Consequently, if men want to initiate themselves into the path of return to God, they must first and foremost put an end to all animal killing, in all its forms. It is absurd to believe that the slaughter of animals does not hinder spiritual realization in any way. With the age of Kali, a large number of so-called renunciants or hermits appeared, propagating this dangerous idea and thereby encouraging, under the cover of Vedic law, the slaughter of animals. The question was already raised during a conversation between Sri Caitanya and Maulana Chand Kadi Shaheb: the animal sacrifices recommended in the Vedas have nothing to do with the massacre of innocent animals in slaughterhouses. But because the asuras, or false scholars of the Vedas, insisted so strongly on this aspect of animal sacrifices, Buddha could only pretend to deny the authority of the sacred texts. He did so only in order to tear men away from this vice of killing animals, and also to protect the poor animals from the massacre reserved for them by their “elders,” so eager - in words - for brotherhood, peace, justice and universal equality. Where then is justice in allowing the killing of innocent animals?

Buddha therefore wanted to put a definitive end to all this butchery, and his cult of ahimsa was propagated for this purpose, not only in India, but also far beyond the continent.

Technically speaking, one might say that Buddha's philosophy is a form of atheism, because it does not recognize the Supreme Lord and denies the authority of the Vedas. But this is merely a cover-up on the part of the Lord. Buddha, as a divine manifestation, identifies with the original author of Vedic knowledge, and therefore cannot reject it. If he pretended to do so, it was because the sura-dvisas, the demonic beings who are constantly jealous of the devotees of the Lord, were trying to justify the slaughter of the cow, or of animals in general, from the Vedic Texts (as some “fashionable” hermits still do). It is solely for this reason that Buddha had to reject the authority of the Vedic Scriptures in bloc. His enterprise is purely tactical, and it must be understood that if it had been otherwise, he would not have been recognized as the avatar announced in the Scriptures themselves, nor would the poet Jayadeva have revered him in his sublime hymns. Buddha resumed the teaching of the basic principles of the Vedas, but according to the demands of the time (as Acarya Sankara would also do later), precisely in order to reestablish the authority of the Vedas. Both, the avatar Buddha and Sankaracarya, cleared the way for theism again, and the Vaisnava acaryas who came afterward, especially Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu, who was none other than the Lord, guided men on this path, leading them to realize God and return to Him.

For our part, we consider the general public interest in Buddha's nonviolent movement to be positive, but will it be taken seriously enough to close all these slaughterhouses? And if not, what meaning can the cult of ahimsa have?