Giving up on Commercial Milk saves cows?

January 1, 2004

Hare Krishna!

All glories to Gopal the supreme cowherd!

Y.s.

Hrimati dasi

January 1, 2004

I have been pondering on this argument regarding whether or not one should

take on a cow.

On the one side there is the argument that one should not take a cow, unless

one can guarantee that he can look after it for its life, and the life of

its offspring.

On the other seems to be an idea that anything done to protect cows is good,

even if it meets ultimately with failure.

It seems that often to meet the requirement to guarantee the cows and their

offsprings life, means having tens of thousands of dollars upfront.

If someone does not have such guaranteed funds at their disposal, then they

would not be able to care for a cow.

The more I ponder this, the more it seems incongruous with the teachings of

Srila Prabhupada. I mean in the sense that he never advised the devotees to

make sure that they had hundreds of thousands of dollars in the bank to

'guarantee' the cows. Of course in those days we did things on faith.

In one sense there is no such thing as a guarantee. Economic meltdown can

occur at any time. 20's depression America comes to mind, and it could

easily happen again.

While it is certainly lamentable when one sees a cow suffering, or someone

becoming overburdened due to thoughtlessness, who can actualy control these

things?

While the guarantee might help, it also might put off someone who could have

succeeded without access to vast amounts of dollars, and therefore cows that

could have had a chance, were sent to the slaughterhouse.

Surely it is Krsna who controls all of this?

In all humility I beg to question, is this guarantee really the best way to

deal with the situation? While we can all see (the examples of) the devotee

who fails, it is impossible to see the devotee who might have succeeded, and

the amount of cows that might have been saved.

Sometimes it seems that even devotees forget that Karma is actualy the cause

of suffering. Many meat eaters are cursed to take birth as cows, and be

slaughtered again and again. None of us can tell which cow is destined to

suffer, which cow is destined to have a little relief and then suffer, and

which cow is destined for full loving protection. This is all a mystery to

us.

I remember back 27 years ago when I first joined at the Manor. A calf was

born who could not straighten its front legs, after about a week all the

skin wore off (despite so many bandages and attempts to get it to stand

straight), and you could see the bones on its knees, but the devotees dare

not call the vet because he would certainly put it down. I remember being so

exasperated as an onlooker at this situation (I was only 16), that this calf

would have to suffer so much and there was nothing we could do. It was born

into a protected environment, but we could not protect it from its karma.

So while it is admirable to exhort the devotees to think, think and think

again before accepting the responsibility to raise a cow, still I question

the right to legislate; to insist that someone must have 'iron shod'

guarantees before taking a cow on. I feel that it just might serve to 'kill

off' any initiative that someone might have to perform a noble act.

When the England football team coach publicly stated that disabled people

were simply reaping the rewards of their Karma, the British establishment

were outraged that he could suggest that 'innocent' disabled people were

somehow to blame for their own predicament. But it is a fact. So is it not

better to attempt to perform a noble deed, than to never attempt it?

It is after all our karma and the karma of the animal that are coming

together.

Srila Bhaktissiddhanta Sarasvati once said that we relish the rewards given

by the lord, and hate the punishments he awards us, but the devotee

understands that the punishments and rewards of the Lord are ultimately all

for our benefit and we should be equal to them both.

I personaly hold the opinion that cows should be protected only out of duty

or love, and never for business. If there is excess milk, it may be sold,

but that should not be the motive. It seems clear that Srila Prabhupada saw

cow protection as an integral part of daivi varnasrama community and this

was meant solely for us to advance in Krsna Consciousness, nothing else.

If we can do anything to protect cows and ensure they are protected by

others, then I feel our duty is to clear up all the misconceptions about

Srila Prabhupadas instructions for varnasrama dharma.

Anyway thats my two bits worth, sorry to be so lengthy.

Your servant

Samba das

January 1, 2004

Gopal - consider taking this post and there is another one a little later,

and merging them and making an article to post on Chakra. You express

yourself very honestly and realistically.

And for the others - at the time Gopal left NV, his ex wife kept the cow and

was makinga payment every month for its upkeep for a while even after she

lost interst in it, so he didn't directly leave the cow at the temple's

doorstep.

As far as being banned for life for being a divorcee? I never heard that,

was that a Nityo management deal? There is new management here now and I am

sure noone even remembers that proclamation. Maybe Nityo, but since he

himself has divorced his vow of sannyasa, his opinion carries less weight in

these matters now. Still too much IMHO, but that is somethng else. The new

management is always struggling with him and his reactionary associates.

Incidentally, Govardhan has reconcilied with his wife and is back living in

NV, going to college.

I also maintained those 25 miles of fence for a few years. When I started we

had 200 cows on pasture and 160 year round in the barn, and a lot of that

fence had to be rebuilt. No money from the temple (tho 20 at a shot would

have money togo over to Mayapur festival to exault swamis), but I got a

large independent donation from Mother VedaPriya, who was dying at the time

from a chronic disease, and wanted to do something for the cows.

> I saw the picture of Ekadasi and must admit that she is still as beautiful

as

> ever. After paying my rent this month, I will have about $75.00 in the

bank;

> If anyone wants to adopt a cowherd family... I am going for a promotion at

my

> work and will know the results in January. After that we will certainly

> consider giving what ever we can for her upkeep. Again, I had know idea

that

> she was

> given to the general heard.

>is

> instability.

> > >

> >>

January 1, 2004

>The temple shouldnt gripe about taking care of unproductive cows.

They aren't, but they have all they can handle with there own.

> We accepted a cow a year ago because her owner couldnt take care of

her

> and as soon as she walked in the gate she sat down and gave birth to a

> beautiful black calf, Kalindi... after a 5 km walk on the road. We are

> controlling our breeding, but we are a Trust for cow protection so we

have

> an obligation to accept cows in difficulty.

So you have an open door policy to accept any cow that is brought to you?

> At least every devotee can Adopt a cow.

> your servant labangalatika

If they did, starting with the leadership in ISKCON, there would be a sea

change. Now the vast majority of devotees drink milk and take no

responsibilty for protection.

January 1, 2004

[This message was in HTML format]

Samba Prabhu...., Hare Krsna.... This is the best yet.... You are at one with

the ideal... I could never say what you have said with the same great

quality... but I feel the same as you in my understanding of what is and what

should be... The first thing that came to my head after reading this was " I

love that guy"....; You are true.. This is reality...

Hare Krsna......

Derek-

>I have been pondering on this argument regarding whether or not one should

>take on a cow.

>

>On the one side there is the argument that one should not take a cow, unless

>one can guarantee that he can look after it for its life, and the life of

>its offspring.

>

>On the other seems to be an idea that anything done to protect cows is good,

>even if it meets ultimately with failure.

>

>It seems that often to meet the requirement to guarantee the cows and their

>offsprings life, means having tens of thousands of dollars upfront.

>

>If someone does not have such guaranteed funds at their disposal, then they

>would not be able to care for a cow.

>

>The more I ponder this, the more it seems incongruous with the teachings of

>Srila Prabhupada. I mean in the sense that he never advised the devotees to

>make sure that they had hundreds of thousands of dollars in the bank to

>'guarantee' the cows. Of course in those days we did things on faith.

>

>In one sense there is no such thing as a guarantee. Economic meltdown can

>occur at any time. 20's depression America comes to mind, and it could

>easily happen again.

>

>While it is certainly lamentable when one sees a cow suffering, or someone

>becoming overburdened due to thoughtlessness, who can actualy control these

>things?

>

>While the guarantee might help, it also might put off someone who could have

>succeeded without access to vast amounts of dollars, and therefore cows that

>could have had a chance, were sent to the slaughterhouse.

>

>Surely it is Krsna who controls all of this?

>

>In all humility I beg to question, is this guarantee really the best way to

>deal with the situation? While we can all see (the examples of) the devotee

>who fails, it is impossible to see the devotee who might have succeeded, and

>the amount of cows that might have been saved.

>

>Sometimes it seems that even devotees forget that Karma is actualy the cause

>of suffering. Many meat eaters are cursed to take birth as cows, and be

>slaughtered again and again. None of us can tell which cow is destined to

>suffer, which cow is destined to have a little relief and then suffer, and

>which cow is destined for full loving protection. This is all a mystery to

>us.

>

>I remember back 27 years ago when I first joined at the Manor. A calf was

>born who could not straighten its front legs, after about a week all the

>skin wore off (despite so many bandages and attempts to get it to stand

>straight), and you could see the bones on its knees, but the devotees dare

>not call the vet because he would certainly put it down. I remember being so

>exasperated as an onlooker at this situation (I was only 16), that this calf

>would have to suffer so much and there was nothing we could do. It was born

>into a protected environment, but we could not protect it from its karma.

>

>So while it is admirable to exhort the devotees to think, think and think

>again before accepting the responsibility to raise a cow, still I question

>the right to legislate; to insist that someone must have 'iron shod'

>guarantees before taking a cow on. I feel that it just might serve to 'kill

>off' any initiative that someone might have to perform a noble act.

>

>When the England football team coach publicly stated that disabled people

>were simply reaping the rewards of their Karma, the British establishment

>were outraged that he could suggest that 'innocent' disabled people were

>somehow to blame for their own predicament. But it is a fact. So is it not

>better to attempt to perform a noble deed, than to never attempt it?

>

>It is after all our karma and the karma of the animal that are coming

>together.

>

>Srila Bhaktissiddhanta Sarasvati once said that we relish the rewards given

>by the lord, and hate the punishments he awards us, but the devotee

>understands that the punishments and rewards of the Lord are ultimately all

>for our benefit and we should be equal to them both.

>

>I personaly hold the opinion that cows should be protected only out of duty

>or love, and never for business. If there is excess milk, it may be sold,

>but that should not be the motive. It seems clear that Srila Prabhupada saw

>cow protection as an integral part of daivi varnasrama community and this

>was meant solely for us to advance in Krsna Consciousness, nothing else.

>

>If we can do anything to protect cows and ensure they are protected by

>others, then I feel our duty is to clear up all the misconceptions about

>Srila Prabhupadas instructions for varnasrama dharma.

>

>Anyway thats my two bits worth, sorry to be so lengthy.

>

>Your servant

>Samba das

Take advantage of our limited-time introductory offer for dial-up Internet

access. .

January 1, 2004

> I have been pondering on this argument regarding whether or not one should

> take on a cow.

>

Ponder this. Should one take on a child? Then apply the same thought

process to taking on a cow. I hope no one would think, I will have a child,

and if it becomes a bother, dump it.

> On the other seems to be an idea that anything done to protect cows is

good,

> even if it meets ultimately with failure.

>

If it is a sincere attempt to protect a cow, and not just a desire for milk,

maybe, but usually the line of argument rests primarily on getting milk, and

it has nothing to do with protection. Certainly, if someone were to take on

a dry cow, or an ox, and try to protect them, but ultimately fail, I would

have no objection. The objection comes in when breeding is involved.

> The more I ponder this, the more it seems incongruous with the teachings

of

> Srila Prabhupada. I mean in the sense that he never advised the devotees

to

> make sure that they had hundreds of thousands of dollars in the bank to

> 'guarantee' the cows. Of course in those days we did things on faith.

And failed. Consistently.

>

> In one sense there is no such thing as a guarantee. Economic meltdown can

> occur at any time. 20's depression America comes to mind, and it could

> easily happen again.

>

This is a weak line of argument. Obviously there are no sure guarantuees in

the material world, but there is also God given intelligence to do something

with reasonable expectation of success.

> While the guarantee might help, it also might put off someone who could

have

> succeeded without access to vast amounts of dollars, and therefore cows

that

> could have had a chance, were sent to the slaughterhouse.

Again, the objection isn't to saving existing cows from slaughterhouse and

trying even if there is no guarantuee. The problem is bringing a new calf

into the world.

>While we can all see (the examples of) the devotee

> who fails,

Because the examples are so numerous.

>it is impossible to see the devotee who might have succeeded, and

> the amount of cows that might have been saved.

Impossible is probably a good choice of words. It is like saying, we have

seen so many people start a long trip in a car with no money, credit card,

or any plan to acuire funds, run out of gas and not make it, but we

shouldn't discourage others from doing exactly the same thing because

someone might make it.

> So while it is admirable to exhort the devotees to think, think and think

> again before accepting the responsibility to raise a cow, still I question

> the right to legislate; to insist that someone must have 'iron shod'

> guarantees before taking a cow on. I feel that it just might serve to

'kill

> off' any initiative that someone might have to perform a noble act.

>

What about the alternative - instead work on programs to create situtations

where they have a chance of success?

>So is it not

> better to attempt to perform a noble deed, than to never attempt it?

If it is noble. But breeding a cow to get milk, with no plan for life time

maintanence, is NOT noble, it is stupid.

January 2, 2004

In a message dated 1/1/2004 4:00:37 PM Central Standard Time,

gourdmad (AT) ovnet (DOT) com writes:

>If they did, starting with the leadership in ISKCON, there would be a sea

>change. Now the vast majority of devotees drink milk and take no

>responsibilty for protection.

This is good to point out, that it is not simply the vast majority of

devotees who "drink irresponsibly". It is the vast majority of temples and

communities, and the temple and community managers are simply following another

body of

governers--the lay-devotees just follow by the example they are given...

"yad yad acarati sresthas tat tad evetaro janah

sa yat pramanam kurute lokas tad anuvartate" Bg 3.21

....and the reverse.

We are hoping that the "milk=brain improvement" thing kicks in.

January 2, 2004

In a message dated 1/1/2004 3:50:14 PM Central Standard Time,

gourdmad (AT) ovnet (DOT) com writes:

>Gopal - consider taking this post and there is another one a little later,

>and merging them and making an article to post on Chakra. You express

>yourself very honestly and realistically.

Thank you - I will consider it

>And for the others - at the time Gopal left NV, his ex wife kept the cow and

>was makinga payment every month for its upkeep for a while even after she

>lost interst in it, so he didn't directly leave the cow at the temple's

>doorstep.

Again, Thank you.

>As far as being banned for life for being a divorcee? I never heard that,

>was that a Nityo management deal? There is new management here now and I am

>sure noone even remembers that proclamation. Maybe Nityo, but since he

>himself has divorced his vow of sannyasa, his opinion carries less weight in

>these matters now.

Actually the final word came from Kuladri.

When I last visited Varsana Swami in spring 2001, I remained there for

several days incognito (due to previous implied ban). Varsana Swami spilled the

beans to Kuladri and Kuladri wanted to meet me. I spoke with him for a few

minutes

and expressed my sincere desire to return with my new family and resume my

service and take care of VS's health as well.

Kuladri said, "DO IT! You and your family can stay, and if anyone tells you

different, tell them to talk to me (Kuladri)."

Well, elated as ever, I went to the snack bar and took prasad. Then mother

Jai Sri came up and said her happy greetings. When she asked where I lived, I

(honest as ever I ever was) said "Here soon". She said "Oh" I said "yup" and

said that Kuladri said I could and that if anyone had a problem with it they

should go talk to him.

Without a word, she walked across the courtyard towards Kuladri's office. The

next day he called for me and told me that as much as he wanted to keep his

word, I could not stay..something about understimating the matiji resitance

movement. Because I took another wife too soon (my 'good wife' and way too

soon)

I became a "woman's issue". Never mind the fact that I was HN's 2nd husband

(of 3) or that I have been remarried twice as long as I was with her. Anyway If

this temple starts up here in Iowa City, I will come for TP meetings. ; P

>Incidentally, Govardhan has reconcilied with his wife and is back living in

>NV, going to college.

This is the best news I have heard in a long long time!!! Do you know how I

could get ahold of him?

>I also maintained those 25 miles of fence for a few years. When I started we

>had 200 cows on pasture and 160 year round in the barn, and a lot of that

>ence had to be rebuilt. No money from the temple (tho 20 at a shot would

>have money togo over to Mayapur festival to exault swamis), but I got a

>large independent donation from Mother VedaPriya, who was dying at the time

>from a chronic disease, and wanted to do something for the cows.

This, I remenber, you tought us how to herd cows with a pickup - lol! You

were always an inspiration with your knowledge, experience, practicality, and

straightforwardness. You still are!

January 2, 2004

In a message dated 1/1/04 5:26:29 PM Eastern Standard Time,

gourdmad (AT) ovnet (DOT) com writes:

> What about the alternative - instead work on programs to create situtations

> where they have a chance of success? (Yes why not? eka)

>

> >So is it not

> > better to attempt to perform a noble deed, than to never attempt it?

>

> If it is noble. But breeding a cow to get milk, with no plan for life time

> maintanence, is NOT noble, it is stupid

I would humbly like to point out that the beginning of this, I think quite

valuable, conversation going on was not about breeding. A cow was saved from a

slaughterhouse. It had a calf inside it. This is what Gourmad just said is

this e-mail was right to do. Save them from slaughter. He said one without

milk, or an ox. So should we exclude saving one with milk and a child about to

be slaughtered??? Somehow or other what appeared to be attacks started flying

on a compassionate soul, who was doing what gourmad just ordained as right.

Unless of course we should discriminate in who should be saved from the axe.

How can a workable plan to help those who have the heart and conviction to at

least attempt this very time consuming responsiblity be developed, if it is

not giving respect to and loving support for those who have the desire to do

this. Otherwise it is just another case of some "fanatics" wanting to feel

that

they are the only one serving God properly, and therefore everyone else is

lower. And I am using the term fanatic in the sense of having conviction.

Which is a good thing. But what one is firm about in their expectations of

themself should not be harshly put upon their expectations of others.

Yes please develop information, guidelines, make people sorely aware of how

much responsiblility it is to take on a cow. But don't be harsh, judgemental,

pointing out every failure, without first knowing all the facts and

considering that people, life is fallible.

obeisances ekaBuddhi

January 2, 2004

In a message dated 1/1/04 5:40:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,

gourdmad (AT) ovnet (DOT) com writes:

> Ponder this. Should one take on a child? Then apply the same thought

> process to taking on a cow. I hope no one would think, I will have a child,

> and if it becomes a bother, dump it

Happens all the time. even in Iskcon. As was pointed out by I believe

dasgopal?

First the families have to be happy, then we can adopt.....a cow, another

child, a friend, someone else advice. eka

January 2, 2004

I second the Chakra article idea.

January 2, 2004

[This message was in HTML format]

> >The temple shouldnt gripe about taking care of unproductive cows.

>

>They aren't, but they have all they can handle with there own.

Not when they are waiting for them to die off..... But I can see that its

effect could be held on that the temple land ( which can never be encombered

on) ( and sustains cows) is becoming smaller and there is the rare few

migrating cow heard bhaktas, ect.. that are becoming more rare... Does NV have

an adopt- a- cow program of sort...?????? (For cows)...???

> > We accepted a cow a year ago because her owner couldnt take care of

>her

> > and as soon as she walked in the gate she sat down and gave birth to a

> > beautiful black calf, Kalindi... after a 5 km walk on the road. We are

> > controlling our breeding, but we are a Trust for cow protection so we

>have

> > an obligation to accept cows in difficulty.

>

>So you have an open door policy to accept any cow that is brought to you?

>

> > At least every devotee can Adopt a cow.

> > your servant labangalatika

>

>If they did, starting with the leadership in ISKCON, there would be a sea

>change. Now the vast majority of devotees drink milk and take no

>responsibilty for protection.

Very true, but what to do... sit around and point fingers....??? Seems your

good at that..

Hari....!

Get reliable dial-up Internet access now with our limited-time introductory

offer. .

January 2, 2004

I agree with most of your position on this. Sincerity is required for cow

protection to work. Greed is not at all the right motivation.

In a sense this is the problem, who can tell the greedy from the sincere?

Its only afterwards that it becomes clear. By then its too late.

I feel the only solution is education. To be effective it has to come from

the leaders, and there is not much sign of that happening right now.

There is saying by Emil Durkheim:

Where social norms are in place, laws are unnecesary.

Where social norms are absent, laws are unenforcable.

We are supposed to be a society, but as long as we do not actualy allow a

Krsna conscious society (I mean in the greater sense) to develop, as Srila

Prabhupada desired, then we will continue to have these ill thought out

disasters. We just dont have enough of the right role models.

I dont think legislation is going to prevent anything. Who follows ISKCON

laws? They are unenforcable.

> What about the alternative - instead work on programs to create

> situtations where they have a chance of success?

I agree entirely. We are in a good position here in Spain with several

leaders backing up the creation of Madhuvan varnasrama Eco-Village on 40

hectares of New Vrajamandala land.

> If it is noble. But breeding a cow to get milk, with no plan for life time

> maintanence, is NOT noble, it is stupid.

I agree entirely.

Your servant

Samba das

January 3, 2004

> In a message dated 1/1/04 5:40:26 PM Eastern Standard Time,

> gourdmad (AT) ovnet (DOT) com writes:

>

> > Ponder this. Should one take on a child? Then apply the same thought

> > process to taking on a cow. I hope no one would think, I will have a

> > child, and if it becomes a bother, dump it

>

> Happens all the time. even in Iskcon. As was pointed out by I believe

> dasgopal?

> First the families have to be happy, then we can adopt.....a cow, another

> child, a friend, someone else advice. eka

This seems (to me at least) to be the right way to view the situation.

Rather than imposing rules that will probaboy be ignored, better to generate

enthusiasm. Education is the way to get people to realise by themselves what

is wrong, rules are simply a botheration for most people. This is probably

why even some of our own GBC's dont follow the laws of ISKCON.

YS Samba das