Krishna versus pacifism
letter to a believer in Krishna Consciousness
you for finally admitting that you are not a pacifist and that Krishna and the
Bhagavad Gita mandate war. But what
right do you have to limit that to wars
of self-defense ? The BG makes no
such distinction and Prince Arjuna was obviously engaged in a war for political
power, not a war of self-defense. Then you add a prohibition against a military draft on your own
authority. Like most people who pretend
to follow scripture, you feel free to
make your own additions.
next thing you have to admit is that you are not serious about opposing
abortion and that there is no foundation for it in Hinduism. Krishna himself sets a high profile example
of the gross sexual immorality which inevitably leads to abortion. Krishna is one of the randiest gods in all
mythology. The immoral gods of Greek and
Roman and Egyptian mythology would be embarrassed to be seen with him. In addition to his innumerable wives and girl
friends he is presented as forcing himself on his mother and his sisters. How in the world can followers of Krishna
claim to have a high standard of sexual morality ? Trying to derive a standard of sexual
morality from one word in the Bhagavad Gita 17.14 is like Gandhi trying to hang
his pacifist doctrine on ahimsa. Since the supposed speaker of the BG was a
relentless sari chaser as well as a warrior, the attempt is doomed to
failure. The Mahabharata says the bereaved wives of Krishna immolated themselves in Indraprastha after his death. Obviously, if the custom was associated with Krishna, that gave it great prestige
and explains why sati--the widow
expected to throw herelf on the funeral pyre of her dead husband-- persisted to
modern times. Krishna may be only a
myth, but he is a pernicious myth in the way he exemplifies wicked
abandonment of his wife and child is obviously the wrong alternative. Mohammed helped himself to the widows he
created by executing their husbands in cold blood. Then he scandalized his own hard to
scandalize followers by claiming a personal exemption from sexual
morality. Neither does the Hebrew Old
Testament contain any reliable standard of sexual morality.
place to find a forthright statement of
sexual morality and respect for marriage is the teaching of Jesus Christ and
his first followers in the gospels and epistles of the New Testament. And the early Church lived up to that
standard. Which the modern church has
of sex selection abortions, India now has a great shortage of young women. Which leads to men patronizing prostitutes
from whom they get AIDS. It leads to
gangs of rapists in major Indian cities.
A sensible person would have to conclude that Hinduism is the curse of
India. You seem to be willfully ignorant
of the realities of Hinduism. Read Hindu Manners, Customs and Ceremonies by
Abbe J.A. Dubois.
all honesty, you should abandon any pretence of opposing war and abortion. Krishna
Consciousness provides no foundation for it. To the end of his life Gandhi was trying to
read pacifism into the BG by way of ahimsa. His sentimental foolishness led him upon a
forlorn quest to re-interpret other Hindu scriptures like the Ramayana and the Mahabharata to mandate nonviolence.
His attempt to graft Christian pacifism into Hinduism and to teach nonviolence to Moslems led no where
except to the terrible bloodbath in which a million were killed in the
Hindu-Moslem riots which engulfed India when it became independent of Britain
personal faith in the spirit of love and
truth was degraded by linking it to
1. nationalism 2. a mass
movement 3. trying to graft it into
Hinduism and Mohammedanism. Primitive
and non-state Christianity--underground and heretical
Christianity--is the only reliable spiritual and moral foundation for
claim that people eating meat is somehow the cause of war and abortion. But the vegetarians of India have less
resistance to abortion than the meat eating Moslems. Hitler was a vegetarian. Was he a pacifist ? Not hardly.
is a show case of the moral and spiritual failure of Hinduism and the failure
of Gandhi to graft his Philosophy of Nonviolence on to Indian society. They obviously have no resistance to
militarism, as witness all the money they are putting into the military. Nor do they have any effective resistance to
abortion. Unlike the Moslems who at
least still ban abortion. What basis is
there in the Hindu religion for a pacifist or a pro life movement ? I see none.
It is just silly to believe that a Krishna cult could provide the
spiritual foundation for such movements.
was Krishna a vegetarian, although they try to read that into the BG
17.7-10. There was his chance to state
clearly: don't eat meat ! and he
missed it. And the various Krishna
stories represent him as eating meat.
You quote everybody and his brother as an authority contra eating meat--pagan philosophers, ex Catholics,
very unorthodox Jews. You lack the one
authority you need: God says: don't
eat meat. Because you are
stuck with believing in Krishna as God.
who have replaced God with Evolution as their moral authority,
argue that human teeth were designed for fruits and vegetables, not meat. But, later on, the Son of Evolution led humans to the invention of knives and forks,
meat cleavers and grinders, cook
stoves, and stew kettles with lids. It is the fact that, especially after you
have lost your teeth, you find it much easier to eat beef stew--with carrots of
course--than raw carrots. Evolution can kiss my a__ if he doesn't
caste system so central to the Hindu religion, which is sanctioned by the Bhagavad Gita, despite Prabhupada's
attempt to explain it away, is even more pernicious than the slavery practiced
by Judaism, which was preserved by Imperial Christianity. At least there was a possibility of escaping
from slavery or buying your way out. It
was only primitive Christianity and underground Christianity which provided the
moral alternative for this ancient evil.
[ see Essenes and Christians ]
not understand how any sensible person can have a faith in Krishna. I suspect your faith in Krishna was eroded
long ago and was replaced by this fool's quest to make vegetarianism into a universal religion. Your obsession with vegetarianism and
reincarnation produces a spiritual blindness which insulates you from
understanding the spiritual and moral challenge of confronting the real evils in
the world. You are going no where until
you have sense enough to quit Krishna. I
am sorry to be so blunt, but I don't have the time to wade through the nonsense
you send me. I suppose you are
sincere. Adolph Hitler was a sincere
vegetarian. It is a very doubtful
hero Ammon Hennacy was a vegetarian and his little daughter once asked him why . . . Just sentimental, I guess. I
don't like to kill animals and, if I don't want to do it myself, I don't want
anyone to do it for me. Then she said:
But maybe it just died. Hindu vegetarianism has some such
distinction, although you seem to have lost track of it.
is the only good argument for vegetarianism I have ever heard. But Ammon is right that it is based upon sentimentality. Gandhi 's clinging to Hinduism and trying to
make it nonviolent is an example of sentimentality. Adolph Hitler was a sentimental vegetarian. Why
don't you ever quote him along with all these other fellows ? When he was living in the homeless shelter he
used to scatter crumbs for the mice. But
he was not sentimental about Jews or invading Poland etc.
basic argument for vegetarianism is that animals have the same rights as
people. The corollary is that people
have the same rights as animals--have the same right to a fish dinner as a heron
or a crane. Have the same right as a fox
or an eagle to catch a rabbit.
ecological arguments are specious. As to
the shortage of grain, the U.S. government has paid farmers to not grow grain over the last 100 years
to avoid surpluses which drive down the price.
There is an argument to be made for grass fed beef over corn fed beef as
being healthier. Large areas of the
world, like the Great Plains of America, are no good for agriculture but
naturally designed for grazing. There
were 70 million buffalo on the Great Plains before the encroachment of the
farmers led to the near extinction of the buffalo and to the Dust Bowl of the
1930s. The Plains Indians lived on the
buffalo, made tepees and clothing from their hides and used nearly every part
of the buffalo in one way or another.
Was this somehow un natural or
bad karma ? Silliness.
Now grazing cattle have replaced the buffalo. No doubt there is a lot of waste in modern
society but that is a different argument.
The loss of natural predators means that the herds of deer and elk and
antelope have to be thinned by hunting or they will over graze their range and
starve themselves as well as bankrupting the ranchers.
and corrupt governments lead to famines.
India has one of the most corrupt governments on the planet and they are
spending large sums building up their army and navy, thumbing their nose at
Gandhi, as they did during his life time.
animal sacrifice and human sacrifice
baffled as to why you persist in referring to Judaism as a vegetarian
religion. Not only was historical
Judaism not a vegetarian religion,
but, animal sacrifice was the primary way they maintained their
relationship with The Lord. Don't take my word for it, read the 5 books
of Moses. What else do you think went on
in The Temple ? Which was the center of their faith. The dearest wish of at least some Orthodox Jews is the restoration of The
Temple and the priesthood and the animal sacrifices. Of course, you can find all sorts of
self-styled Jews who define Judaism
as anything they wish to believe. They
don't believe in God and they do believe in Israel and they go along with
abortion. They light the right number of
candles and call it Judaism.
seems to be how you define Hinduism--you
presume you have the Authority to edit It.
Animal sacrifice was central to the original Hindu tradition. It was an essential part of their
relationship with the Hindu pantheon. It
persists to this day in the annual rites of the Durgapuja in honor of the goddess Kali. They were still sacrificing kids--human
children, not just goats--well into the 19th century before the British
government finally more or less stopped it.
was an ethical advance upon Hinduism and upon the religious cults of the
neighboring Semitic tribes which still practiced human sacrifice. [ cf. 2 Kings 3.27 ] One of the seminal stories of Judaism
features Abraham sacrificing a ram at the last minute instead of his first born
son Isaac. The Moslems have their own
version of the same story in which
Ishmael, instead of Isaac, is the son who was about to be sacrificed. Meanwhile, in India and most of the rest of
the world, human sacrifice as a religious ceremony persisted. Archaeological research shows that child
sacrifice was a common practice of the Incas and the Aztecs and the other
so-called civilizations of Central
still devoutly believe in sacrificing their first born sons to GodBlessAmerica. And you with your defensive wars believe the same thing. And can't believe anything else so long as
you are stuck with Krishna Consciousness
and the Bhagavad Gita. Quit the Cult ! Appreciate the fact that Jesus substituted
himself for all animal sacrifices: this is my blood of the new covenant, which is shed for many for the remission of
sins. Matthew 26.28. While also teaching love your enemies Matthew
5.44. Hebrews 10.4 adds: it is
not possible that the blood of bulls and of goats could take away sins.
Buddhism versus Pacifism
article about Buddhist Vegetarianism
is horse feathers. The claim that Asoka
was some sort of pacifist emperor is based upon one inscription dug up many
centuries later which advised his heirs to avoid further wars of conquest. He never dismantled the empire or the
gigantic army of his grandfather which built that empire and which was
necessary to maintain it. He didn't ban
the eating of meat and fish, he only restricted it to reduce the grocery bill
of the imperial court. You are hard up
for examples of vegetarianism if this satisfies you. Buddha's last meal was pork and rice. Arguably he died from failure to keep kosher.
claim is made that Buddhism is a pacifist religion. But Buddha was a passivist, not a pacifist.
It isn't that he refused to go to war, he refused to do anything except
sit under a tree and meditate. Before
that, he walked out on his wife and new born son without even giving her a pat
on the head by way of saying good job. That was his first step on the road to enlightenment.
other clergy, the Buddhist monks claim an exemption from military
conscription. But Buddhism had royal
patronage from the beginning and was a state religion from the start. Which is what mandates a military
character. cf. War is the Health of the State.
The Mahavamsa, the major history of Buddhism
in Ceylon, features the Sinhalese
King Dutthagamani slaughtering the
Tamils. When he expresses remorse for the slaughter of a great host numbering
millions, the monks assure him: From this deed arises no hindrance in thy way
to heaven. Only one and a half human
beings have been slain by thee, O lord of men.
The one had come unto the (three) refuges, the other had taken on
himself the five precepts. Unbelievers
and men of evil life were the rest, not more to be esteemed than beasts. But as for thee, thou wilt bring glory to the
doctrine of the Buddha in manifold ways; therefore cast away care from thy
heart, O ruler of men. ( Chapter
XXV ) These monks are billed as Arhats--those who have achieved
king went to war with a relic of the Buddha on his spear. It resembles the story of Otho the Great who
defeats the pagan Hungarians in a battle of the 10th century using the holy lance with a point made from the
nails of the Cross. But Military Christianity only appeared in
the 4th century and it persecuted the original pacifist Christianity
which has persisted in underground and heretical
churches to the present time. [ See The Church of the Empire on the Radical Christian Press.org web site.
] Like Mohammedanism, Buddhism was a
state religion and a military religion from the start and, pretences aside, had
that same character in the various countries to which it spread.
Sermon on the Mount is the moral and spiritual foundation for pacifism. The example of the early Christians who were martyrs--witnesses--for a faith that
caused them to refuse military service, even when they were killed for doing
that, is the historical tradition upon which an anti war movement must be
out your Concordance and look up the fish
verses in the 4 gospels: Matthew
14.17-19 describes Jesus distributing loaves and fishes to 5000 people. In
Matthew 17.27 he instructs Peter to catch a fish
and pay the temple tax with a coin he will find in its mouth. In Luke 5.6-9 Jesus helps them get a huge
catch of fish in their nets. See also John 21.6-11. In Luke 24.42-43 Jesus eats a piece of
broiled fish to show them that it
really is him, not just a spirit. In John 21.9-10 Jesus helps them catch fish and also cooks fish
was traditional for the Passover meal, but the gospels mention only bread and
wine in connection with the Last Supper.
But there is no way that a sensible person can ignore the several gospel
passages where Jesus ate fish himself or encouraged others to do it. You cannot replace Jesus Christ as the
authority on what the Christian religion teaches about vegetarianism. You cannot
replace the authority of the 4 canonical gospels with other
miscellaneous writings. It should be
obvious to you that you are wasting your own time and everyone else's with this
futile quest to graft vegetarianism into the Christian religion.
did talk about what we should eat.
Contra the strict food prohibitions of Judaism he says in Mark 7 it is what comes out of your mouth, not what
goes into it, that makes you unclean. He was teaching contra the Pharisee who
believed in the righteousness he achieved by what he didn't eat. The Jains and the Hindus should note this
course we don't remember Jesus because he encouraged us to Eat More Fish. We remember
him because he taught us to Love God with
your whole heart; Love your neighbor as
yourself; Love one another as I have
loved you--addressed to his closest followers; Love your enemies. We remember him because he taught the
sanctity of marriage and he and his followers set the example of strict sexual
morality. Unlike Krishna. We remember him because he faced death
bravely bearing witness against the evil of this world. One of his few modern true followers, Franz
Jaggerstatter, did the same by refusing to join Hitler's army and he was
beheaded in 1943. He sets the example of
bearing witness to the truth that the
rest of us must follow. He shows the
persistence of that Spirit of Truth and Love and Courage which Jesus gave his
first followers. cf. John 20.21-22.
notice that, while you preach vegetarianism as a universal religion, citing
everybody and his brother as an authority, you never preach Krishna. Which is sensible. I suspect your faith in Krishna was eroded
long ago even if you can't quite bring yourself to admit it. The best thing to be said for Krishna is that
he is only a myth, albeit a pernicious one, an old bawdy folk tale turned into
a religious tract, like the Samson stories in the book of Judges.
Don't miss out on Jesus
Christ. What he ate is not
important. Who he was and what he was is
important. Even if he ate fish, he is
worthy of your respect as Krishna is not.
His Holy Spirit is entirely relevant to confronting what is wrong with
the world as Krishna is not.