In the name of Allāh,
the Beneficent, the Merciful.
Peace and Blessings of Allāh on Mohammad.
Allāh–the Glorious and the High,
Lord of the worlds
Mohammad–who brought the world
to our feet and eternity to our arms.
FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS
“Krishna could never be God” –Swami Dayananda Saraswati
Comments on some statements by the International Society
for Krishna Consciousness in their book The Higher Taste.
This book promotes vegetarianism. And quoting individuals and Scriptures to “condemn meat-eating.”
If cows are not to be eaten because they give us milk as our mothers do, we can eat bulls as they do not give us milk and, generally, are no longer needed to plough the fields–they can be cloned for meat/food.
The reason why the alimentary canals of carnivores are shorter than humans –“three times” compared to “twelve”–to facilitate rapid evacuation is, in contrast to man who eats small quantities of cooked meat (and chews it), carnivorous animals SWALLOW chunks of RAW meat and large quantities at a time, some of which may be carrion.
Allah God designs His creatures to suit the purpose for which He has created them. Man does not need “sharp front teeth for tearing flesh” because, unlike animals, man has hands to prepare his meals. And mans’ hands are not only suitable for harvesting fruits and vegetables but also to the raising of animals and dressing them for his meals.
If in the beginning of creation the ideal situation was “vegeta-rianism” and, seemingly, not even the animals ate flesh, then, unless the carnivores were out-fitted with dentures of bicuspids and molars, it must have been quite a cruel experience for the lions and tigers and other carnivores to strip hay with incisors and swallow apples and peaches.
That God did not say anything about meat-eating is no justifi-cation for vegetarianism. It is poor thinking to expect God to instruct man, freshly created, to subdue and slaughter animals for food when he has no mechanisms thereof. As much as Allah God does not punish man until He sends him a warner, He does not give man tasks without providing him with tools.
It is absurd to say that the ideal situation is “vegetarianism” when God had “respect unto Abel and to his offering” of “his flock” but “unto Cain and to his offering” “of the fruit of the ground” He “had not respect”–(Genesis 4:1-5); and when He gave instructions all over the place, from Genesis to Deutero-nomy–from Noah to Moses–to utilize the meat of animals.
Animals are allowed as food–(Genesis 9:3); as proof of inno-cence of murder, in which (they) “shall strike off the heifer’s neck there in the valley”–(Deut. 21:1-9); and as an offering to God–(Lev. 1:2).
There may not be any “direct reference” in the New Testament to Jesus eating meat, (neither is there any “direct reference” to Jesus not eating meat); this could hardly be claimed to be “in line with Isaiah’s famous prophecy about Jesus’ appearance” that “Immanuel (Jesus) shall eat “butter and honey” “that he may know to refuse the evil, and choose the good”–Isaiah 7:14. (p. 31). If this is so, there was no need for God to send prophets and scriptures for us “to refuse the evil, and choose the good.” All He need do is flood us with butter and honey.
Jesus, instead of turning water into wine, and feeding the mul-titude on fish and loaves, should have fed them with “butter and honey;” they would have refused the “evil” and chosen the “good” and would not have persecuted him all the way to Golgo-tha.
Instead of spending many millions to house and reform cri-minals, all governments would need to do is overwhelm the criminals (and perhaps themselves) with a diet of “butter and honey.” Children should be given daily doses of “butter and honey” to ensure a crime free society. Man surely then would have snared the elusive Utopia!
(The following is not to disparage Jesus, but as the Bible portrays him). There is nothing wrong in eating “butter and honey”. However, to curse a fig tree, a creation of God that is without freedom of will and has no control of the time of its produce–(Matt. 21:19, Mark 11:20-21); to refer to humans as “dogs” and “swine”–(Matt. 7:6); to cast devils into “swine”–dumb, innocent animals, and cause them to drown–(Matt. 8:28-32); to be rude to, and to dishonor one’s mother, when God commands us to honor our mother–(John 2:4; Matt. 12:46-50; Deut; 5:16), could hardly be classed as refusing “evil” and choosing “good.”
Jesus urged the leper he cleansed to kill bird and animal, as “Moses commanded”–(Matt. 8:2-4, re: Lev. 14:1-20).
If killing animals is “Not Civilized” (p. 66), according to THT, Rama, who is said to be the incarnation of Lord Vishnu, is “Not Civilized.” And God Who recommends animal-killing is “Not Civilized.” And the believers in these Gods whom they condemn as being “Not Civilized” must be more civilized than their Gods.
If “to be a killer or enemy of the poor animals is Satan’s philo-sophy.” (p. 68), according to THT, Rama was following “Satan’s philosophy” when he killed those animals. And the Veda, Gita, and Ramayana are following “Satan’s philosophy” by enjoining animal sacrifice (the killing of animals)?
1. THT quotes Gandhi as saying, “I do feel that spiritual progress does demand at some stage that we should cease to kill our fellow creatures for the satisfaction of our bodily wants” and “I hold flesh food to be unsuited to our species. We err in copying the lower animal world if we are superior to it.” (pp. 22, 28, resp.)
Unless a Hindu devotee is more “spiritual” than his Scriptures and/or his God(s), it is rather puzzling that one would consider meat to be “unsuited” to him/her. Rama and Laksmana did not seem to “feel” so. It seems to say that Rama and Laksmana are not “superior” to the “lower animal world.” Was Rama in “spiritual” regress that caused him and his brother to kill and eat animals? One would expect that the animal sacrifices prescribed in the Veda and Gita are to facilitate man’s “spiritual progress;” unless the Veda and Gita “err(ed)” in issuing such injunctions of animal sacrifice; or unless the meat from these sacrifices are to be dumped, (which would be a waste).
2. If killing animals were unGodly, where did God get the “coats of skins” to clothe Adam and Eve–(Gen. 3:21)?
C. Rajagopalachari notes in his Ramayana, Rama, preparing for his journey to the forest, is said to have told Guha: “I must not touch dishes daintily cooked and served. We have to live only on fruits, roots and permissible kinds of meat such as we offer in the sacrificial fire.” (p. 88).
What is the “permissible kinds of meat” that is offered “in the sacrificial fire”? Is this referring to the ashvamedh yajna–horse sacrifice?
There is none more “compassionate” and merciful than the meat-eater of Arabia, Mohammad, the Messenger of Allah!
Compassion and justice are not dependent upon one’s diet!
4. If injury to animals “is detrimental to the attainment of hea-venly bliss” (p. 33), Rama and his brother Laksmana did not, or had a difficult time, attaining “heavenly bliss.” It is rather intriguing that the Veda and the Gita should require it.
THT also says, “the Manu-samhita warns, “Having well considered the disgusting origin of flesh and the cruelty of fettering and slaying of corporeal beings, let him entirely abstain from eating flesh.” (p. 33). (Humans also are from this “disgusting origin”).
This “disgusting origin” of the animal species is the act of sexual intercourse. Since the Gods Rama and Krishna were born through human parents–Dasrat and Kausiliya, and Vasudeva and Devaki, respectively–according to the Manu-samhita they were also of “disgusting origin.”
If one is to “abstain” from eating meat because of its “disgust-ing origin,” it would seem that the Gods that came through such a “disgusting origin” are unworthy of worship.
It is noted, that the God Agni “drunk” the “seed” of Shiva; and that “the seed as a delicious liquid, recurs in the Puranas.”1
6. “Lord Buddha also taught the principle of ahimsa, non-violence,” says THT, “specifically to protect innocent creatures from being slaughtered”–(p. 41).
If this is taken to mean all creatures and under all circumstan-ces. Wonder what Lord Buddha would enjoin if there were bubo-nic plague epidemics in India, Tibet, China, Japan, and Thai-land?
(Certain teachings, like nonviolence, are to be viewed in its proper perspective. To say that killing animals is violence when God permits it seems to say that God is violent and that man is more merciful than God).
7. THT says: “vegetarian foods….do not require any killing. But even in those cases where a plant’s life is taken, the pain in-volved is much less than when an animal is slaughtered, because the plant’s nervous system is less developed….But still, one must undoubtedly suffer karmic reactions even for killing plants.” (p. 44)
If the animal is first tranquilized, slaughtering would be less painful than “pulling a carrot out of the ground” (and snapping it or eating it or throwing it into the boiling pot, without knowing if it is dead). Severing a vegetable from a vine would be the same as slaughtering an animal.
How can the plant’s nervous system be “less developed” when everything is designed to suit its purpose? Every creature’s system is fully developed.
That in taking a plant’s life “the pain involved is much less than when an animal is slaughtered, because the plant’s nervous system is less developed.” This is like a normal man who committed murder telling the Judiciary to hang his brother instead because his brother is deaf and dumb –his system is “less developed.”
If “one must undoubtedly suffer karmic reactions” for killing/eating animals and plants, what must one eat to avoid “karmic reaction”? (Even drinking milk is killing bacteria, and so is boiling it to make cheese and yogurt).
If “one must undoubtedly suffer karmic reactions” for killing/eating animals and plants. Then the Hindu Gods Rama and Krishna (and by extension Vishnu of whom Rama and Krishna are his incarnates) “must undoubtedly suffer karmic reactions” for killing/eating animals and plants.(???) (For Rama eating meat see VEGETARIANISM).
8. “The Vedic conception of God is not vague,” says the THT, “Christ spoke of himself as being the son of God, and Muhammad was His prophet.” (pp. 49-50). (He did not state the Vedic conception of God).
But Jawaharlal Nehru says in his The Discovery of India: (in the Vedas), “There is no idolatry in them; no temples for the gods. …. The early Vedic Aryans….paid little attention to the soul.” “Gradually the conception of God grows: there are the Olympian type of gods, and then monotheism, and later, rather mixed with it, the conception of monism.” And that “There is in the Mahabharata the polytheism of the Vedas, the monism of the Upanishads, and deisms, and dualisms, and monotheism.” (pp. 79, 108, resp.)
Such a conception of God can hardly be said to be “not vague.” If the Vedic conception of God was “not vague” Hindus may not be worshipping “gramadevata,” Shiva, Vishnu, or Kali, or any or all of the 330 million gods2 that Hinduism has.
THT continues, “but what of God Himself? He appears only indirectly–as a voice from heaven, a burning bush, and so on.” That since God created us “then we cannot reasonably deny that He Himself possesses all the attributes of personhood–a distinct form and appearance, and all the powers and abilities of various senses and organs. It is illogical to suppose that the creature of God can in any way surpass his creator. If we possess distinct forms and personalities, and God were not to possess them, then we would be superior to Him in that respect.” (p. 50).
According to this view of THT, God has an anus and a phallus for man not to “surpass” Him. God would also need breasts and genitals as a woman’s for the woman not to “surpass” Him. He would need to be bald as well as have hair, and to be blonde, brunette and redhead etc. Since the jackass has long mouth, long ears, four legs, a tail and brays, according to the logic of THT unless God is so possessed this ass may be “superior” to God in these respects. And so may be the pig that feeds on offal.
In order for none of His creature to be “superior” to Him, God, according to THT’s reasoning, must have the forms and dis-tinctive features of various animals–worm, snail, gnat, slug, etc; beaks for tearing, plucking, and for fishing; feathers; long and short necks and tails like a giraffe’s and a pig’s, respectively; wings of feathers and of skin; body stripes as the zebra and tiger; and spots of a leopard; a rooster’s crown; plumage of different colors and schemes; etc. Imagine a God comprising of all the distinctive features of all the creatures He has created.
Allāh, God, is Omnipotent, Omniscient, and Omnipresent. By being the Creator of all, Allāh, God, surpasses all and is superior to all! The Islamic conception of God is not vague. Allah is the Lord of the worlds, the Beneficent, the Merciful, the Master–(Qur’an 1:1-3); the God that is Ever-living, the Self-subsisting by whom all subsist, Who does not sleep nor tires. Is the Preserver, and the Knowledgeable–(Qur’an 2:255); He sees but is unseen–(6:104); He is The Originator of the heavens and the earth and He is the Hearing, the Seeing–(42:11); He is the Owner of the heavens and the earth and He gives life and He causes death; and He is the possessor of power over all things. He is the First and the Last and the Manifest and the Hidden, and He is the Knower of all things–(57:2-3); He is the Knower of the unseen and the seen; He is the King, the Holy, the Author of Peace, the Grantor of Security, Guardian over all, the Mighty, the Supreme, the Possessor of greatness. He is free of partners and relations; He is the Creator, the Maker, the Fashioner; His are the most beautiful names. He is the praiseworthy and He is the Mighty, the Wise–(59:22-24).
Say: He is Allah, the One and Only;
Allah, the Eternal, Absolute;
He begets not, Nor is He begotten;
And there is none like unto Him–(112:1-4)
Man is created in the spiritual “image” of God–to be merciful and compassionate and just; etc.
9. Krishna says: “If one offers Me with love and devotion a leaf, a flower, fruit or water, I will accept it”–(Gita 9:26), but this does not mean that only vegetarian offerings are accepted. It is not the worth of the gift that is taken into consideration, but one’s motive, as defined by the words “with love and devotion.” Even simple inexpensive offerings are acceptable, as long as it is offered “with love and devotion.”
10. On page 63, THT says that “in modern civilization, men are busy killing the cows that are the source of yogurt, milk, and ghee” (they are also raising more cows, and there is no shortage of yogurt, milk, and ghee); “they are cutting down all the trees that supply honey” (they are also planting new trees, are producing honey in apiaries, and there is no shortage of honey), “and they are opening factories to manufacture nuts, bolts, auto-mobiles, and wine instead of engaging in agriculture.”
Factories produce “nuts” and “bolts” also for the war machine. However, “factories” also
-produce the plough and seeder to till and seed the lands; the harvesters that reaps the massive amounts of grains of rice, and wheat and corn which are made into flour and cereals to feed the population including the vegetarians
-produce the machineries to mill the wheat and corn
-produce the transport vehicles and equipments so that we can have our produce on time and fresh
-produce the snowplows to clear the roads so the transport vehicles can take the produce to market, and that we can become mobile
-make the fridges and freezers so that we can preserve and store our vegetables, and also our yogurt and milk and ghee
-can our peas, lentils and beans
-manufacture the milking machines to save the farmers fin-gers and to quickly supply the oceanic volumes of milk to stock the stores to meet the enormous demand so that the vegetarians also can have ample supply of “yogurt, milk, and ghee” cheese and cottage cheese
-produce orthopedic and specialized equipments so that the handicap can enjoy some measure of independence
-build the requirements to produce the printing press the radio and television and computer to inform, educate and en-tertain us
-produce the exotic fabrics and the toiletries and furniture so that sanctimonious individuals can strut about sweet smell-ing and in flowing fancy robes and sit in ornate surroundings and plume themselves as the crown of authority
-build the laboratories to conduct medical and scientific re-searches so that vegetarians also may be cured of sicknesses and diseases, and to help protect us (through warnings) ag-ainst earthquakes and tornadoes and hurricanes and snow-storms
-build the sonic jets and the luxury liners and the limousines so that myopic religionists can cruise the world in style and comfort to set up communes (held together with nuts and bolts made by factories) to foster “illogical” doctrines.
11. THT says, “the killers of animals are stone-hearted.” (p. 70)
So Rama, who is said to be the incarnation of Lord Vishnu, is “stone-hearted”? And God is “stone-hearted” for requiring ani-mal sacrifices (the killing of animals).
After more than a dozen years of persecution, exile, torture, and death, Mohammad forgave his enemies, unconditionally. Echoing the memorable words of his illustrious Jewish brother, Joseph: “No reproof be against you this day!” Quite remarkable acts from men who, by religion at least (which allowed the killing and eating of animals), should have been “stone-hearted.” (No one religion has a monopoly on mercy).
Since the Rig Veda is said to be Divine Revelation, it would be a contradiction to condemn animal-killing when animal-killing is enjoined in the Rig Veda.
Since Rama is said to be God/an incarnate of God, and as Rama ate meat, and as Hinduism allows the eating of meat, it would be a contradiction to claim vegetarianism as the teaching of Hinduism. Also, since Rama is an incarnate of Vishnu, and since Rama ate meat, then by extension Vishnu also ate meat.
There is no rationale against vegetarianism, though vegetables are not altogether free from being “genetically modified;” and from harmful pesticides, which may harm or inhibit the function of the liver. If animals are healthy and raised on wholesome diet, there is no rationale against the eating of meat, be it “health-ful,” “ethical,” “spiritual,” esthetical or taste.
Condemning the eating of meat, which eating of meat is re-commended by God, is unGodly. In fact when Noah, after the Flood, “offered burnt offerings” “of every clean beast, and of every clean fowl”
“the Lord smelled a
The Bhagavad Gita: (Quotations are from the Bhagavad-Gita As It Is, by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Pra-bhupada. Krishna is also spelled Krsna).
The Bhagavad Gita (also referred to as Gita) is said to be a discourse between Krishna and Arjuna, prior to the war between the righteous Pandavas and the unrighteous sons of Dhrtarastra.
The Pandavas, having lost their wife, Draupadi, and their kingdom in a “rigged” gambling match with Duryodhana (the eldest son of Dhrtarastra), were forced into “thirteen years of exile.” Upon their return from exile, the Pandavas request for the return of their kingdom, or even a portion, was met with rejection from Duryodhana. War was inevitable.
Krishna gave the two parties the choice of either having him-self as “advisor and helper” to one party, and to the other side the use of his “army.” Duryodhana chose Krishna’s army. The Pandavas choose Krishna. Krishna became Arjuna’s charioteer.
This is where the Bhagavad-Gita begins, with the two armies poised for battle. With Dhrtarastra, the father of the “impious sons,” asking his “secretary” Sanjaya “What did they do?”
The resulting report of what they did is what is told in the Bhagavad Gita. But this Bhagavad Gita, which is said to be a dialogue between Krsna and Arjuna, is not narrated by Arjuna, but by Sanjaya, to Dhrtarastra–(Gita 11:9; 18:74-75).
In this dialogue, Arjuna is said to have seen Krsna in a vision: “But you cannot see Me with your present eyes. Therefore I give you divine eyes”–(Gita 11:8-11). Yet Sanjaya, who was not present, “by the grace of Vyasa, could see whatever happened,” says Swami Prabhupada. (Comm. to 11:12).
It is not reasonable that others could see the vision when Arjuna himself required “divine eyes.” It is not reasonable that one person could show the “vision” of another to a next person–a vision that requires “divine eyes.” Vyasa would have had to give “divine eyes” to Sanjaya.
In Gita 18:77 Sanjaya claims to have seen the “form of Lord Krsna.” To which Swami Prabhupada says, “It appears that Sanjaya also, by the grace of Vyasa, could see the universal form Krsna exhibited to Arjuna….It was exhibited to Arjuna only, yet some great devotees could also see the universal form of Krsna when it was shown to Arjuna, and Vyasa was one of them.”
It is not reasonable that someone else could see Krsna’s form when it was “exhibited to Arjuna only;” and when Arjuna re-quired “divine eyes” to see it. Even if Vyasa was at the battle-field, he could not see this vision, when this vision required “div-ine eyes” to be seen.
In this same explanation, Swami Prabhupada says that Vyasa “is one of the great devotees of the Lord, and he is considered to be a powerful incarnation of Krsna.”
If Vyasa was a devotee of Krishna and an incarnation of Krishna, Krishna was a devotee of himself; and he was seeing himself in a vision which he was showing to Arjuna, while he was at the same time with Arjuna in a chariot and showing Arjuna the same vision.
Lord Krishna says: “I instructed this imperishable science of yoga to the sun-god, Vivasvan, and Vivasvan instructed it to Manu, the father of mankind, and Manu in turn instructed it to Iksvaku”–(Gita 4:1).
To which Swami Prabhupada says, “some 2,005,000 years ago, Manu spoke the Bhagavad-Gita to his disciple and son Mahara-ja Iksvaku, the king of this planet earth….Accepting that before the birth of Manu the Gita was spoken by the Lord to His dis-ciple the sun-god Vivasvan, a rough estimate is that the Gita was spoken at least 120,400,000 years ago; and in human society it has been extant for two million years.” And the Publishers of the Gita say that Lord Krishna spoke the Gita to Arjuna “some fifty centuries ago.”
If Lord Krishna spoke the Gita to Vivasvan 120,400,000 years ago and again to Arjuna 5,000 years ago, under what circum-stance was it spoken 120 million years ago–there would have had to be the same war between the Pandavas and the Duryo-dhana clan 120 million years ago for the Gita to be spoken then to Vivasvan.
But while it is claimed that the Gita was spoken “at least 120,400,000 years ago”, this conversation between Krishna and Arjuna “had never taken place before and would not take place again,” says Swami Prabhupada–(comments to the Gita 18:74).
Krishna also says in Gita 10:31, “of the wielders of weapons I am Rama.” And the Ramayana, the story about Rama, was written about “300 BC”. Given that Rama lived about 2000 BC. How could the Gita speak about Rama 120 million years ago, and even 5000 years ago, when Rama was not yet born?
1. Krishna says, “The devotees of the Lord are released from all kinds of sins because they eat food which is offered first for sac-rifice. Others, who prepare food for personal sense enjoyment, verily eat only sin”–(Gita 3:13).
So if a believer in God does not engage in worship, but is honest, just and loving, charitable and peaceful to all, if he eats food from honest earnings he “eat(s) only sin”? Aren’t all lawfully obtained food the bounty of God–how can it be sin?
2. In the Gita (6:2, 11-14, 46), Krishna says that “one can never become a yogi unless he renounces the desire for sense gratification,” and “should go to a secluded place” and with “subdued mind, devoid of fear, completely free from sex life, one should meditate upon Me,” for “A yogi is greater than the ascetic, greater than the empiricist, and greater than the fruitive worker. Therefore, O Arjuna, in all circumstances, be a yogi.”
Clearly, the above practice of yoga contradicts the purpose of creation, which is to multiply and fill the earth. There was no need for God to create woman if He wants man, “in all circumstances,” to live a life of celibacy.
If every man’s goal of life was to know Krishna, and begun practicing yoga, in about 130 years, barring cloning, mankind would be extinct.
To ensure the propagation of the species God instilled desire between the male and female, even in the lower animals this drive is present, and equipped us, as well as the animals, with reproductive cells.
Celibacy diametrically opposes the law of God to “replenish” the earth.
Krishna also says that to practice yoga one should “….lay kusa grass on the ground and then cover it with a deer-skin…” (Gita 6:11-12).
If one is not to kill animals, where will the yogi get this “deer-skin”? Since Hinduism espoused vegetarianism, as is alleged, the meat of this deer would have to be dumped or fed to the carnivores. If 50 million Hindus are to practice this yoga, and given that one deer yields about 100 pounds meat, 50 million deer would have to be killed and 5000 million pounds of meat would have to be dumped. Quite a colossal waste!
Since the Gita “was spoken at least 120,400,000 years ago”, and since Krishna instructs the yogi to use “deerskin,” reason would dictate that Krishna sanctioned the killing of animals (deer at least) “120,400,000 years ago.”
3. Krishna says, “Action pertaining to the development of the material bodies of the living entities is called karma, or fruitive activities.”–(Gita 8:3). To which Swami Prabhupada explains that man may be incarnated as any of the 8,400,000 species of life, “sometimes as a man, demigod, animal, beast, bird etc”. And that one who attains the “heavenly planets,” “When the merit of sacrifice is exhausted, the living entity descends in the form of rain, then takes on the form of grains, and the grains are eaten by man and transformed into semen, which impregnates a woman, and thus the living entity once again attains the human form to perform sacrifice and so repeat the same cycle.”
How much rain is one man transformed into? And into how much grains?
If all the raindrops are the “living entity” descending from heavenly planets and they take on the “form of grains,” with the amount of rain falls in the Amazon and other places, and with the hurricanes they should be overwhelmed with grains. There would be no need for farmers to till and seed the land.
If the “living entity” descends as “rain” and becomes “grains,” the rains that falls in the desert and other barren regions and in the oceans and other bodies of water are forever lost –as there are no grains growing in these bodies of sand and water.
If grains when eaten by man are “transformed into semen,” what are they transformed into when eaten by woman?
If semen is produced from the eating of grains, how do carnivores obtain semen, seeing that they do not eat grains?
If man is eventually “transformed into semen,” at the time of carnal relations man is emitting his fellow man (and at the rate of about 23 million at each emission). And woman is the repository of one (or more) person who at one time may have been a rela-tion of hers.
If man takes on the “form of rain,” then the “form of grains,” in effect man is drinking and eating man (albeit in a different form)?
4. Krishna says: “And whoever, at the end of his life, quits his body, remembering Me alone, at once attains My nature. Of this there is no doubt”–(Gita 8:5).
Then the most sordid humans who know about Krishna can attain Krishna’s “nature” if he happens to remember Krishna at the time of his death and becomes freed from all retribution for his crimes against his fellow beings. (This would be a contra-diction of karma, where every action has an equal and opposite reaction).
Thinking about Krishna throughout one’s life is no guarantee that he would die with Krishna in his thoughts. If a “great personality” as Maharajah Bharata can think of a “deer” at his death, and be “transferred into the body of a deer,” as Swami Prabhupada says, a miscreant can at the time of his death think about Krishna and attain the “nature” of Krishna–(Comm. Gita 8:6).
5. Krishna tells Arjuna, “those who take shelter in Me, though they be of lower birth–women, vaisyas [merchants] and sudras [workers] can attain the supreme destination”–(Gita 9:32).
Women are of “lower birth”? The God who would declare women to be of “lower birth”–a form which she had no control over, a form which He gave her– could not be a Just God.
According to the above teaching of Krishna, Hindus who try to abolish the caste system and/or elevate the status of women are acting against this system and their God.
6. “Of horses know Me to be Uccaihsrava, produced during the churning of the ocean for nectar. Of lordly elephants I am Aira-vata,” says Krishna–(Gita 10:27). And Swami Prabhupada explains, “The devotee demigods and the demons (asuras) once took part in churning the sea. From this churning, nectar and poi-son were produced, and Lord Siva drank the poison. From the nectar were produced many entities, of which there was a horse named Uccaihsrava. Another animal produced from the nectar was an elephant named Airavata. Because these two animals were produced from nectar, they have special significance, and they are representatives of Krsna.”
If Christ can turn a vessel or two of water into “wine,” it may not have been difficult for these “demigods and the demons” to transform a sea-load (of salt water) into “nectar and poison.” But what about the “many entities” that were also produced from the “nectar,” as the Swami states; are they not representatives of Krishna?
7. In Gita 10:28, Krishna declares, “among cows I am the sura-bhi.” And Swami Prabhupada informs: “In Krsnaloka in the spiritual sky there are cows which can be milked at any time, and they give as much milk as one likes. Of course such cows do not exist in this material world, but there is mention of them in Krsnaloka. The Lord keeps many such cows, which are called surabhi. It is stated that the Lord is engaged in herding the surabhi cows.”
God needs milk? God “herding” cows?
8. Krishna says in Gita 16:1-3 that “transcendental qualities” “belong to godly men endowed with divine nature.” And in 16:4 he says, “Pride, arrogance, conceit, anger, harshness and igno-rance–these qualities belong to those of demoniac nature.” To which Swami Prabhupada explains: “These demoniac qualities are taken on by them from the beginning of their bodies in the wombs of their mothers, and as they grow they manifest all these inauspicious qualities.”
If people are born “demoniac,” they are not guilty for their actions. They should not be relegated as subhuman when they have no choice in their destiny and act according to their “nature” which they receive in the “wombs of their mothers” (which nature was, likely, given to them by Krishna, as he is said to be the Creator–Gita 9:7).
(It could not be that these individuals were “demoniac” from their mother’s womb because of bad karma; if they were of bad karma they could not have been reborn as humans because only those of good karma are reborn in a higher plane of life).
9. Krishna says in Gita 17:10: “Foods prepared more than three hours before being eaten, food that is tasteless, decomposed and putrid, and food consisting of remnants and untouchable things is dear to those in the mode of darkness.”
Unless one is under compulsion, it is doubtful that a sane per-son would eat “food that is tasteless, decomposed and putrid” “and untouchable things.” Under compulsion even the devotees of Krishna might partake of “food that is tasteless, decomposed and putrid, and food consisting of remnants and untouchable things.”
That food “prepared more than three hours” are “dear to those in the mode of darkness.” So all those people (some of whom may be devotees of Krishna) who eat the canned food–meat, fish, vegetables, soups–the processed meat, vegetable burgers, the frozen dinners, and the roti, bread, cheese, yogurt, tofu, butter, cereal, crackers etc., which have been “prepared more than three hours” are “in the mode of darkness” (?)
And all the researchers and manufacturers of these foods, that are “prepared more than three hours before being eaten,” who facilitate us with such ease and comfort so that students can have time, and working mothers and fathers can quickly tend to their children (and themselves) and to go about their honest livelihood are “in the mode of darkness”?
In his commentary to this teaching of the Gita (17:10), Swami Prabhupada says, “Any food prepared by the injunctions of the scripture and offered to the Supreme Personality of Godhead can be taken even if prepared long, long ago, because such food is transcendental. Therefore to make food antiseptic, eatable and palatable for all persons, one should offer food to the Supreme Personality of Godhead.” (Food is “transcendental”?)
While it is understandable that a believer in God should give thanks to God for his livelihood. According to the above teach-ing the some six billion people who are not Hindus and do not offer food to Krishna, are eating food that is not “antiseptic, eatable and palatable” (?)
Canned foods (which in all likelihood have not been offered to Krishna) have a shelf life of at least three months. It is doubtful that food “prepared long, long ago” according to Krishna’s in-junctions can remain wholesome for three months (unrefrigera-ted) without the preservatives used in these canned products. (A test can be carried out to ascertain this).
10. In the Gita 18:41-44, 46, Krishna speaks of the four castes, “Brahmanas, ksatriyas, vaisyas and sudras” and explains their “natural qualities,” of which “Farming, cow protection and busi-ness are the natural work for the vaisyas.” And by worshipping him “a man can attain perfection through performing his own work.”
Since, as Swami Prabhupada says (as noted in item # 7), “The Lord keeps many such cows, which are called surabhi” and that The Lord “is engaged in herding the surabhi cows,” this would mean that Lord Krishna is a vaisyas (?)
11. (Based on the caste system), Krishna says, “It is better to engage in one’s own occupation, even though one may perform it imperfectly, than to accept another’s occupation and perform it perfectly. Duties prescribed according to one’s nature are never affected by sinful reactions”–(Gita 18:47).
If a person of one caste is not to perform the duties of a person of another caste, then if a country has only a thousand people of the ksatriya (warrior) caste, it cannot put together a proper defense force.
That one must not seek another type of occupation than the one predestined to him, even though he may “perform it perfectly,” this would seem to kill an individual’s aspiration and intellect. And to waste a mind is a terrible thing.
In his commentary to Gita 18:47 Swami Prabhupada says: “For a ksatriya, or administrator, there are so many abominable things; a ksatriya has to be violent to kill his enemies, and some-times a ksatriya has to tell lies for the sake of diplomacy. Such violence and duplicity accompany political affairs, but a ksatriya is not supposed to give up his occupational duty and try to per-form the duties of a brahmana.” And, “sometimes a merchant has to tell so many lies to make a profit,” yet it is “not recom-mended” for him to “give up his profession and pursue the pro-fession of a brahmana.”
While it is justified to fight wars in self defense and to liberate the creatures of God because they are occupied, oppressed, and transgressed upon, it is unfathomable that God would condone man telling “lies for the sake of diplomacy” and for his “making a profit.”
12. In Gita 18:48 Krishna says: “Every endeavor is covered by some fault, just as fire is covered by smoke. Therefore one should not give up the work born of his nature…even if such work is full of fault.” To which Swami Prabhupada explains: “In conditioned life, all work is contaminated by the material modes of nature. Even if one is a brahmana, he has to perform sacri-fices in which animal killing is necessary. Similarly, a ksatriya, however pious he may be, has to fight enemies. He cannot avoid it. Similarly, a merchant, however pious he may be, must some-times hide his profit to stay in business.” (Tell this to the Government/IRS).
So if an architect continues to design buildings that collapses and kills people he must keep on designing, and must not be held to account, and must not change his profession. And if an engineer keeps on building missiles that constantly explodes prematurely on his soldiers and flattening civilians and cities, he is free from crimination, and must not work as a brahman even though he excels at religion–he “should not give up the work born of his nature….even if such work is full of fault.”
13. Krishna says in the Gita:
“For one whose mind is unbridled, self-realization
is difficult work….That is My OPINION”–(6:36).
“And of all yogis, the one with great faith….
is the highest of all. That is My OPINION”–(6:47).
“…to understand this body and its knower
is called knowledge. That is My OPINION”–(13:3).
“All these activities (acts of sacrifice, charity and penance) should be performed without attachment or any
expectation of result.…That is My final OPINION”–(18:6).
(Brackets and emphasis added).
“My opinion”! God has an opinion? One would expect God’s pronouncements to be infallible. Definite. Absolute!
The Mahabharata (which consists of the Bhagavad Gita) is of the “mythological” works of Hinduism. “Evidently many authors have written them or added to them in successive periods,” wrote Jawaharlal Nehru; and about the Bhagavad Gita, he states, “it was composed and written in the pre-Buddhistic age.”3 Anoop Chandola notes that Vyasa “is the traditional author or editor of many great books including the Puranas. He arranged the Vedas, authored the Vedanta Sutras, and the great epic, the Mahabha-rata.”4
Krishna’s parents we are told, were “Vasudeva” and “Devaki.”
“Krsna’s personality is clearly a syncretic one, though the different elements are not easily separated. Vasudeva-Krsna, a Vrsni prince who was presumably a religious leader, was elevated to the godhead by the 5th century BC; the cowherd Krsna is obviously the god of a pastoral community that turned away from the Indra-dominated Vedic religion. The Krsna who emerged from the blending of these ideologies was ultimately identified with the supreme god Visnu-Nara-yana and, hence, considered his avatara.” (Perhaps Avatara was mistranslated as incarnation instead of representation–as a prophet being a representative of God. Since God can do anything, He does not need to take forms, and go any place to accomplish His purpose).
Krishna “married the princess Rukmini and took other wives as well.”5
(The Bhagavad Gita) “Being opposed to the Veda, it can-not be held to be an authority. …Krishna could never be God,” says Swami Dayananda Saraswati.6
Swami Prabhupada wrote that Buddha is “the incarnation of Krsna.”7 But A. H. Vidyarthi notes that Buddha “discarded the doctrine of incarnation to which a man and an animal is believed to be as God,” and he “disbelieved in the unreasonable teachings of the Vedas as well as in their Divine Origin.”8
If Krishna is God, whether Krishna came as Buddha (or any other) he should not ‘discard’ his “doctrine of incarnation,” which is not only a fundamental doctrine, but he would be ‘dis-carding’ his own doctrine. He should not ‘disbelieve’ the “Div-ine Origin” of the Vedas, he would be disbelieving in himself; for as he says, that he is the “compiler of Vedanta” and the “knower of the Vedas.” (See the following text.)
Krishna says in the Gita, (9:17, 15:15 respectively): “I am also the Rg, the Sama and the Yajur Vedas.” “By all the Vedas, I am to be known. Indeed, I am the compiler of Vedanta, and I am the knower of the Vedas.” And in his book The Way To True Worship, (p. 1), Anoop Chandola wrote: “The first recorded book of the Hindus is the Rig Veda. In it, “being” or sat is said to have its beginning in non-being or asat. More than a thousand years later, the Bhagavad Gita challenged this view, holding that there is no “non-being” state of being.”
If Krishna is the Rg Veda and “the knower of the Vedas” and the “compiler of Vedanta”, as he declared, he should not have “challenged” the teaching of the Rg Veda more than a thousand years later in the Bhagavad Gita. He is clearly challenging him-self.
Regarding the teachings of Hinduism. Lin Yutang notes:
“The Sankhya philosophers believed that the world con-sists of two principles, souls and the material world, the Prakriti, or Nature, while the Vedanta philosophers be-lieved in one all-comprising unity. Out of such debates in the forest grew these books.”
“…the final consummation of Vedic philosophy is to be found in Bhagavad-Gita, written perhaps two centuries later, when an ardent devotion to a personal God took the place of these barren speculations. According to Buddhist records, there were as many as sixty-three con-fusing schools of philosophy at the time of Buddha (563-483 B.C.), which explained Buddha’s revolt at their fu-tile reasonings and ritualism.”
Jawaharlal Nehru wrote:
“The early Vedic Aryans….paid little attention to the soul. In a vague way they believed in some kind of ex-istence after death. Gradually the conception of God grows: there are the Olympian type of gods, and then monotheism, and later, rather mixed with it, the concept-ion of monism.”
That “foreign elements” brought their customs into India. And:
“Many of these customs were unlike those of the Ar-yans, and so a curious mixture of opposing ideas and customs is observable….Gradually the absorption of the earlier indigenous elements as well as of new-comers was taking place, and the Vedic religion was being modified accordingly. It was beginning to take that all-inclusive form which led to modern Hinduism.”10
Britannica explains: “Hinduism has developed slowly from the synthesis of sacrificial cults brought into India by the Aryan invaders of about 1500 BC with the religions of the various indi-genous peoples they conquered;” its “religious belief, custom, and practice has been influenced by Zoroastrianism, Christianity, Islam, the tribal religions of Central Asian nomads, and perhaps even Chinese Taoism.”11
Khwaja Kamal-ud-Din points out:
“India was the home of rank idolatry. But to-day, the worship of the stone is back number there. “The Brah-mins and the Aryas, the two prominent off-shoots of Hinduism in India, hate idolatry and break images. Brahma’s creed, the earlier of the two, was started by Raja Ram Mohan Rai, who received his monotheistic inspirations from the Qur-’an, as he admits himself in his writings. Arya Samaj did the same. Even the staunch advocates of stone-worship now seek apologies for it. They take pains to make it quite plain that “they are not polytheists in reality.” They worship One God, but to concentrate their mind on the Great Unseen and Un-known they need something perceivable; hence the image (Why not concentrate on the written name of God instead; or best yet come to Islam). What influence else than Islam can claim the credit for this wonderful change in Hindu theology? There was nothing in the Vedas–the Hindu Bible–a Book of Element-worship, as it at present stands–to inspire faith in One God. Traditional Christia-nity–the so-called historic–herself benighted in such matters, could not guide others to these lofty ideas. To-day, the worship of more than one god is on the wane and Muslim monotheism hailed everywhere.”12
1. Wendy Doniger O’Flaherty, Siva The Erotic Ascetic, p. 273.
2. Murtahin Billah Fazlie, Hinduism and Islam, A Comparative Study, p. 226.
3. The Discovery of India, pp. 106, 109.
4. The Way To True Worship, p. 35.
5. Ency. Brit. 15th Edn. Vol. V, p. 922; Art. Krsna.
6. Light of Truth, p. 219.
7. Cf. Bhagavad Gita As It Is, 4:7.
8. Abdul Haque Vidyarthi, Muhammad in World Scriptures, Vol. 1, p. 296.
9. Wisdom of India, pp. 24, 25.
10. The Discovery of India, pp. 79, 106-107. (Italics/emphasis, added).
11. Ency. Brit. 15th Edn. Vol. V, p. 52; Art. Hinduism. history of,
12. Open Letters To The Bishops Of Salisbury & London, pp. 17-18.