What is the Vedic perspective on animal killing for medical testing purposes?
I am a research scientist at UCSF. Although I was raised a Vaishnav, but I am a neophyte Krsna devotee. I have a few questions that I need to discuss with Radhanath Swami regarding religion (Vaishnav tradition) and Science (Animal research in Biomedical field). As far as my knowledge goes this topic of animal research and religion hasn’t been discussed at length in Hinduism. The Vaishnav tradition prohibits animal killing and thus slaughter houses are condemned. Where do we stand on animal research? Is animal research acceptable because eventually we are helping human race or animals by finding ways to cure a certain disease? Lord Krishna says in Bhagavat Gita, chapter 18 verse 7, 8, and 9 – *”Prescribed duties should never be renounced. If one gives up his prescribed duties because of illusion, such renunciation is said to be in the mode of ignorance. Anyone who gives up prescribed duties as troublesome or out of fear of bodily discomfort is said to have renounced in the mode of passion. Such action never leads to the elevation of renunciation. O Arjuna , when one performs his prescribed duty only because it ought to be done, and renounces all material association and all attachment to the fruit, his renunciation is said to be in the mode of goodness.”* Can we justify scientific research on animal models such as mice as a prescribed duty of a scientist in a biomedical field because the research findings may potentially benefit human race (although this will be just physical and mental benefit and there will be no spiritual gain)? I know why animal research is necessary for scientific discoveries but I don’t know if is right or wrong. Are scientist committing terrible sins every time we do scientific research? Or, can we be unaffected by the sinful action of animal research if we conduct our research without attachment like Lord Krishna said in Bhagvat Gita, chapter 5 verse 10* “**One who performs his duty without attachment, surrendering the results unto the Supreme Lord, is unaffected by sinful action, as the lotus leaf is untouched by water.”* Lets say we accept animal research as a necessary evil for the “greater good,” but then what about research on embryonic stem cells. Is research on embryonic stem cell considered a sin because the embryos come from humans? If it is a sin, then aren’t we overlooking the fact that Lord Krsna is everywhere and resides in the every living being as a supersoul. We are taught to treat every living being on the same level because Lord Krsna resides in every living being and He does not discriminate among His children. What authority do we have to decide who gets to be the guinea pig? Where do we draw a line of what is acceptable and what is not?
Ans summary:
- Prescribed duty refers to that duty which is prescribed in the scriptures or is at least in harmony with the overall principles given in the scriptures. Animal killing for the purpose of testing isn’t in either category.
- As all living beings are the children of God, killing them is like killing our own brothers and sisters, and so incurs a heavy karmic penalty. (See Prabhupada quote below)
- The same principle would apply to embryonic cell research; there’s a soul in the embryo that is as much a child of God as is any other soul.
- With the guidance of a mature senior devotee who knows the field, one can re-adjust one’s career focus so that one can avoid such violent activities just for the sake of a livelihood.
***
Indian lady: Swamiji, what would happen if a person (unintelligible)
Prabhupada: I cannot follow.
Indian lady: (unintelligible)
Pradyumna: In college if they start to study biology or zoology, it involves killing animals, dissection. Is that a sin?
Prabhupada: Yes, certainly. You cannot kill even an ant.
Indian lady: Then you could give up such study?
Prabhupada: That is your business. What can I say? (laughter) But any kind of animal killing is sin, sinful. [break] Krishna says, sarva-yonishu sambhavanti murtayo yah, tasam mahad yonir brahma aham bija-pradah pita [Bg. 14.4]. Krishna says that “I am the seed-giving father of all living entities in any form.” Sarva-yonishu. Sarva means all, 8,400,000 species and forms. So Krishna is the father, and all living entities are part and parcel of the Lord. They have different dresses according to different karma, but actually, every living entity is part and parcel of God, sons. So suppose a father has got ten sons and one of them or two of them are useless. So if the elder brother wants to make some experiment by killing the younger brother, would the father be pleased? No. Father will be sorry even the intelligent boy is killed or the dull boy is killed. For father, there is no such distinction. Similarly, you cannot kill animals without being sanctioned. That sanction is in the sacrifice. I have already explained, for testing. According to Vedic system, if you kill anybody, then you must be responsible for the sinful life. (end)
Bhagavad-gita 4.20-24, New York, August 9, 1966
Transcript
This is an AI-generated transcript and may contain some errors.
of afterlife. Thank you. Question, do the Vedic literature allow animal testing for the Vedic scripture, animal killing and thus slaughterhouses are condemned? Where do we stand on animal research? Is animal research acceptable because eventually we are helping human race or animals by finding ways to cure a certain disease? Lord Krishna says in Bhagavad Gita chapter 18 verse 7, 8 and 9, prescribability should never be renounced.
If one gives up his prescribability because of illusion, such renunciation is said to be in the mode of ignorance. Anyone who gives up prescribability as troublesome or out of fear of bodily comfort is said to have renounced in the mode of passion, which actually never leads to elevation of renunciation. And when one performs one’s duty because it ought to be done and renounces all material association and all attachment to the fruit, his renunciation is said to be in the mode of goodness.
Can you justify scientific research on animal models such as mice as a prescribability of scientists in the biomedical field because research findings may potentially benefit human race, although this will be just physical and mental benefit and there will be no spiritual gain. Can such a person stay untouched by sinful reactions as a person as a lotus leaf is untouched by water? I know why animal research is necessary for scientific discoveries, but I don’t know if it is right or wrong. Are scientists committing terrible sins every time we do scientific research or can we be unaffected by sinful reaction of animal research if we conduct our research without attachment as mentioned by Lord Krishna in Bhagavad Gita 5, 10? Let’s say we accept animal research as a necessary evil for the greater good, but then what about research on embryonic stem cells? Is research on embryonic stem cells considered a sin because the embryos come from humans? If it is a sin, then aren’t we overlooking the fact that Lord Krishna resides in every living being as a super-soul? We are taught to treat every living being on the same level because Lord Krishna resides in every living being and he does not discriminate among his children.
What authority do we have to decide who gets to be the guinea pig? Where do we draw a line of what is acceptable and what is not? Answer? Thank you for this sincere question. I’ll discuss it in three parts. First is the concept of prescribed duties.
Second is the principle of accepting one evil for other good. Third is the practical application in such a situation. First point regarding prescribed duties, Niyat Karma is the traditional word used for that.
Niyat Karma or prescribed duties refers primarily to the duties that are described or prescribed in the scriptures or in the scriptural tradition. Traditionally, we refer to the duties of Brahmana, Kshatriya, Vaishyas and Shudras. In these duties, certainly animal killing, even for research purposes, would not be included.
In a broader context, if we look at the principle of the Bhagavad Gita, we can include within the ambit of prescribed duties, those activities which are overall in harmony with the broad principles given in the scriptures, even if those particular duties are not directly prescribed in the scriptures. So, for example, a person who is a professor today and he’s teaching, say, material knowledge, which often tends to be atheistic also. Say, like that person is teaching Bang theory or evolution theory or other theories, which often lead to atheistic conclusions, then still that person could be called a Brahmana and his duty could be called prescribed duty.
Although from the technical narrow point of view, traditionally, yajan, yajan, pathan, pathan, naan, parigraha, pathan, pathan, teaching and studying, these two are considered to be teaching and studying Vedic spiritual and Vedic material knowledge, not other knowledge, but broadly that can be included over there. However, activities that anybody and everybody does cannot be called the prescribed duty just because that person is in a social situation or has brought up in a dynasty or a culture where that person is expected or obliged to do that duty. A butcher cannot call his animal slaughtering activity as a prescribed duty because it directly contradicts the principle of respect for all life, which is based on understanding that all living beings as souls are ultimately children of God.
So, animal killing is directly forbidden and nobody can claim that animal killing is one’s prescribed duty. The issue becomes slightly more subtle when it comes to animal testing for medical purposes. Firstly, it also involves killing of animals and those animals are the children of God and that’s why that is also sinful.
When Srila Prabhupada was asked this question explicitly about animal killing, at that time he said that, he was asked if in college if they start to study biology or zoology, it involves killing animals, dissections, is that a sin? Srila Prabhupada replied, yes, certainly. You cannot kill even an ant. Then the lady asked him, you could give up such study? He is asking what should one do? So, Srila Prabhupada replies that that is your business, what can I say? But any kind of killing, animal killing is sinful.
Srila Prabhupada quotes 14.4 from the Bhagavad Gita, I am the seed giving father of all living beings, sarva yonisha kaunteya murtaya samavantiya. And then he says that if an older brother thinks that one of the brothers is useless and he thinks that I will kill him for some purpose of experiment, the father will be very sorry. And for the father, all of my children, whether the dull son is killed or the intelligent son is killed, it’s sinful.
And the father will be very very not just displeased but outraged, devastated. So, you cannot kill animals without being sanctioned. Srila Prabhupada concludes by saying that sanction is not a sacrifice.
So, now traditionally there was something called Ashwamedha Yajna where animals were sacrificed. But that was for a purpose of validating the accuracy of the Vedic mantras. So, if the animals had been killed properly, then they would get the new body immediately, a higher elevated body, generally human body, provided the mantras had been chanted properly during the performance of the sacrifice and the killing of the animals.
The whole process involved mystical higher elements to which today’s sacrifice performance have no access. And in fact, Brahma Vyavarta Purana says that in Kali Yuga, Ashwamedham Gavalambam, that these sort of sacrifices are forbidden. And Srimad Bhagavatam also describes how in the fourth canto, Maharaj Vachiniparishad, although he has performed sacrifices within the ambit of the Vedic literature, still because the sacrifices were performed improperly, all those animals were going to come and torture him in his postnatal state.
Postnatal means after death duration. So, Narada Muni gives him a mystical vision of all that and then inspires him to become detached from these worldly rituals. So, here, this principle of animal sacrifice in a regulated way during the fire sacrifices, is it an example of accepting one evil for a larger good? Not exactly, because actually speaking, there is no evil.
Although the animal is killed, the animal is immediately elevated to a human body, whereas otherwise it would have to go through the evolutionary cycle and gradually come to the human body. So, one can say that there is some evil in the sense that the animal is killed, but as far as the animal is concerned, it is getting a better body and an opportunity to attain liberation from the cycle of birth and death eventually. So, therefore, it is not in that sense directly doing any evil, but as far as the principle of accepting the evil for the sake of good is concerned, that principle in general can be accepted, but its specific application needs to be carefully considered and in general one needs the guidance of Guru Sadhu Shastra to understand where it can be applied and where it cannot be applied.
So, with respect to Shila Prabhupada’s specific example, there are several other conversations of Shila Prabhupada also, where Shila Prabhupada was introduced to a person who used to dissect frogs for the sake of animal testing and Prabhupada expressed his disapproval, displeasure about it, saying that it is only animal killing, that poor frogs are getting killed. So, now, it is a very anthropocentric view of the creation of the universe by which we humans think that because our life is more important that we have a right to kill other animals for our sake, but that is not a view that the Vedic literature agree to. And in Ayurveda, which is the traditional Vedic medicinal system, the Charaka Samhita, Sushruta Samhita, do not actually talk about testing anything on any animals, just for the sake of experimentation so that one can eventually do something good for human beings.
So, this principle is not applicable from the Vedic point of view in the case of animal killing. So, coming to the third point about the practical application, if one is already fixed in a particular career, which entails certain kind of activities, then it is actually difficult to reorient oneself. But at the same time, if one recognizes that there are far greater difficulties which may result if one continues to actually engage in bad karma, then that contemplation may impel one to think of ways in which one can gravitate towards at least the least violent, least sinful area within one’s profession.
If one tries sincerely and if it consults some senior devotees, then one can get guidance and Krishna can also arrange situations by which gradually one can move to a profession where one doesn’t have to do such violence and incur such karmic reactions. There are many devotees who were in professions well-established for several generations of, say, manufacturing wine or into hotel industry where it was serving wine and meat, and they had to go through some substantial remoulding, but they have emerged through it and many of them have established successful and flourishing careers and businesses in alternative fields which did not involve such sins. So, this may not be possible immediately, but at least one can express one’s desire to Krishna sincerely and do what one can to at least gravitate towards the least sinful direction in one’s profession and gradually, by taking the guidance of some senior devotees and exploring various career options, one can switch over to a different career entirely.