View source for Could it be, Srila Prabhupada, that this sanction of wine drinking be from God? Could that sanction come from God? Do we think that is possible?

<div id="compilation">
<div id="facts">
{{terms|"Could it be, Srila Prabhupada, that this sanction of wine drinking be from God"|"Could that sanction come from God"|"Do we think that is possible"}}
{{notes|}}
{{compiler|MadhuGopaldas}}
{{complete|ALL}}
{{first|22Jun11}}
{{last|22Jun11}}
{{totals_by_section|BG=0|SB=0|CC=0|OB=0|Lec=0|Con=1|Let=0}}
{{total|1}}
{{toc right}}
[[Category:Questions asked to Srila Prabhupada]]
[[Category:Questions asked to SP... 1974]]
</div>
<div id="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="section" sec_index="5" parent="compilation" text="Conversations and Morning Walks"><h2>Conversations and Morning Walks</h2>
</div>
<div id="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" class="sub_section" sec_index="7" parent="Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" text="1974 Conversations and Morning Walks"><h3>1974 Conversations and Morning Walks</h3>
</div>
<div id="RoomConversationwithRichardWebsterchairmanSocietaFilosoficaItalianaMay241974Rome_0" class="quote" parent="1974_Conversations_and_Morning_Walks" book="Con" index="83" link="Room Conversation with Richard Webster, chairman, Societa Filosofica Italiana -- May 24, 1974, Rome" link_text="Room Conversation with Richard Webster, chairman, Societa Filosofica Italiana -- May 24, 1974, Rome">
<div class="heading">We don't find there is sanction by God to drink. But under certain circumstances, beverages, different types of beverages allowed, not for intoxication but for keeping health. That is different thing.
</div>
<span class="link">[[Vanisource:Room Conversation with Richard Webster, chairman, Societa Filosofica Italiana -- May 24, 1974, Rome|Room Conversation with Richard Webster, chairman, Societa Filosofica Italiana -- May 24, 1974, Rome]]: </span><div class="text"><p style="display: inline;">Prabhupāda: In the Vedic literature we have information, two eternals. Nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām. It is personally identified. "There is one chief eternal, and there are many other eternals." So then it means the chief eternal is God, and other subordinate eternals are living entities. Just like we are all living entities. We are in different forms, but we are eternal. The form is not eternal, but the owner of the form is eternal. And similarly, the chief eternal is God. That is described in the Vedas,</p>
:nityo nityānāṁ cetanaś cetanānām
:eko yo bahūnāṁ vidadhāti kāmān
:(Kaṭha Upaniṣad 2.2.13)
<p>In this way. So the chief eternal is the maintainer of the many subordinate eternals. This is the idea of God and the living entities. So we are dependent eternals or the the predominated eternals. And there is another eternal, chief eternal, who is the maintainer of all these eternals and who is the predominator. We are predominated. This is the conception of Kṛṣṇa consciousness philosophy.</p>
<p>Richard Webster: Well, may I ask a question? I find in medieval European philosophy two different attitudes and..., which I find difficult to reconcile perfectly. That is to say the earlier Christians, up to the thirteenth Century, I suppose, were practically only thinking about God, nothing else but God so that nature or the human being, or any... everything else, tended to disappear altogether as also in some Indian philosophy, I think. And then, later on, with more modern science and so on you've got a different attitude in the Christians themselves, that is to say an attitude of acceptance towards subordinate things so that they became independent and finally, of course, broke away altogether so that nowadays we have science without God at all. But there was a sort of period in the late middle ages when St. Thomas Aquinas, who stopped thinking about God, only about God, and gave his attention to science, so they say. Well, there was a sort of conflict there. I don't quite know what to say about it whether I'm on one side or the other. That is to say if I were to (indistinct) the earlier Christian or (indistinct) There was Aquinas, for instance, who was a saint, but he would pray into the world, if you like. I wondered whether you would disapprove of that or...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, these different types of philosophers are always there, not only in the medieval age, in the previously also. It is said, na cāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. "A philosopher is not a philosopher if he does not present a different view." (laughter) This is stated in the Bhāgavata. Tarko 'pratiṣṭhaḥ śrutayo vibhinnaḥ (?). Tarka, by argument, logic, you cannot come to the right conclusion because you may be a good logician and then you meet another logician who is better than you. So his arguments may be stronger than your argument. Therefore, simply by arguments or logical premises, you cannot approach the Absolute Truth.</p>
<p>Richard Webster: Oh, yes. I agree.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. And śrutayo vibhinnaḥ. Literatures are also, authentic literatures... Śrutayaḥ means authentic literature, which is acceptable. They are also various type. Just like Vedas. There are four Vedas: Sāma-Veda, Yajur-Veda, Atharva-Veda, Ṛg-Veda. Then the Upaniṣads are there. Then the Vedānta-sūtra is there. So if we study all this Vedic literature or any other similar literature, it is very difficult to find out the Absolute Truth. Śrutayo vibhinnaḥ. And if we take the philosophers, so one philosopher differs from another philosopher. Na cāsāv ṛṣir yasya mataṁ na bhinnam. Therefore, to approach the Absolute Truth, God, is very difficult subject matter. Therefore our principle is mahājano yena gataḥ sa panthāḥ ([[Vanisource:CC Madhya 17.186|CC Madhya 17.186]]). Mahājana means the recognized persons, recognized by the Supreme Lord, such persons we follow. We have got a list of recognized persons, just like Lord Brahmā, Lord Śiva, the Manu. Just like in the Bhagavad-gītā, Manu's name is there. Imaṁ vivasvate yogaṁ proktavān aham avyayam, vivasvān manave prāha ([[Vanisource:BG 4.1|BG 4.1]]), this Manu. So Manu, then Kapila, then Prahlāda, Janaka, Vyāsadeva, Śukadeva Gosvāmī, Yamarāja. In this way there are twelve mahājanas. And we receive knowledge from either of them. That is bona fide philosophy. That is called paramparā system. The original teacher is Kṛṣṇa and from Him the sun-god, Vivasvān, learned it. He spoke to his son, Manu. Manu spoke to his son, Ikṣvāku. In this way the paramparā system is coming. And that is bona fide. This is our philosophy, to accept knowledge from the perfect person or his bona fide representative.</p>
<p>Richard Webster: And Christians, how do you present this? Suppose if someone was a Christian.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes, Christian, if you take... Just like Lord Jesus Christ is a bona fide teacher, and he has given his teaching, his commandments. If you follow those commandments, then you are bona fide student. But if you don't follow then you are not bona fide.</p>
<p>Richard Webster: And if you try to follow but fail or if you...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No, you must follow. You cannot fail. Just like Lord Christ says, "Thou shall not kill." You must follow that. If you do not follow, then you are not Christian. It is not the question of that you could not follow or you are weak to follow. You must follow.</p>
<p>Richard Webster: But the Christians have a thing about forgiveness of...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Whatever is there...</p>
<p>Richard Webster: Within the Christian religion there is a strong emphasis on possible failure and forgiveness.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: No. Forgiveness is... I know that in church the confession program is there. Forgiveness... Suppose you are or I am an offender. I ask your forgiveness. So you can forgive me once, twice, thrice, not more than that. You cannot make it a profession that you go on committing sins and God will forgive you. No, that is not possible. That is misconception. That is mentioned in the Bhagavad-gītā, api cet sudurācāro bhajate mām ananya-bhāk, sādhur eva sa mantavyaḥ ([[Vanisource:BG 9.30|BG 9.30]]). This sudurācāraḥ, means offender, that is not willful offense. One person is accustomed to some bad habits, but he has taken to Kṛṣṇa consciousness or God consciousness. But on account of strong habit, if he fails sometimes, that is excused, forgiveness, not that willful committing sin and ask for forgiveness. That is not allowed. In common affairs we do not see. I have got practical, I mean to say, experience. In my householder life I was proprietor of a big pharmacy. So my manager sold some morphia preparation to some unauthorized person. So the sales inspector, they noted it and made us a criminal. And the magistrate called me because I was the proprietor. So my statement was given that "I do not conduct the business directly. Of course, I am responsible for my manager's fault, but I shall be very strict in future. You can forgive me." Immediately I was forgiven. But next time, if I go, if I say like that, that is not forgiven. That is not possible. So this forgiveness is good for accidental fault. But it cannot be continued, that is a wrong philosophy.</p>
<p>Richard Webster: Does that apply to all the rules of the Kṛṣṇa movement?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: What is that?</p>
<p>Richard Webster: For everyone. I mean rules about not drinking...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes.</p>
<p>Richard Webster: Would that be a sin in a non-Kṛṣṇa follower?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: It is for everyone. When we speak something from the Vedic scripture, that is meant for everyone.</p>
<p>Richard Webster: I mean a Roman, perhaps, has never heard of Kṛṣṇa before. He breaks all your five rules, does he not, every day. Is that a sin in him? If he drinks wine...</p>
<p>Dhanañjaya: He's saying, all the people in Rome who have never heard of Kṛṣṇa...</p>
<p>Richard Webster: They drink wine and do all the things which are... Well, perhaps not all, but anyway, some of them. Would that be...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: I do not...</p>
<p>Dhanañjaya: He's asking if they're very sinful if they don't have any knowledge of Kṛṣṇa or any of the rules of our movement.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. Kṛṣṇa... Ignorance is no excuse. If there is law and if you do not know the law, and you commit offense, that is no excuse, that you do not know the law. Similarly, human life is meant for understanding God. That is the main business of human life. If one does not know this law, then he is sinful.</p>
<p>Richard Webster: Yes, but the difficulty is for me, for instance, that I have the pope here who is telling me perhaps the same thing in spirit but with different rules, different laws practically. I mean the spirit seems to me to be the same, but...</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Law cannot be different, but it can be modified according to the time and circumstances. But the law cannot be different.</p>
<p>Atreya Ṛṣi: Maybe you could ask specific examples of differences.</p>
<p>Richard Webster: Well, for Roman Catholics it is right to drink wine, for instance.</p>
<p>Atreya Ṛṣi: Drinking, intoxication.</p>
<p>Richard Webster: Not intoxication, to drink wine.</p>
<p>Atreya Ṛṣi: What is wine? He's saying that a Roman Catholic can take wine. The law allows them to take wine.</p>
<p>Richard Webster: Or tobacco or meat.</p>
<p>Atreya Ṛṣi: Or tobacco or meat. So the rules are different.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Then rules are not different, but we have to see. Just like your commandments. In the commandments there is "Thou shall not kill." Then how you can eat meat?</p>
<p>Richard Webster: Well, that is a possible argument, but I'm thinking about even lesser things such as wine or...</p>
<p>Atreya Ṛṣi: Wine. Can...</p>
<p>Richard Webster: And no Roman Catholic will admit that it is wrong to drink wine.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Wine is sanctioned?</p>
<p>Richard Webster: I don't mean to get drunk. I mean to...</p>
<p>Atreya Ṛṣi: Wine, for today's Roman Catholics, they think it is sanctioned.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: They think so many other things also. Just like Roman Catholics, there is example: they have allowed marriage between man to man. Do you know that?</p>
<p>Richard Webster: No.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Yes. In New York there is a paper, Watchtower. They publish a monthly magazine. I have seen in that magazine. They are condemning that the priests have allowed marriage, man to man. And...</p>
<p>Richard Webster: In New York maybe. Not in Rome.</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: Christianity does not mean in New York it should be different and Rome it should be different. Then nobody is following.</p>
<p>Atreya Ṛṣi: Could it be, Śrīla Prabhupāda, that this sanction of wine drinking be from God? Could that sanction come from God? Do we think that is possible?</p>
<p>Prabhupāda: We don't find there is sanction by God to drink. But under certain circumstances, beverages, different types of beverages allowed, not for intoxication but for keeping health. That is different thing. Just like in the moon planet, it is mentioned they drink soma-rasa. Soma-rasa is a kind of beverage made from extract of herbs. So because it is very cold there, so they drink that, but not for intoxication. People drink for intoxication. Just like in medicine, so many drugs are used. Even opium is used. Yes. Morphia is used. But they are not used ordinarily. For a specific purpose. Even snake poison is used, but that does not mean snake poison should be used perpetually. So for benefit of the body under particular circumstances something may be recommended, but that is not for general use or for intoxication. That is condemned. Just like animal killing is sometimes prescribed in the yajña. The purpose is different. But that does not mean unrestricted animal killing in the slaughterhouse should go on, no. That is sinful. So if we violate the laws perpetually, then how we can consider as belonging to a certain group of religious system? There must be principles.</p>
<p>Richard Webster: Well. I understand. But I only think that the dietetic rules would be perhaps an obstacle to the spreading... I mean certain rules which are clean against European or American custom might constitute an obstacle to the spreading of Kṛṣṇa consciousness. I mean, in the Roman Catholic church you have the monks. Then you have the laity who observe less strict rules without being considered outside God. And you don't have that, do you? I mean, the Kṛṣṇa movement is a movement of what we should call monks or religious... There is no laity in the Roman Catholic Christian sense, people of the world who are doing messy things, I mean, trading the drugs or whatever it is because it's a job they have to do, but belong to the church without being strictly religious.</p>
</div>
</div>
</div>