Are We do sinful activity daliy ?

Hare Krishna to all of you. Kindly note that i am very begginer for KC if i am wrong then plz correct me.As per our sciptures every living entity has a soul, without soul every living entity is matter. If someone kill to another man, animals then he is killer and he is sinful according to spirituality. So my dought is we are killing our day to day life lot of living entity like mosquito, flies, house lizards, harmful living thing and so on.So accordling our spiritual books each animals, plants, inesect has soul.Then we become sinful after killing such living entity ?Are we open the doors of hell ourself?Kindly guide me.*If my question/ dought is not proper then forget it and forgive me.Hare Krishna !Pravin P.

You need to be a member of ISKCON Desire Tree | IDT to add comments!

Join ISKCON Desire Tree | IDT

Email me when people reply –


  • Killing is killing and it has the reaction. It is sinful.

    But if you are killing for KRISHNA's service, like you cut vegitables for preparing Bhoga for Krishna, the SIN is nullified immediately when you offer it to Krishna.

    KRISHNA clearly says if someone cooks for himself and eats any vegitables / plants / grains etc. he is eating SIN. We therefore must offer it to KRISHNA and then only you can have the food.

    One should also avoid killing of insects, mosquitos etc, you may avoid them by using repellents.





  • Volunteer

    Hare Krishna dear Devotees, please accept my humble obeisances! All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

    Jada Bharata was so attentive and determinate to achieve his goal of love for Godhead so he was very careful of bringing any pain to any one. Even to ants.

    While walking he used to be careful of not stepping on an ant...

    He did not talk useless things saving his energy, time for remembering of Krishna. 

    Yes, in our life style we can not be as like him but at least try. 


    It is true that we are killing many living entities while performing our duties. Because of that in Vedic culture it is recommended to give up 50% of our income for the spiritual purpose. 

    Or else we will get reactions for our sins even though very small sins.

    But when we give our income as a charity to Krishna then He only can neutralize our sins.


    The same thing is with plants. When we cut or truly kill them we have to do it in the consciousness of Krishna. Being conscious of that i am killing these vegetables in order to offer them to Krishna.

    Your servant, 

  • Volunteer

    If you dont clap on mosquitoes then they will suck your Blood and may cause Dengue and malaria 

    because of that we can use fan or nets in order not to clap them. 

    Your servant, 

  • Hare Krishna and All Glories unto Srila Prabhupada!

    Yes, sometimes during our day we will unintentionally kill living entities. The sinful reactions of our deeds, however, can be nullified by chanting the minimum 16 rounds a day established by Srila Prabhupada and by following the four regulative principles. Sri Lord Krishna understands that we are mortal and that thus we cannot avoid stepping on every insect or even accidentally killing bacterial life. The best we can do is to respect life as much as humanly possible and to consume prasadam [spiritual food] that is karma-free and that will actually destroy bad karma.

    Haribol and I hope this helps!

    Bhakta Sekou

  • Taken from:

    Yes, there is an inevitable, unavoidable, and unintentional death of millions of life forms as we go about our daily business. But the purpose of ahimsa is to minimize killing, not to stop it. By being a vegetarian, we prevent the unnecessary slaughter of innocent creatures. By refusing to wear leather or fur, we diminish the suffering in this world. By refusing to use cosmetics or other products that have been tested on animals, we send a message to their manufacturers.

    But the flesh-eater says, "You vegetarians aren't minimizing killing. You're just transferring it. Instead of killing animals, you're killing plants. In fact, a vegetarian kills more plants than a meat-eater kills animals! How many wheat plants had to be killed just to take the place of a pound of meat, which is just a small fraction of a cow?" This is an interesting point. The person who says this undoubtedly thinks of himself as an intelligent individual, carefully weighing the pros and cons of every argument, and comes to a conclusion by the use of careful logic and deductive reasoning. He also probably sees himself as open-minded, level-headed... a practical, yet compassionate person, but doesn’t understand that wheat plants are already dried up when they are cut and harvested.

    You will soon see, however, that his open-mindedness and his judicial "weighing of the facts" will go right out the window as soon as he sees that his sense gratification is threatened. In other words, his compassion ends where his taste buds begin. Educate him concerning the facts: You have to feed 16 pounds of grain and soybeans to a cow to produce one pound of edible beef. In other words, to produce 500 pounds of meat on a 700 pound cow requires that the cow consume 8,000 pounds of grains and soybeans. And you can feed many, many more people with 8,000 pounds of grains and beans than with the 500 pounds of beef. So, the killing of a cow entails not only the cow's death, but the death of all the plants that the cow ate during her lifetime. Therefore, if this person was truly sincere in his desire to minimize killing, even the killing of plants, he would become a vegetarian!

    This "16-to-1" ratio concerning the wastefulness of meat production is a widely accepted fact. No one can deny it. Any beef producer will admit that he buys (or grows) far more pounds of feed for his cattle than what he sells as meat. Meat production is horribly wasteful. Meat feeds a few at the expense of many. Futurists predict that, as the population of the world grows, vegetarian diets will be the norm, since the limited resources of the planet will be unable to supply the demands required to produce meat. This is a major reason why India is able to grow its own food (and even export the excess)... because so many Indians are vegetarians. If they took to the wasteful American meat-centered diet, they would not be able to produce the grains and beans required to feed livestock destined for slaughter.

    The above argument (concerning the wasteful 16-to-1 ratio of meat production) is a key argument in the ethical, ecological, and environmental arguments against meat-eating. In environmental matters, for instance, the largest culprit against the environment is the farm industry. Because it takes 16 times more food to feed cattle than what we receive in return, that means we are using 16 times more land than is necessary to produce food. And this land is mostly cleared forests and drained wetlands, which are growing in short supply, and are essential for the biological diversity of nature. While the US condemns Brazil for the destruction of the rainforest (at 60 acres a minute) for pastureland for beef cattle, the US is losing 12 acres of forest a minute, primarily to agriculture. The largest polluter of rivers, lakes, and underground aquifers (for water wells) is not the manufacturing industry, but the agriculture industry, by the runoff from chemical fertilizers, manure and pesticides. If farmland presently engaged in the production of livestock was reduced to 1/16th of the current usage (by switching to a vegetarian diet), everyone would still be fed, and the reduction of pollution would be enormous.

    Furthermore, there is the shortage of water. In drought-stricken California, they are concerned about the lack of water. In fact, the mighty Colorado River no longer reaches the ocean... it is used up before it gets there, primarily for irrigation of grains and soybeans... to feed beef cattle. According to the US Department of Agriculture, more than half of the water that is used in the United States is used for livestock production.

    This is an era of dwindling natural resources, especially fossil fuels (petroleum). It is such a concern that the US was willing to engage Iraq in war to preserve America's access to the oil in the Persian Gulf region. It is interesting to note the findings of the US Department of Commerce: 33% of all raw materials used in the US are devoted to the production of livestock. Again, this is not just for raising livestock, but includes the growing of grains and beans to feed the livestock. It is estimated that it takes 2 calories of fossil fuels to produce 1 calorie of protein from soybeans. But it takes 78 calories of fossil fuel to produce 1 calorie of protein from beef. If only one fifth of the people in the US were vegetarian, the US would no longer need to depend on imported oil. Although many Christians will say that a vegetarian diet is "un-American", the fact of the matter is that a person who is sincerely concerned for the United States (in other words, a true patriot) would become a vegetarian!

    The powerful meat industry has a feeble "response" to this damning data. Here it is: "The food that is fed to the animals is not fit for human consumption." This is true, but it is not the whole truth. It is a clever way of misleading the public. It is not fit for human consumption because of the way it is processed after harvesting, with no sanitary measures. Once it is bought for animal feed, it is processed differently. But the crops in the field are certainly fit! 95% of the oats grown in the US are fed to livestock. Are we to naively believe that only 5% "meets the grade" for human consumption?

    And then consider the ethical argument: it is estimated that 20,000,000 people per year die of malnutrition throughout the world. Yet if Americans would just reduce their intake of meat by only 10%, the amount of land, water, and energy freed could produce enough vegetarian food to feed 60,000,000 people annually.

    Last, but not least, meat is unnecessary. There is no nutrient in meat that is not found in a vegetarian diet. The medical community constantly reminds us to cut down on meat intake. In fact, the only persons encouraging the increase of meat consumption is the American Meat Industry Board. Why do you think that is?

    After presenting these arguments, you will soon see how open-minded your debate opponent really is. If meat is 1) wasteful, 2) unethical, 3) hazardous to health, 4) detrimental to the environment, and, most of all, 5) completely unnecessary, how can one justify it’s use as a foodstuff? If one engages in such activities, simply to gratify his own senses, and these activities inflict pain on other sentient life forms, one can be sure that this is a prime example of demoniac mentality. "Those persons with the mentality of demons do not know what is to be done, and what is prohibited. They ignore proper behavior as well as truth... these foolish persons engage in useless, unbeneficial activities meant for the pain and destruction of the world." (Bhagavad-Gita 16.7,9)

    Defending Dharma
    How to defend Sanatana-dharma against the arguments of Christianity.
    • Sorry I didn't want to include all the details but thought may help someone else...

This reply was deleted.