stockholm, September 10, 1973:

Manuṣyāṇāṁ sahasreṣu. There are living entities, 8,400,000 species or forms. And nine... Jalajā nava-lakṣāṇi, 900,00 forms in the water. Jalajā nava-lakṣāṇi sthāvarā lakṣa-viṁśati. Two million forms of the trees and plants. In this way there are, altogether, different forms of life, 8,400,000. Don't think that the plants and trees, they have no life. They are also living entities. We do not accept this theory that the animals have no soul. No. Everyone has got soul. Even the plants, trees, everyone has got soul. They have got different bodies only. It is not that only human being has got the soul, not others. No. Actually if we make analysis what is the symptoms of possessing soul, you will find everywhere. Even in plants' life you will find. Sir Jagadish Chandra Bose, one of the greatest scientist of the world, he has proved by machine that when you cut the trees or the leaves, they feel sensation, pain, and that is recorded by machine. So everyone has got soul.

Just like the Christian people they say there is no soul of the animals. And how is not? Kṣetrajñam. Soul is there, everywhere, but they have got their different types of bodies.
Lecture on BG 13.4 -- Paris, August 12, 1973:

So there are so many instructions. Even if you study simply these eight million four hundred thousand different kinds of... So how to study them? Kṛṣṇa is explaining. Tat kṣetram. Tat kṣetram means that kind of, that body, there are so many. Tat kṣetram yac ca yadṛk. How they have attained different types of body? The soul is there. Soul, we have already explained, is the kṣetrajñam. But except the followers of Vedic knowledge, nobody knows. Just like the Christian people they say there is no soul of the animals. And how is not? Kṣetrajñam. Soul is there, everywhere, but they have got their different types of bodies. Therefore Kṛṣṇa says, tat kṣetram. Tat kṣetraṁ yac ca yadṛk ca. How they have got different? Kṛṣṇa has already explained in the fifteenth chapter, they are all Kṛṣṇa's part and parcels.

It is nonsense to think that animal has no soul, no. Everyone has got soul. There are 8,400,000 species or forms of life. Everyone has got soul.
Lecture on BG 18.41 -- Stockholm, September 7, 1973:

Equal to all living entities. Our philosophy is not like that, that we give protection to the human being and send the cows to the slaughterhouse. No, that is not our philosophy. Samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu. We think on this subject matter, that if a man is killed, as he's put into so difficult position for being killed, the animal also. They also feel. It is nonsense to think that animal has no soul, no. Everyone has got soul. There are 8,400,000 species or forms of life. Everyone has got soul. Even the ant has got soul, or the elephant has got soul, what to speak of other animals. Everyone, even the trees, birds, beasts, plants, everyone has got soul. And in the Bhagavad-gītā Kṛṣṇa says

sarva-yoniṣu kaunteya
mūrtayaḥ sambhavanti yāḥ
tāsāṁ brahma mahad yonir
ahaṁ bīja-pradaḥ pitā
(BG 14.4)

The part and parcel of Kṛṣṇa or God, the soul, is there everywhere.

This is not very good philosophy, that the animals have no soul. They have got soul. You can practically examine. What is the symptom of possessing soul? First of all try to understand.
Lecture on BG 18.41 -- Stockholm, September 7, 1973:

Don't think that simply human being has got soul. This is not very good philosophy, that the animals have no soul. They have got soul. You can practically examine. What is the symptom of possessing soul? First of all try to understand. That is explained in the Bhagavad-gītā: avināśi tu tad viddhi yena sarvam idaṁ tatam: The presence of soul can be perceived when there is consciousness on the body. This is the proof. When you pinch my body, I feel pain, when I pinch your body, you feel pain, when I pinch an animal's body, he also feels pain. Even I pinch even the tree's body he feels pain. It is scientifically proved. Sir Jagadish Candra Bose has proved by machine that when you cut a tree, it feels pain and it is recorded in this statistic machine. So everyone has got the soul. So how you can think...?

When you take the animal to the slaughterhouse for killing, he cries. Why? Because he's feeling pain. He knows that "I'm going to be killed." So there is soul. Soul is there. You don't think that soul is not there: soul is there. Therefore, a Kṛṣṇa conscious person who has realized God, he is samaḥ sarveṣu bhūteṣu, he's equal to all living entities. He'll feel pain even for cutting a tree. He'll feel pain, he'll feel pain even he traverses over an ant.

Just like the Christian people say that the animals have no soul—because they want to eat meat. Christ says, "Thou shalt not kill." They interpret in a different way. So you can make your own mental concoction, but if you require to be right person, you have to take direction from the authorities.
Lecture on BG 18.67-69 -- Ahmedabad, December 9, 1972:

If you are Kṛṣṇa conscious, then you'll see that "Every living entity, not only human society, but the animal society, the bird society, tree society, the aquatic society—all living entities, they're all sons of Kṛṣṇa. Why shall I kill a fish or a cow, or a goat? He's also son of Kṛṣṇa." This is Kṛṣṇa consciousness. And you are doing humanitarian work and sending so many animals, thousands of animals, to the slaughterhouse. What is this? What these poor animals have done? Because you are not Kṛṣṇa consciousness, you are discriminating in this way, that the human society should be given protection, the animal society should be slaughtered. Is that very good? Is that good consciousness? Just like the Christian people say that the animals have no soul—because they want to eat meat. Christ says, "Thou shalt not kill." They interpret in a different way. So you can make your own mental concoction, but if you require to be right person, you have to take direction from the authorities. That is required.

Srimad-Bhagavatam Lectures

For eating animal, they will philosophize that animal has no soul; therefore it can be killed. No. This is nonsense. Everyone has got soul. Even a small ant has got soul. But they have to kill. They have to eat. They are philosophizing different way.
Lecture on SB 1.8.46 -- Los Angeles, May 8, 1973:

So the king's business is as soon as he sees one undesirable element, immediately he would kill him. That is real protection. Just like when Parīkṣit Mahārāja was going on tour, he saw one black man was trying to kill a cow. Immediately saw, "Who are you? You are trying to kill cow in my kingdom? I shall kill you." He immediately took out his sword. This is king, that... Not that animals should not be given protection, only man should be given protection. No. Prajā. Prajā means one who taken birth in the kingdom. That is called prajā. So animal is also American, man is also American, but there is no protection for the animal by the government. So that kind of government, rascal government, was not there. Equal right. Your country says equality given. Why not equality to the animals? That is defect. It is due to, I mean to say, absence of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. A Kṛṣṇa conscious person will not distinguish like that. For eating animal, they will philosophize that animal has no soul; therefore it can be killed. No. This is nonsense. Everyone has got soul. Even a small ant has got soul. But they have to kill. They have to eat. They are philosophizing different way. Lord Jesus Christ said, "Thou shalt not kill," and now they are interpreting, "Killing means murdering human being." But that is not in the Bible.

Just like "Animal has no soul." This is not dharma. Without any scientific knowledge, if somebody says in some religion, for eating meat, that "Animal has no soul. You can kill as many as you like," so that is not dharma.
Lecture on SB 1.9.1 -- Los Angeles, May 15, 1973:

Dharma means occupational duty. Dharma means not a religious sentiment, that, as it is translated in English, "a sentiment." Just like "Animal has no soul." This is not dharma. Without any scientific knowledge, if somebody says in some religion, for eating meat, that "Animal has no soul. You can kill as many as you like," so that is not dharma. Dharma, real meaning is occupational duty, not a sentiment. Dharmaṁ tu sākṣād bhagavat-praṇītam (SB 6.3.19). It is just like state laws. The state laws are given by the state. You cannot manufacture laws. Similarly, dharma, which we call religion generally, you cannot manufacture by your concoction. It is stated by the Supreme Lord. That is dharma.

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.
Lecture on SB 1.15.42 -- Los Angeles, December 20, 1973:

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.

And we are willingly, against the principle of religion that "Thou shalt not kill," we have opened so many thousands of slaughterhouse, giving a nonsense theory the the animal has no soul.
Lecture on SB 1.15.49 -- Los Angeles, December 26, 1973:

I was talking about Vidura. Vidura was Yamarāja. So a saintly person was brought before Yamarāja for punishment. So when the saintly person inquired from Yamarāja, that "I am... I don't remember that I have committed in my life any sin. Why I have been brought here for judgment?" So Yamarāja said that "You do not remember. In your childhood you pricked one ant with a needle through the rectum, and she died. Therefore you have to be punished." Just see. In childhood, in ignorance, because he committed some sin, he has to be punished. And we are willingly, against the principle of religion that "Thou shalt not kill," we have opened so many thousands of slaughterhouse, giving a nonsense theory the the animal has no soul. Just see the fun. And this is going on. And we want to be in peace.

The butchers, the cow slaughterers, or their supporters, they say wrongly that the animal has no soul. This is a rascal philosophy. Why animal has no soul?
Lecture on SB 1.16.19 -- Los Angeles, July 9, 1974:

Actually the cows... When I was in New Vrindaban, our Kīrtanānanda Mahārāja purchased one cow without calf. (someone says, "Children have to go out") Yes. So that cow was actually crying because the calf was taken away for slaughtering. It is not that they have no soul, they cannot understand, they have no feeling. But they are helpless. Everything is there. The butchers, the cow slaughterers, or their supporters, they say wrongly that the animal has no soul. This is a rascal philosophy. Why animal has no soul? The question should be...

Here Yamarāja is addressing the cow as amba, mother. "Why you are so unhappy? From your face it appears." So Yamarāja was foolish man, that he is addressing a cow as mother? This is civilization. It doesn't matter one is appearing as a cow or a man or a dog or a demigod or a civilized man, uncivilized man. One who knows that the soul is there... Unless there is soul, how Yamarāja is asking the cow, "It appears that you are very much bereaved, so what is the cause, mother, of your bereavement?"

So this culture, that Yamarāja, is asking an animal, mother... Without any soul? No. Everyone has soul.

Just like some rascal says, "The animals, they have no soul." So why the animals have no soul? Their consciousness is not developed, but soul is there. If the animal has no soul, then the child has also no soul because the child behaves like an animal.
Lecture on SB 1.16.22 -- Hawaii, January 18, 1974:

But they are illusioned. Yayā sammohito jīva ātmānaṁ tri-guṇātmakam (SB 1.7.5). Ātmānam means the soul. Soul, they're thinking that it is a product of this matter, by evolution, or so on. So many nonsense theories they have, all rascaldom. There is no evolution. Evolution is there in the matter of consciousness. Just like a child. His consciousness is not developed. A child goes to capture a fire because his consciousness is not developed. But that does not mean the child has no consciousness or the child has no soul. Just like some rascal says, "The animals, they have no soul." So why the animals have no soul? Their consciousness is not developed, but soul is there. If the animal has no soul, then the child has also no soul because the child behaves like an animal. In the family, a small child and a dog, they're behaving similarly, and therefore dog is also considered as one of the family members, children, because his consciousness is not developed.

A Vaiṣṇava knows the ultimate truth, Kṛṣṇa. Therefore he's truthful. And equable. He has no distinction "Oh, here is a man, here is an animal. The animal has no soul, the man has soul."
Lecture on SB 2.3.13-14 -- Los Angeles, May 30, 1972:

So this Rūpa Gosvāmī, Sanātana Gosvāmī, accepted this mendicant life although they were ministers, very rich men. Not only Rūpa Gosvāmī, all the Gosvāmīs. Raghunātha dāsa Gosvāmī was the only son of his father and uncle, and in those days the income was twelve lakhs, twelve hundred thousands of rupees. Almost king. So for being compassionate with these poor fellows, who have forgotten Kṛṣṇa and working simply unnecessarily so hard to get some bread... That's all. Mūḍha. So by becoming kind upon them, they took this mendicant order. Therefore kindness. And peaceful. Vaiṣṇava is never turbulent. But the demons, they create disturbance. Vaiṣṇava is peaceful. Peaceful, truthful. Truthful. A Vaiṣṇava knows the ultimate truth, Kṛṣṇa. Therefore he's truthful. And equable. He has no distinction "Oh, here is a man, here is an animal. The animal has no soul, the man has soul."

Lord Christ said, "Thou shall not kill." Now they are interpreting in a different way: "The animal has no soul, and you can kill animals and keep slaughterhouse." So who is a Christian?
Lecture on SB 6.1.17 -- Denver, June 30, 1975:

Lord Christ said, "Thou shall not kill." He never said that... Now they are interpreting in a different way: "The animal has no soul, and you can kill animals and keep slaughterhouse." So who is a Christian? I do not know who is a Christian. They profess to be Christian. It is very difficult to find out a true Christian who is strictly following the words of Lord Jesus Christ. So he is a good example of sādhu. We therefore adore and offer our obeisances to Lord Christ. Sādhu, example. Titikṣavaḥ kāruṇikāḥ suhṛdaḥ sarva-dehinām (SB 3.25.21). This is suhṛdaḥ, not that "My brother will be saved, my family will be saved, and all others should be killed." That is not sādhu's qualification. Sādhu's qualification is he is kind to everyone. It is not that if a human being is killed, the killer is also killed. Why? Even a human being is killer of an animal, he should be killed. That is called suhṛdaḥ sarva-dehinām: friend to everyone. Not that "Only the human being should be given protection, he is national, and others animals and trees should not be given protection." No. That is imperfect knowledge. National means one who has taken birth in that land. So do the animals do not take their birth in the land? They are also national, but it is your discriminating law that you are giving protection to the human being and not to the animals. This is sinful activities. Therefore we say that "No meat-eating." If we give up this meat-eating, then so many lifes of the poor animals will be saved.

This is education, that whether the animal has soul or not soul, we shall consider later on. But when knife is on my throat I cry, and he also cries. Why shall I say that it has no soul and let me kill it?
Lecture on SB 6.1.22 -- Honolulu, May 22, 1976:

So mātṛvat para-dāreṣu para-dravyeṣu loṣṭravat ātmavat sarva-bhūteṣu. All other living entities think like yourself. That means your pains and pleasure that you feel, you should take others pains and pleasure. Not that you protect yourself from all danger and you cut the throat of the poor animals on the plea that it has no soul. This is not education. This is education, that whether the animal has soul or not soul, we shall consider later on. But when knife is on my throat I cry, and he also cries. Why shall I say that it has no soul and let me kill it? So that means he does not know how to see other living entity like himself. Buddha philosophy is based on this, that whatever you feel pain you should not inflict to others. This is education. Mātṛvat para-dāreṣu para-dravyeṣu loṣṭravat.

So one will not hesitate to kill anyone because he is practiced to give pains and misery to other living entities, and what to speak of killing animals under the plea, "The animal has no soul"?
Lecture on SB 6.1.22 -- Honolulu, May 22, 1976:

As soon as there is no sadācāra, people will be addicted to all these means. Any way get money. Bandy-akṣaiḥ kaitavaiś cauryair garhitāṁ vṛttim āsthitaḥ. Why? Now, bibhrat kuṭumbam. He is thinking that "I have to maintain my family, my children, so any way I must get money." So bibhrat kuṭumbam. Kuṭumbam aśuciḥ, unclean. This is unclean method, aśuci. And yatayām āsa dehinaḥ. And as soon as one takes all this profession, it means his business will be to give trouble to the all living entities. Yatayām āsa dehinaḥ. Dehinaḥ means one who has accepted this material body. So he will not hesitate to kill anyone because he is practiced to give pains and misery to other living entities, and what to speak of killing animals under the plea, "The animal has no soul"? This rascaldom will go on.

This is education, that whether the animal has soul or not soul we shall consider later on. But when knife is on my throat I cry, and he also cries. Why shall I say that "It has no soul, and let me kill it"?
Lecture on SB 6.1.23 -- Honolulu, May 23, 1976:

So mātṛvat para-dāreṣu para-dravyeṣu loṣṭravat, ātmavat sarva-bhūteṣu: "All other living entities think like yourself." That means your pains and pleasure, as you feel, you should take up others' pains and pleasure, not that you protect yourself from all danger and you cut the throat of the poor animals on the plea that it has no soul. This is not education. This is education, that whether the animal has soul or not soul we shall consider later on. But when knife is on my throat I cry, and he also cries. Why shall I say that "It has no soul, and let me kill it"? So that means he does not know how to see other living entities like himself. Buddha philosophy is based on this, that "Whatever you feel, pain, you should not inflict to others." This is education.

General Lectures

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?
Lecture -- Detroit, July 16, 1971:

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.

Now, apart from Bible or any scripture, how do you find that the animal has no soul? How do you consider it? What is the symptom of having soul?
Sunday Feast Lecture -- Atlanta, March 2, 1975:

Devotee: In the Bible they say that the animals don't have soul; therefore it's not the same as killing.

Prabhupāda: I do not know whether it is said. (break) ...expert in calling Bible, but where it is said, he does not know. He is so expert in Bible (laughter) How do you know? Now, apart from Bible or any scripture, how do you find that the animal has no soul? How do you consider it? What is the symptom of having soul? That is very easy, but you do not know. When the soul is gone from the body, it does not move. And when the soul is there, it moves. This is the understanding of soul. So do you think the animal does not move? The animal has no blood? The animal has no bone? How do you say that animal has no soul? This is foolishness. The soul is there. Even one small ant, there is soul. Otherwise how it is moving? So long the soul is there, the dull material body is moving. And as soon as the soul is gone, you will cry, "My father has gone away." Why your father gone? It is lying there. Why do you say, "My father has gone away"? This is ignorance. We do not know what is soul.

Philosophy Discussions

He does not understand philosophy. He does not know that the animal has also a soul, the animal has also life.
Philosophy Discussion on Hegel:

Śyāmasundara: They say that the standard of what is right is the universal or the rational will...

Prabhupāda: Is that rational, that another living entity like me should be killed for my benefit, for satisfying my tongue?

Śyāmasundara: Their idea is that the animal is not in the same category as myself because it has no...

Prabhupāda: So that's alright; then might is right? Hitler is right? When Hitler, Hitler kills the Jews, he's right? He thinks that they are not in my category.

Śyāmasundara: The animal cannot understand philosophy.

Prabhupāda: What does he understand of philosophy? He is mad; he is less than an animal. He does not understand philosophy. He does not know that the animal has also a soul, the animal has also life. Then he should be killed first.

Śyāmasundara: He said that one standard whether something is right or wrong is that if it is self-contradictory, if somebody's action is self-contradictory.

Prabhupāda: He is actually self-contradictory. He is going to give right to others that he does not want to give the same right to the animals. That is self-contradictory.

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?
Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:

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?

Then how do you say that this man has got soul and this animal has not got soul? Where is analogy?
Philosophy Discussion on Soren Aabye Kierkegaard:

Prabhupāda: (break) ...as soon as I cut with knife, the same blood is coming. Here also the same blood is coming. He is also crying, he is also crying. All these things are (indistinct). Then how do you say that this man has got soul and this animal has not got soul? Where is analogy? And points of similarities are there. Analogy means points of similarity. So the points of similarity, while killing either a man or animal, are all the same, then how are you bringing this analogy that he has got soul, he hasn't got soul? Where is his logic?

If you are in the modes of ignorance, your "ought to be", just like they're saying the animals have no soul and we are saying, "No, you cannot kill animals." So we are in different position. So what is "ought to be", who will dictate?
Philosophy Discussion on Johann Gottlieb Fichte:

Śyāmasundara: So if one is looking on the objects of the world in terms of what they ought to be...

Prabhupāda: Ought to be, how you'll know it? Unless he gets information from the higher authority what is ought to be? You cannot manufacture. If you are in the modes of ignorance, your "ought to be", just like they're saying the animals have no soul and we are saying, "No, you cannot kill animals." So we are in different position. So what is "ought to be", who will dictate? If you dictate yourself, your concept of killing, it "ought to be". And my concept of not killing, is "ought to be". So what is the standard?

Then you have to go to the authority, go for judgement.

Śyāmasundara: These German philosophers, they generally accept the Christian standard of morality to be what ought to be.

Prabhupāda: That's also good, but Christian morality, who is abiding by Christian morality? The Christian morality, in the beginning it is said "Thou shalt not kill," and they're all killing. So it will be very difficult to find out a real Christian who is following the morality. "Thou shalt not covet," and they're doing all this nonsense.

Augustine was one of the ones who maintained that animals do not have souls. Therefore he is a rascal.
Philosophy Discussion on Socrates:

Prabhupāda: No, you can not deviate. Then no more you are Christian. So you can..., you have no platform to talk from the Christianity. Therefore they should be rejected.

Hayagrīva: Uh huh. So Plotinus was not Christian, neither was Origen...

Prabhupāda: If you say Christian, you must follow the four..., ten commandments of Christ. If you don't follow, you make your own ways to escape, then you are no longer Christian. So you cannot talk.

Hayagrīva: But Augustine was one of the ones who maintained that animals do not have souls.

Prabhupāda: Therefore he is a rascal.

How some foolish person can think of animal has no soul? What is the reason? There is no very strong argument.
Philosophy Discussion on Plotinus:

Hayagrīva: He believed that the soul is eternal and incorporeal in men, animals, and even in plants, and in this he differed from other philosophers of the time.

Prabhupāda: What... In which way differs? Because he accepts...

Hayagrīva: Accepted in..., the soul living in animals and also in plants.

Prabhupāda: Yes. That is the fact. He is right. That is Vedic conclusion. Sarva-yoniṣu, all different forms of life, there is soul, part and parcel of God. How some foolish person can think of animal has no soul? What is the reason? There is no very strong argument. The animals may be less intelligent. A child may be less intelligent than the father; that does not mean there is no soul. This gross and doggish mentality, animal mentality, is killing the human civilization. Now they have degraded so much that they think that the embryo has no soul. In this way man is being put into darker and darkest region of ignorance. Everyone has soul. That is real. We get it from Kṛṣṇa: sarva-yoniṣu. In different forms of life the soul is there, undoubtedly. That is real conception of soul.

Labangalatika +
July 23, 0009 JL +
March 16, 0011 JL +
BG: 0 +, SB: 2 +, CC: 1 +, OB: 0 +, Lec: 32 +, Conv: 0 +  and Let: 0 +