Will Hare Krishnas Go Vegan?
The Hare Krishna movement has spearheaded the growth of vegetarianism in the
West.
"The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) has
contributed tremendously to the growth of vegetarianism in the U.S. and
elsewhere, and for that... it deserves the gratitude and respect of the
civilized world."
--Dr. Alex Hershaft, Farm Animal Reform Movement (FARM)
"The International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) is doing a
superb job of letting people know that vegetarian food is healthful,
delicious, and pleasing to the eye."
--Scott Smith, Associate Editor, Vegetarian Times
In his 2004 book, Holy Cow: the Hare Krishna Contribution to Vegetarianism
and Animal Rights, when describing the Hare Krishna Food For Life program,
Steven Rosen (Satyaraja dasa) quotes Srila Prabhupada as having said:
"To distribute prasadam (sanctified vegetarian food offered to the Lord) to
millions of hungry people hankering for spiritual emancipation. This is the
mission of the Krishna consciousness movement." (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.13.9
purport)
According to Steven Rosen, A Nigerian radio station compared the Hare
Krishna Food For Life program with "the second coming of Jesus, because just
as he fed the masses, so the Hare Krishnas were feeding thousands of
people."
2. Veganism is merely a slight disagreement with Srila Prabhupada's
teachings.
In the mid-'80s, Vaishnavas, devotees or worshippers of Lord Vishnu (or
Krishna, who is considered the eighth incarnation of Vishnu), members of the
International Society for Krishna Consciousness (ISKCON) joined forces with
animal activists in Italy, circulating petitions for a ban on hunting!
When the Smith's album Meat Is Murder was climbing the charts in England,
the ISKCON World Review reported it, saying, "Hit Song Blasts Cow
Slaughter."
An initiated (ordained) woman in our clergy wrote an editorial in the ISKCON
World Review around that time: "Animal Rights: the Answer to a Vaishnava's
Prayer."
The animal rights video "We Are All Noah" (animal rights activists courting
the religious community for inspiration, blessings, and support) was shown
in Krishna temples as well, even though (as you can guess from the title)
the video was clearly aimed at members of the Abrahamic faiths... rather
than trying to convince Hindus to become strictly vegan (instead of
lacto-vegetarian), because of the cruelty of the dairy industry.
At a cruelty-free Thanksgiving at a Krishna temple around 1986-88, a turkey
was served... literally! The guest of honor was a live turkey, a living
turkey named Jiva, and Jiva was fed part of the Thanksgiving feast!
And Govinda's Restaurant in San Diego, CA served as a regular meeting place
for members of San Diego Animal Advocates. Dhruva dasa, a bramachari or
Hindu monk, spoke favorably of Sally Mackler for having singlehandedly
started San Diego Animal Advocates.
In the late '80s, San Diego Animal Advocates (a chapter of People for the
Ethical Treatment of Animals, or PETA, before they dissolved the chapter
system for legal purposes) had a booth at Koby's Swap Meet (a kind of flea
market). We had volunteers staffing a booth, selling t-shirts, buttons, and
bumper stickers with pro-animal and pro-environmental messages or logos. We
had petitions to sign and graphic photos of animals being experimented upon,
etc.
Kids would come by, and ask smart-alec questions, like, "Are the donations
*really* going to help animals?" or make references to the Smiths' album
Meat Is Murder.
If there were any couples passing by, it was always the women, moved by the
sight of animal cruelty, who would respond, and come over to sign petitions,
purchase animal paraphernalia, etc., while the men tried to act tough, as if
they weren't affected by the graphic photos.
In the late '80s, Vegetarian Times reported that women are five times as
likely than men to go vegetarian.
When the secular animal rights movement started making headlines in the
1980s, Krishna devotees took it as a sign that their book distribution,
mission, and preaching were influencing mainstream secular American
society.
In the mid-'00s, a member of Food Not Bombs, which distributes vegan food to
the homeless, attended a Sunday Feast at ISKCON Berkeley and referred to
ISKCON as "a wonderful organization."
And as recently as the end of 2007, when Mother Malati Devi visited the
Berkeley Krishna temple, she spoke favorably of the vegans, the animal
activists, saying, "These are our friends."
At the very least, we should have vegan options available at the Sunday
Feasts for them, and allow them to use our temples as meeting places!
In the 2006 edition of the Higher Taste vegetarian cookbook, there are 72
recipes.
19 are vegan; 53 have dairy products in them.
When we distributed free copies of The Higher Taste (the 2006 edition) at
the World Vegetarian Festival in San Francisco in years past, many people
would ask us if it is a vegan cookbook.
"Vegan-friendly!" we would tell them!
There are a significant number of vegan recipes, and simple substitutions
(e.g., olive oil in place of butter or ghee) can be made to make the recipes
vegan.
The Introduction to the 2006 edition of The Higher Taste acknowledges vegans
and itself as a vegan-friendly cookbook:
"The editors are pleased to provide you here with an improved edition with
all-new recipes, including elegant vegan choices and a number of reduced-fat
or low-fat recipes."
The 2006 edition of The Higher Taste is the most progressive book we've got,
as it touches on mad cow disease, factory farming, and global warming, all
of which were absent in the 1983 edition.
But like the 1983 edition, the 2006 edition fails to mention that Leonardo
Da Vinci was a vegan and not merely vegetarian, and that the ancient
Egyptian priests who were vegetarian to help them with their vows of
celibacy were vegan, and that they referred to eggs AND milk as "liquid
flesh."
The 2006 edition of The Higher Taste: A Guide to Gourmet Vegetarian Cooking
and a Karma-Free Diet has an entire chapter on "Factory Farming and
Compassion" and subsequent sections on "Indian Philosophy and Nonviolence";
"The Equality of All Living Things"; and "Do Unto Others..."
As early as 1966, Srila Prabhupada commented about those who kill cows:
"There are very severe (karmic) reactions awaiting all of them (in the
afterlife, that is, in future lifetimes). Cattlemen, cow butchers,
transporters, restaurant owners and consumers. Even the dishwasher."
This is a point Krishna devotees have made repeatedly to pro-lifers, in
secular political language, as well as in biblical theological language: we
reap what we sow. Abortion, like war, is the collective karma for killing
animals. The slippery slope, the mentality which makes abortion possible --
the strong exploiting the weakest and most vulnerable among us -- begins
with humans exploiting animals.
How can we tell people of other faiths killing cows and other animals is
demoniac, killing cows and other animals leads to war and abortion, animal
killers must suffer torment in hell for several lifetimes before being
reborn in lower species, etc. if we ourselves are killing cows? They won't
take us seriously!
My friend Tim Parks, whom I met through Life Chain in 1992, and who spent a
number of years serving as a Protestant missionary in China, said in 2005 he
thought the Dalai Lama was a hypocrite for saying the people of Tibet have a
"special dispensation" which allows them to eat meat... kinda like the gurus
in our movement claiming the factory farmed cows will be blessed if their
milk is offered to Krishna, huh?!
Tim Whitley responded favorably when I posted "Should Hindus Be Vegan?" on
the worldvegansociety email list out of New Zealand in 2013.
"Thanks for posting this... There is a lot of pressure on the Hare Krishnas
now to become vegan.. Some of their restaurants have already made the
transition and are now completely Vegan..."
3. Srila Prabhupada took the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" literally in
conversation with Christian clergy.
At a monastic retreat near Paris in July of 1973, the following conversation
took place between A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and French Roman
Catholic Cardinal Jean Danielou:
ACBSP: Jesus Christ said, "Thou shalt not kill." So why is it that the
Christian people are engaged in animal killing?
CD: Certainly in Christianity it is forbidden to kill, but we believe that
there is a difference between the life of a human being, and the life of the
beasts. The life of a human being is sacred because man is made in the image
of God; therefore, to kill a human being is forbidden.
ACBSP: But the Bible does not simply say, "Do not kill the human being." It
says broadly, "Thou shalt not kill."
CD: We believe that only human life is sacred.
ACBSP: That is your interpretation. The commandment is "Thou shalt not
kill."
CD: It is necessary for man to kill animals in order to have food to eat.
ACBSP: No. Man can eat grains, vegetables, fruits...
CD: No flesh?
ACBSP: No. Human beings are meant to eat vegetarian food. The tiger does not
come to eat your fruits. His prescribed food is animal flesh. But man's food
is vegetables, fruits, grains...So how can you say that animal killing is
not a sin? Jesus Christ taught "Thou shalt not kill." Why do you interpret
this to suit your own convenience? When there is no other food, someone may
eat meat to keep from starving. That is another thing. But it is most sinful
to regularly maintain slaughterhouses just to satisfy your tongue. Actually,
you will not even have a human society until this cruel practice of
maintaining slaughterhouses is stopped.
In 1974, near Frankfurt, Germany, a similar discussion took place with
Father Emmanuel Jungclaussen, a Benedictine monk:
Father Emmanuel: We Christians also preach love of God, and we try to
realize love of God and render service to Him with all our heart and all our
soul. Now, what is the difference between your movement and ours? Why do you
send your disciples to the Western countries to preach love of God when the
gospel of Jesus Christ is propounding the same message?
ACBSP: The problem is that the Christians do not follow the commandments of
God. Do you agree?
FE: Yes, to a large extent you're right.
ACBSP: Then what is the meaning of the Christians' love for God? If you do
not follow the orders of God, then where is your love? Therefore we have
come to teach what it means to love God: if you love Him, you cannot be
disobedient to His orders. And if you're disobedient, your love is not
true...They have rubber-stamped themselves "Christian," "Hindu," or
"Mohammadan," but they do not obey God. That is the problem...The first
point is that they violate the commandment "Thou shalt not kill" by
maintaining slaughterhouses. Do you agree that this commandment is being
violated?
FE: Personally, I agree.
ACBSP: Good. So if the Christians want to love God, they must stop killing
animals... This program follows the teachings of the Bible; it is not my
philosophy. Please act accordingly and you will see how the world situation
will change.
"It Is Contrary To Human Dignity To
Cause Animals To Suffer And Die Needlessly"
--Catechism of the Catholic Church, paragraph 2418
Reverend Basil Wrighton of the Catholic Study Circle for Animal Welfare, in
London, wrote:
"As things are in our society, man is conditioned to violence and bloodshed
from his earliest years... he (or she) can look unmoved at the ghastly
display of mangled limbs and bleeding carcasses in a butcher's shop. And he
(or she) can see nothing but fun in the cruel massacres that are perpetrated
in the name of 'sport.'
"From this it is but a step -- and an easy step -- to accepting the
dismemberment and massacre of one's fellow-men in war as part of the order
of things... And while such an attitude prevails, there can be no hope of
banishing war.
"Our best hope, then, is to address the deeper level of man's psyche and
recondition him in his attitude to the animals. If we can convince him of
the essential outrageousness of killing or injuring an animal, he will be
far less disposed to kill or injure a fellow-man...
"Such a reconditioning of modern Western society may seem so wildly
improbable as to be hopeless. But the thing has happened before, and it
could happen again. The movements associated with the Buddha and Pythagoras
had a profound influence on the world in the direction of nonviolence and
respect for life...
"The Christian gospel is a similar force, with its accent on love and
compassion... Christians have signally failed to extend their charity to the
whole animal world... Christ's Sermon of the Mount is more honoured in the
breach than in observance... and what we call 'Christian civilization' falls
lamentably short of the humane standard of the gospel."
Father John Dear, a vegetarian (he admits he really should be vegan!), wrote
a pamphlet on Christianity and vegetarianism and nonviolence for People for
the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA), and PETA encourages other Christian
clergy and clergy of other faiths to do likewise.
5. The fate of the animals and the fate of man are interconnected.
(Ecclesiastes 3:19)
A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada said in 1974:
"We simply request, 'Don't kill. Don't maintain slaughterhouses.' That is
very sinful. It brings a very awkward karmic reaction upon society. Stop
these slaughterhouses. We don't say, 'Stop eating meat.' You can eat meat,
but don't take it from the slaughterhouse, by killing. Simply wait (until
the animal dies of natural causes) and you'll get the carcasses.
"You are killing innocent cows and other animals--nature will take revenge.
Just wait. As soon as the time is right, nature will gather all these
rascals and slaughter them. Finished. They'll fight among
themselves--Protestants and Catholics, Russia and America, this one and that
one. It is going on. Why? This is nature's law. Tit for tat. 'You have
killed. Now you kill yourselves.'
"They are sending animals to the slaughterhouse, and now they'll create
their own slaughterhouse. You see? Just take Belfast. The Roman Catholics
are killing the Protestants, and the Protestants are killing the Catholics.
This is nature's law. It is not necessary that you be sent to the ordinary
slaughterhouse. You'll make a slaughterhouse at home. You'll kill your own
child--abortion. This is nature's law.
"Who are these children being killed? They are these meat-eaters. They
enjoyed themselves when so many animals were killed and now they're being
killed by their own mothers. People do not know how nature is working. If
you kill you must be killed. If you kill the cow, who is your mother, then
in some future lifetime your mother will kill you. Yes. The mother becomes
the child, and the child becomes the mother.
"We don't want to stop trade, or the production of grains and vegetables and
fruit. But we want to stop these killing houses. It is very, very sinful.
That is why all over the world they have so many wars. Every ten or
fifteen years there is a big war--a wholesale slaughterhouse for humankind.
But these rascals--they do not see it, that by the law of karma, every
action must have its reaction."
Similarly, in his purport to the Srimad Bhagavatam 6.10.9, Srila Prabhupada
writes: "One cannot continue killing animals and at the same time be a
religious man. That is the greatest hypocrisy. Jesus Christ said, 'Do not
kill,' but hypocrites nevertheless maintain thousands of slaughterhouses
while posing as Christians. Such hypocrisy is condemned..."
"If one kills many thousands of animals in a professional way so that other
people can purchase the meat to eat, one must be ready to be killed in a
similar way in his next life and in life after life. There are many rascals
who violate their own religious principles. According to Judeo-Christian
scriptures, it is clearly said, 'Thou shalt not kill.' Nonetheless, giving
all kinds of excuses, even the heads of religions indulge in killing animals
while trying to pass as saintly persons. This mockery and hypocrisy in
human society brings about unlimited calamities; therefore occasionally
there are great wars. Masses of such people go out onto battlefields and
kill themselves. Presently, they have discovered the atomic bomb, which is
simply waiting to be used for wholesale destruction."
(Chaitanya Charitamrita, Madhya 24.251, purport)
And:
"To be nonviolent to human beings and to be a killer or enemy of the poor
animals is Satan's philosophy. In this age there is enmity towards poor
animals, and therefore the poor creatures are always anxious. The reaction
of the poor animals is being forced on human society, and therefore there is
always the strain of cold or hot war between men, individually, collectively
or nationally."
(Srimad Bhagavatam 1.10.6, purport)
4. Thou Shalt Not Kill
"Thou shalt not kill does not apply to murder of one's own kind only; but to
all living beings: and this Commandment was inscribed in the human breast
long before it was proclaimed from Sinai."
--Count Leo Tolstoy
In his 1984 pamphlet, "You Mean *That's* in the Bible?", aimed at a
Christian audience for the purpose of interfaith discussion, on the topic of
vegetarianism, writer Steven Rosen (Satyaraja dasa) writes: "scriptural
knowledge is simple for the simple--but it is difficult for the twisted. The
Bible clearly says 'thou shalt not kill' (Exodus 20:13). It could not be
stated more clearly.
"The exact Hebrew is 'lo tirtzach,' which accurately translates: 'thou shalt
not kill.' One of the greatest scholars of Hebrew/English linguistics (in
the Twentieth Century)--Dr. Reuben Alcalay---has written in his mammoth book
The Complete Hebrew/English Dictionary that 'tirtzach' refers to 'any kind
of killing whatsoever.' The word 'lo,' as you might suspect, means 'thou
shalt not. DON'T KILL! Let's face it, the Bible is clear on this point."
Rosen repeats this observation in his 1987 book, Food for the Spirit:
Vegetarianism and the World's Religions:
"Essential to the principle of compassion and mutual love is the Sixth
Commandment: 'Thou shalt not kill.' Although simple and direct, the
commandment is rarely taken literally. The exact Hebrew for Exodus 20:13,
where this commandment is found, reads 'lo tirtzach.' According to Reuben
Alcalay, the word 'tirtzach' refers to 'any kind of killing whatsoever.' The
exact translation, therefore, asks us to refrain from killing in toto.
"'Thou shalt not' needs no interpretation. The controversial word is 'kill,'
commonly defined as 1) to deprive of life; 2) to put an end to; 3) to
destroy the vital or essential quality of. If anything that has life can be
killed, then an animal can be killed; according to this commandment, the
killing of animals is forbidden.
"Life is commonly defined as the quality which distinguishes a vital and
functioning being from a dead body. Although a complex phenomenon, life
manifests its presence by symptoms as recognizable to a student of the
world's scriptures as to a biologist. All living entities pass through six
phases: birth, growth, maintenance, reproduction, dwindling and death. An
animal, then, by man's definition as well as by God's, qualifies as a living
being. What is living can be killed, and to kill is to break a commandment
as holy as any."
Rosen repeats these arguments again in his 2004 book, Holy Cow: the Hare
Krishna Contribution to Vegetarianism and Animal Rights. "There are several
studies on the significance of 'Thou shalt not kill' from a vegetarian point
of view. The most noted work from this perspective would be Aaron Frankel's
much-referred to book, Thou Shalt Not Kill--the Torah of Vegetarianism,
which was published...in ...1896."
And again:
"According to Reuben Alcalay, one of the twentieth century's great
linguistic scholars and author of The Complete Hebrew-English Dictionary,
the commandment refers to 'any kind of killing whatsoever.'
"The original Hebrew, he says, Lo tirtzakh, which asks us to refrain from
killing in toto. If what he says is true, we can analyze the commandment as
follows: 'Thou shalt not' needs no interpretation. The controversial word is
'kill,' commonly defined as (1) to deprive of life; (2) to put and end to;
(3) to destroy to vital or essential quality of. If anything that has life
can be killed, an animal can be killed as well; according to this
commandment, then, the killing of animals is forbidden."
5. A friendly, theoretical discussion.
We're merely having a friendly theoretical discussion on whether or not the
Krishna Consciousness movement should continue dairy obtained cruelly and
violently even when it flies in the face of Srila Prabhupada's own teachings
on nonviolence and the sacred status of the cow, OR side with the vegans,
the abolitionists, etc. whose views on nonviolence are more consistent with
Srila Prabhupada's.
I'm appealing to Srila Prabhupada's teachings on nonviolence in support of
my views!
A similar trend has occurred in Krishna Consciousness concerning women's
rights. In 1984, Pranada dasi (Lori Comtois) was labelled an upstart, a
"women's libber" for merely suggesting a woman give Srimad Bhagavatam class.
But Pranada dasi was instrumental in the creation of the ISKCON Women's
Ministry which addresses issues like sexism and domestic violence in Krishna
Consciousness.
Similarly, I'm appealing to Srila Prabhupada's own teachings on nonviolence
by saying we should be siding with the vegans, the animal activists, etc.
Srila Prabhupada said in Life Comes from Life that the cows that Lord
Krishna tended in Vrindavan were not ordinary cows, but surabhi cows. In the
pastimes of Krishna and Balaram the cows give their milk freely to the Lord,
whereas in the commercial dairies, in modern factory farming, the cows are
abused and killed in the process of obtaining milk. There's a huge
difference!
Anyone can challenge: "If you believe it's wrong to kill animals, why are
you supporting the factory farms, the commercial dairies, etc. with your
consumer dollars, where the cows are killed in the process of obtaining
their milk? Why are you killing cows just to drink their milk?"
Anyone can challenge: "If you believe the cow is sacred, why are you killing
cows in the process of obtaining cow's milk? Is the milk more sacred than
the cow?!"
It was reported in the '80s that Satsvarupa dasa Goswami made it a point to
abstain from sugar on ekadasi, because white sugar is processed through
animal bones, and thus isn't even vegetarian. Similarly, as long as veganism
is merely seen as a stricter degree of vegetarianism, the vegans and their
views should be welcomed in the association of devotees.
6. The argument that animal byproducts like milk and eggs are obtained
humanely might make sense if this were a hundred years ago, before
agribusiness and factory farming.
In his 1923 book, The Natural Diet of Man, Adventist physician Dr, John
Harvey Kellogg writes:
"It cannot be denied that, while the slaughter of animals and their
preparation for food are offensive to refined human instincts, the very
opposite is true with reference to the varied operations of agriculture by
which the earth is made to yield its wholesome fruits. What is more
delightful than the gathering and eating of nuts and fruits?"
Writing before the emergence of agribusiness and factory farming, Dr.
Kellogg goes on to say:
"Man rears his cattle, his sheep, and his poultry much like household pets.
His children make his lambs their playmates. Side by side his oxen toil
with him in the field. In return for kindness, they give affection. What
confidence they repose in him! How faithfully they serve!
"With winter's frost an evil day arrives -- a day of massacre, of perfidy,
of assassination and bloodshed. With knife and ax, he turns upon his
trusted friends -- the sheep that kissed his hand, the ox that plowed his
field. The air is filled with shrieks and moans, with cries of terror and
despair; the soil is wet with warm blood, and strewn with corpses.
"Is there a brute on earth that would be capable of such a crime? In such
an act have we not the veritable spirit of murder in an aggravated form?
Let us listen to the appeal of a pagan who lived five centuries before
Christ (Pythagoras)..."
7. Dairy and Factory Farming
Please distinguish between the mere milking of a cow on an individual basis
without machinery and without mass production Vs the way milk is obtained
through modern factory farming, institutionalized cruelty, machinery, and
mass production.
The commercial dairies ARE killing cows just to provide consumers with milk,
yes!
Dairy consumers are aiding and abetting animal cruelty.
An Action For Animals pamphlet entitled How You Can Help Animals says:
"Consuming dairy products -- even organic -- supports the veal industry.
Without a supply of calves from dairy farms, most veal farms would not
exist."
"Cheese and milk represent tremendous disrespect and hurt, and there is no
reason to think it is less than that which goes into the processing of
flesh... Drink milk, and veal happens," says Friends of Animals (www.friendsofanimals.org)
Vegans aren't implicated in that kind of violence!
8. Please distinguish between milk obtained on a small dairy farm, a Krishna
conscious farm community, etc. versus milk obtained through modern
mass-produced factory farming where the cruelty is institutionalized.
Why The Cow Is Sacred Above All Other Animals
Sanatana Dharma or Krishna Consciousness is based on the concept of
omnipresence of Lord Krishna as the Paramatma, the Lord in the heart of ever
living being and expanded as the presence of a soul in all creatures,
including bovines. Thus, by that definition, killing any animal would be a
sin: one would be obstructing the natural cycle of birth and death of that
creature, and the creature would have to be reborn in that same form because
of its unnatural death. Historically, even Lord Krishna, the Supreme Lord,
tended cows.
Cows and bull protection is essential to sustainable Krishna conscious
communities.
A Cow is said to be the abode of all the gods. Every atom in cow’s body is
abode of the 33 million demigods. All the fourteen worlds exist in the limbs
of cow.
Brahma and Vishnu on the root of two horns.
All the sacred reservoirs and Vedavyasa on the tips of the horns.
Lord Shankara on the center head.
Parvati on the edge of head.
Kartikeya on the nose, Kambala and Ashwatara Devas on the nostrils.
Ashwini Kumaras on the ears.
Sun and Moon in the eyes.
Vayu in dental range and Varuna on the tongue.
Saraswathi in the sound of cow.
Sandhya goddesses on the lips and Indra on the neck.
Raksha Ganas on the hanging under the neck.
Sadhya Devas in the heart.
Dharma on the thigh.
Gandharvas in the gap of hoofs, Pannaga at the tips, Apsaras on the sides.
Eleven Rudras and Yama on the back, Ashtavasus in the crevices.
Pitru Devas on the ides of umbilical joint, 12 Adityas on the stomach area.
Soma on the tail, Sun rays on the hair, Ganga in its urine, Lakshmi and
Yamuna in the dung, Saraswathi in milk, Narmada in curd, and Agni in ghee
33 crore Gods in the hair
Prithwi in stomach, oceans in the udder, Kamadhenu in the whole body
Three Gunas in the root of the brows, Rishis in the pores of hair, and all
the sacred lakes in the breathe.
Chandika on the lips and Prajapathi Brahma on the skin
Fragrant flowers on nostrils
Sadhya Devas on the arm-pit
Six parts of Vedas on the face, four Vedas on the feet, Yama on the top of
the hoofs, Kubera and Garuda on the right, Yakshas on the left and
Gandharvas inside
Khecharas in the fore of the foot, Narayana in intestine, mountains in the
bones, Artha, Dharma, Kama and Moksha in the feet.
Four Vedas in the Hoom… sound
There are seven mothers listed in scriptures. They are…
'adau mata guru-patni, brahmani raja-patnika dhenur dhatri tatha prthvi
saptaita matarah'
Translation :
Birth mother and Guru-patni, the wife of spiritual master or teacher.
Brahmani, the wife of a brahmana, and Raja-patnika, the queen. Dhenu, the
cow, Dhatri, nurse, as well as the Earth. Earth is mother because she gives
us so many things like fruits, flowers, grains for our eating. Mother gives
milk & food for eating. Cow gives us milk. So cow is also one of our
mothers.
SCRIPTURE SPEAK :
a) BHAGAVAD GITA
Dhenunam asmi kamadhuk -- Among cows I am the wish fulfilling (kamdhenu or
surabhi) cow. (Verse 10.28).
b) SRI CHAITANYA CHARITAMRITA, Adi-lila, Chapter 17, verse 166, Chaitanya
Mahaprabhu confirms:
ange yata loma tata sahasra vatsara go-vadhi raurava-madhye pace nirantar
Cow killers and cow eaters are condemned to rot in hell for as many
thousands of years as there are for each hair on the body of every cow they
eat from.
It is further written - Those who fail to give cows reverence and protection
and choose to foolishly oppose and whimsically ignore the injunctions of the
Vedic scriptures by selling a cow for slaughter, by killing a cow, by eating
cows flesh and by permittings the slaughter of cows will all rot in the
darkest regions of hell for as many thousands of years as there are hairs on
the body of each cow slain. There is no atonement for the killing of a cow.
c) MANU SAMHITA, chapter 4, verse 162 :
A guru, a teacher, a father, a mother, a brahmana, a cow and a yogi all
should never be killed.
धर्मो रक्षति रक्षितः - मनु कहते हैं- जो धर्म की रक्षा करता है धर्म उसकी
रक्षा करता है । सत्य से धर्म की रक्षा होती है ।
d) Sri Brahma Samhita 5.29:
cintāmaṇi-prakara-sadmasu kalpa-vṛkṣa- lakṣāvṛteṣu surabhir abhipālayantam
lakṣmī-sahasra-śata-sambhrama-sevyamānaḿ govindam ādi- puruṣaḿ tam ahaḿ
bhajāmi
"I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, the first progenitor who is tending
the cows, yielding all desire, in abodes built with spiritual gems,
surrounded by millions of purpose trees, always served with great reverence
and affection by hundreds of thousands of lakṣmīs or gopīs."
e) SRI RAMCHARITMANAS
Vedas and Devatas in their prayer Jai Jai Surnayak describe the lord as "Go
Dvij Hitkari (protector of cows & Brahmins) Jai Asurari ( Death for
Wrongdoers) "
f) MAHABHARATA
Anusasana-parva, 115.43 -116.45: That wretch among men who pretending to
follow the path of righteousness prescribed in the Vedas, would kill living
creatures from greed of flesh would certainly go to hellish regions.
Anusasana-parva, 114.6, 115.6 it states: As the footprints of all moving,
living beings are engulfed in those of the elephant, even thus all religions
are to be understood by ahimsa which is nonviolence to any living being by
thought, words or actions.
गवां मूत्रपुरीषस्य नोद्विजेत कथंचन । न चासां मांसमश्नीयाद्गवां पुष्टिं
तथाप्नुयात् ॥ (Mahabharata, Anushasana Parva 78-17)
Do not hesitate to consume cow urine and cow dung – they are sacred. But one
should never eat the cow's flesh. A person becomes stronger by consuming
Panchagavya.
गावो ममाग्रतो नित्यं गावः पृष्ठत एव च । गावो मे सर्वतश्चैव गवां मध्ये
वसाह्यहम् ॥ (Mahabharata, Anushasana Parva 80-3)
Let there be cows in front of me, behind me and all around me. I live with
the cows.
दानानामपि सर्वेषां गवां दानं प्रशस्यते । गावः श्रेष्ठाः पवित्राश्च पावनं
ह्येतदुत्तमम् ॥ (Mahabharata, Anushasana Parva 83-3)
Donation of cows is superior to all others. Cows are supreme and sacred.
COW IN VEDAS: In the Vedas, Cow is called Aditi, Dhenuvu, Aghnaaya etc. ‘Cow
is refered in the Rg Veda 723 times, in Yajurveda 87 times, In Sama Veda 170
times, in Athrava Veda 331 times-total 1331 times. Similarly 20 times in Rg
Veda, 5 times in Yajurveda, 2 times in Sama veda and 33 times in Athrava
veda the word Aghnaaya specifically addressed to cow. "Dhenu" is used 76
times in Rg Veda, 22 times in Yajurveda, 25 times in Sama Veda, 43 times in
Atharva Veda. The meaning of Dhenu is which gives Trupti (Contentment and
satisfaction)
At a monastic retreat near Paris in July of 1973, the following conversation
took place between A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada and French Roman
Catholic Cardinal Jean Danielou:
ACBSP: Jesus Christ said, "Thou shalt not kill." So why is it that the
Christian people are engaged in animal killing?
CD: Certainly in Christianity it is forbidden to kill, but we believe that
there is a difference between the life of a human being, and the life of the
beasts. The life of a human being is sacred because man is made in the image
of God; therefore, to kill a human being is forbidden.
ACBSP: But the Bible does not simply say, "Do not kill the human being." It
says broadly, "Thou shalt not kill."
CD: We believe that only human life is sacred.
ACBSP: That is your interpretation. The commandment is "Thou shalt not
kill."
CD: It is necessary for man to kill animals in order to have food to eat.
ACBSP: No. Man can eat grains, vegetables, fruits...
CD: No flesh?
ACBSP: No. Human beings are meant to eat vegetarian food. The tiger does not
come to eat your fruits. His prescribed food is animal flesh. But man's food
is vegetables, fruits, grains...So how can you say that animal killing is
not a sin? Jesus Christ taught "Thou shalt not kill." Why do you interpret
this to suit your own convenience? When there is no other food, someone may
eat meat to keep from starving. That is another thing. But it is most sinful
to regularly maintain slaughterhouses just to satisfy your tongue. Actually,
you will not even have a human society until this cruel practice of
maintaining slaughterhouses is stopped.
Srila Prabhupada went on to say:
"...consider the cow: we drink her milk; therefore, she is our mother. Do
you agree?"
"Yes, surely," replied Cardinal Danielou.
"So if the cow is your mother," asked Srila Prabhupada, "how can you support
killing her? You take the milk from her, and when she's old and cannot give
you milk, you cut her throat. Is that a very humane proposal?... cow killing
is the greatest sin... Don't kill cows. It is the greatest sin. And as long
as a man is sinful, he cannot understand God. The human being's main
business is to understand God and to love him. But if you remain sinful, you
will never understand God, what to speak of loving Him."
Is raping mother cow to obtain her milk a humane proposal?
Is selling mother cow's babies to become veal a humane proposal?
Vegans aren't implicated in that kind of violence!
An Action For Animals pamphlet entitled How You Can Help Animals says:
"Consuming dairy products -- even organic -- supports the veal industry.
Without a supply of calves from dairy farms, most veal farms would not
exist."
"Cheese and milk represent tremendous disrespect and hurt, and there is no
reason to think it is less than that which goes into the processing of
flesh... Drink milk, and veal happens," says Friends of Animals (www.friendsofanimals.org)
The cow is sacred, yes, and must never be abused or killed. But through
modern factory farming, cows ARE being abused and killed in the process of
obtaining milk. If the milk is sacred because it comes from the cow (a
sacred animal), how does one justify abusing and killing a sacred animal to
obtain its milk?
Is the milk more sacred than the cow itself?
9. There Is No Such Thing as Cruelty-Free Milk in the U.S.
a) Vegan animal activist Sandy Kirchberger wrote in 2006:
"And in regards to the milk issue, I hate to break the news to you, but from
what I understand there is no such thing as cruelty free milk in the U.S. In
order for cows to produce milk they have to be continuously pregnant, their
babies are kidnapped from them and usually sold to other farmers, and even
with organic milk , there is no way to know for sure what happens to the
bull cow at that point, they could have gone on to produce beef or veal.
Usually there is no way to know for sure...
"So there is no doubt, if you are buying milk right off the shelf at a
store, you are taking part in producing veal or beef or both and you are
also responsible for kidnapping the baby cow from its mother so that you can
drink her milk.
"There is almost nothing more sad than a cow who is in search of her baby,
she will moo and knock over fences looking for the baby, and all the cows
used to produce dairy are slaughtered after they are spent, usually with
udders all swollen, and emotionally abused in every way, shape and form.
"So, it is hypocritical for a Hindu to claim that the cow is sacred to them,
but drink their milk at the same time..."
Sandy is correct!
"Cows are amongst the gentlest of creatures; none show more passionate
tenderness to their young when deprived of them."
--Thomas de Quincey
b) In a posting entitled "humane dairy??" appearing on AlterNet, a liberal
headlines email newsletter, on August 22, 2009, net user "provoked" writes:
"Of course it is impossible to source any 'humane cheese' or dairy --- In
order to be economically viable the females must be kept constantly
impregnated. This is a traumatic and painful procedure... The industry calls
the restraining mechanism 'the rape rack.' The cow also endures pain at
birth as any animal does. Her calf is separated from her at only a few
days/hours old. This causes immense distress as the milk was intended for
her baby. Her baby depending on sex is either female and placed within the
herd (if needed) or sent to slaughter immediately with undesirable male
calves. The 'lucky' male calves get to spend a few months in a dark box, fed
an anemic diet then sent to slaughter. There is absolutely no way that
'humane dairy' can ever exist.
www.humanemyth.org "
c) And the www.humanemyth.org
website says:
"In order to maintain uninterrupted milk production, cows are forced year
after year to go through an endless cycle of pregnancy and birth, only to
have their calves immediately taken from them. Cows and calves cry out for
each other as they are separated.
"All forms of dairy farming involve forcibly impregnating cows. This
involves a person inserting his arm far into the cow’s rectum in order to
position the uterus, and then forcing an instrument into her vagina. The
restraining apparatus used is commonly called a 'rape rack.'
"Half of all calves born are male. Of no use in milk production, they are
sent to veal-producing operations or directly to auctions where they are
sold and slaughtered when they are just a few days old. Male calves used for
veal production suffer a crude castration process and are killed after four
months spent in small crates or pens.
"After just four to six years, dairy cows are “spent” from being forced to
continuously produce milk. Often weak and ill, they endure transport to
auction and slaughter, both of which are traumatic for these gentle animals.
If allowed to exist free of exploitation and slaughter, cows can live 25
years or more."
"Cows are amongst the gentlest of creatures; none show more passionate
tenderness to their young when deprived of them."
--Thomas de Quincey
d) A pamphlet from the Factory Farming Awareness Coalition (www.ffacoalition.org)
entitled This AIN'T Old MacDonald's Farm says:
99% of ALL animal products come from factory-farmed animals.
e) Action For Animals (www.afa-online.org)
writes:
"In order to produce milk, a cow must have a calf. Cows used for dairy are
repeatedly impregnated, often on what the industry calls a 'rape rack,' to
keep their milk production high. The cows are milked by machines multiple
times a day, often live in filthy concrete stalls or crowded barns, and
suffer from diseases such as the udder infection mastitis. After only four
to six years of their natural twenty year lifespan, they are worn out and
sent to slaughter. The cows are packed into trucks for often long trips to
slaughterhouses. In winter, they may freeze to the sides of the truck; in
summer, they may die from dehydration or heat stroke. At slaughterhouses,
they are shot in the head with a high-powered steel rod called a captive
bolt gun. If that doesn't kill them, they are skinned and dismembered while
still alive.
"One of a cow's female calves will replace her mother in the milking herd;
the rest of the calves will likely be sold for veal. Calves used for veal
are stolen from their mothers just days after birth and chained by the neck
in crates. They are fed an iron-deficient formula to keep their flesh pale,
making them weak and unhealthy. After twelve to sixteen weeks they are
slaughtered. The veal industry is just one of the heartbreaking results of
the dairy industry."
f) Another Action For Animals pamphlet entitled How You Can Help Animals
says:
"On most dairy farms, cows live in concrete stalls or filthy sheds and are
milked by machines three times a day. Like humans, cows must have a baby to
produce milk, so they are repeatedly impregnated on a 'rape rack.' After
only four to six years of their natural twenty year lifespan, they are worn
out and sent to slaughter. Some are so sick they cannot even walk.
"Consuming dairy products -- even organic -- supports the veal industry.
Without a supply of calves from dairy farms, most veal farms would not
exist. The calves are taken from their mothers just days after birth so
their milk can be sold to people. Mother cows often cry for days for their
missing baby. On veal farms, the calves are chained by the neck in crates.
When the calves are just twelve to sixteen weeks old, they re slaughtered...
"Cows raised for meat, or who are no longer profitable for dairy are killed
when they are the equivalent of teenagers. During transport to slaughter,
many animals die from dehydration, heat stroke, or stress. After being
forced off the truck with electric prods, they are shot in the head or
shackled upside down by their hind legs and have their throats slit. If this
does not kill them, they are skinned and dismembered while still
conscious...
g) Friends of Animals (www.friendsofanimals.org)
writes:
"Cheese and milk represent tremendous disrespect and hurt, and there is no
reason to think it is less than that which goes into the processing of
flesh. Artificial insemination is used at most dairy farms; most of these
farms have no need for males, who are sent off at an early age to the veal
producer. Dairy cows are forced to produce youngsters for the owners each
year. So they'll continually produce milk, Holstein and Jersey dairy cows
endure repeated pregnancies (which go for nine months, as ours do).
"Drink milk, and veal happens. Most dairy calves will be cutlets. These
cutlets-to-be are confined to restrict muscle growth, deprived of iron to
stay pale. But just for four months: their age at death. A new trend
involves converting to group housing; but without their parents, calves are
nervous and competitive. They are tethered around meal time to control
aggression and stress.
"The eating of cheese automatically results in the production of veal. Most
cheeses contain rennet, an enzyme complex that coagulates the milk, causing
it to separate into solids (curds) and liquid (whey). The rennet is taken
from the stomach lining of unweaned calves. These stomachs are also a
product of veal-making. So most cheeses contain flesh from animals as well
as animal milk.
"If a gaze into the dairy case reminded us of the calves carted away forever
from the cows (who, farmers admit, cry for their young), we'd understand the
reality of cheese, cream, and milk. Picturing the veal calf strengthens the
resolve of many vegans to say no to that cream or cheese...
h) In their 2013 book, The Ultimate Betrayal: Is There Happy Meat?, Hope and
Cogen Bohanec debunk the myth that it's possible for animals to be humanely
raised for food, or even for animal by-products (milk, eggs, etc.). They
write:
"To produce a profitable dairy product, the well-being of the animal will
have to be compromised in some fundamental ways, no matter how humane an
operation claims to be. Mammals do not produce milk unless they are pregnant
or have recently been pregnant. 'Alternative' dairies still have to keep the
cows pregnant every year to produce the maximum amount of milk, far more
than is natural for their bodies. This is most always accomplished through
artificial insemination, performed by invasively inserting a long metal
device called an inseminating gun into the cow's vagina. At the same time,
the rancher inserts his other arm in her rectum, almost to his shoulder, to
manipulate the vaginal wall with his hand for insemination. This violation
must be at the least uncomfortable, and is likely a painful and frightening
experience for a young cow.
"Being constantly pregnant year after year puts a strain on the cow's body,
and her health will suffer from the intense exploit. In so-called humane
dairies, calves are still taken from their mothers at birth. This is perhaps
the greatest grief any living being could suffer, evidenced by how the
mother and calf will often mourn sorrowfully and forcefully protest the
separation, especially if there has been any time allowed for them to bond
As a result, the calves are typically taken away immediately at birth to
prevent bonding. A strong connection forms between a mother with her unborn
offspring, and to have the baby taken away directly after birth creates a
state of extreme psychological trauma. Why is it that dairy products tear
apart bovine families and have the calves grow as orphans, without the love
or comfort of a mother? It's because they cannot have the calf drinking the
sellable product.
"Usually, after calves are taken away from their dairy cow mothers, the baby
females are chained outside, regardless of weather conditions. Isolated from
the other calves and without the care of their mothers, they are kept like
this, alone and frightened, chained and unloved. Once old enough, they
experience their own violation, in the form of artificial insemination, so
they can become pregnant and begin to lactate, the sole purpose of their
lives at the hands of their human captors. Ironically, the milk that should
be going to nourish a baby calf is instead sold as a human product, and
consumers are so dazzled by idyllic pictures of rolling pastures and grazing
cows that they never see the horrible mistreatment of the animal behind the
mammary secretions they consume.
"Male babies born to a dairy-producing mother are nothing more than a waste
product of the dairy industry. They obviously cannot produce milk, so
keeping these adorable and gentle creatures around to consume their mother's
milk, their natural food, is simply not cost effective. That would be
'wasting' the milk the producers could otherwise sell. So, like their
sisters, male calves will be ripped from their mothers at birth, never to
know their comfort and security. They will never frolic in a field, the
birthright of all baby ruminants. Even at the supposedly best commercial
operations, like American Humane certified Clover Dairy they still have to
get rid of the baby males, sending them to auction just one week after
birth, for veal, or to be raised for low-quality beef, most likely not on an
alternative operation...
"About one third of veal calves, the undesired male (and some female) babies
of the dairy industry, are kept in tiny crates, where they can't turn around
or lie down comfortably. They are tethered by the neck, can barely move, and
have been put on a liquid diet that doesn't have adequate iron, so it keeps
their muscles underdeveloped and their flesh white and tender. Others are in
small group pens, longing for their mothers, and unable to run, play, or
feel the sun or wind on their bodies. After just about twenty-two to
twenty-four weeks of misery, these babies are slaughtered for veal. Many
people recognize the cruelty of killing baby cows and won't eat veal, yet
they continue to ingest dairy, not knowing the intimate connection between
the industries. One supports the other and there is extreme cruelty in both.
"Through selective breeding, a modern dairy cow can produce about ten times
as much milk as her ancestors did generations ago. Milk yield per cow
increased by 95 percent from 1950 to 1975 and grew an additional 76 percent
from 1975 to 2000. Dairy cows are now producing more milk than was ever
intended by the natural design specifications of their bodies....
"A dairy cow is not offered a retirement plan. Humane or not, modern dairy
production is terribly taxing on her body, and it is just not profitable to
keep her around when she is not producing as much milk as the younger cows,
the daughters she will never nuzzle or care for. After about three lactating
cycles, her milk output wanes, and she will be sent to slaughter and be sold
for ground beef and other low-quality meat products. Many fast-food
hamburgers are made from 'spent' dairy cows. With a natural lifespan of
about twenty years, they are killed in the human equivalent of their
preteens. Even on the so-called 'humane' farms, a few favorites may be
'retired,' but it is not profitable to feed them if they are not producing,
and most will go to slaughter. It is impossible for a farm to create a truly
humane environment -- wherein families are allowed to stay together, express
their normal behaviors, and live out their natural life spans -- and make a
profit. A viable business model cannot avoid the inherent cruelties of dairy
production. The only way to be truly humane is a widespread cultural shift
away from consumption of animal products."
i) The Bohanecs quote Colleen Patrick-Goudreau, author of several vegan
cookbooks, on dairy production:
"Because a cow's life is only as valuable as the offspring and amount of
milk she is able to produce, when she is no longer profitable (i.e., when
the costs to feed, medicate, and shelter her exceed the revenue derived from
her milk output), she is sent to slaughter. Whether she is used on a small
farm, organic farm, family-owned farm, artisan farm, or whatever-it's-called
farm, she is sent to slaughter. Whether the milk is labeled organic, whole,
pasteurized, unpasteurized, raw, lactose-free, low-fat, 2%, 1%, skim,
fat-free, or natural, she is sent to slaughter. There is no such thing as a
slaughter-free dairy."
10. The inability of one to grasp that one's purchases as a consumer, even
of animal byproducts, kills animals, is comparable to the meat-eaters
pretending to be unaware of where meat comes from!
a) In his 1975 book, Animal Liberation, Australian philosopher Peter Singer
writes:
"Killing an animal is in itself a troubling act. It has been said that if we
had to kill our own meat we would all be vegetarians. There may be
exceptions to that general rule, but it is true that most people prefer not
to inquire into the killing of the animals they eat.
"Very few people ever visit a slaughterhouse; and films of slaughterhouse
operations are rarely shown on television...Yet those who, by their
purchases, require animals to be killed have no right to be shielded from
this or any other aspect of the production of the meat they buy.
"If it is distasteful for humans to think about, what can it be like for the
animals to experience it?"
b) A Ramesvara disciple, Pariksit dasa (Don Vitcenzos), said in 1982 that
meat-eaters can't make the excuse that they didn't kill the animal
themselves, because a person who purchases stolen goods is just as guilty as
the person who stole them.
c) In A Vegetarian Primer (1983), Canadian tennis champion Peter Burwash (a
long-time friend and well-wisher of the Krishna Consciousness movement)
compares human anatomy with the other terrestrial vertebrates (carnivores;
omnivores; frugivores [the primates, whom he refers to as our ancestors];
and herbivores), He concludes humans are suited for a plant-based diet.
Olive oil is popular with vegans looking for a cruelty-free alternative to
butter and other dairy products. Agave nectar is popular with vegans as
well, as a cruelty-free alternative to honey. Animal byproducts like milk
and honey can be obtained nonviolently, but usually aren't!
And its doubtful if even animal byproducts could be produced cruelty-free on
a massive scale to satisfy the demands of the world's affluent consumers,
even if they can afford these luxuries. A transition to a vegan economy
makes perfect sense.
Elsewhere in A Vegetarian Primer, Peter Burwash writes favorably of Gandhi
and says the world's human population has long since passed the point at
which everyone could be comfortably fed on a meat-centered diet, so it makes
sense to eat lower on the food chain -- an argument first popularized by
Frances Moore Lappe in her 1971 bestseller, Diet for a Small Planet.
d) At the end of 1985, bhaktin Sam Powers, a FOLK ("Friends Of Lord
Krishna") or congregational member in San Diego who came to Krishna
Consciousness through the animal rights movement said she had gotten into
debates about meat-eating with her husband. She said her husband saw nothing
wrong with eating meat because he didn't kill the animal himself, while she
tried to explain to him that through his purchasing meat as a consumer, he
was aiding and abetting the meat industry... causing animals to be killed.
Sam gave me contact information for the Edenite Society, a Christian
vegetarian group based in Imlaystown, New Jersey, which has since disbanded.
Through the Edenite Society, I purchased The Essene Christ and The Prophet
of the Dead Sea Scrolls by Christian theologian Dr. Upton Clary Ewing, each
of which proved invaluable to me in my research on religion and animals.
Sam said she subscribed to the Animals' Agenda for a number of years, but
had to let her subscription expire, as it was just too heartbreaking to
read! Nearly all the news was about animal cruelty and exploitation, with
hardly any good news for animals.
Sam said in the films from Hollywood from decades earlier (e.g., Disney
movies from the '30s and '40s) which featured animals, the animals' trainers
had to be vegetarian to work with the animals, because otherwise the animals
could sense the scent of death on them, and wouldn't cooperate.
Sam took part in bake sales to raise funds for the FOLK program. When
someone brought up the subject of a vegan diet but said it sounds too
austere, Sam didn't disagree.
At a Sunday Feast, Sam motioned toward the altar of the temple where the
Deities are worshipped and said the worship of images was new to her, but
she commented favorably about Srila Prabhupada, seeing in him a genuine
saint or holy man.
Sam brought her then fifteen year old daughter (her daughter would now be
44!) to the temple on at least one occasion, for a Sunday Feast.
I last saw Sam Powers with a male friend, at Jimbo's Vegetarian Pizzeria in
early 1991, when I was dating and dining with Jennifer.
11. Devotees of Krishna and Hindus in General Should Consider These Points:
a) Srila Prabhupada has written, “If people are to be educated in the path
back to Godhead, they must be taught first and foremost to stop the process
of animal-killing.”
b) Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486 – 1534) made vegetarianism central to the
sankirtan (“God-praise”) movement when He brought up the subject of
meat-eating with the Chand Kazi of Navadvipa, a local Muslim ruler, learned
in the Koran. And Srila Prabhupada followed our Lord’s example by repeatedly
bringing up the subject with people of other faiths (“Thou shalt not kill”).
c) In a purport from the First Canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam, Srila
Prabhupada writes: “It is nonsensical to say that the killing of animals has
nothing to do with spiritual realization.”
d) In his purport to the Srimad Bhagavatam 6.10.9, Srila Prabhupada writes:
“One cannot continue killing animals and at the same time be a religious
man. That is the greatest hypocrisy. Jesus Christ said, ‘Do not kill,’ but
hypocrites nevertheless maintain thousands of slaughterhouses while posing
as Christians. Such hypocrisy is condemned…”
e) Srila Prabhupada even candidly told a Catholic priest in London in 1973,
that, “Animal-killers cannot understand God. I have seen this. It is a
fact.”
f) Elsewhere Srila Prabhupada has written:
“If one kills many thousands of animals in a professional way so that other
people can purchase the meat to eat, one must be ready to be killed in a
similar way in his next life and life after life. There are many rascals who
violate their own religious principles. According to Judeo-Christian
scriptures, it is clearly said, ‘Thou shalt not kill.’
“Nonetheless, giving all kinds of excuses, even the heads of religions
indulge in killing animals while trying to pass as saintly persons. This
mockery and hypocrisy in human society brings about unlimited calamities;
therefore occasionally there are great wars. Masses of such people go out
onto battlefields and kill themselves.
“Presently, they have discovered the atomic bomb, which is simply waiting to
be used for wholesale destruction.” (Chaitanya Charitamrita, Madhya 24.251,
purport).
g) “To be nonviolent to human beings and to be a killer or enemy of the poor
animals is Satan’s philosophy. In this age there is enmity towards poor
animals, and therefore the poor creatures are always anxious. The reaction
of the poor animals is being forced on human society, and therefore there is
always the strain of cold or hot war between men, individually, collectively
or nationally.” (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.10.6).
h) The Srimad Bhagavatam quotes King Pariksit as having said, “only the
animal-killer cannot relish the message of the Absolute Truth.” And Srila
Prabhupada himself said in conversation with Christians, “If the Christians
want to love God, they must stop killing animals.” Srila Prabhupada taught
that nonviolence is the first principle in spiritual life (Letter to Bhakta
das, August 3, 1973).
Srila Prabhupada not only opposed killing animals for food, he also opposed
dissection, animal experimentation and killing animals for “sport.”
i) In the Lilamrita, for example, Satsvarupa Maharaja records an incident
where an Indian graduate student tells Srila Prabhupada he is studying
biology. Srila Prabhupada responds: “…poor frogs!” His challenge to the
dissectors and vivisectors: “Would you give your body to science for the
advancement of knowledge?”
Similarly, in a 1976 interview, when the editors of Back to Godhead told
Srila Prabhupada:
“…Another point in the Declaration of Independence is that all men are
endowed by God with certain natural rights that cannot be taken away from
them. These are the rights of life, liberty, and…”
Srila Prabhupada immediately interjected: “But animals also have the right
to life. Why don’t animals also have the right to live? The rabbits, for
instance, are living in their own way in the forest. Why does the government
allow hunters to go and shoot them?”
The editors of Back to Godhead told Srila Prabhupada: “They (America’s
founding fathers) were simply talking about human beings.”
Srila Prabhupada replied: “Then they have no real philosophy. The narrow
idea that my family or my brother is good, and that I can kill all others,
is criminal.
“Suppose that for my family’s sake I kill your father. Is that philosophy?
Real philosophy is suhridam sarva-bhutanam: friendliness to all living
entities.
“Certainly this applies to human beings, but even if you unnecessarily kill
one animal, I shall immediately protest, ‘What nonsense are you doing?’ ”
Srila Prabhupada’s words above debunk the argument that because animals are
not part of our “human family” (whatever that means) we have no duties
toward them.
j) On numerous occasions, Srila Prabhupada taught that even rodents and
insects have rights, and (like Pythagoras) he even opposed the unnecessary
destruction of trees.
These facts indicate that devotees of Krishna are vegetarian out of
compassion for animals, and not merely because meat, fish and eggs are
unofferable to Lord Krishna.
k) It is a significant fact that Srila Prabhupada did not reject any of his
fallen disciples, as long as they did not return to flesh-eating.
Like Lord Chaitanya’s dialogue with the Chand Kazi, this underscores the
importance of vegetarianism to the sankirtan movement.
l) If Srila Prabhupada’s only concern was merely that his disciples merely
abstain from rajasic and tamasic foods in the lower modes of nature, like
onions, garlic, mushrooms, vinegar, etc. (i.e., follow a peculiar set of
“dietary laws”), because of the possible effect such foods might have on
their consciousness, or because they are unofferable to Lord Krishna, he
would not have opposed dissection, nor animal experimentation.
Nor would Srila Prabhupada have repeatedly said that if the karmis
(nondevotees) want to eat meat they can wait until the cows (and other
animals) die of natural causes, before eating them. (“Slaughterhouse
Civilization,” Back to Godhead, 1979). Animals that died of natural causes
can't be offered to Krishna, either.
It’s clear Srila Prabhupada was morally opposed to taking the life of a
fellow creature. These facts and points indicate devotees of Krishna are
vegetarian first and foremost out of nonviolence toward and compassion for
animals.
12. "Dietary Laws" or the Animals' Right to Life?
Srila Prabhupada said elsewhere: “…as far as meat-eating is concerned, every
cow will die–so you just wait awhile, and there will be so many dead cows.
Then you can take all the dead cows and eat…Don’t kill. When the cow is
dead, you can eat it.”
One of the first things new devotees learn from initiates is that Srila
Prabhupada said this not only about cows, but about meat in general: if you
want to eat flesh, wait until the animal dies of natural causes.
And the eating of carrion (carcasses from animals that died of natural
causes) is clearly forbidden in Jewish and Islamic dietary laws. Animals
that died of natural causes can’t be offered to Krishna, either.
This indicates that Srila Prabhupada was not thinking in terms of “dietary
laws,” or food in the mode of goodness, passion, or ignorance, but rather in
terms of the moral wrong of taking the life of a fellow creature. The
original intent of vegetarianism in the Krishna Consciousness movement
really is the animals’ right to life.
The animals’ right to life takes precedence over “dietary laws” ! The
Mahabharata (Santi-parva 141.88) similarly says that the eating of “unclean”
food is not as terrible as the eating of flesh. (It must be remembered that
the brahmanas of ancient India exalted cleanliness to a divine principle).
Leonardo Da Vinci, Count Leo Tolstoy, Mohandas Gandhi, George Bernard Shaw,
Susan B. Anthony, Percy Shelley, etc. were all vegetarian, and none of them
were Jewish.
Animal rights issues like circuses, fur, and vivisection (animal
experimentation) have nothing to do with diet, eating, or food. The real
issue is the animals’ right to life.
Adolf Hitler thought Albert Einstein's scientific discoveries were mere
"Jewish science" and thus not applicable to gentiles. This is the mentality
of meat-eating Christians toward vegetarianism, which they see as a
sectarian dietary restriction (like "keeping kosher") rather than as a
universal ethic for all mankind, like abstaining from cannibalism.
Meat-eating Christians relegating vegetarianism solely to Judaism are as
bigoted as Hitler.
The sad irony here is that a lot of liberals see abortion as sectarian, too.
If you're not born again, you don't have to be pro-life.
Again, Srila Prabhupada said elsewhere: "...as far as meat-eating is
concerned, every cow will die--so you just wait awhile, and there will be so
many dead cows. Then you can take all the dead cows and eat...Don't kill.
When the cow is dead, you can eat it."
One of the first things new devotees learn from initiates is that Srila
Prabhupada said this not only about cows, but about meat in general: if you
want to eat flesh, wait until the animal dies of natural causes.
And the eating of carrion (carcasses from animals that died of natural
causes) is clearly forbidden in Jewish and Islamic dietary laws. Animals
that died of natural causes can't be offered to Krishna, either.
This indicates that Srila Prabhupada was not thinking in terms of "dietary
laws," or food in the mode of goodness, passion, or ignorance, but rather in
terms of the moral wrong of taking the life of a fellow creature. The
original intent of vegetarianism in the Krishna Consciousness movement
really is the animals' right to life.
Dietary laws are not as important as the animals' right to life! The
Mahabharata (Santi-parva 141.88) similarly says that the eating of "unclean"
food is not as terrible as the eating of flesh. (It must be remembered that
the brahmanas of ancient India exalted cleanliness to a divine principle).
Krishna Consciousness ISN'T Jewish!
Jews and Muslims don't worship images.
Jews and Muslims don't believe in the incarnations of God.
Jews and Muslims don't worship a plural Godhead, like that of the Trinity.
Jews and Muslims don't worship other human beings (saints and spiritual
masters in disciplic succession).
Leonardo Da Vinci, Count Leo Tolstoy, Mohandas Gandhi, Henry David Thoreau,
George Bernard Shaw, Susan B. Anthony, Percy Shelley, etc. were all
vegetarian, and none of them were Jewish.
Animal rights issues like circuses, fur, and vivisection (animal
experimentation) have nothing to do with diet, eating, or food. The real
issue is the animals' right to life.
If vegetarianism were merely about being "fit" or following a peculiar set
of "dietary laws" why would pro-lifers be offended by pro-choice vegetarians
and vegans?
They're offended because THEY KNOW vegetarianism involves the animals' right
to life, and thus these pro-choicers appear to value animal life over human
life under some circumstances.
Sometimes, being lighthearted gets the point across to Christians that
vegetarianism is about the animals' right to life rather than "dietary
laws": like Steve Martin in the '70s asking, "How many polyesters did you
have to kill to make that suit?"
Establishing Krishna conscious farm communities, where the milk is obtained
humanely and nonviolently, IS a genuine solution to the issue of animal
cruelty. But Srila Prabhupada’s teachings on nonviolence would carry greater
weight from vegans.
Which is the greater deprivation or harm: the “finer brain tissues” not
developing due to a lack of dairy products, or remaining an animal-killer,
a cow-killer, and not understanding God at all?
13. Are We Reviving Vedic Culture?
Since we are attempting to revive Vedic culture, or at least a community
that is based on Vedic principles, and since child abuse is such a problem
in our own society, the question naturally arises “How did Vedic society
protect these most vulnerable of citizens?”
On the other hand, when visiting Moscow in 1971, Srila Prabhupada told
Professor Kotovsky, “our point is not to try and bring back the old type of
Hindu society. That is impossible. Our idea is to take the best ideas from
the original idea.”
Bhakta Matias Carnevale Cano, sympathetic to veganism, wrote from Argentina
in 2006:
“Also, because we are trying to follow Vedic culture in all of its aspects
we don’t avoid milk in our preparations, otherwise no halava, no khir, no
lassi would be possible.”
That may be, but contemporary Western social conventions and standards of
morality, like dating, boyfriends and girlfriends, contraception and divorce
were never part of the Vedic social system, either. And 5,100 years into the
Age of Kali, these social conventions are becoming commonplace even in
India.
In The Hammer for Smashing Illusion (1983), Hamsadutta dasa writes against
the keeping of boyfriends and girlfriends:
"In English literature, we have the story of Romeo and Juliet, which appears
to be a very lofty and noble affair; but on the other hand, if Romeo and
Juliet had lived to be eighty, how would that story have ended? The love of
the man and woman in the material world is quite obnoxious when it is
studied in its real perspective.
"Romeo would have become old, toothless, wrinkled and impotent; and Juliet
would have become bent over, with gray hairs and sagging breasts. The whole
affair would not be romantic at all, but actually quite repulsive because
this material love is based on illusion, whereas spiritual love is actually
based on truth.
"Illicit sex also must be given up. Either you can be married and be
responsible for a wife, or remain brahmachari (celibate monk). One must
either marry and be responsible or remain brahmachari -- not this boyfriend
/ girlfriend, every day another sex partner. This is for animals...
"Human beings are supposed to control their senses, especially regarding
sex. Gambling should also be avoided. These are the four regulative
principles: no meat-eating, no intoxication, no illicit sex, no gambling. As
soon as you accept these four principles you become pure...
"Chant Hare Krishna, follow the four regulative principles, and read
Bhagavad-gita. Go to the temple, see the Deities, make an offering, even if
it's jus a small flower or a fruit; or just sweep the floor, or take
prasadam (sacramental food: our equivalent of the Eucharist). In this way,
prepare yourself to go back home, back to Godhead.
"That is the purpose of this (human) life. Take advantage of it; don't
misuse it. Don't waste it pursuing some trivial sense enjoyment - smoking,
drinking or sex life. These things in a few years will all fade away. When a
man gets old, he cannot enjoy sex life. When a woman gets old, no one wants
her..."
The prasadam served in Krishna temples in the West often includes familiar
Western vegetarian dishes, which weren’t part of Vedic civilization
thousands of years ago.
During the college preaching programs at UC San Diego in the 1980s, devotees
would say that Western vegetarian dishes can be offered to Krishna in place
of rice and sabji (vegetable preparations).
Devotees of Krishna should not falsely claim that they are trying to bring
back the ancient Vedic civilization, which even Srila Prabhupada said to
Professor Kotovsky is impossible.
Gangeya dasa (Glen Smith), a disciple of Hridayananda dasa Goswami, was
asked years ago if devotees offering dairy products to the Lord were doing
so out of devotion or out of sense gratification. He diplomatically
repsonded that would depend on the consciousness of the devotee.
Srila Prabhupada similarly opposed dissection, animal experimentation, etc.
— issues which have nothing to do with diet, eating, or food.
So it is clear devotees of Krishna are vegetarian first and foremost out of
nonviolence toward and compassion for other living entities, rather than
because meat, fish and eggs and even some vegetarian foods cannot be offered
to the Lord.
14. Srila Prabhupada’s Bhagavad-gita Puports Indicate Obtaining Food
Nonviolently is the Overriding Concern.
Srila Prabhupada writes in his purport to the Bhagavad-gita (Chapter 16,
verse 3):
“Ahimsa (nonviolence) means not arresting the progressive life of any living
entity. One should not think that since the spirit spark is never killed
even after the killing of the body there is no harm in killing animals for
sense gratification. People are now addicted to eating animals, in spite of
having an ample supply of grains, fruits…
“There is no necessity for animal killing. This injunction is for everyone.
When there is no alternative, one may kill an animal, but it should be
offered in sacrifice.
“At any rate, when there is an ample food supply for humanity, persons who
are desiring to make advancement in spiritual realization should not commit
violence to animals. Real ahimsa means not checking anyone’s progressive
life.
“The animals are also making progress in their evolutionary life by
transmigrating from one category of animal life to another. If a particular
animal is killed, then his progress is checked.
“If an animal is staying in a particular body for so many days or so many
years and is untimely killed, then he has to come back again to that form of
life to complete the remaining days in order to be promoted to another
species of life.
“So their progress should not be checked simply to satisfy one’s palate.
This is called ahimsa.”
In Bhagavad-gita (Chapter 17, verse 8), Lord Krishna says:
“Foods dear to those in the mode of goodness (sattva-guna) increase the
duration of life, purify one’s existence and give strength, health,
happiness, and satisfaction. Such foods are juicy, fatty, wholesome, and
pleasing to the heart.”
Srila Prabhupada comments:
“Milk, butter, cheese and similar products give animal fat in a form which
rules out any need for the killing of innocent creatures. It is only through
brute mentality that this killing goes on. The civilized method of obtaining
needed fat is by milk. Slaughter is the way of the subhumans. Protein is
amply available through split peas, dahl, whole wheat, etc.”
Srila Prabhupada’s words indicate that milk products are considered “pure”
(after all, the cow is sacred!), but they must be obtained *nonviolently*:
“killing innocent creatures” is a “brute mentality” and slaughtering animals
“is the way of the subhumans.”
Thus, veganism is not ruled out. Indeed, veganism would appear to be a
logical conclusion of (or at least consistent with) Srila Prabhupada’s
teachings on nonviolence (see above).
Dairy products, however, are not forbidden, either — ** but they must be
obtained humanely! **
In A Vegetarian Primer (1983), Canadian tennis champion Peter Burwash (a
long-time friend and well-wisher of the Krishna Consciousness movement)
compares human anatomy with the other terrestrial vertebrates (carnivores;
omnivores; frugivores [the primates, whom he refers to as our ancestors];
and herbivores), He concludes humans are suited for a plant-based diet.
Olive oil is popular with vegans looking for a cruelty-free alternative to
butter and other dairy products. Agave nectar is popular with vegans as
well, as a cruelty-free alternative to honey. Animal byproducts like milk
and honey can be obtained nonviolently, but usually aren’t!
And its doubtful if even animal byproducts could be produced cruelty-free on
a massive scale to satisfy the demands of the world’s affluent consumers,
even if they can afford these luxuries. A transition to a vegan economy
makes perfect sense.
Elsewhere in A Vegetarian Primer, Peter Burwash writes favorably of Gandhi
and says the world’s human population has long since passed the point at
which everyone could be comfortably fed on a meat-centered diet, so it makes
sense to eat lower on the food chain — an argument first popularized by
Frances Moore Lappe in her 1971 bestseller, Diet for a Small Planet.
Which is the greater deprivation or harm: the “finer brain tissues” not
developing due to a lack of dairy products, or remaining an animal-killer,
a cow-killer, and not understanding God at all?
Gangeya dasa (Glen Smith), a disciple of Hridayananda dasa Goswami, was
asked years ago if devotees offering dairy products to the Lord were doing
so out of devotion or out of sense gratification. He diplomatically
responded that would depend on the consciousness of the individual devotee.
Why should it be hard for Krishna temples to go vegan? The vegans are
similar in their level of strictness (e.g., reading ingredient labels,
avoiding mono-and-diglycerides unless they're specifically
vegetable-mono-and-diglycerides, avoiding lecithin which often comes from
eggs unless it's soy lecithin, etc.) to the level of strictness of Krishna
devotees. But vegans don't object to onions, garlic, mushrooms, vinegar,
canned and frozen foods, caffeine, alcohol, ganja, etc.
And on pilgrimage to Santa Cruz in the late '90s, my friend Anantarupa dasa
who took his present birth in Ireland and came to Krishna Consciousness from
an Irish Catholic background, said it's easier to be vegan than to be
Vaishnava, as apart from onions, garlic, mushrooms, vinegar, etc. Srila
Prabhupada also said things like soy and lentils can't be offered to the
Deities, etc.
15. Here Are Quotes on Ahimsa or Nonviolence, from the Vedic Scriptures:
“You must not use your God-given body for killing God’s creatures, whether
they are human, animal or whatever.”
--Yajur Veda 12.32
“One should be considered dear, even by the animal kingdom.”
--Atharva Veda 17.1.4
“Those noble souls who practice meditation and other yogic ways, who are
ever careful about all beings, who protect all animals, are the ones who are
actually serious about spiritual practices.”
--Atharva Veda 19.48.5
“By not killing any living being, one becomes eligible for salvation.”
--Manusmriti 6.60
“The purchaser of flesh performs himsa (violence) by his wealth; he who eats
flesh does so by enjoying its taste; the killer does himsa by actually tying
and killing the animal. Thus, there are three forms of killing. He who
brings flesh or sends for it, he who cuts off the limbs of an animal, and he
who purchases, sells, or cooks flesh and eats it—all of these are considered
meat-eaters.”
--Mahabharata, Anu. 115.40
“He who desires to augment his own flesh by eating the flesh of other
creatures lives in misery in whatever species he may take his birth.”
--Mahabharata, Anu. 115.47
“Ahimsa (nonviolence) is the highest duty.”
--Padma Purana 1.31.27
According to contemporary Hindu scholar Satyaraja dasa (Steven Rosen):
“Ahimsa loosely translates as ‘nonviolence.’ In the Vedic tradition,
however, the word possesses a much broader meaning: ‘Having no ill feeling
for any living being, in all manners possible and for all times is called
ahimsa, and it should be the desired goal of all seekers.’ (Patanjali Yoga
Sutras, 2.30).
“The Manusmriti, one of India’s earliest sacred texts, says: ‘Without the
killing of living beings, meat cannot be made available, and since killing
is contrary to the principles of ahimsa, one must give up eating meat.’
“The Vedas (Hindu scriptures) condemn more, however, than just those who eat
meat. Equally guilty, they say, is anyone assisting in animal slaughter,
sanctioning it, anyone who cuts the flesh, buys, sells, or even serves it.
Only those who have not participated in any of these activities can be
considered true practitioners of ahimsa."
Hindu spiritual masters like Srila Prabhupada have similarly taught that if
one wishes to eat cow’s flesh (or the flesh of any other animal for that
matter), one should wait until the animal dies of natural causes, rather
than take the life of a fellow creature. Animals that died of natural causes
can't be offered to Krishna, either. This indicates that Krishna devotees
are vegetarian first and foremost out of nonviolence toward and compassion
for animals, rather than because the supposed intent is merely following
“dietary laws.”
The Manusmriti, one of India’s earliest sacred texts, says: "Without the
killing of living beings, meat cannot be made available, and since killing
is contrary to the principles of ahimsa, one must give up eating meat."
Since without the killing of living beings through modern factory farming,
milk cannot be made available, either, and since killing is contrary to the
principles of ahimsa, does it not logically follow that one must give up the
drinking of milk?
The cow is sacred, yes, and must never be abused or killed. But through
modern factory farming, cows ARE being abused and killed in the process of
obtaining milk. If the milk is sacred because it comes from the cow (a
sacred animal), how does one justify abusing and killing a sacred animal to
obtain its milk?
Is the milk more sacred than the cow itself?
Jesus accused the Pharisees of valuing the gold of the Temple more than the
Temple itself and the sacred gifts upon the altar more than the altar
itself! (Matthew 23:14,16-23; Luke 11:42, 20:45-47)
16. Shankar Narayan of the Indian Vegan Society Writes:
"I always believed there is a connection between not eating meat/milk and
our spiritual advancement as we have developed the habit of exploiting
animals for over a million years.
"A spiritual guru, based in Bangalore, was recently introduced to me. After
a while I spoke to him (a lacto-vegetarian) about cruelty in milk. He not
only immediately stopped use of milk but also wrote to all his followers
about milk. He even forwarded me the replies of his followers who also
followed his suit.
"Another religious guru Sri Rahaveshwara Bharathi Swami with large base and
following is also saying that keeping cows is not for milk. Sri Sri
Ravishankar of Art of Living with worldwide reach also (one of his followers
told me) says in his literature that milk is to be avoided. Maybe there is a
link between these two cases and our Indian Vegan Society efforts in
reaching the message of veganism to them.
"In addition, Jain spiritual leader Sri Chitrabhanu also advocates veganism
and converted many of his followers to veganism.
"Well, the spiritual movement is turning vegan. I wish the vegan movement
also turns spiritual so that we have a solid platform. For me veganism is
more than not using animal products, see my veganism at
http://www.indianvegansociety.com/
17. In Her 2008 book, Yoga and Vegetarianism, Sharon Gannon, who Attended
Catholic School Till the Sixth Grade, and Now Follows a Deeper Spiritual
Tradition, Advocates Veganism:
"In the Yoga Sutras, Patanjali presents an eight-step plan for liberation
called raja-yoga. The first step is yama, which means restraint. It
consists of five ethical guidelines regarding how yogis should treat others,
all of which clearly support a vegetarian diet. The first yama Patanjali
gives is ahimsa, or nonharming... Stop perpetuating violence and it will
cease...
"Billions of animals are killed every year for human consumption after
living confined in horrible conditions on factory farms and enduring untold
extremes of suffering. This fact alone is good reason for any yoga
practitioner to adopt a vegetarian diet.
"Meanwhile, from the individual health perspective, a vegetarian diet has
been proven to prevent and even reverse heart disease and cancer, two of the
leading causes of human death in our world today.
"The terrible toll that eating meat, fish, and dairy takes on our planet's
air, water, soil, and whole ecosystem is another reason for yogis, who have
traditionally cultivated a close relationship with nature, to consider
vegetarianism... Extending compassion towards animals purifies our karmas,
creating an internal state of being conducive to enlightenment."
According to Sharon Gannon, the single most important part of one's yoga
practice is the strict adherence to a vegetarian diet--a diet free of
needless cruelty, harm, and injustice. Gannon offers truth and wisdom from
a tradition of spiritual practice thousands of years old and explains how to
apply these practices to our modern lifestyles.
Along with David Life, she is the creator of the Jivamukti Yoga method, a
path to enlightenment through compassion for all beings. Blessed by her
teachers Shri Brahmananda Sarasvati, Swami Nirmalananda, and SriK.Pattabhi
Jois, she is a pioneer in teaching yoga as spiritual activism.
Vegetarianism is a core principle of the Jivamuki Yoga method.
Gannon is the author of many books and the producer of numerous yoga-related
DVDs and music CDs. She is the recipient of the 2008 Compassionate Living
Award. Vanity Fair gives her credit for making yoga cool and hip.
Vaidya Priyanka of Aum Ayurveda based in San Jose, CA, is also a strict
vegan and descended from a seven hundred year lineage of female Ayurvedic
teachers.
18. Adiraja dasa does not decry veganism in The Hare Krishna Book of
Vegetarian Cooking (1985):
"The term 'Indian cooking' when used in this book refers to Vedic cooking,
not to any of the 'chicken-curry' schools of Indian cuisine. Meat-eating was
practically nonexistent in the ancient Vedic culture. It was introduced into
India by foreign conquerers, especially the Moguls (Muslims), who came via
Persia in the sixteenth century; the Portuguese, who ruled Goa for four
centuries; and finally the British colonialists. But despite centuries of
domination by meat-eaters, India is still the home of vast numbers of
vegetarians.
"India is still traditionally vegetarian (meat-eaters are called
'nonvegetarians') because her timeless Vedic culture teaches that all life
is sacred, and to kill innocent creatures unnecessarily is a gross violation
of the laws of God.
"The Vedas define a true vegetarian as one who eats no meat, fish, nor eggs.
Those who abstain from meat but eat eggs or fish are not considered true
vegetarians because they are eating flesh, even though it may be hidden, as
in eggs, under a calcium coating. One who becomes a vegetarian only to avoid
killing may see no reason to refuse unfertilized eggs, but if we take the
Vedic view that all flesh is not meant for human consumption, it makes sense
to shun eggs, which, fertilized or not, are nothing but the assembled
materials for the bodies of chickens. Krishna's devotees are strict
vegetarians in the Vedic sense of the word: they eat no meat, fish, nor
eggs.
"Some vegetarians, called vegans, abstain not only from meat, fish, and eggs
but also from milk and milk products, because of moral concern about abuse
of cows in the dairy industry. The devotees of Krishna also condemn animal
abuse, but rather than abstain from milk, they show their compassion in a
positive way by teaching the Vedic principle of cow protection, and as far
as possible, drinking milk only from Hare Krishna dairy farms, where the
cows are loved and protected..."
19. Srila Prabhupada Wanted the Farm Communities to Supply the Temples with
Dairy Products, Rather Than Temples Relying on the Commercial Dairies.
Letter to Rupanuga -- Ahmedabad 29 September, 1975: So you get from all the
farms all your necessities, then it will be successful. Fodder, milk,
grains, vegetables, and animals and man will be satisfied, and you can chant
Hare Krishna. No unnecessary cow killing, and no unnecessary needs of the
body. The woman's SKP party, that is very good.
Letter to Rupanuga -- Mayapur 21 February, 1976
"Yes, this supplying of milk to the temple is wanted. Thank you. In the way
that Atlanta is doing, every center must have a farm so we can get all milk
and if possible vegetable, even fruit, flowers and milk."
Letter to Mahamsa Swami, 19th January, 1975
“Now we should have self sufficiency. This means to make our own food grains
grow and weave our own cloth-like Mayapur. If we have good grains, milk, and
cloth life becomes easy and we can save time for preaching and chanting."
Letter to Hayagriva, 7th October, 1968
“Regarding hippies, I know hippies have no money. But in New Vrindaban, our
program is that the inhabitants should produce their own food, somehow or
other they should be self-independent. Otherwise, what is the use of
occupying such great tract of land? If we can think of starting a small
institution, I think we shall get help from government and many foundations,
if they understand that we are actually training people for building up
character and health along with imparting education.
Letter to Hladini -- Calcutta 28 January, 1973
"This modern civilization is always artificial. You are actually learning in
New Vrindaban the self-sufficient mode of living, simple living, high
thinking, that is our policy, and as long as Krsna remains in the center of
all these activities, then you are actually in Vrindaban. And the more you
please the Deities there with your service, the more they shall reciprocate
by bestowing upon you love for Sri Sri Radha Krsna."
Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 16.10 -- Hawaii, February 6, 1975
Prabhupāda: And it is said by Cānakya Pandita that if you want worldly
happiness, then these things are required. Mūrkha yatra na pūjyante. Don't
worship rascals and fools, mūrkha. Mūrkha yatra na pūjyante dhanya yatra
susañcitam:(?) "And food grains are properly stocked." That is the Vedic
civilization, that you work for three months, not very hard, simply till the
ground and sow some food grain seed, and within three months it will grow,
and you will have ample food grains, and you'll keep it in stock. And keep
some cows.Dhanena dhanavān. They say that a rich man means one who has got
sufficient stock of food grains. Food grains. Dhanena dhanavān. That is
Vedic economic system. Gavaya dhanavān. Gavaya means by possessing some
number of cows one is supposed to be rich. It is actually the fact. Everyone
should possess some land for growing food grains and some cows to take milk.
Then the whole economic problem is solved.
Letter to Yasomatinandana -- Vrindaban 28 November, 1976
"You say we must have a goshalla (cow sanctuary) trust, that is our real
purpose. krsi-goraksya-vanijyam vaisya karma svabhava-jam, (Bg 18.44). Where
there is agriculture there must be cows. That is our mission: Cow protection
and agriculture and if there is excess, trade. This is a no-profit scheme.
For the agriculture we want to produce our own food and we want to keep cows
for our own milk. The whole idea is that we are Iskcon, a community to be
independent from outside help. This farm project is especially for the
devotees to grow their own food. Cotton also, to make their own clothes. And
keeping cows for milk and fatty products.
"Our mission is to protect our devotees from unnecessary heavy work to save
time for advancing in Krsna consciousness. This is our mission. So there is
no question of profit, but if easily there are surplus products, then we can
think of trading. Otherwise we have no such intention. We want a temple, a
goshalla (cow sanctuary) and agriculture. A community project, as in Europe
and America."
Srimad Bhagavatam 1.10.4, Purport
There are so many facilities afforded by cow protection, but people have
forgotten these arts. The importance of protecting cows is therefore
stressed by Krishna in Bhagavad-gītā (krishi-go-raksya-vānijyam vaiśya-karma
svabhāvajam (BG 18.44)). Even now in the Indian villages surrounding
Vrndāvana, the villagers live happily simply by giving protection to the
cow. They keep cow dung very carefully and dry it to use as fuel. They keep
a sufficient stock of grains, and because of giving protection to the cows,
they have sufficient milk and milk products to solve all economic problems.
Simply by giving protection to the cow, the villagers live so peacefully.
Even the urine and stool of cows have medicinal value.
20. Even Srila Prabhupada's Disciples and Granddisciples Recognize That He
Wanted His Followers to Avoid Commercial Dairy Products.
The following appeared on the devotee website
www.chakra.org in 2005:
Avoid Milk Products Produced by Nondevotees!
by Durdhara das
Posted April 4, 2005
"Many devotees consume great amounts of milk products, thinking this is good
for their health and helpful for their Krishna conciousness. Usually they
buy it in shops or supermarkets without knowing where these products are
coming from. There are many reasons why a devotee should avoid such
products.
"In Western countries calves are separated from their mothers, or even
killed, directly after birth. For 100 days they are imprisoned in small
boxes where they cannot take even one step forward. They are fed with
unnatural foods like ground-up fish or meat and are slaughtered to be sold
as veal in the supermarkets or butcher shops. If the flesh is not good
enough, they are transformed into dog- or cat-food.
"Many devotees do not know that the high consumption of milk products is
directly connected with the killing of the calves. The high production of
milk products cannot be realized without meat production and calf killing.
Millions of calves are killed every year just to maintain a high yield of
milk products. Please do not say "We are offering our milk to Krishna;
therefore everything will be fine." Nothing will be fine.
"We are doing absolutely nothing for the protection of cows and calves if we
buy milk products produced by non-devotees. On the contrary, we support
demons by giving them our money, and they will not change anything; this
much is certain. We will be entangled in very bad karma, for which we will
get reactions.
"Furthermore, the cows are also nourished with unnatural foodstuffs, which
makes them crazy and diseased. In many countries they are treated with the
hormone BGH, a growth hormone to increase their milk production to an
absolutely unnatural amount. As a result they get mastitis, an infection of
the milk-glands. Therefore they get all kinds of antibiotics, which can
later be found in the milk. So do not wonder if you feel bad after drinking
such milk.
"Besides this, many people have an allergy against lactose (milk sugar) and
animal proteins. Such people should completely abstain from taking milk
products. For example 95 percent of Asians, 74 percent of North American
Indians, 71 percent of Africans, and 53 percent of South Americans do not
have the lactase enzyme necessary to digest milk. They will get sick if they
drink milk, even if the milk is coming from protected cows raised on vedic
principles. Symptoms can be diseases of the stomach and intestines,
diarrhoea and flatulence.
"They also are at risk of other chronic diseases if they drink milk
regularly. Such diseases include type 1 diabetes; chronic infections,
especially sinunitis and bronchitis; neurodermatitis; prostate, breast or
ovarian cancer; arteriosclerosis, osteoporosis and diseases of the heart;
and allergic reactions such as asthma. The list is long and scientifically
proven.
"It is a myth that milk is necessary for the brain or the bones. All eight
essential amino acids, which cannot be produced by the body, are included in
much higher concentrations in nuts, beans (especially soybeans), seeds
(flax, pumpkin, sunflower, etc.), grains and fresh vegetables. Plants also
contain much more vitamins than cow milk and they contain no cholesterol, a
cause of arteriosclerosis that can be found in cow-milk together with
different, unhealthy, saturated-fat acids.
"Even if you do not have an allergy and you take milk from Vedic farming
only, please do not take too much, because it increases the mode of passion
and makes one lustful. Milk is first meant for the calves; we can only take
what is left after their needs are met (Isopanisad 1: ma gridhah kasyasvid
dhanam).
"We have no right to exploit the cows for our sense gratification; if we do
so, we cannot make progress in our spiriual life. Before talking about
higher topics, we should avoid milk products from the cow concentration
camps. Nothing auspicious will come to us otherwise."
Nischala dasi in Australia writes:
"It has also been argued that Srila Prabhupada recommended milk drinking.
First point is that Srila Prabhupada was attempting to convert people away
from meat eating, at a time when most people believed that you could not
survive without animal protein. They believed that plant protein was
inferior- this has since been proven wrong.. Second point is that after
setting up vegetarian temples and restaurants, he arranged for the purchase
of numerous cow-friendly dairy farms so that milk and milk products could be
taken without compromising cow protection. It is there in his conversations,
that he specifically wanted these farms to produce milk not just for their
own consumption, but to supply the temples and restaurants as well. We
haven't done this. We have strayed so far away from his instructions, yet we
have no qualms about using him to justify cruelty to mother cow."
21. The Industrialized West is NOT Agrarian India!
Agrarian India IS an animal-dependent culture! Pro-life and pro-animal
advocate Jeremy Rifkin wrote in his 1992 bestseller, Beyond Beef:
"To a great extent, the very survival of the Indian population depends on
the contribution of this most useful of animals. The cows provide most of
India's dairy requirements. The ox provides traction for sixty million small
farmers whose land feeds eighty percent of the Indian population. Indian
cattle excrete seven hundred million tons of manure annually, half of which
is used as fertilizer to maintain the soil. The rest is burned to provide
heat for cooking.
"Harris has estimated that cattle dung provides Indian housewives with the
equivalent of 'twenty-seven million tons of kerosene, thirty-five million
tons of coal, or sixty-eight million tons of wood.' Cow dung is even mixed
with water and used as a paste to make household flooring... a variety of
household uses."
Whether or not humans are meant to live in a symbiotic relationship with
cattle is, of course, subject to debate. Steven Rosen in his 2004 book, Holy
Cow: the Hare Krishna Contribution to Vegetarianism and Animal Rights,
argues for a "Vedic ecotheology" and tries to show that the cow's dung,
milk, urine, etc. all benefit human society.
According to Kathleen Marquardt, founder of Putting People First, an
anti-animal rights group, animal rights activists are unsympathetic to the
plight of animal dependent cultures.
But the industrialized West is not agrarian India!
****
One of the earliest books subject of vegetarianism and the currrent
environmental crisis is A Vegetarian Sourcebook by Keith Akers (1983).
Describing the environmental damage caused by raising animals for food:
topsoil erosion, deforestization, loss of groundwater, etc. as well as the
economic inefficiency and waste of energy and resources in raising animals
for food in an age of exploding human population growth, Keith Akers
foreshadowed John Robbins' Diet for a New America (1987), which was
nominated for a Pulitzer Prize.
In A Vegetarian Sourcebook, Keith Akers writes:
"Using grasslands for livestock agriculture creates great environmental
problems, which greatly limit its usefulness. Grazing systems require ten
times more land than feedlot agriculture, in which animals are simply given
feed grown on cropland. Grazing systems have to be extensive in order to
avoid the catastrophic consequences of overgrazing--which renders a piece of
land unsuitable for any purpose.
"Overgrazing and the consequent soil erosion are extremely serious problems
worldwide. By the most conservative estimates, 60% of all U.S. rangelands
are overgrazed, with billions of tons of soil lost each year. Overgrazing
has also been the greatest cause of man-made deserts.
"Even if we grant grazing a role in a resource-efficient, ecologically
stable agriculture, milk should be the end result, not beef. Milk provides
over 50% of the protein and nearly four times the calories of beef, per unit
of forage resources from grazing.
"'When only forage is available, then egg, broiler and pork production are
eliminated and only milk, beef, and lamb production are viable systems,'
state David and Marcia Pimentel, scientists and authors of Food, Energy and
Society. 'Of these three, milk production is the most efficient.'
"An ecologically stable, resource-efficient system of grazing animals for
human food could not be anything faintly resembling today's livestock
agriculture. It would be a smaller, decentralized, less intensive system of
animal husbandry devoted to milk production."
This is what the Vedas (Hindu scriptures) say as well: an acre of land, a
cow and a bull, and you're all set! The Vedas also warn that when a
population is sinful, their land becomes a desert...and overgrazing does
lead to topsoil erosion, which in turn leads to desertification.
So it might be possible to have animal agriculture (devoted solely to milk
production) on a small scale -- like in Krishna Consciousness. Rural farm
communities like Gita-nagari, New Talavan, and New Vrindavan. But the rest
of the world's population, in the billions, will have to be vegan.
Animal activists quickly point out that man is the only species that drinks
the milk of another species. The animals have been enslaved or domesticated
to make this possible. The cows have been bred over the centuries to produce
more milk than their calves can consume.
And animal activists quickly ask: if cow's milk, intended for baby calves,
is the perfect food for human beings, why is it half the world’s population
(blacks and Asians in particular) are lactose-intolerant, and cannot digest
dairy products after infancy?
****
As early as 1966, Srila Prabhupada commented about those who kill cows:
"There are very severe (karmic) reactions awaiting all of them (in the
afterlife, that is, in future lifetimes). Cattlemen, cow butchers,
transporters, restaurant owners and consumers. Even the dishwasher."
This is a point Krishna devotees have made repeatedly to pro-lifers, in
secular political language, as well as in biblical theological language: we
reap what we sow. Abortion, like war, is the collective karma for killing
animals. The slippery slope, the mentality which makes abortion possible --
the strong exploiting the weakest and most vulnerable among us -- begins
with humans exploiting animals.
Environmental devastation, rather than abortion or war, is the most visible
manifestation of the collective karma for killing animals by the billions.
Vegan author John Robbins provides these points and facts in his Pulitzer
Prize nominated Diet for a New America (1987):
Half the water consumed in the U.S. irrigates land growing feed and fodder
for livestock. The water that goes into a 1,000 lb. steer could float a
destroyer. It takes 25 gallons of water to produce a pound of wheat, but
2,500 gallons to produce a pound of meat. If these costs weren't subsidized
by the American taxpayers, the cheapest hamburger meat would be $35 per
pound! Subsidizing the California meat industry costs taxpayers $24 billion
annually. Livestock producers are California's biggest consumers of water.
Huge amounts of water wash away livestock excrement. U.S. livestock produce
twenty times as much excrement as the entire human population, creating
sewage which is ten to several hundred times as concentrated as raw domestic
sewage.
Animal wastes cause thrice as much water pollution than does the U.S. human
population; the meat industry causes thrice as much harmful organic water
pollution than the rest of the nation's industries combined.
Meat producers, the number one industrial polluters in our nation,
contribute to half the water pollution in the United States. Every tax
dollar the state doles out to livestock producers costs taxpayers over seven
dollars in lost wages, higher living costs and reduced business income.
Seventeen western states have enough water supplies to support economies and
populations twice as large as the present.
Overgrazing of cattle leads to topsoil erosion, turning once-arable land
into desert. We lose four million acres of topsoil each year and 85 percent
of this loss is directly caused by raising livestock. To replace the soil
we've lost, we're destroying our forests. Since 1967, the rate of
deforestation in the U.S. has been one acre every five seconds. For each
acre cleared in urbanization, seven are cleared for grazing or growing
livestock feed.
One-third of all raw materials in the U.S. are consumed by the livestock
industry and it takes thrice as much fossil fuel energy to produce meat than
it does to produce plant foods. A report on the energy crisis in Scientific
American warned: "The trends in meat consumption and energy consumption are
on a collision course."
****
"All Things Are Connected" is the concluding chapter to vegan author John
Robbins' Pulitzer Prize nominated Diet for a New America (1987) It begins
with a quote from (reincarnationist) Christian mystic Edgar Cayce:
"Destiny, or karma, depends upon what the soul has done about what it has
become aware of."
Hinduism Today described John Robbins a modern-day Siddharta. He was heir to
the Baskin-Robbins fortune. He renounced it at an early age, traveled to
India and opened a yoga ashram in Canada with his wife Deo. His son Ocean
Robbins founded Youth for Environmental Sanity (YES!) in the early '90s,
while he was still in high school, and is also dedicated to promoting
veganism.
John Robbins is a secular author, writing with spiritual eloquence:
"At the present time, when most of us sit down to eat, we aren't very aware
of how our food choices affect the world. We don't realize that in every Big
Mac there is a piece of the tropical rainforests, and with every billion
burgers sold another hundred species become extinct. We don't realize that
in the sizzle of our steaks there is the suffering of animals, the mining of
our topsoil, the slashing of our forests, the harming of our economy, and
the eroding of our health.
"We don't hear in the sizzle the cry of the hungry millions who might
otherwise be fed. We don't see the toxic poisons (pesticides) accumulating
in the food chains, poisoning our children and our earth for generations to
come.
"But once we become aware of the impact of our food choices, we can never
really forget. Of course, we can push it all to the back of our minds, and
we may need to do this, at times, to endure the enormity of what is
involved.
"But the earth itself will remind us, as will our children, and the animals
and the forests and the sky and the rivers, that we are part of this earth,
and it is part of us. All things are deeply connected, and so the choices we
make in our daily lives have enormous influence, not only on our own health
and vitality, but also on the lives of other beings, and indeed on the
destiny of life on earth.
"Thankfully, we have cause to be grateful--what's best for us personally is
also best for other forms of life, and for the life support systems on which
we all depend."
****
John Robbins, vegan author of the Pulitzer Prize nominated Diet for a New
America (1987), praises "simple living and high thinking" which Srila
Prabhupada said is the ideal human society.
"Just as you can only truly see the stars when you turn out the electric
lights, sometimes there are treasures that are only ours when we forego
certain things.
"You mention the Amish. These are people who came to America with little
more than the clothes on their backs, and who make some of the finest
hand-crafted solid wood furniture in the world — including my family’s own
kitchen table.
"It is true that they forego many things (including computers, electricity,
and automobiles) that most Americans take for granted and couldn’t imagine
doing without. But their way of life offers rewards that most Americans can
only dream about. For example:
"Virtually every adult in the Amish community has an independent livelihood
as the owner of a farm or a business.
"There is almost no crime, no violence, no alcoholism, no divorce, and no
drug-taking.
"They accept no government help with health care, old age assistance, or
schooling after the 8th grade. (They were forced by the government to accept
first through eighth grade schooling.)
"The success rate of Amish in small businesses is 95%, compared to the U.S.
rate of 15%.
"All Amish children are offered an expense-paid sabbatical year away from
Amish life when they arrive on the verge of adulthood, so they can see the
world and decide for themselves if they want to remain in the community and
follow its ways. Eighty-five percent of all grown children choose to remain
in the community.
"The Amish are extraordinary neighbors. They are the first to volunteer in
times of crisis and need. They open their farms to ghetto children and
frequently rear handicapped children from the non-Amish world whom nobody
else wants.
"They farm so well and so profitably without chemical fertilizers or
pesticides that Mexico, Canada, Russia, France, and Uruguay have hired them
as advisors on raising agricultural productivity.
"If you don’t want to make any such sacrifices, that is certainly your
privilege. But please don’t put others down for making choices they find
fulfilling. My experience is that there are pleasures in life that are
healthy and life-affirming, that enhance our ability to experience joy and
gratitude. And there are also pleasures that, the more we indulge in them,
the less able we become to enjoy life.
"The first kind of pleasures give us life; the second kind drain us. I think
that wisdom has something to do with being able to tell the difference."
22. Time, Place, and Circumstance.
The gurus preach according to time, place, and circumstance. Srila
Prabhupada wanted the girls to be married at age sixteen and the boys to be
celibate till twenty-four, but the law will not permit child marriage nor
polygamy.
Srila Prabhupada repeatedly quoted the Laws of Manu, in which Manu the
Lawgiver says that women are not to be given independence: they are to be
protected by their fathers in their youth, protected by their husbands in
married life, and protected by their sons in their old age.
Srila Prabhupada said further that if an unmarried girl leaves her father's
care for even a moment (what to speak of getting pregnant and becoming a
single mother!) no one will marry her.
Phil Robertson of Duck Dynasty, advocating men marry fifteen-year-old girls
would like Krishna Consciousness!
Ameyatma dasa (James Beals) lists the “traditional values”:
*Arranged marriage: father finds and selects husband for the daughter.
*It is considered immoral if a girl is not religiously wed before sixteen to
a responsible man.
*A most important aspect of Vedic culture, in this regards, is that a girl’s
chastity must be kept strictly PURE.
*A girl with pure and protected chastity is the most precious and valuable
asset of society in Vedic culture.
*Since a girl’s chastity and virginity are absolutely expected and required
by the husband at time of marriage, then the best assurance of this is to
arrange that the girl is married before, or not too long after puberty.
*Divorce (in the modern sense) does not exist in Vedic (Hindu) civilization.
*Remarriage for a woman, especially a mother with child is considered most
impure and unchaste and remarriage for the mother is considered most
undesirable and detrimental to her children.
*Girls were trained at home to become submissive wives and good loving
mothers. They learned how to cook, sew, keep account of family income and
expenditures, clean, etc.
According to the Laws of Manu, women are not to be given independence. They
are to be protected by their fathers in their youth, protected by their
husbands in married life, and protected by their sons in their old age.
If an unmarried girl leaves her father's care for even a moment, no one will
marry her.
But again, the law will not permit child marriage, nor polygamy, and many
devotee parents in the West might want their daughters to be
college-educated, with a career, and ready to fend for themselves should
they face abandonment by partner.
Can children be raised without cow's milk?
YES! Half the world's population (blacks and Asians in particular) are
lactose intolerant, and can't digest milk after infancy. Dr. Michael Klaper
has written books on vegan nutrition, pregnancy, and childbirth, beginning
with Vegan Nutrition: Pure and Simple from 1989.
Srila Prabhupada said his spiritual master said one who cannot chant
sixty-four rounds per day is fallen, but Srila Prabhupada lowered the
requirement for formal initiation down to sixteen rounds.
Like many Hindus in India, Srila Prabhupada similarly considered using
toilet paper when using the toilet to not be clean enough: the proper Vedic
standard is to wash oneself or bathe after using the toilet. But for his
disciples in the West, being employed, etc., such a standard would prove
impractical.
Again, the gurus preach according to time, place, and circumstance. Is
veganism being "fanatical" about nonviolence, or is it just being realistic?
23. "Self-Righteous?"
According to Kathleen Marquardt, founder of Putting People First, an
anti-animal rights group, animal rights activists are unsympathetic to the
plight of animal dependent cultures... like agrarian India?
In August 2000, I said to Gaverick Matheny of Vegan Action that perhaps the
vegans could reach out to the larger vegetarian community (without
compromising their ethics, of course). Gaverick agreed.
In the late '90s, I was on an email list for pro-life vegetarians and vegans
(their mere presence indirectly debunks the Republican lie that animal
activists are all pro-choice!), but there were already tensions between the
vegetarians and the vegans.
Ted "PanDeva" Zagar, a Western astrologer formerly with Vegetarian Times in
the '80s, and contributed a pro-life vegan essay to Janine "Parvati" Baker's
Conscious Conception, said he wasn't trying to be self-righteous, but
rather, "I am appealing to your sense of compassion to DUMP THE DAIRY!"
Mother Pritha in New Vrindavan, West Virginia, responded, exasperated, "Here
we go again! The vegans are superior!" And she would hear none of it.
(She was living on a farm community where the milk is obtained humanely and
nonviolently.)
And Mother Pritha strictly follows the four regulative principles! On one of
her emails from that time, when attacking the GHQ (some kind of male
chauvanist group within Krishna Consciousness), she asked, "How many of
their children were the result of chanting fifty rounds before sexual
intercourse?"
... indirectly indicating that she herself actually observes the principle
of no illicit sex even within marriage.
(Anantarupa dasa told me around that time that 95 percent of grihastas or
married couples in Krishna Consciousness secretly have illicit sex within
marriage.)
When I offered a compromise solution, like in my 2001 critique of Kathleen
Marquardt's Animal Scam, that it might be possible to have
ecologically-stable animal agriculture on a small scale, like the rural farm
communities in Krishna Consciousness, where the animals are not mistreated
(see above), it was the vegans who wouldn't agree.
Similarly, in 2002, I attended a fundraising event with the San Francisco
Vegetarian Society (SFVS) for World Vegetarian Day, at Maharani, an Indian
restaurant in San Francisco. The owner of Maharani, Joy Kapoor, is vegan,
and supportive of animal rights causes. Joy Kapoor provided a strictly vegan
buffet. I managed to distribute several flyers advertising our upcoming
Ratha Yatra Festival in Golden Gate Park.
The dessert was vegan halava, and it tasted different from the halava served
in Krishna temples, because it was made without dairy. I said as much to one
of the SFVS members next to me, and he said words to the effect of: for
taste, animals have to suffer and die?!
I didn't disagree with him, but felt he was coming across as a bit
self-righteous.
Again: is veganism being "fanatical" about nonviolence or just being
realistic?
24. Srila Prabhupada's Own Teachings on Ahimsa (Nonviolence).
Srimad Bhagavatam 2.7.52, Purport (commentary): " Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam is the
philosophy of devotional service and the scientific presentation of man's
relationship with the Supreme Personality of Godhead. Prior to the age of
Kali there was no need for such a book of knowledge to know the Lord and His
potential energies, but with the beginning of the age of Kali human society
gradually became influenced by four sinful principles, namely illegitimate
connection with women, intoxication, gambling and unnecessary killing of
animals. Because of these basic sinful acts, man gradually became forgetful
of his eternal relation with God. Therefore man became blind, so to speak,
to his ultimate goal of life."
Srimad Bhagavatam 3.6.28, Purport: "... the animals... are meant to be
protected by mankind. Persons who indulge in unnecessary animal killing
...are destined to be degraded to lower statuses of life. The planetary
systems are calculated as upper (heavenly) and lower (hellish) in terms of
the classes of living entities who live there."
Srimad Bhagavatam 4.7.33, Purport: "The purport here is that animals should
not be unnecessarily killed."
Srimad Bhagavatam 4.11.7, Purport: A kṣatriya (soldier, warrior) is allowed
to kill only for maintenance of the law and order of the state; he is not
allowed to kill or commit violence without reason. Violence is certainly a
path leading to a hellish condition of life, but it is also required for
maintenance of the law and order of the state. Here Lord Manu prohibited
Dhruva Mahārāja from killing the Yakṣas because only one of them was
punishable for killing his brother, Uttama; not all of the Yakṣa citizens
were punishable. We find in modern warfare, however, that attacks are made
upon innocent citizens who are without fault. According to the law of Manu,
such warfare is a most sinful activity. Furthermore, at the present moment
civilized nations are unnecessarily maintaining many slaughterhouses for
killing innocent animals. When a nation is attacked by its enemies, the
wholesale slaughter of the citizens should be taken as a (karmic) reaction
to their own sinful activities. That is nature's law.
Srimad Bhagavatam 4.11.10, Purport: "The words sādhūnāṁ hṛṣīkeśānuvartinām
are very significant. Sādhu means "a saintly person." But who is a saintly
person? A saintly person is he who follows the path of rendering service
unto the Supreme Personality of Godhead, Hṛṣīkeśa. In the Nārada-pañcarātra
it is said, hṛṣīkeṇa hṛṣīkeśa-sevanaṁ bhaktir ucyate: (CC Madhya 19.170) the
process of rendering favorable service to the Supreme Personality of Godhead
with one's senses is called bhakti, or devotional service. Therefore, why
should a person who is already engaged in the service of the Lord engage
himself in personal sense gratification? ...A human being, especially one
who is a devotee of the Lord, should not act like this. A sādhu, a saintly
devotee, is not supposed to kill animals unnecessarily."
Srimad Bhagavatam 4.17.25, Purport: "The maintenance of slaughterhouses for
the satisfaction of the tongue and the killing of animals unnecessarily
should never be sanctioned by a government."
Srimad Bhagavatam 5.26.25, Purport: "The word dambha-yajñeṣu in this verse
is significant. If one violates the Vedic instructions while performing
yajña and simply makes a show of sacrifice for the purpose of killing
animals, he is punishable after death. In Calcutta there are many
slaughterhouses where animal flesh is sold that has supposedly been offered
in sacrifice before the goddess Kālī. The śāstras (scriptures) enjoin that
one can sacrifice a small goat before the goddess Kālī once a month (the
original intent of animal sacrifices is to curtail, limit, and restrict the
killing of animals). Nowhere is it said that one can maintain a
slaughterhouse in the name of temple worship and daily kill animals
unnecessarily. Those who do so receive the punishments described herein."
Srimad Bhagavatam 6.4.7, Translation and Purport: "O greatly fortunate
ones, you should not kill these poor trees by burning them to ashes. Your
duty is to wish the citizens (prajās) all prosperity and to act as their
protectors."
"It is indicated herein that the government or king has the duty of
protecting not only the human beings, but all other living entities,
including animals, trees and plants. No living entity should be killed
unnecessarily."
Srimad Bhagavatam 7.15 Summary: " One should not make very elaborate
arrangements to perform the śrāddha ceremony of offering oblations to one's
forefathers. The best process for the śrāddha ceremony is to distribute
bhāgavata-prasāda (remnants of food that has first been offered to Kṛṣṇa) to
all of one's forefathers and relatives. This makes a first-class śrāddha
ceremony. In the śrāddha ceremony there is no need to offer meat or eat
meat. Unnecessary killing of animals must be avoided. Those who are in the
lower grades of society prefer to perform sacrifices by killing animals, but
one who is advanced in knowledge must avoid such unnecessary violence."
Srimad Bhagavatam 7.15.24, Purport: " By practice, one should avoid eating
in such a way that other living entities will be disturbed and suffer. Since
I suffer when pinched or killed by others, I should not attempt to pinch or
kill any other living entity. People do not know that because of killing
innocent animals they themselves will have to suffer severe reactions from
material nature. Any country where people indulge in unnecessary killing of
animals will have to suffer from wars and pestilence imposed by material
nature. Comparing one's own suffering to the suffering of others, therefore,
one should be kind to all living entities."
Srimad Bhagavatam 10.10.12, Purport: "Atheists do not believe in the
existence of the soul. Nonetheless, unless one is very cruel, why should one
kill animals unnecessarily? The body is a manifestation of a combination of
matter. In the beginning it was nothing, but by a combination of matter it
has come into existence. Then again, when the combination is dismantled, the
body will no longer exist. In the beginning it was nothing, and in the end
it will be nothing. Why then should one commit sinful activities when it is
manifested? It is not possible for anyone to do this unless he is rascal
number one."
Bhagavad-gita As It Is Lectures
Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 1.21-22 -- London, July 18, 1973: Now they are
making correction: "Thou shalt not kill," "Thou shalt not murder." That
means it will come to human being. But the actual commandment is "Thou shalt
not kill." But these Christian people, they are making some amendment, "Thou
shalt not murder." Because murder will apply to the killing of human beings.
But Lord Jesus Christ never said like that. "Thou shalt not kill." It is
applicable both for human being and for animal or even for trees.
Unnecessarily you cannot kill. That is sādhu. Suhṛdaṁ sarva-bhūtānām (BG
5.29). "Don't kill my brother, but you can kill my neighbors." Not like
that. He is not sādhu. Sādhu is kind to all living entities.
"Thou shalt not kill."
The March 1986 issue of Hinduism Today reported that across the board, Hindu
religious leaders condemn abortion at any stage of fetal development
as killing (some say murder) and as an act which carries very
serious karmic repercussions (like the killing of cows). I commented on the
Democrats For Life email list in 2007 that abortion falls somewhere between
cow-killing and murder in the Hindu religious tradition, prompting Bill
Samuel (raised a Quaker and a lifelong vegetarian) to exclaim, "Do
something!"
Since all of Srila Prabhupada's words are recorded on CD ROM, we can
determine if Srila Prabhupada ever used the word "murder" with regard to
abortion. My understanding is that Srila Prabhupada referred to abortion
as killing, not murder.
And Srila Prabhupada was very specific in his choice of words! For example,
Srila Prabhupada said in conversation with Father Emmanuel Jungclaussen, a
Benedictine monk, in 1974, "If you do not follow the first order, 'Thou
shalt not kill,' then where is the question of love of God?"
A visitor responded, "Christians take this commandment to be applicable to
human beings, not to animals."
Srila Prabhupada said, "That would mean that Christ was not intelligent
enough to use the right word: murder. There is killing, and there is murder.
Murder refers to human beings. Do you think Jesus was not intelligent enough
to use the right word -- murder -- instead of the word killing? Killing
means any kind of killing, and especially animal killing. If Jesus had meant
simply the killing of humans, he would have used the word murder."
(In an issue of PETA's Animal Times magazine from several years ago, Prince
explained his reasons for being strictly vegan by saying, "'Thou shalt not
kill' means just that."
Lecture on Bhagavad-gita 2.2-6 -- Ahmedabad, December 11, 1972: Just like
Mahārāja Parīkṣit, Arjuna's grandson, when he was touring in his empire...
The whole world was at that time Indian empire. Not Indian exactly.
Bhārata-varṣa. Now we have imitated some name, Bhārata, the "Indian,"
"Hindustan." But formerly the whole planet was known as Bhārata-varṣa. So
when he saw that man was trying to kill one cow, immediately he took his
sword: "Immediately I shall kill you. Who are you, killing cows in my
kingdom?" This is kṣatriya's (soldier's, warrior's) business. So... But
there is no kṣatriya now because so many cows are being killed. Nobody is
protesting. It is the duty of the kṣatriya to protect every living entity
born in the land, in his kingdom. It is not that, as it is going on now,
that only the human beings should be protected and not the animals. No
animal could be killed except in sacrifice, as prescribed. Unnecessarily,
there was no need of killing animals. That is great sin.
Lecture on Srimad Bhagavatam 1.7.26 -- Vrndavana, September 2, 1976: We can
get all the necessities of our life from the land. The land is so important.
But the uncivilized man, they do not know how to utilize the land. Therefore
they commit sinful activities for their existence. Instead of utilizing land
for the necessities of life, unnecessarily... Although they are
civilized—they should not have done so—they are killing animals.
Lecture on Srimad Bhagavatam 6.1.17 -- Honolulu, May 17, 1976:
Suhṛdaḥ sarva-bhūtānām: "He is friend of everyone." There is no distinction
that "He is American," "He is Indian," "He is Christian," "He is Hindu," "He
is dog," "He is cat," "He is man..." No. He is kind to everyone. Why we are
preaching "No meat-eating"? If you stop meat-eating, then the poor animals
will be saved. So what business we have got with the animals? Suhṛdaḥ
sarva-bhūtānām. A saintly person is friend to everyone. "Why unnecessarily
an animal should be killed?" That is his feeling.
Lecture on Srimad Bhagavatam 6.1.32 -- Surat, December 16, 1970: So these
are sinful activities: illicit sex life and meat-eating, unnecessarily
killing the animals. Why should you kill animals? If God has given you so
many nice foodstuffs—varieties of fruit, varieties of grain, sufficient
milk—why should you take to this obnoxious foodstuff? But it is ill luck,
unfortunate. By ill association you have learned all this nonsense. So
therefore one has to give up these nonsense habits. That is called tapasya.
Tapo divyam (Srimad Bhagavatam 5.5.1).
Lecture on Srimad Bhagavatam 6.1.34-39 -- Surat, December 19, 1970: And the
pillars of sinful activities, that is also mentioned in the Bhāgavata.
Striya-sūna-pāna-dyūta yatra pāpaś catur-vidhāḥ: (SB 1.17.38) "Four kinds of
sinful activities: illicit sex, and intoxication, and unnecessarily killing
of animals, and gambling." All the slaughterhouses of the world are being
maintained unnecessarily. That is recruiting simply sins. They are eating
sins, and therefore the world is in trouble. Simply committing. There is no
necessity of killing animals. But here in India they are killing ten
thousand cows daily, what to speak of Western countries. So people are so
much addicted to sinful activities. How they can be happy? They are
condemned. Only this movement, Kṛṣṇa consciousness, if they take to this
movement, they can be saved. Otherwise, there is no saving.
Lecture on Srimad Bhagavatam 7.5.30 -- Mauritius, October 2, 1975: Everyone
is working very hard simply for sense gratification. And as soon as you take
this life of sense gratification, you are sure to commit sinful activities.
For example, throughout the whole world there are so many breweries
manufacturing liquor. Especially in the Western countries you will find so
many, the advertisement, liquor advertisement, whiskey advertisement,
cigarette advertisement. And what to speak of slaughterhouse? There are
many, many hundreds and thousands of slaughterhouse. And innocent animals
are being killed all over the world unnecessarily. People can live with food
grains. That is allowed for the all living entities. In the Bhagavad-gītā it
is said, annād bhavanti bhūtāni: (BG 3.14) "Simply by growing food grains,
both the animals and the man, they can live very happily."
Lecture on Srimad Bhagavatam -- Melbourne, May 19, 1975: So Parīkṣit
Mahārāja was very pious. That was the system. A king, monarch is supposed to
give protection everyone within the kingdom. It doesn't matter whether he is
man or animal. Even trees. There was no law, unnecessarily cutting or
killing, no. Actually, if you are reasonable, national... National means
anyone who is born in that land. At the present moment the governments take
care of the man only, not of the animals. What is this nationalism? What the
animal has done that they should not be protected? So this is called
Kali-yuga, the sinful age. Sinful age.
Sri Vyasa-puja -- New Vrindaban, September 2, 1972: National means one who
has taken birth in the land. That is called national. That is... You know,
everyone. So the trees, they are also born in the land, the aquatics also
born in the land. The flies, the reptiles, the snakes, the birds, the
beasts, human beings—everyone is born in that land. Suppose your land,
America, United States... Why the government should give protection to one
class of living entities, rejecting others? This means they have lost their
sympathy for others. This is Kali-yuga. Formerly, before Kali-yuga,
unnecessarily even an ant would not be killed. Even an ant. There are many
instances that a hunter who was taking advantage of killing animals, but
when he became a devotee he was not prepared to kill even an ant.
Pandal Lecture -- Delhi, November 20, 1971: Sūnā means unnecessarily
killing the animals. Just like slaughterhouse. You cannot maintain
slaughterhouse in the human society and at the same time you want peace. It
is not possible. Every living entity is son of God. You cannot kill even an
ant, then you dissatisfy God. Take for example just like a gentleman has got
five sons, one of them is useless, doing nothing. But if the expert son
says, "My dear father, your this son is useless. Let us kill him and eat,"
cannibal. Will the father agree, "Oh, yes, yes, this son is useless. You can
kill and eat"? Time will come in this Kali-yuga when actually people will
become what is called man-eater. Still there are existence man-eaters in
Africa. So the human society is coming to that position. Like animal, they
will eat their own sons and daughters. So therefore this practice,
unnecessarily killing animal, is one of the pillar of sinful life.
Lecture -- Bombay, September 25, 1973: We have to give up anācāra,
forbidden things, sinful things. Striyaḥ sūnā pānaṁ dyūtaṁ yatra pāpaś
catur-vidhaḥ. There are four kinds of sinful activities. Basic principle of
sinful life is avaidha, illicit sex life. Avaidha stri-saṅga. Striyaḥ sūnā,
unnecessary animal killing. Pāna, drinking intoxicant; and gambling. We have
to give up these four principles. Then our life becomes pure. If we give up
these four principles and chant Hare Kṛṣṇa mantra, then we become perfect.
How it is? You can see the examples. These European, Americans, they were
accustomed to all these practices. That is their daily affair. But they have
given up this. Now you see, how they are saintly. So the thing is not very
difficult, but one has to accept the principles. Then one lifes becomes
perfect.
Room Conversation with David Wynne, Sculptor -- July 9, 1973, London:
Prabhupāda: What is this culture? A human being is killing so many animals,
innocent animals, is that culture? They are less than animals. Who kills?
The tiger kills, ferocious. A human being killing innocent animals... In
Christian religion, therefore: "Thou shall not kill." But they are killing
only. Where is the culture? Killing culture. That is not culture. What do
you think?
David Wynne: It must be so. Yes.
Prabhupāda: Yes. How a human being can kill another human being or another
animal unnecessarily? And if you kill, there is law, life for life. But they
have made laws for human beings. When an animal is killed, he's not
criminal. But in the God laws you cannot avoid that. If you have killed an
ant, you must be shot. That is God's law. You can avoid man-made law, but
you cannot avoid God-made law.
Room Conversation with Sir Alistair Hardy -- July 21, 1973, London:
Prabhupāda: The Bible says, "Thou shalt not kill," and the Christian people
are killing, maintaining slaughterhouse. What is this? This is my question.
How they'll understand God if they are implicated in sinful activities?
According to Vedas, there are four kinds of sinful activities: illicit sex,
unnecessary killing of animals, intoxication and gambling. Yatra pāpaś
catur-vidhaḥ. So God is purest. Paraṁ brahma paraṁ dhāma pavitraṁ paramaṁ
bhavān (BG 10.12). How one can approach God if he leads a sinful life? That
is our propagation. You give up this sinful life. Then you'll be able to
understand God.
"Thou shalt not kill."
The March 1986 issue of Hinduism Today reported that across the board, Hindu
religious leaders condemn abortion at any stage of fetal development as
killing (some say murder) and as an act which carries very serious karmic
repercussions (like the killing of cows). I commented on the Democrats For
Life email list in 2007 that abortion falls somewhere between cow-killing
and murder in the Hindu religious tradition, prompting Bill Samuel (raised a
Quaker and a lifelong vegetarian) to exclaim, "Do something!"
Since all of Srila Prabhupada's words are recorded on CD ROM, we can
determine if Srila Prabhupada ever used the word "murder" with regard to
abortion. My understanding is that Srila Prabhupada referred to abortion as
killing, not murder.
And Srila Prabhupada was very specific in his choice of words! For example,
Srila Prabhupada said in conversation with Father Emmanuel Jungclaussen, a
Benedictine monk, in 1974, "If you do not follow the first order, 'Thou
shalt not kill,' then where is the question of love of God?"
A visitor responded, "Christians take this commandment to be applicable to
human beings, not to animals."
Srila Prabhupada said, "That would mean that Christ was not intelligent
enough to use the right word: murder. There is killing, and there is murder.
Murder refers to human beings. Do you think Jesus was not intelligent enough
to use the right word -- murder -- instead of the word killing? Killing
means any kind of killing, and especially animal killing. If Jesus had meant
simply the killing of humans, he would have used the word murder."
(In an issue of PETA's Animal Times magazine from several years ago, Prince
explained his reasons for being strictly vegan by saying, "'Thou shalt not
kill' means just that."
Garden Conversation with Professors -- June 24, 1975, Los Angeles:
Prabhupāda: We are also working. It is not that we are simply sitting down
and chanting. Because we are chanting, therefore we are loving everyone.
That is a fact. These Hare Kṛṣṇa chanters, they will never agree to kill any
animal, even a plant, because they know everything is part and parcel of
God. Why unnecessarily one should be killed? That is love.
Morning Walk -- October 25, 1975, Mauritius:
Prabhupāda: No, no, to kill animal is not very heroic. Nonsense. Innocent
animal wandering and you kill. "Oh, very great hero." Again he deserves to
be kicked on the face. All action, they are simply rewarded with kicking on
the face. Why should you kill animal? Ātmavat sarva-bhūteṣu. If you are
killed, you feel pain. Why should you kill others unnecessarily?
1976 Conversations and Morning Walks
Conversation with Clergymen -- June 15, 1976, Detroit:
Prabhupāda: So, we have to teach people how to refrain from sinful
activities. Then, when he's pure, then God will reveal. If we keep them in
sinful life, at the same time we want to preach them, it will not be
possible. In the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam it is said that those who are animal
killer, they cannot understand about God. Vinā paśu-ghnāt. So if in the
human society unnecessary animal killing is encouraged, he will never be
able to understand what is God. The greatest sinful activity, paśu-ghnāt. So
in human society, unnecessarily animal killing is going on. So they are
entangled in sinful activities; therefore they are unable to understand what
is God.
Room Conversation -- August 8, 1976, Tehran:
Prabhupāda: Wrong, one thing is wrong in my country, and that is right in
your country. Just like animal slaughter is wrong according to our Vedic
civilization. Unnecessary animal slaughter is forbidden. But in your country
or in other Western countries, they kill so many animals. So what is wrong,
what is right? Who will decide?
Moustafa: That's the reason I don't kill animals and I don't eat meat. For
three years now.
Prabhupāda: That's very good, very good idea.
1977 Conversations and Morning Walks
Morning Walk -- January 24, 1977, Bhuvanesvara:
Prabhupāda: A little family, a little community, that is your world. We do
not think in that way. We include even the animals, trees, plants-brothers.
That is our philosophy. We feel. When you cut a tree unnecessarily, we feel.
This is our feeling. Unless there is absolute necessity, we do not wish to
kill even a tree, what to speak of animals. When in our Bombay the coconut
trees were being cut, I was feeling actually: "Why unnecessarily the coconut
trees...?" You cannot give anyone life, so how, what is living, you can
kill? It may be tree or animal or plant. You cannot give him life. So you
have to suffer for this.
According to Manu, the great author of civic codes and religious principles,
even the killer of an animal is to be considered a murderer because animal
food is never meant for the civilized man, whose prime duty is to prepare
himself for going back to Godhead. He says that in the act of killing an
animal, there is a regular conspiracy by the party of sinners, and all of
them are liable to be punished as murderers exactly like a party of
conspirators who kill a human being combinedly. He who gives permission, he
who kills the animal, he who sells the slaughtered animal, he who cooks the
animal, he who administers distribution of the foodstuff, and at last he who
eats such cooked animal food are all murderers, and all of them are liable
to be punished by the laws of nature. No one can create a living being
despite all advancement of material science, and therefore no one has the
right to kill a living being by one's independent whims.
[Srila Prabhupada from Srimad Bhagavatam 1.7.37]
Quote from his Divine grace A.C Bhaktivedanta Srila Prabhupada
Quote, "Slaughterhouse Civilization":
“For meat-eaters, that is what the Vedic culture recommends... don`t eat
cows until after they have died a natural death. We don’t say, 'Don’t eat,'
you are so very fond of eating cows. All right, you can eat them, because
after their death we have to give them to somebody, some living entity.
Generally, cow carcasses are given to the vultures. But then, why only to
the vultures? Why not the modern 'civilized' people, who are as good as
vultures?”
25. Nonviolence is a Higher Dharma (Religious Duty) Than Eating or Offering
Only Food in the Mode of Goodness.
John Stuart Mill observed, "The reason for legal intervention in favor of
children apply not less strongly to the case of those unfortunate slaves—
the animals."
In his book, Christianity and the Rights of Animals, Reverend Andrew Linzey,
an Anglican priest, notes that "In some ways, Christian thinking is already
oriented in this direction. What is it that so appalls us about cruelty to
children or oppression of the vulnerable, but that these things are
betrayals of relationships of special care and special trust? Likewise in
the case of animals who are mostly defenseless before us."
According to the Vedas, humans exist in a special relationship with cows.
Protecting cows is a religious duty.
But in the cases of child abuse, there is loss of child custody. In the case
of spousal abuse, there is divorce.
(Severed relationships Vs proper relationships.)
And children leaving their parents as well as divorce do not exist under the
Vedic social system.
The only exceptions are when a lower dharma or religious duty is superseded
by a higher dharma, like devotion to God.
Prahlad Maharaja rebuked his father Hiranyakashipu.
Bali Maharaja disobeyed his guru, Sukracharya, to surrender to Lord Vishnu
in the form of Vamana.
The gopis (milkmaids) left their husbands or their fathers' care to dance
with Krishna in the middle of the night.
Srila Prabhupada himself left his wife and family after his wife sold his
copy of the Srimad Bhagavatam to purchase tea!
Nonviolence, similarly, is a higher dharma than eating or offering only food
in the mode of goodness.
“Ahimsa (nonviolence) is the highest duty.”
--Padma Purana 1.31.27
The animals’ right to life takes precedence over “dietary laws” !
The Mahabharata (Santi-parva 141.88) similarly says that the eating of
“unclean” food is not as terrible as the eating of flesh. (It must be
remembered that the brahmanas of ancient India exalted cleanliness to a
divine principle).
Srila Prabhupada similarly said:
"We simply request, 'Don't kill. Don't maintain slaughterhouses.' That is
very sinful. It brings a very awkward karmic reaction upon society. Stop
these slaughterhouses. We don't say, 'Stop eating meat.' You can eat meat,
but don't take it from the slaughterhouse, by killing. Simply wait (until
the animal dies of natural causes) and you'll get the carcasses."
("Slaughterhouse Civilization", Back to Godhead, 1979)
Animals that died of natural causes can't be offered to Krishna, either. So
it's clear obtaining food nonviolently is the overriding concern. Srila
Prabhupada similarly told his disciples in India if they were in a position
where they couldn't offer their food to just go to a vegetarian restaurant.
In Judaism, too, it is taught that the various 613 commandments in the Torah
can be superseded or violated to save a life.
26. Severed Relationships Vs Proper Relationships.
According to Jayadeva Goswami, when the Vedas were being misused to justify
widespread animal sacrifice, the Lord appeared as the Buddha to lead people
away from the Vedas (Buddhism).
Similarly, abandoning milk, like establishing Krishna conscious farms where
the animals are treated humanely, IS a valid response to cow-killing and
animal-killing in general.
Severed relationships Vs proper relationships.
Despite the widespread corruption in Krishna Consciousness with the
different ashrams and levels of service, no one is suggesting these ashrams
be abolished, but that they be corrected, and follow the proper standard.
Most grihastas or married couples in Krishna Consciousness, for example,
secretly have illicit (non-procreative) sex. And Srila Prabhupada considered
the monastic orders of bramachari and sannyassa to be preferable to married
life, for spiritual reasons. But no one is suggesting the institution of
marriage within Krishna Consciousness be abolished, but rather corrected and
made to follow the proper standard.
Severed relationships Vs proper relationships.
27. Srila Prabhupada himself spoke favorably of Buddhism as far as
nonviolence toward animals is concerned.
The distinction between vegetarians and vegans is similar to the distinction
between Hindus and Buddhists. We can see the obvious points of similarity
between the two religions, but the Hindus revere the cow as the
representation of the Supreme Lord (a personal God), His pastimes
(Krishna-lila) and the spiritual world, whereas the Buddhists do not,
perhaps because the Buddhists do not recognize a personal God.
In The Path of Perfection, Srila Prabhupada writes:
"Bhakti-yoga means connecting ourselves with Krishna, God, and becoming His
eternal associates. Bhakti-yoga cannot be applied to any other objective;
therefore in Buddhism, for instance, there is no bhakti-yoga, because they
do not recognize the Supreme Lord existing as the supreme objective.
Christians, however, practice bhakti-yoga when they worship Jesus Christ,
because they are accepting him as the son of God and are therefore accepting
God. Unless one accepts God, there is no question of bhakti-yoga.
Christianity, therefore, is also a form of Vaishnavaism (the worship of Lord
Vishnu), because God is recognized... However, where there is no recognition
of a personal God... there is no question of bhakti-yoga."
Contemporary Hindu spiritual master Ravindra Svarupa dasa (Dr. William
Deadwyler) writes that the Buddha "...taught that our material existence is
suffering, that our material desires cause suffering, and that by
extirpating these desires we can attain nirvana, release from material
existence. The Buddha refused to deal with any question concerning God, the
soul, life after salvation, and so on. When asked about such things, he
would reply, 'The Tathagata (the Buddha) is free from all theories.'
"Later, some of his followers spread the doctrines of sunya, voidism, and
anatma, no soul, but these were mundane interpretations of the Buddha's
silence on transcendental topics. The simple fact is that the Buddha had
denied the Vedas (Hindu scriptures), yet he remained faithful to them by
refusing to make 'theories,' that is, to discuss God or the soul
independently of the Vedic teachings; so he said nothing."
The authorities preach according to time, place and circumstance. When the
Vedas (Hindu scriptures) were being misused to kill animals, Srila
Prabhupada said the Lord had to advent Himself as the Buddha and lead people
away from the Vedas. Srila Prabhupada said further that because
animal-killing had made it impossible for a meat-eating populace to
understand God, the Lord saved not only the animals, but the atheists, too,
with an agnostic moral philosophy of nonviolence. Srila Prabhupada himself
spoke favorably of Buddhism as far as nonviolence toward animals is
concerned.
The guru Jayadeva Goswami said when cows and other animals were being killed
in the name of the Vedas (Hindu scriptures) the Lord said abandon the Vedas
(Buddhism). Veganism based on ahimsa (nonviolence) IS a realistic response
to cow-killing through factory-farming, as is establishing humane
Krishna-conscious farm communities where the animals are not mistreated.
Srimad Bhagavatam 6.8.19, Purport: "The mission of Lord Buddha was to save
people from the abominable activity of animal killing and to save the poor
animals from being unnecessarily killed. When pāṣaṇḍīs (nonbelievers) were
cheating by killing animals on the plea of sacrificing them in Vedic yajñas
(sacrifices), the Lord said, "If the Vedic injunctions allow animal killing,
I do not accept the Vedic principles." Thus he actually saved people who
acted according to Vedic principles. One should therefore surrender to Lord
Buddha so that he can help one avoid misusing the injunctions of the Vedas."
Srimad Bhagavatam 6.10.9, Purport: "One generally follows different types
of religious principles or performs various occupational duties according to
the body given to him by the modes of material nature. In this verse,
however, real religious principles are explained. Everyone should be unhappy
to see others in distress and happy to see others happy. Ātmavat
sarva-bhūteṣu: one should feel the happiness and distress of others as his
own. It is on this basis that the Buddhist religious principle of
nonviolence—ahiṁsaḥ parama-dharmaḥ—is established. We feel pain when someone
disturbs us, and therefore we should not inflict pain upon other living
beings. Lord Buddha's mission was to stop unnecessary animal killing, and
therefore he preached that the greatest religious principle is nonviolence."
Lecture on Srimad Bhagavatam 6.1.40 -- Surat, December 22, 1970: The
atheists were against God. He (the Buddha) appeared before them. He said,
"Yes, you are right. You don't worship God. You follow me," because his
principle was to stop animal-killing. Sadaya-hṛdaya darśita-paśu-ghātam. God
became very much compassionate. When people were too much addicted in
killing animals unnecessarily, He appeared as Lord Buddha. Sadaya-hṛdaya
darśita-paśu-ghātam. Paśu-ghātam. The paśu-ghātam means they were being
implicated in innumerable sinful activities by this process. Therefore God
wanted to... Yadā yadā hi dharmasya glānir bhavati (BG 4.7). In the name of
religion, they were killing so many animals. Therefore to stop this
nonsense, he appeared.
Lecture on Srimad Bhagavatam 7.6.1 -- Madras, January 2, 1976: So Lord
Buddha, he preached ahiṁsā paramo dharma, no killing of animals. So these
paṇḍitas (learned scholars), they will give evidence that in the Vedas there
is description of killing animals. How you can stop it? So therefore he
said, "I don't care for your Vedas." Nindasi yajña-vidher ahaha śruti-jātam.
Why? Why he did so? Sadaya-hṛdaya-darśita-paśu-ghātam. He was compassionate
to see unnecessary killing of animals. Sadaya-hṛdaya. Therefore ahiṁsā
paramo dharmaḥ. That was his... Although he is the incarnation of God...
Keśava dhṛta-buddha-śarīra, jaya jagadīśa hare. So the Vaiṣṇava can
understand what is Lord Buddha and why he decried the authority of...
Because there was no other way.
Philosophy Discussion on William James:
Prabhupāda: Lord Buddha appeared at a time when people became atheistic, and
especially they began to kill animals in the sacrifice in large quantity. So
God, Lord Buddha, appeared, being sympathetic to the poor animals.
Sadaya-hṛdaya darśita-paśu-ghātam. He was very, very much aggrieved to see
the poor animals are being killed unnecessarily. So he preached the religion
of nonviolence, and because the people became atheist, so Lord Buddha, just
to take them under his control, he also collaborated. That is Buddhism.
Room Conversation with Allen Ginsberg -- May 13, 1969, Columbus, Ohio:
Prabhupāda: Śaṅkarācārya's conclusion was to defeat Buddhism. They do not
know it, but actually, when there was too much animal-killing and people
became almost atheist under the shadow of Vedic rituals, Lord Buddha
appeared. He wanted to stop men from the sinful activities of killing
unnecessarily under the plea of Vedas. So he invented that ahiṁsa,
nonviolence. And... Therefore, Lord Buddha said that "I do not follow Vedic
rituals. I have nothing to do with Vedas. It is my own formula." So Jayadeva
has written one prayer because the Vaiṣṇavas can understand how God is
playing. So he writes, nindasi yajña-vidher ahaha śruti-jātaṁ: "My dear
Lord, now You have appeared as Lord Buddha. You are decrying the Vedic
rituals."Śruti-jātaṁ. Śruti-jātaṁ means Vedic. Why?
Sadaya-hṛdaya-darṣita-paśu-ghātam: "You are compassionate to see poor
animals being killed unnecessarily." Keśava dhṛta-buddha-śarīra jaya
jagadīśa hare: "All glories to Jagadīśa. You have now assumed the form of
Lord Buddha, and You are playing in pastimes." So Lord Buddha is accepted as
incarnation of Kṛṣṇa. In Bhāgavata also it is stated. He is accepted as the
tenth incarnation.
Room Conversation -- December 12, 1970, Indore:
Prabhupāda: In spite of Lord Buddha's defying the Vedic principles, a
devotee is offering him obeisances. Keśava dhṛta-buddha-śarīra jaya jagadīśa
hare... Because his mission was to stop animal killing.
Sadaya-hṛdaya-darṣita-paśu-ghātam. The Supreme Lord became too much
compassionate when he saw that people are unnecessarily killing animals, as
it is going on still. Instead of... At least those who are claiming
Buddhist, they are killing animals. Bruce, is it not? Yes. But in the
Buddhist religion there is no sanction for killing animals.
****
The Buddha founded a religion separate and distinct from Hinduism, but his
teachings were absorbed into Hinduism and reformed and reshaped Hinduism.
Jesus, on the other hand, repeatedly stated he did not come to abolish the
Law and the prophets, but to fulfill (Matthew 5:17-19; Mark 10:17-22; Luke
16:17). Jesus came to reform the Jewish tradition and arguably to abolish
animal sacrifice (Matthew 9:13, 12:7; Hebrews 10:5-10), and (through Paul),
a religion separate and distinct from Judaism emerged in Jesus' name!
James Dawson, raised Catholic and now a Buddhist, publisher of Live and Let
Live, a pro-life/animal rights/libertarian 'zine, responded to an article on
Buddhism which appeared in a 2001 issue of Back to Godhead.
"I've read The Four Noble Truths of Buddhism by Satyaraja dasa (Steven
Rosen), and have some critical comments on it. First, I can only speak from
a 'Theravadin' viewpoint, and of course only as an individual Theravadin,
though I feel my observations are doctrinally well-grounded. I would agree
that the affinity between Mahayana Buddhism (which Bodhi Santosh Roshi
adheres to) and Vaishnavaism (the worship of Lord Vishnu) may indeed be
quite strong, but less so between the latter and Theravada...
"Are there points of affinity between Vaishnavaism and Buddhism? Of course,
but let's not force them beyond well-established fact and logic...
"I'm not disparaging Vaishnavaism. There's much that's quite admirable in
it. I'm just saying our differences are much more significant that this
article implies.
"I've been aware for years that, to put it in scholarly terms, the Buddha
was eventually 'absorbed into Hinduism,' several centuries after his supreme
nibbana (nirvana) so the quotation from the Srimad Bhagavatam is not a big
revelation to me. However -- and I realize this book is holy to you, so I
hope you won't take this as a sign of disrespect -- the idea that the
Buddha's great renunciation, spiritual struggle and final enlightenment were
followed by 45 years of 'deluding' people with a deliberately false
doctrine, just to induce them to follow ahimsa (nonviolence), is unthinkable
to put it mildly.
"The whole Dhamma (Dharma) teaching, in all its depth, subtlety and profound
internal consistency, an artifice to promote vegetarianism? Maybe there's
some basis in Mahayana Sutras for such a premise, but no Theravadin worth
the name could be persuaded by it.
"It isn't more convincing than a claim that Jesus' mission on earth wasn't
really to declare himself the messiah, save mankind from original sin,
preach the social gospel, etc. He only did all of that as a pretext to teach
people new winemaking techniques and the practical importance of good
carpentry skills.
"I realize the complete sincerity of Vaishnavas in their belief about the
Buddha, and I don't take any offense at it, but I doubt it's going to
persuade any but the most uninformed Buddhist."
Mahayana Buddhism is nearly abolitionist when it comes to the exploitation
of animals. In his 2000 book, Buddhism and Animals, Dr. Tony Page writes:
"The primary objection to eating animals is that it involves the killing of
those creatures. Non-killing is the minimum that can be expected of an
aspirant Bodhisattva and is the very first of the Buddhist precepts or
prohibitions. The Buddha states in the Brahmajala Sutra:
'Disciples of the Buddha, should you yourself kill, willfully cause another
to kill, encourage someone to kill, extol killing, take pleasure seeing
killing take place, deliberately wish someone dead, intentionally cause
death, supply the instruments or the means for killing, cut off a life even
when sanctioned by law, that is, participate in any way in killing, you are
committing a serious offense warranting exclusion from the sangha
(association or community).
'Pray, do not intentionally kill anything whatsoever which has life. As a
Bodhisattva, awaken within yourself a heart that is unending in its mercy
and compassion, respect and dutifulness, and use your skillful means to help
and protect all sentient beings.'
(The Scripture of Brahma's Net, in Buddhist Writings, translated by Reverend
Hubert Nearman, OBC, Shasta Abbey, CA, 1994, pp. 127-28)
'Disciples of the Buddha, should you yourself willingly and knowingly eat
flesh, you defile yourself... Pray, let us not eat any flesh or meat
whatsoever coming from living beings. Anyone who eats flesh is cutting
himself off from the great seed of his own merciful and compassionate
nature, for which all sentient beings will reject him and flee from him when
they see him acting so. This is why all Bodhisattvas should abstain from
eating the flesh of any and all sentient beings. Someone who eats flesh is
defiling himself beyond measure...'
(The Scripture of Brahma's Net, in Buddhist Writings, translated by Reverend
Hubert Nearman, OBC, Shasta Abbey, CA, 1994, p. 138)
****
"Some persons argue that eating meat is permissible since one has not done
the killing oneself. There is a name for such a stance: hypocrisy! The
Buddha was well aware that by sponsoring the meat-trade through eating meat
we are implicated in the killing of animals. He says in the Lankavatara
Sutra:
'If meat is not eaten by anybody, there will be no destroyer of life.'
(The Lankavatara Sutra, translated by Dr. D.T. Suzuki, Prajna Press,
Boulder, CO, 1978, p. 217)
"The Buddha firmly states that he does not permit any meat-eating, nor will
he at any time in the future:
"It is not true that meat is proper food and permissible when [the animal]
was not killed by himself, when he did not order others to kill it, when it
was not specifically meant for him...there may be some unwitted people in
the future time, who... under the influence of the thirst for [meat]-taste,
they will string together in various ways some sophistic arguments to defend
meat-eating... meat-eating I have not permitted to anyone, I do not permit,
I will not permit."
(The Lankavatara Sutra, translated by Dr. D.T. Suzuki, Prajna Press,
Boulder, CO, 1978, p. 217-219)
****
An exchange between one of the Buddha's disciples, Kasyapa, and the Buddha
found in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra:
"O World-honoured One! Why is it that the Tathagata [the Buddha] does not
allow us to take flesh?"
"O good man! One who takes flesh kills the seed of great compassion."
(The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, in Three Volumes, translated by Kosho
Yamamoto, The Karinbunko, Ube City, Japan, 1973 - 1975, p. 91)
Dr. Tony Page comments:
"The Buddha's primary objection to eating meat, it is plain, is that such a
practice is incompatible with the cultivation of compassion. And the wise
nurturing of that seed of compassion, which lies buried in all of us, is
nothing less than the primary purpose of Buddhism (at least, according to
the Mahayana). How dreadful meat-eating must be in the Buddha's eyes, then,
if it strikes at the very heart of what hisDharma (way of life) embodies and
comprises - boundless all-wise compassion...
"One of the pre-eminent aims of Buddhism is to purify one's heart. It is
evident from the above words that by eating or advocating meat one is
forsaking what is pure and committing a crime against Dharma. From a
Buddhist point of view, that is a most serious offense...when Kasyapa asks
what a Buddhist should do if offered a meal which contains meat. Is it
permissible to eat such a meal and yet remain pure? Kasyapa wonders. The
Buddha's reply is unambiguous:
"Use water, wash off the meat [from the plate], and then take it [the rest
of the meal]... If one sees that there is much meat, one must not accept
such a meal. One must never take the meat itself. One who takes it infringes
the rule. I now set this rule of segregating one's own self from taking
meat."
(The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, in Three Volumes, translated by Kosho
Yamamoto, The Karinbunko, Ube City, Japan, 1973 - 1975, p. 94)
The Buddhist precepts for moral living include prohibitions not to slander
others nor drink alcohol. The Buddha himself refers to the vinaya [monastic]
rules in the sutras of Mahayana Buddhism. Celibacy, known in the Hindu
religious tradition as well as in Buddhism (in Sanskrit) as bramacharya, is
referred to by Dr. Page as "the path of holiness" or "divine faring."
Dr. Page comments:
"Some Buddhists have argued that a monk should accept and eat whatever food
is offered - but this is clearly rejected by the Buddha here, who states
that if there is a lot of meat on a preferred dish, the whole meal should be
refused. And if there is only a small amount of meat with the rest of the
food - then the meat must be washed clean away before the other food can be
touched. It could not be more apparent how defiling and impure meat was in
the Buddha's eyes.
According to Dr. Tony Page:
"The fascinating Lankavatara Sutra is perhaps the most insistent of all the
Buddhist scriptures that meat-eating is to be condemned. There is a whole
chapter (Chapter Eight) in the Lankavatara devoted to this subject:
'...wherever there are living beings, let people cherish the thought of
kinship with them, and, thinking that all beings are [one's] child, let them
refrain from eating meat. So with Bodhisattvas whose nature is compassion,
meat is to be avoided by him. Even in exceptional cases, it is not of a
Bodhisattva of good standing to eat meat...
'For fear of causing terror to living beings... let the Bodhisattva who is
disciplining himself to attain compassion, refrain from eating flesh... let
the Bodhisattva, who is disciplining himself to abide in great compassion,
because of its terrifying living beings, refrain from eating meat...
'...let the Bodhisattva, whose nature is pity and who regards all beings as
his only child...refrain from eating meat...'
(The Lankavatara Sutra, translated by Dr. D.T. Suzuki, Prajna Press,
Boulder, CO, 1978, pp. 212-216)
Dr. Tony Page comments:
"...Buddhism sees all beings as related to one another - not just in a
figurative sense, but quite literally: since beginningless time, we have
been reincarnating into different families, in different forms, so that
there is now scarcely any person or animal in the world who is not related
to us in some degree of kinship. To kill an animal and eat its meat is thus
tantamount to slaughtering and devouring one's own relatives...
"Thus by catching and killing fish, rearing and slaughtering chickens,
breeding and butchering cattle, etc., we are... murdering a potential Buddha
of days to come... one should not stretch out one's hand for the sliced-off
tissues of a murdered fellow being. The Buddha appeals here to compassion -
pure and simple...
"Not only meat is prohibited by the Buddha, but likewise the keeping of
animals or the attending of animal 'shows' or fights. Speaking of what is
not permissible for his brethren (and nuns), he says:
"One does not keep the elephant, horse, vehicle, cow, sheep, camel, donkey,
hen, dog, monkey, peacock, parrot... jackal, wolf, cat, raccoon, dog, wild
boar, and pig... nor does he enjoy himself looking at the fights of
elephants, horses, vehicles, soldiers, men, women, cows, sheep, cocks,
pheasants, parrots, etc. He does not look at--- the fights of lions and
elephants... and all kind of amusements."
(The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, in Three Volumes, translated by Kosho
Yamamoto, The Karinbunko, Ube City, Japan, 1973 - 1975, pp. 284-85)
****
According to Dr. Tony Page, Mahayana Buddhism is nearly abolitionist when it
comes to animal exploitation. Dr. Page notes that of the sixteen practices
listed in the Mahayana Buddhist scriptures as "evil," thirteen of them
concern the exploitation of animals:
1. keeping, feeding, and fattening sheep for profit and sale.
2. buying and killing sheep for profit.
3. raising, fattening and selling pigs for profit.
4. buying and killing pigs for profit.
5. raising , fattening and selling calves for profit.
6. buying and killing calves for profit.
7. raising hens for profit and selling them when fully grown.
8. buying hens for profit and killing them.
9. fishing,
10. hunting.
11. selling fish.
12. catching birds by net.
13. charming snakes.
(The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, in Three Volumes, translated by Kosho
Yamamoto, The Karinbunko, Ube City, Japan, 1973 - 1975, p. 719)
"It is quite obvious from the above," insists Dr. Page, "that the Buddha was
not only opposed to meat-eating, but any form of gross-animal exploitation
(including circuses or 'animal entertainments' - of which snake-charming is
just one representative example).
"The present writer also knows of no passage in the Sutras which portrays
the Buddha as riding around on a horse or even a donkey (after his gaining
of enlightenment). He seems to have walked everywhere. Is this not itself
testimony to his respect for animals?
****
Buddhist scholar Dr. Tony Page claims the Mahayana Buddhist scriptures
support veganism:
"...it could be argued that the Buddha did not expect all Buddhists to give
up all animal-products overnight - but to move toward that goal gradually.
He himself says in the Mahaparinirvana Sutra:
"The Tathagata... prohibits by gradual steps and not at a time."
(The Mahayana Mahaparinirvana Sutra, in Three Volumes, translated by Kosho
Yamamoto, The Karinbunko, Ube City, Japan, 1973 - 1975, p. 95)
"By the same token," comments Dr. Page, "it seems that, although many
scriptures sanction the use of dairy products, the... goal was that of
veganism."
In the Surangama Sutra we read:
"How... can you eat the flesh of living beings and so pretend to be my
disciple?...
"All bhiksus [monks] who live purely and all Bodhisattvas always refrain
even from walking on the grass; how can they agree to uproot it? How then
can those who practice great compassion feed on the flesh and blood of
living beings? If bhiksus do not wear garments made of silk, boots of local
leather and furs, and refrain from consuming milk, cream and butter, they
will really be liberated from the worldly...
"This teaching of mine is that of the Buddha whereas any other is that of
evil demons."
(The Surangama Sutra, translated by Lu K'uan Yu, B.I. Publications, Bombay,
India, 1978, pp. 153-154)
In the January 2003 issue of Live and Let Live, a pro-life / animal rights/
libertarian 'zine, James Dawson, raised Catholic and now a Theravadin
Buddhist, comments:
"While I personally consider veganism an ethically superior diet to ovo
and/or lacto vegetarianism, and as much as discipline and circumstances
allow, try to move toward it as much as I can, Dr. Page's claim that the
Buddha advocated veganism, to my mind is really stretching it. This isn't to
say the scriptural evidence is nonexistent, but just very thin. However,
even this might be worth considering further."
Dr. Page responds:
"...on the substantive issue regarding veganism: yes, the scriptural
evidence for the Buddha's advocating veganism is very slim, that is true;
amongst the Mahayana sutras, it is mainly to be found in the Surangama
Sutra. But there is a lot of Mahayana sutric insistence on vegetarianism.
"I still believe that the Pali suttas (the canonical scriptures of Theravada
Buddhism) clearly indicate great reservations about the eating of meat:
clearly it was something that was not lightly to be undertaken. The
passsages which I quote seem pretty clear to me that the Buddha was urging
against meat consumption for monks.
"And in any case, as a Mahayanist, I believe that whatever the Buddha said
in the Pali suttas (or agamas) is superseded by the more advanced teachings
of the Mahayana (yes, James is right that I do regard Mahayana as a step
forward within the Buddha's doctrines...).
Veganism would certainly be a logical conclusion of ahimsa (nonviolence
toward humans and animals alike) within Buddhism. Roshi Philip Kapleau
writes in his 1983 book, A Buddhist Case for Vegetarianism that the Buddha
was:
"...a person so sensitive to the sufferings of all living beings that he
would not drink milk from a cow during the first ten days after its calf was
born..."
(A Buddhist Case for Vegetarianism, Roshi Philip Kapleau, Rider, London,
1983, pp. 24-25)
28. The Mentality That It's Wrong to Exploit Matter, the Material World, and
Other Living Entities for Our Own Personal Sense Gratification Leads to
Veganism.
In conversation with Rabbi Jacob Shimmel, Satyaraja dasa (Steven Rosen) says
the mentality that it's acceptable to kill animals for food leads to their
exploitation. (Om Shalom: Judaism and Krishna Consciousness, 1991)
(We see this attitude with regard to meat-eating Christians, when told
factory farming is wrong, and that the animals should at least be treated
humanely, they ask, "What difference does it make whether or not the animals
are treated humanely if they're going to be killed and eaten?")
If you carry Satyaraja's argument to its logical conclusion, you get
veganism.
A book from the 1950s, The Ugly American exposed the ethnocentric views of
Americans in the Third World... like trying to alleviate famine in Africa
with powdered milk, forgetting that all the residents are
lactose-intolerant!
Vegan author John Robbins writes in his 1987 Pulitzer Prize nominated Diet
for a New America:
"The livestock population of the United States today consumes enough grain
and soybeans to feed over five times the entire human population of the
country. We feed these animals over 80% of the corn we grow, and over 95% of
the oats... Less than half the harvested agricultural acreage in the United
States is used to grow food for people. Most of it is used to grow livestock
feed...
"The developing nations are copying us. They associate meat-eating with the
economic status of the developed nations, and strive to emulate it. The tiny
minority who can afford meat in those countries eats it, even while many of
their people go to bed hungry at night, and mothers watch their children
starve...
"To supply one person with a meat habit food for a year requires
three-and-a-quarter acres. To supply one lacto-ovo-vegetarian requires only
one-half of an acre. To supply one pure vegetarian (vegan) requires only
one-sixth of an acre. In other words, a given acreage can feed twenty times
as many people eating a pure vegetarian (vegan) diet-style as it could
people eating the standard American diet-style..."
If you carry this argument to its logical conclusion, a vegan diet is the
most resource-efficient, because it can feed twenty times as many people as
a meat-centered diet.
I wrote in November 2001 in the Stanislaus Connections, a peace and justice
newspaper out of Modesto, CA, that to become a vegetarian or a vegan is to
carry the campaign against "cruelty to animals" to its logical conclusion.
And actually the arguments in favor of vegetarianism: animal cruelty and
exploitation, economics, health, environmental concerns, worker's rights,
etc., when carried to their logical conclusion, lead to inevitably to
veganism.
In a letter written to his friend H.G. Wells, George Bernard Shaw wrote
about the strength-giving qualities of vegetarianism, concluding with a
flippant appeal: "Renounce H.G.: abstain."
Shaw likewise propagandized vegetarianism in his preface to Androcles and
the Lion, where he noted that flesh-eating athletes have suffered "the most
ignominious defeats by vegetarian wrestlers and racers and bicyclists."
Anti-animal rights groups attempt to point out hypocrisy. It says online on
November 10, 2007, that animal activists like PETA Vice President Mary Beth
Sweetland, an insulin (tested on dogs, rabbits, and mice) dependent
diabetic, "continue to enjoy the benefits of animal testing while
supporting terrorist acts on the scientists who provide them."
George Bernard Shaw similarly belonged to the London Vegetarian Society and
was severely criticized when an attack of pernicious anemia caused him to
take liver injections. He replied to his critics: "Gland extracts are no
more outside vegetarian diet than milk and cheese. Vegetarian diet is vital
diet, vegetable diet is a different matter."
Dudley Giehl writes in his 1979 book, Vegetarianism: A Way of Life:
"In the year 1938, when he was 82 years old, Shaw developed pernicious
anemia. He reluctantly consented to be treated with the liver injections
prescribed by his doctor. Notwithstanding the fact that this was the only
recognized means to cure pernicious anemia at that time, various members of
the vegetarian community expressed disappointment with Shaw. Some, including
Symon Gould, the associate editor of the American Vegetarian, regarded Shaw
as an apostate.
A letter by George Bernard Shaw to Symon Gould of the American Vegetarian
Party, in 1945:
"Please stop telling the blazing lie that vegetarians are free from disease.
Ask Josiah Oldfield (if you have not heard of younger authorities) whether
he can cure rheumatism, or arthritis, or cancer. I know of no disease from
which vegetarians are exempt."
On the other hand, Donald Watson, founder of the Vegan Society said that his
journey toward veganism began as a child, at the farm of his uncle George,
where he realized animals don't exist for human beings:
"I was surrounded by interesting animals. They all 'gave' something: the
farm horse pulled the plough, the lighter horse pulled the trap, the cows
'gave' milk, the hens 'gave' eggs and the cockerel was a useful "alarm
clock" - I didn't realise at that time that he had another function too. The
sheep 'gave' wool. I could never understand what the pigs 'gave,' but they
seemed such friendly creatures - always glad to see me."
Donald Watson founded the Vegan Society in England in 1944, writing
"We can see quite plainly that our present civilization is built on the
exploitation of animals, just as past civilizations were built on the
exploitation of slaves, and we believe the spiritual destiny of man is such
that in time he will view with abhorrence the idea that men once fed on the
products of animals' bodies"
In Leicester, England, Watson expanded his philosophy to object to any harm
to living creatures. A committed pacifist throughout his life, Watson
registered as a conscientious objector in World War II. It was at this time
that he and his wife, Dorothy, decided on the word 'vegan' to describe his
way of life, by taking the first three and last two letters of "vegetarian,"
- "because veganism starts with vegetarianism and carries it through to its
logical conclusion."
In her preface to Marjorie Spiegel’s The Dreaded Comparison: Human and
Animal Slavery, feminist Alice Walker, author of The Color Purple, writes:
"The animals of this world exist for their own reasons. They were not made
for humans any more than black people were made for whites or women for
men..."
Animal rights, as a secular moral philosophy, may appear to be at odds with
traditional religious thinking (human "dominion" over other animals), but
this is equally true of:
...democracy and representative government in place of monarchy and belief
in the divine right of kings; the separation of church and state; the
abolition of (human) slavery; the emancipation of women; birth control; the
sexual revolution; LGBT rights...
...All social progress over the past five hundred years!
...Social progress which even conservative Christians take for granted!
Since some Christians might be unwilling to embrace a belief in karma and
reincarnation as the basis for ahimsa, or nonviolence to humans and animals
alike, they can be shown the softer side of their religion and embrace
animal rights as secular social progress.
****
On the other hand...
People for the Ethical Treatment of Animals (PETA) takes the reasonable and
mainstream position that, "Animals are not ours to eat, wear, experiment on,
or use for 'entertainment.'" Throughout most of the Third World, animals are
still used for labor, and it's doubtful if the technology of the
industrialized West can immediately replace them. Keith Akers writes in A
Vegetarian Sourcebook (1983):
"The United States and a few other 'privileged' countries can enjoy a diet
high in meat year after year only because of extraordinarily abundant
natural resources and the most advanced agricultural technology in the
world. Yet such is the pressure which livestock agriculture places on
natural resources that even the United States will not be able to continue
its diet indefinitely. Already the agricultural system is beginning to crack
under the strain. The question is not whether the rest of the world can be
brought up to the United States' destructive standard of living; rather,
will the stress caused by an agriculture which provides even a fraction of
the world with meat thrice a day eventually prove the undoing of our
society, our culture, and way of life?
"In the past few decades, much has been made of the (agricultural) Green
Revolution and attempts to bring increased productivity to the less
developed nations of the globe. The Green Revolution is highly dependent on
energy inputs and other resources not readily available throughout the
world, as one might expect. The expansion of the Green Revolution would mean
more and more pressure on energy supplies throughout the world... an
increasing strain on energy resources in the future."
In her 1987 article, "Animal By-Products: A Game of Hide and Seek," which
originally appeared in the July 1987 issue of Vegetarian Times, Andis
Roebznieks wrote:
"...In ways too numerous to count, animal by-products permeate our everyday
lives... The list of manufactured goods made with animal by-products is
virtually endless. Medicines, soaps, detergents, photographic film,
phonograph records, rubber, ceramics, plastics, paints, perfumes, glue,
explosives, cosmetics textiles and shaving creams all can contain material
obtained from the slaughterhouse.
"Reviewing the list of slaughterhouse products used in making the family car
might lead one to believe the horse and buggy was less exploitative of
animals than today's automobile..."
Along these lines, it might be proven, then, that an agrarian,
animal-dependent culture is less exploitative of animals than an
industrialized society.
Krishna devotees might similarly argue that they are not "exploiting" the
animals, the cows, and the material world, but rather engaging them in
Krishna's service.
Srila Prabhupada writes in his purport (commentary) to the Bhagavad-gita
10.28:
"In Kṛṣṇaloka in the spiritual sky there are cows which can be milked at any
time, and they give as much milk as one likes. Of course such cows do not
exist in this material world, but there is mention of them in Kṛṣṇaloka. The
Lord keeps many such cows, which are called surabhi. It is stated that the
Lord is engaged in herding the surabhi cows."
Srila Prabhupada said in Life Comes from Life that the cows that Lord
Krishna tended in Vrindavan were not ordinary cows, but surabhi cows. In the
pastimes of Krishna and Balaram the cows -- with their udders overflowing
out of love! -- give their milk freely to the Lord, whereas in the
commercial dairies, in modern factory farming, the cows are abused and
killed in the process of obtaining milk. There's a huge difference!
Vegan author John Robbins similarly writes about the slaughterhouses:
"Animals do not 'give' their lives to us, as the sugar-coated lie would have
it. No, we take their lives. They struggle and fight, just as we would do if
we were in their place."
Some Objections.
29. Objection 1:
"Prabhupada offered milk from 'commercial' dairy when necessary."
And
"Prabhupada accepted milk that had fish oil in it."
Yes, but Srila Prabhupada didn't accept cheeses from the commercial dairies
which contained rennet, an enzyme taken from the lining of calves' stomaches
and used in coagulating cheeses. Srila Prabhupada also wanted the Krishna
conscious farm communities to not only eventually become self-sufficient,
but to provide milk for the Krishna temples, which would not only be
cruelty-free, but spiritual as well.
Why would Srila Prabhupada advocate not being dependent on the commercial
dairies if he didn't think there was anything wrong with them?
Srila Prabhupada preached according to time, place, and circumstance.
When Srila Prabhupada first left India and came to the West, for example, he
first thought he would create a class of sannyassis (monks). But when he saw
how freely and openly the sexes intermingled here in the West (boyfriends,
girlfriends, unmarried couples living together, divorce, etc.), he had to
perform weddings to marry his disciples to one another, etc., even though
Srila Prabhupada himself was a sannyassi (monk), and sannyassis aren't
supposed to preside over weddings, etc.
Again: Why would Srila Prabhupada advocate not being dependent on the
commercial dairies if he didn't think there was anything wrong with them?
1975 Correspondence
Letter to Rupanuga -- Ahmedabad 29 September, 1975: So you get from all the
farms all your necessities, then it will be successful. Fodder, milk,
grains, vegetables, and animals and man will be satisfied, and you can chant
Hare Krishna. No unnecessary cow killing, and no unnecessary needs of the
body. The woman's SKP party, that is very good.
Letter to Rupanuga -- Mayapur 21 February, 1976
Yes, this supplying of milk to the temple is wanted. Thank you. In the way
that Atlanta is doing, every center must have a farm so we can get all milk
and if possible vegetable, even fruit, flowers and milk.
Letter to Mahamsa Swami, 19th January, 1975
“Now we should have self sufficiency. This means to make our own food grains
grow and weave our own cloth-like Mayapur. If we have good grains,milk, and
cloth life becomes easy and we can save time for preaching and chanting.
Letter to Yasomatinandana -- Vrindaban 28 November, 1976
You say we must have a goshalla (cow sanctuary) trust, that is our real
purpose. krsi-goraksya-vanijyam vaisya karma svabhava-jam, (Bhagavad-gita
18.44). Where there is agriculture there must be cows. That is our mission:
Cow protection and agriculture and if there is excess, trade. This is a
no-profit scheme. For the agriculture we want to produce our own food and we
want to keep cows for our own milk. The whole idea is that we are Iskcon, a
community to be independent from outside help. This farm project is
especially for the devotees to grow their own food. Cotton also, to make
their own clothes. And keeping cows for milk and fatty products.
Our mission is to protect our devotees from unnecessary heavy work to save
time for advancing in Krsna consciousness. This is our mission. So there is
no question of profit, but if easily there are surplus products, then we can
think of trading. Otherwise we have no such intention. We want a temple, a
goshalla (cow sanctuary) and agriculture. A community project, as in Europe
and America.
Srimad Bhagavatam 10.6.19, Purport
There are so many facilities afforded by cow protection, but people have
forgotten these arts. The importance of protecting cows is therefore
stressed by Krishna in Bhagavad-gītā (krishi-go-raksya-vānijyam vaiśya-karma
svabhāvajam (Bhagavad-gita 18.44)).
Even now in the Indian villages surrounding Vrndāvana, the villagers live
happily simply by giving protection to the cow. They keep cow dung very
carefully and dry it to use as fuel. They keep a sufficient stock of grains,
and because of giving protection to the cows, they have sufficient milk and
milk products to solve all economic problems. Simply by giving protection to
the cow, the villagers live so peacefully. Even the urine and stool of cows
have medicinal value.
30. Changes in the name of piety or in the name of sense gratification?
Srila Prabhupada was once asked by his sannyassi (monk) disciples if the
morning prayers could be changed, so that instead of listening to a
recording of Yamuna devi (a female) sing the "Govinda" prayers, they could
listen to a recording of Srila Prabhupada singing the very same prayers.
Srila Prabhupada was reluctant to change an established order, even in the
name of piety (monks not wanting to listen to a female singer), what to
speak of making changes merely for the sake of sense gratification!
So, we have to ask, if a change is to be made, is it based on time, place,
and circumstance, in line with the system of checks and balances, sadhu
(saints), sastra (scripture) and guru (spiritual master)?
Or is it based on sense gratification?
On the other hand, there is change in the name of social progress.
In 1990, Rankin Fisher, a former Missionary Baptist minister, who happens to
be gay, told me homosexuality must never be driven underground, as if I have
some authority within Krishna Consciousness. I don't! I'm just a lay person.
Despite my pleas, for example, our temples haven't even gone vegan.
Steven J. Gelberg (Subhananda dasa) wrote an essay about leaving Krishna
Consciousness wherein he stated that the treatment of women was abysmal.
In the '80s, when one of the college preaching programs consisted almost
entirely of men, I suggested some women preach as well. San Diego temple
president Badri Narayan dasa thought it was a good idea, saying, "We dont
want them (the college students) to think this is the Hare Krishna Men's
Club."
When another devotee, Jivananda dasa asked, "Why not send the women out to
preach, without any men?"
Badri said lightheartedly, "Because then, they'll think we're a convent!"
There is an ISKCON Women's Ministry, addressing sexism within Krishna
Consciousness, including issues like domestic violence.
There's GALVA, the Gay and Lesbian Vaishnava Association as well.
Similarly, as I commented online on the devotee website,
www.chakra.org in May 2006 on vegan
ethics:
To what extend Krishna Consciousness is compatible with a modern secular
democracy is beyond the scope of this essay. I'm just a lay person. The
leaders in the Krishna Consciousnss movement are going to have to determine
how to respond to social progress, be it women's rights or animal rights.
31. We Can't Imitate Krishna's Pastimes:
Krishna loves butter and dairy. Krishna is not a vegan.
Krishna is the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and He can do as He pleases.
But that doesn't mean we can!
Krishna dances with the gopis (milkmaids) at midnight, whereas if any of us
dances and/or has loving affairs with young, underage girls and/or married
women at midnight it would be scandalous!
Srila Prabhupada said Krishna proved His omnipotence by engaging in pastimes
none of us can imitate, like lifting Govardhan Hill, or showing His
Universal Form to His disciple Arjuna. Srila Prabhupada said on the
battlefield of Kurukshetra, Krishna was 125 years "old" (the term
"incarnation" is a misnomer, as God has a spiritual body and never ages) but
looked like a young boy of sixteen. Srila Prabhupada said if you claim
you're God, prove it by first lifting a hill, or show your universal form.
Srila Prabhupada made a similar statement about Jesus. Speaking with Bob
Cohen, a Peace Corps worker in India who later became his disciple,
Prabhupada said Jesus taught "thou shalt not kill," but if Jesus ate meat,
then he contradicted himself (Srila Prabhupada refrained from saying Jesus
was a hypocrite).
But Srila Prabhupada said that if Jesus commanded his followers not to kill,
then they should follow that commandment strictly, regardless of Jesus' own
behavior, thinking, "...he has asked me not to kill..."
Srila Prabhupada said, "We cannot imitate the isvaras (Sanskrit for
controllers, or deities)."
Lord Krishna's pastimes took place in a previous yuga, or age, 5,100 years
ago. Lord Chaitanya Himself quoted the scriptures when listing acts which
are forbidden in Kali-yuga.
Rabbi Zalman Schachter similarly writes:
"Are we ashamed to recall that Abraham had two wives because in today’s
Western world he would be called a bigamist? Vegetarianism is a response to
today’s world.
32. Stick to Orthodoxy:
Krishna loves butter and dairy. In email exchange with a religious vegan in
the late '90s, she claimed all the great spiritual leaders, teachers,
prophets, incarnations of God, in all the world's religions throughout
history were all vegan, including Krishna. I pointed out that Krishna was a
butter thief, not a margarine thief. She claimed Krishna stole "spiritual
butter," whatever that means.
And just as we wouldn't like people of other faiths misinterpreting our
scriptures, that's another reason I made it a point to stick to orthodoxy:
Scripture, theology, church history, secular history, the writings of the
early church fathers and the lives of the saints (Catholicism) and religious
reformers (Protestantism), current trends in animal liberation theology,
etc. when writing They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy, my 2003 book on religion
and animal rights, especially when examining incidents like the
multiplication of loaves and fishes, or whether the Last Supper was a
Passover meal or a meal shared with his disciples on the Day of Preparation
for Passover, etc.
In his 1987 book Food for the Spirit: Vegetarianism and the World Religions,
Steven Rosen (Satyaraja dasa) favorably refers to Jesus' teachings on
nonviolence as "supremely pacifistic," to convince Christians to think of
extending their precepts of nonviolence to animals... even though as
Vaishnavas we are not absolute pacifists.
A vegetarian interpretation of Scripture IS possible, but it's kind of like
an anti-capital punishment interpretation of Scripture: it will appeal to
progressives. And, sure enough, it's the progressive Christians who are
responding to animal rights. (Steven Rosen himself was interviewed about his
book in 1987 on WBAI, progressive radio in New York City.)
My book, They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy, was published in 2003. (I'm
grateful to have become a published author before turning 40.) Similar to
Steven Rosen's Food for the Spirit: Vegetarianism and the World Religions,
the book discusses animal rights and vegetarianism in the Western religious
traditions: Judaism, Christianity, Islam, the Baha'i faith, Pythagoreanism
and neo-Platonism. Bruce Friedrich of People for the Ethical Treatment of
Animals (PETA) wrote the preface, and the late Reverend Janet Regina Hyland
(author, God's Covenant with Animals--it's available through PETA) wrote the
foreword.
When I gave a talk on religion and animals at a San Francisco Vegetarian
Society potluck in February 2001, I told the audience that I deliberately
chose to focus on the Western religious traditions, because for too long,
the stereotype of "religious vegetarians" is that they are all followers of
Eastern religions, believing you might be reincarnated as a cow in your next
life if you're not careful. (This drew a chuckle from the audience.) I
wanted to show that the Western religious traditions also support the
vegetarian way of life.
The book has been endorsed by Jewish and Christian clergy. The purpose of
They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy is two-fold: to bring animal rights and
vegetarianism into the mainstream (churches and synagogues) and to provide
animal activists with inspiration and support for their own activism.
There are all kinds of fictitious "gospels" floating around, like the
Aquarian Gospel, the Gospel of the Holy Twelve, the Essene Gospel of Peace,
etc. Some of these "gospels" depict Jesus as a vegetarian, others say he
traveled to India, or that he taught reincarnation (I believe reincarnation
IS compatible with Christianity--on an abstract, theological level).
Mainline churches aren't about to take these "gospels" seriously. And with
good reason. The Gospel of the Holy Twelve, for example, was received by
seances and mediums in 19th century England! There's a book by Swedish New
Testament scholar, Per Beskow, entitled Strange Tales About Jesus, where he
effectively debunks these "gospels."
In a review of Steven Rosen's Food for the Spirit: Vegetarianism and the
World Religions which appeared in a 1988 issue of Vegetarian Times, secular
scholar Keith Akers implied Steven Rosen (Satyaraja dasa) was being
intellectually and theologically dishonest in bolstering the case for
Christian vegetarianism by referring to these fictitious gospels.
When I wrote They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy, I made it a point to stick to
orthodoxy: Scripture, theology, church history, secular history, the lives
of the saints and religious reformers, etc. -- and leave all "strange"
elements behind. I sent a copy of my book to Per Beskow, and he acknowledged
that I have not written a "strange tale," but he didn't think I provided
enough compelling historical evidence to demand that Christians be vegan. He
admitted, however, that his area of expertise is historical, not
theological. The book has gotten a very positive response from Christian
vegetarians and vegans, of whom I have the deepest respect.
Norm Phelps, Spiritual Outreach Director for the Fund For Animals, has
endorsed the book, saying the animal rights movement will never succeed
until we have religion on our side. Reverend Frank Hoffman, the retired
vegan Methodist minister and owner of the
www.all-creatures.org Christian
vegan website, gave the book a glowing review in Veg-News shortly before the
book's publication. He wrote to me, "For a non-Jew and a non-Christian, you
have a remarkable grasp of Biblical interpretation." Rachael Price, a born
again Christian, has endorsed the book.
The animal rights movement -- like the civil rights movement before it --
could use the inspiration, blessings, and support of organized religion,
which was the reason I wrote They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy, and sent
hundreds of copies to clergy and lay people alike across the theological
spectrum. Matthew Priebe, a Bible-believing Christian, and author of
Animals, Ethics and Christianity, endorsed They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy,
but could tell right away that my approach to biblical scholarship was
secular and academic.
He said They Shall Not Hurt or Destroy might influence liberal Christian
denominations, such as Methodists, Episcopalians, and Unitarians, but that I
would run into problems with biblical literalists and fundamentalists. I'm
hoping that isn't the case. I'm hoping Jews, Christians, Muslims and Bahai's
from all walks of life will join us. It's time to end animal slavery.
33. There Are Differing Views Among Hindus.
Rascal "Christians," unable to follow their own Scriptures (e.g., the
biblical command against fornication) will point out that guru Maharaj Ji of
the Divine Light Mission in the early '70s had a girlfriend, and differed
considerably from Srila Prabhupada in this regard, as Srila Prabhupada was
not only opposed to sex outside of marriage, but opposed to the keeping of
boyfriends and girlfriends as well. (If we want these things, we'll have to
have a formal laity, like other mainstream religious denominations...
otherwise, we look like hypocrites!)
(Ironically, conservative Christian "anti-cult" groups are quick to denounce
the Divine Light Mission as a cult!)
Fair enough, But then they have to accept that there are differing views
among Hindus!
As a political position, for example, Dr. Deepak Chopra favors an end to the
drug war, and is on the Board of Directors of the Drug Policy Alliance.
When I told Anantarupa dasa that Morrissey, the former lead singer of the
Smiths, and perhaps the world's only celibate vegetarian rock star is
rumored to be gay, he said, "If he's celibate, who cares?"
Anantarupa dasa went on to comment that in the world of rock stars, like
Hollywood celebrities, if you haven't got a girlfriend, everyone assumes the
worst.
----
Amara Das Wilhelm of GALVA writes:
The historical approach to homosexuality within Vaishnava Hinduism is quite
opposite from that of the Abrahamic faiths. Whereas the latter punished
homosexuality harshly in ancient times but has since softened its stance,
Hinduism has no history of persecuting homosexuals until after the arrival
of Islamic and British (Christian) influence. Ancient Vedic texts mildly
discourage homosexual behavior for brahmanas or priests but do not
criminalize it for the common citizen. On the contrary, Vedic texts describe
homosexual citizens serving as dancers, artisans, barbers, house attendants
and prostitutes well within the purview of ancient Vedic society.
This comes as a surprise to many Hindus who are at present accustomed to
condemning homosexual people and excluding them from both family and
society. It has also become a custom among Hindus to force gay and lesbian
offsprings into opposite-sex marriages, even though this is expressly
forbidden in religious codebooks such as the Narada-smriti. Vedic medical
texts like the Sushruta Samhita declare homosexuality to be inborn
(discussing it only in chapters on embryological development) and texts
concerned with human sexuality (the Kama Sastra) refer to homosexuals as a
“third sex” (tritiya-prakriti) with both masculine and feminine natures.
Thus, while Abrahamic faiths have been forced to abandon ancient codes and
beliefs in order to accommodate gays in modernity, Vaishnavas need only
abandon imported misconceptions and refer back to their ancient past.
The modern debate over homosexuality in Vaishnavism has only recently begun
and gay-friendly organizations such as the Gay And Lesbian Vaishnava
Association (GALVA-108) lag quite a bit behind their Judeo-Christian
counterparts. While some Vaishnava sects and leaders do in fact fully accept
gay peers and disciples (particularly in the West), too many still remain
ignorant and homophobic. This has subsequently kept many gay Vaishnavas in
the closet, afraid to come out to their family or co-worshipers and with
some instances of gay suicide as well as gay-related “shame killings”
reported.
My own personal experience as a gay Vaishnava, however, has been much less
tragic and thus I am hopeful Vaishnavism will once again embrace
gender-variant people. After converting and moving into a Hare Krishna
ashram at the age of seventeen, I came out to my peers only a few months
later and with no ensuing difficulties. Ultimately, essential Vaishnava
teachings of all-inclusiveness, compassion and bodily transcendence should
compel practitioners to overlook all bodily differences and embrace the soul
of every being. This can be accelerated with a little education and
sincerity on all sides.
This article originally appeared on NewStatesman.com.
----
And there are vegan Hindus, like Vaidya Priyanka of Aum Ayurveda, who comes
from a seven hundred year lineage of female Ayurvedic teachers.
34. Is Veganism Being "Fanatical" About Nonviolence or Just Being Realistic?
Like vegetarianism for ethical reasons, that's the reason people go vegan,
too. Because cows are abused and killed in the production of dairy through
modern factory farming.
a) A pamphlet from the Factory Farming Awareness Coalition (www.ffacoalition.org)
entitled This AIN'T Old MacDonald's Farm says:
99% of ALL animal products come from factory-farmed animals.
b) Action For Animals (www.afa-online.org)
writes:
"In order to produce milk, a cow must have a calf. Cows used for dairy are
repeatedly impregnated, often on what the industry calls a 'rape rack,' to
keep their milk production high. The cows are milked by machines multiple
times a day, often live in filthy concrete stalls or crowded barns, and
suffer from diseases such as the udder infection mastitis. After only four
to six years of their natural twenty year lifespan, they are worn out and
sent to slaughter. The cows are packed into trucks for often long rips to
slaughterhouses. In winter, they may freeze to the sides of the truck; in
summer, they may die from dehydration or heat stroke. At slaughterhouses,
they are shot in the head with a high-powered steel rod called a captive
bolt gun. If that doesn't kill them, they are skinned and dismembered while
still alive.
"One of a cow's female calves will replace her mother in the milking herd;
the rest of the calves will likely be sold for veal. Calves used for veal
are stolen from their mothers just days after birth and chained by the neck
in crates. They are fed an iron-deficient formula to keep their flesh pale,
making them weak and unhealthy. After twelve to sixteen weeks they are
slaughtered. The veal industry is just one of the heartbreaking results of
the dairy industry."
c) Another Action For Animals pamphlet entitled How You Can Help Animals
says:
"On most dairy farms, cows live in concrete stalls or filthy sheds and are
milked by machines three times a day. Like humans, cows must have a baby to
produce milk, so they are repeatedly impregnated on a 'rape rack.' After
only four to six years of their natural twenty year lifespan, they are worn
out and sent to slaughter. Some are so sick they cannot even walk.
"Consuming dairy products -- even organic -- supports the veal industry.
Without a supply of calves from dairy farms, most veal farms would not
exist. The calves are taken from their mothers just days after birth so
their milk can be sold to people. Mother cows often cry for days for their
missing baby. On veal farms, the calves are chained by the neck in crates.
When the calves are just twelve to sixteen weeks old, they re slaughtered...
"Cows raised for meat, or who are no longer profitable for dairy are killed
when they are the equivalent of teenagers. During transport to slaughter,
many animals die from dehydration, heat stroke, or stress. After being
forced off the truck with electric prods, they are shot in the head or
shackled upside down by their hind legs and have their throats slit. If this
does not kill them, they are skinned and dismembered while still
conscious...
d) Friends of Animals (www.friendsofanimals.org)
writes:
"Cheese and milk represent tremendous disrespect and hurt, and there is no
reason to think it is less than that which goes into the processing of
flesh. Artificial insemination is used at most dairy farms; most of these
farms have no need for males, who are sent off at an early age to the veal
producer. Dairy cows are forced to produce youngsters for the owners each
year. So they'll continually produce milk, Holstein and Jersey dairy cows
endure repeated pregnancies (which go for nine months, as ours do).
"Drink milk, and veal happens. Most dairy calves will be cutlets. These
cutlets-to-be are confined to restrict muscle growth, deprived of iron to
stay pale. But just for four months: their age at death. A new trend
involves converting to group housing; but without their parents, calves are
nervous and competitive. They are tethered around meal time to control
aggression and stress.
"The eating of cheese automatically results in the production of veal. Most
cheeses contain rennet, an enzyme complex that coagulates the milk, causing
it to separate into solids (curds) and liquid (whey). The rennet is taken
from the stomach lining of unweaned calves. These stomachs are also a
product of veal-making. So most cheeses contain flesh from animals as well
as animal milk.
"If a gaze into the dairy case reminded us of the calves carted away forever
from the cows (who, farmers admit, cry for their young), we'd understand the
reality of cheese, cream, and milk. Picturing the veal calf strengthens the
resolve of many vegans to say no to that cream or cheese...
e) In their 2013 book, The Ultimate Betrayal: Is There Happy Meat?, Hope and
Cogen Bohanec debunk the myth that it's possible for animals to be humanely
raised for food, or even for animal by-products (milk, eggs, etc.). They
write:
"To produce a profitable dairy product, the well-being of the animal will
have to be compromised in some fundamental ways, no matter how humane an
operation claims to be. Mammals do not produce milk unless they are pregnant
or have recently been pregnant. 'Alternative' dairies still have to keep the
cows pregnant every year to produce the maximum amount of milk, far more
than is natural for their bodies. This is most always accomplished through
artificial insemination, performed by invasively inserting a long metal
device called an inseminating gun into the cow's vagina. At the same time,
the rancher inserts his other arm in her rectum, almost to his shoulder, to
manipulate the vaginal wall with his hand for insemination. This violation
must be at the least uncomfortable, and is likely a painful and frightening
experience for a young cow.
"Being constantly pregnant year after year puts a strain on the cow's body,
and her health will suffer from the intense exploit. In so-called humane
dairies, calves are still taken from their mothers at birth. This is perhaps
the greatest grief any living being could suffer, evidenced by how the
mother and calf will often mourn sorrowfully and forcefully protest the
separation, especially if there has been any time allowed for them to bond
As a result, the calves are typically taken away immediately at birth to
prevent bonding. A strong connection forms between a mother with her unborn
offspring, and to have the baby taken away directly after birth creates a
state of extreme psychological trauma. Why is it that dairy products tear
apart bovine families and have the calves grow as orphans, without the love
or comfort of a mother? It's because they cannot have the calf drinking the
sellable product.
"Usually, after calves are taken away from their dairy cow mothers, the baby
females are chained outside, regardless of weather conditions. Isolated from
the other calves and without the care of their mothers, they are kept like
this, alone and frightened, chained and unloved. Once old enough, they
experience their own violation, in the form of artificial insemination, so
they can become pregnant and begin to lactate, the sole purpose of their
lives at the hands of their human captors. Ironically, the milk that should
be going to nourish a baby calf is instead sold as a human product, and
consumers are so dazzled by idyllic pictures of rolling pastures and grazing
cows that they never see the horrible mistreatment of the animal behind the
mammary secretions they consume.
"Male babies born to a dairy-producing mother are nothing more than a waste
product of the dairy industry. They obviously cannot produce milk, so
keeping these adorable and gentle creatures around to consume their mother's
milk, their natural food, is simply not cost effective. That would be
'wasting' the milk the producers could otherwise sell. So, like their
sisters, male calves will be ripped from their mothers at birth, never to
know their comfort and security. They will never frolic in a field, the
birthright of all baby ruminants. Even at the supposedly best commercial
operations, like American Humane certified Clover Dairy they still have to
get rid of the baby males, sending them to auction just one week after
birth, for veal, or to be raised for low-quality beef, most likely not on an
alternative operation...
"About one third of veal calves, the undesired male (and some female) babies
of the dairy industry, are kept in tiny crates, where they can't turn around
or lie down comfortably. They are tethered by the neck, can barely move, and
have been put on a liquid diet that doesn't have adequate iron, so it keeps
their muscles underdeveloped and their flesh white and tender. Others are in
small group pens, longing for their mothers, and unable to run, play, or
feel the sun or wind on their bodies. After just about twenty-two to
twenty-four weeks of misery, these babies are slaughtered for veal. Many
people recognize the cruelty of killing baby cows and won't eat veal, yet
they continue to ingest dairy, not knowing the intimate connection between
the industries. One supports the other and there is extreme cruelty in both.
"Through selective breeding, a modern dairy cow can produce about ten times
as much milk as her ancestors did generations ago. Milk yield per cow
increased by 95 percent from 1950 to 1975 and grew an additional 76 percent
from 1975 to 2000. Dairy cows are now producing more milk than was ever
intended by the natural design specifications of their bodies....
"A dairy cow is not offered a retirement plan. Humane or not, modern dairy
production is terribly taxing on her body, and it is just not profitable to
keep her around when she is not producing as much milk as the younger cows,
the daughters she will never nuzzle or care for. After about three lactating
cycles, her milk output wanes, and she will be sent to slaughter and be sold
for ground beef and other low-quality meat products. Many fast-food
hamburgers are made from 'spent' dairy cows. With a natural lifespan of
about twenty years, they are killed in the human equivalent of their
preteens. Even on the so-called 'humane' farms, a few favorites may be
'retired,' but it is not profitable to feed them if they are not producing,
and most will go to slaughter. It is impossible for a farm to create a truly
humane environment -- wherein families are allowed to stay together, express
their normal behaviors, and live out their natural life spans -- and make a
profit. A viable business model cannot avoid the inherent cruelties of dairy
production. The only way to be truly humane is a widespread cultural shift
away from consumption of animal products."
f) The Bohanecs quote Colleen Patrick-Goudreau, author of several vegan
cookbooks, on dairy production:
"Because a cow's life is only as valuable as the offspring and amount of
milk she is able to produce, when she is no longer profitable (i.e., when
the costs to feed, medicate, and shelter her exceed the revenue derived from
her milk output), she is sent to slaughter. Whether she is used on a small
farm, organic farm, family-owned farm, artisan farm, or whatever-it's-called
farm, she is sent to slaughter. Whether the milk is labeled organic, whole,
pasteurized, unpasteurized, raw, lactose-free, low-fat, 2%, 1%, skim,
fat-free, or natural, she is sent to slaughter. There is no such thing as a
slaughter-free dairy."
35. Love Thy Neighbor as Thyself:
Jesus said the basis of all real religion is to love God and love one's
neighbor (other living entities).
Is the basis for our vegetarianism eating only foods which are offerable, or
is the basis for our vegetarianism compassion for other living entities, the
ethical treatment of animals, etc.?
Does compassion for other living entities naturally arise from one's
devotion to God?
Or is nonviolence toward other living entities merely an indirect side
effect of devotion to God (e.g., by offering all of one's food to the Lord,
one is automatically at least a vegetarian, refraining from killing animals
for meat, etc.)?
Devotees of Krishna and Hindus in General Should Consider These Points:
a) Srila Prabhupada has written, "If people are to be educated in the path
back to Godhead, they must be taught first and foremost to stop the process
of animal-killing."
b) Lord Chaitanya Mahaprabhu (1486 - 1534) made vegetarianism central to the
sankirtan (“God-praise”) movement when He brought up the subject of
meat-eating with the Chand Kazi of Navadvipa, a local Muslim ruler, learned
in the Koran. And Srila Prabhupada followed our Lord's example by repeatedly
bringing up the subject with people of other faiths ("Thou shalt not kill").
c) In a purport from the First Canto of the Srimad Bhagavatam, Srila
Prabhupada writes: "It is nonsensical to say that the killing of animals has
nothing to do with spiritual realization."
d) In his purport to the Srimad Bhagavatam 6.10.9, Srila Prabhupada writes:
"One cannot continue killing animals and at the same time be a religious
man. That is the greatest hypocrisy. Jesus Christ said, 'Do not kill,' but
hypocrites nevertheless maintain thousands of slaughterhouses while posing
as Christians. Such hypocrisy is condemned..."
e) Srila Prabhupada even candidly told a Catholic priest in London in 1973,
that, "Animal-killers cannot understand God. I have seen this. It is a
fact."
f) Elsewhere Srila Prabhupada has written:
"If one kills many thousands of animals in a professional way so that other
people can purchase the meat to eat, one must be ready to be killed in a
similar way in his next life and life after life. There are many rascals who
violate their own religious principles. According to Judeo-Christian
scriptures, it is clearly said, 'Thou shalt not kill.'
“Nonetheless, giving all kinds of excuses, even the heads of religions
indulge in killing animals while trying to pass as saintly persons. This
mockery and hypocrisy in human society brings about unlimited calamities;
therefore occasionally there are great wars. Masses of such people go out
onto battlefields and kill themselves.
“Presently, they have discovered the atomic bomb, which is simply waiting to
be used for wholesale destruction." (Chaitanya Charitamrita, Madhya24.251,
purport).
g) "To be nonviolent to human beings and to be a killer or enemy of the poor
animals is Satan's philosophy. In this age there is enmity towards poor
animals, and therefore the poor creatures are always anxious. The reaction
of the poor animals is being forced on human society, and therefore there is
always the strain of cold or hot war between men, individually, collectively
or nationally." (Srimad Bhagavatam 1.10.6).
h) The Srimad Bhagavatam quotes King Pariksit as having said, "only the
animal-killer cannot relish the message of the Absolute Truth." And Srila
Prabhupada himself said in conversation with Christians, "If the Christians
want to love God, they must stop killing animals." Srila Prabhupada taught
that nonviolence is the first principle in spiritual life (Letter to Bhakta
das, August 3, 1973).
Srila Prabhupada not only opposed killing animals for food, he also opposed
dissection, animal experimentation and killing animals for "sport."
i) In the Lilamrita, for example, Satsvarupa Maharaja records an incident
where an Indian graduate student tells Srila Prabhupada he is studying
biology. Srila Prabhupada responds: "...poor frogs!" His challenge to the
dissectors and vivisectors: "Would you give your body to science for the
advancement of knowledge?"
Similarly, in a 1976 interview, when the editors of Back to Godhead told
Srila Prabhupada:
"...Another point in the Declaration of Independence is that all men are
endowed by God with certain natural rights that cannot be taken away from
them. These are the rights of life, liberty, and..."
Srila Prabhupada immediately interjected: "But animals also have the right
to life. Why don't animals also have the right to live? The rabbits, for
instance, are living in their own way in the forest. Why does the government
allow hunters to go and shoot them?"
The editors of Back to Godhead told Srila Prabhupada: "They (America's
founding fathers) were simply talking about human beings."
Srila Prabhupada replied: "Then they have no real philosophy. The narrow
idea that my family or my brother is good, and that I can kill all others,
is criminal.
“Suppose that for my family's sake I kill your father. Is that philosophy?
Real philosophy is suhridam sarva-bhutanam: friendliness to all living
entities.
"Certainly this applies to human beings, but even if you unnecessarily kill
one animal, I shall immediately protest, 'What nonsense are you doing?' "
Srila Prabhupada’s words above debunk the argument that because animals are
not part of our “human family” (whatever that means) we have no duties
toward them.
j) On numerous occasions, Srila Prabhupada taught that even rodents and
insects have rights, and (like Pythagoras) he even opposed the unnecessary
destruction of trees.
These facts indicate that devotees of Krishna are vegetarian out of
compassion for animals, and not merely because meat, fish and eggs are
unofferable to Lord Krishna.
k) It is a significant fact that Srila Prabhupada did not reject any of his
fallen disciples, as long as they did not return to flesh-eating.
Like Lord Chaitanya's dialogue with the Chand Kazi, this underscores the
importance of vegetarianism to the sankirtan movement.
l) If Srila Prabhupada's only concern was merely that his disciples merely
abstain from rajasic and tamasic foods in the lower modes of nature, like
onions, garlic, mushrooms, vinegar, etc. (i.e., follow a peculiar set of
"dietary laws"), because of the possible effect such foods might have on
their consciousness, or because they are unofferable to Lord Krishna, he
would not have opposed killing animals for sport, nor would he have opposed
dissection, nor animal experimentation.
Nor would Srila Prabhupada have repeatedly said that if the karmis
(nondevotees) want to eat meat they can wait until the cows (and other
animals) die of natural causes, before eating them. ("Slaughterhouse
Civilization," Back to Godhead, 1979).
It's clear Srila Prabhupada was morally opposed to taking the life of a
fellow creature. These facts and points indicate devotees of Krishna are
vegetarian first and foremost out of nonviolence toward and compassion for
animals.
I've said before: Srila Prabhupada said that if the general mass of people
want to eat meat, they can wait until the animal dies of natural causes. The
eating of carrion, or animals that died of natural causes, is forbidden in
Jewish and Islamic dietary laws, nor can animals that died of natural causes
be offered to Krishna, either.
Srila Prabhupada told his disciples in India if they were in a position
where they couldn't offer their food to just go to a vegetarian restaurant.
Srila Prabhupada opposed dissection, animal experimentation, etc. which have
nothing to do with diet, eating, or food.
When told so many of his disciples had fallen, were taking drugs, having
illicit sex, etc., Srila Prabhupada asked, "Are they eating meat?"
When told they weren't eating meat, Srila Prabhupada said, "Then they are
still my disciples."
Srila Prabhupada did not ask, "Are they still offering their food?", nor,
"Are they abstaining from onions, garlic, mushrooms, vinegar, etc., too?"
When Srila Prabhupada brought up the issue of vegetarianism with people of
other faiths, he framed it in terms of the animals' right to life and moral
opposition to killing, not as a dietary restriction. He did not ask
Christian clergy, "Why are you eating onions and garlic?", but rather,
"Jesus Christ said, 'Thou shalt not kill.' So why is it that the Christian
people are engaged in animal killing?"
Srila Prabhupada himself said:
"If you love your neighbor as yourself, then why this ‘civilization’ which
claims to be Christian, is slaughtering so many animals, and why they are
constantly slaughtering each other in wars, in the streets? Jesus says you
will not kill...and my spiritual master is giving love of God, he is giving
love of God to the world."
---Srimad Bhagavatam lecture, 1971
Even if you argue that love of God (offering Krishna His favorite foods)
takes precedence over love of one's neighbor (other living entities) does
this justify killing one's neighbors (the cows) in the name of religion?
On the other hand, the Bhagavad-gita takes place on a battlefield, with
Krishna ordering Arjuna to kill his kinsmen.
And Srila Prabhupada considered the Sikhs to be kshatriyas (warriors) even
though the Sikh religion permits abortion in the first trimester.
If you accept the premise that the factory-farmed cows are blessed if their
milk is offered to Krishna, you can't oppose cow-killing as violence,
without admitting that you're committing violence too, but it's sacred
violence (violence against cows!), or violence in the name of religion.
To many, this is reminiscent of the generals in Vietnam saying, "We had to
destroy this village in order to save it."
In the '70s, Srila Prabhupada was speaking with a couple of Indian gurus, a
Sikh and a Jain. Srila Prabhupada spoke favorably of the Sikhs, as
principled warriors. The Jain spiritual master tried to bring some balance
into the conversation by bringing up ahimsa (nonviolence). Srila Prabhupada
said, "Here in the West, there is himsa (violence) only."
Gandhi said:
"Things undreamt of are daily being seen, the impossible is ever becoming
possible. We are constantly being astonished these days at the amazing
discoveries in the field of violence. But I maintain that far more undreamt
of and seemingly impossible discoveries will be made in the field of
nonviolence."
We can see this with regard to animal rights. In the late '80s, nearly
everyone with San Diego Animal Advocates was a lacto-ovo-vegetarian, with a
few vegans. Now, veganism is the norm within the animal rights movement,
with a few raw food faddists, while the average American is still trying to
understand:
"Be Kind to Animals: Don't Eat Them."
36. Lord Krishna's Pastimes In the Spiritual World Are Those of a Cowherd
(Shepherd) Boy:
In conversation at a Sunday Feast at ISKCON Berkeley in the late '90s with
Gopisvara dasa (Tom Dudek), a disciple of Tripurari Swami, who was raised
Catholic before coming to Krishna Consciousness, I suggested the Krishna
temples all go vegan.
Gopisvara responded: "We're all about cows and gopis (milkmaids). What would
become of that if we all went vegan?"
I told Gopisvara I'd read somewhere that because of invasions by the
Mongols, who were milk-drinkers, the Chinese associated milk-drinking with
barbarism, so when Buddhism came to China and they learned about ahimsa
(nonviolence), they all became vegan.
Gopisvara pointed out that the goal of Mahayana Buddhism is not to have a
loving relationship with God, but to merge into the void!
He was sympathetic to my plea, though, saying he'd been vegan for a few
years himself.
Srila Prabhupada once told a story to illustrate that God is a person
engaging in personal, loving relationships with His children, His devotees,
the living entities, like ourselves:
In the 19th century, the Prime Minister of England, the British Empire, the
most powerful nation in the world, was in a meeting and could not be
disturbed.
All the dignitaries waiting outside to speak with the Prime Minister
wondered: what's taking so long? Why can't we see him? What's he doing that
is so important?
It turned out the Prime Minister was playing with his grandson, down on all
fours, pretending to be a "horsie" while his grandson pretended to "ride"
him!
The cover of a 1982 issue of Back to Godhead similarly shows Krishna playing
with His friends, the cowherd boys, in the fields of Vrindavan. One of the
boys tells Krishna, "Close your eyes, and I'll pop a sweet into Your mouth."
Krishna obliges, when actually, as a prank, the boy is about to put a flower
into His mouth."
Pariksit dasa (Don Vitcenzos) commented on this in 1982. "All the great
philosophers, scholars and theologians are wondering, '...who is God?'"
And he concluded, "God is a little boy who's about to have a flower put in
his mouth as a joke."
A Krishna conscious video from the late '70s on Vrindavan as a place of
pilgrimage similarly depicts Lord Krishna's pastimes as a cowherd boy, with
the narrator musing, who would think God engages in these simple pastimes?
There has been a lot of talk within the Krishna Consciousness movement about
veganism. The traditional Hindu vegetarian diet as taught by A.C.
Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada, is lacto-vegetarian, not vegan.
It was reported that there were Christian missionaries who were preaching in
a remote corner of the South Pacific and sharing the gospel with natives who
had never seen a sheep before!
Sheep are a familiar theme in biblical literature: God is called a Shepherd
and Israel His flock, Moses and David were shepherds, in the 23rd Psalm,
King David says, "The Lord is my Shepherd, I shall not want..." Jesus
similarly called himself "the good shepherd" and referred to his disciples
as "my sheep."
Rather than speak in abstract terms about something the natives had never
seen before, the missionaries found it easier to transport actual sheep to
the remote part of the globe to preach the gospel.
Similarly:
Lord Krishna is a cowherd, or shepherd, a familiar image in religious
literature throughout the world (see Psalm 23), and cows and gopis
(milkmaids) are central to our theology, as are familiar Indian vegetarian
dishes in a culinary tradition thousands of years old.
So it's doubtful if the use of dairy products can ever be stopped entirely
within Krishna Consciousness. It would be like Christianity without Christ!
Why The Cow Is Sacred Above All Other Animals
Sanatana Dharma or Krishna Consciousness is based on the concept of
omnipresence of Lord Krishna as the Paramatma, the Lord in the heart of ever
living being and expanded as the presence of a soul in all creatures,
including bovines. Thus, by that definition, killing any animal would be a
sin: one would be obstructing the natural cycle of birth and death of that
creature, and the creature would have to be reborn in that same form because
of its unnatural death. Historically, even Lord Krishna, the Supreme Lord,
tended cows.
Cows and bull protection is essential to sustainable Krishna conscious
communities.
A Cow is said to be the abode of all the gods. Every atom in cow’s body is
abode of the 33 million demigods. All the fourteen worlds exist in the limbs
of cow.
Brahma and Vishnu on the root of two horns.
All the sacred reservoirs and Vedavyasa on the tips of the horns.
Lord Shankara on the center head.
Parvati on the edge of head.
Kartikeya on the nose, Kambala and Ashwatara Devas on the nostrils.
Ashwini Kumaras on the ears.
Sun and Moon in the eyes.
Vayu in dental range and Varuna on the tongue.
Saraswathi in the sound of cow.
Sandhya goddesses on the lips and Indra on the neck.
Raksha Ganas on the hanging under the neck.
Sadhya Devas in the heart.
Dharma on the thigh.
Gandharvas in the gap of hoofs, Pannaga at the tips, Apsaras on the sides.
Eleven Rudras and Yama on the back, Ashtavasus in the crevices.
Pitru Devas on the ides of umbilical joint, 12 Adityas on the stomach area.
Soma on the tail, Sun rays on the hair, Ganga in its urine, Lakshmi and
Yamuna in the dung, Saraswathi in milk, Narmada in curd, and Agni in ghee
33 crore Gods in the hair
Prithwi in stomach, oceans in the udder, Kamadhenu in the whole body
Three Gunas in the root of the brows, Rishis in the pores of hair, and all
the sacred lakes in the breathe.
Chandika on the lips and Prajapathi Brahma on the skin
Fragrant flowers on nostrils
Sadhya Devas on the arm-pit
Six parts of Vedas on the face, four Vedas on the feet, Yama on the top of
the hoofs, Kubera and Garuda on the right, Yakshas on the left and
Gandharvas inside
Khecharas in the fore of the foot, Narayana in intestine, mountains in the
bones, Artha, Dharma, Kama and Moksha in the feet.
Four Vedas in the Hoom… sound
There are seven mothers listed in scriptures. They are…
'adau mata guru-patni, brahmani raja-patnika dhenur dhatri tatha prthvi
saptaita matarah'
Translation :
Birth mother and Guru-patni, the wife of spiritual master or teacher.
Brahmani, the wife of a brahmana, and Raja-patnika, the queen. Dhenu, the
cow, Dhatri, nurse, as well as the Earth. Earth is mother because she gives
us so many things like fruits, flowers, grains for our eating. Mother gives
milk & food for eating. Cow gives us milk. So cow is also one of our
mothers.
SCRIPTURE SPEAK :
a) BHAGAVAD GITA
Dhenunam asmi kamadhuk -- Among cows I am the wish fulfilling (kamdhenu or
surabhi) cow. (Verse 10.28).
b) SRI CHAITANYA CHARITAMRITA, Adi-lila, Chapter 17, verse 166, Chaitanya
Mahaprabhu confirms:
ange yata loma tata sahasra vatsara go-vadhi raurava-madhye pace nirantar
Cow killers and cow eaters are condemned to rot in hell for as many
thousands of years as there are for each hair on the body of every cow they
eat from.
It is further written - Those who fail to give cows reverence and protection
and choose to foolishly oppose and whimsically ignore the injunctions of the
Vedic scriptures by selling a cow for slaughter, by killing a cow, by eating
cows flesh and by permittings the slaughter of cows will all rot in the
darkest regions of hell for as many thousands of years as there are hairs on
the body of each cow slain. There is no atonement for the killing of a cow.
c) MANU SAMHITA, chapter 4, verse 162 :
A guru, a teacher, a father, a mother, a brahmana, a cow and a yogi all
should never be killed.
धर्मो रक्षति रक्षितः - मनु कहते हैं- जो धर्म की रक्षा करता है धर्म उसकी
रक्षा करता है । सत्य से धर्म की रक्षा होती है ।
d) Sri Brahma Samhita 5.29:
cintāmaṇi-prakara-sadmasu kalpa-vṛkṣa- lakṣāvṛteṣu surabhir abhipālayantam
lakṣmī-sahasra-śata-sambhrama-sevyamānaḿ govindam ādi- puruṣaḿ tam ahaḿ
bhajāmi
"I worship Govinda, the primeval Lord, the first progenitor who is tending
the cows, yielding all desire, in abodes built with spiritual gems,
surrounded by millions of purpose trees, always served with great reverence
and affection by hundreds of thousands of lakṣmīs or gopīs."
e) SRI RAMCHARITMANAS
Vedas and Devatas in their prayer Jai Jai Surnayak describe the lord as " Go
Dvij Hitkari ( protector of cows & Brahmins) Jai Asurari ( Death for
Wrongdoers) "
f) MAHABHARATA
Anusasana-parva, 115.43 -116.45: That wretch among men who pretending to
follow the path of righteousness prescribed in the Vedas, would kill living
creatures from greed of flesh would certainly go to hellish regions.
Anusasana-parva, 114.6, 115.6 it states: As the footprints of all moving,
living beings are engulfed in those of the elephant, even thus all religions
are to be understood by ahimsa which is non-violence to any living being by
thought, words or actions.
गवां मूत्रपुरीषस्य नोद्विजेत कथंचन । न चासां मांसमश्नीयाद्गवां पुष्टिं
तथाप्नुयात् ॥ (Mahabharata, Anushasana Parva 78-17)
Do not hesitate to consume cow urine and cow dung – they are sacred. But one
should never eat the cow's flesh. A person becomes stronger by consuming
Panchagavya.
गावो ममाग्रतो नित्यं गावः पृष्ठत एव च । गावो मे सर्वतश्चैव गवां मध्ये
वसाह्यहम् ॥ (Mahabharata, Anushasana Parva 80-3)
Let there be cows in front of me, behind me and all around me. I live with
the cows.
दानानामपि सर्वेषां गवां दानं प्रशस्यते । गावः श्रेष्ठाः पवित्राश्च पावनं
ह्येतदुत्तमम् ॥ (Mahabharata, Anushasana Parva 83-3)
Donation of cows is superior to all others. Cows are supreme and sacred.
COW IN VEDAS: In the Vedas, Cow is called Aditi, Dhenuvu, Aghnaaya etc. ‘Cow
is refered in the Rg Veda 723 times, in Yajurveda 87 times, In Sama Veda 170
times, in Athrava Veda 331 times-total 1331 times. Similarly 20 times in Rg
Veda, 5 times in Yajurveda, 2 times in Sama veda and 33 times in Athrava
veda the word Aghnaaya specifically addressed to cow. "Dhenu" is used 76
times in Rg Veda, 22 times in Yajurveda, 25 times in Sama Veda, 43 times in
Atharva Veda. The meaning of Dhenu is which gives Trupti (Contentment and
satisfaction)
But nonviolence toward humans and animals alike is central to our faith as
well. Other Hindu yoga groups have transitioned to veganism. And veganism is
arguably a logical conclusion of (or at least consistent with) Srila
Prabhupada's teachings on nonviolence.
One of Srila Prabhupada's disciples, Syamasundara dasa, acknowledges the
cruelty, cow-killing and connection to the veal industry in modern dairy
production, but writes on his website:
http://bhaktivedantamanor.co.uk/newgokul/index.php/cowprotection/if-you-drink-milk/
"It may well serve us to consider the things that have been advocated by
Srila Prabhupada in regards to cows and responsibility. He has informed us
in numerous places that we should drink milk and milk products.
"Sometimes he has written or said that we should drink a pound or a half
pound a day and other times he has said we should drink as much milk as
possible.
"Milk is the miracle food and contains all vitamins to sustain life. It is
also brain food for the production of fine brain tissues for spiritual
understanding."
Animal activists claim the cows have been enslaved or domesticated and bred
to produce more milk than their calves can consume, just for human
consumption.
Krishna devotees, on the other hand, believe because Lord Krishna Himself is
a cowherd, the cow is very dear to Krishna, and is thus a sacred animal, it
is by divine arrangement that the cow produces more milk than her calf can
consume, and it is meant for our use. If persons are lactose-intolerant, it
might be because they committed offenses against the cow in previous
lifetimes.
(Blacks and Asians, for example, are lactose-intolerant, and Srila
Prabhupada says in previous yugas, or ages, millions of years ago, Africa
was a penal colony... like Australia was for the British Empire.)
Syamasundara dasa writes:
"A point of consideration is that milk is a food sanctioned and designed by
God, by Krishna, for humans and not just for the calf. The cow produces more
milk than the calf needs and this is not accidental but by design.
"To get milk from a cow you need to impregnate the cow (there are numerous
examples where some cows gave milk without impregnation but that is another
story) and after a pregnancy of nine months a calf will be born and the cow
will produce milk.
"Out of affection for her calf the cow will give as much milk as possible.
The first milk is full of colostrum and this will give the best start to the
calf. After about five days the milk looks normal and this is then suitable
for us to drink. The milk is for the calf and for us."
In a July 1975 interview with freelance reporter Sandy Nixon, Srila
Prabhupada said:
"Primarily, religion means to know God and to love Him. That is religion.
Nowadays, because of lack of training, nobody knows God, what to speak of
loving Him. People are satisfied simply going to church and praying, 'O God,
give us our daily bread.'
"In the Srimad Bhagavatam this is called (kaitava-dharma) a cheating
religion, because the aim is not to know and love God but to gain some
personal profit. In other words, if I profess to follow some religion but I
do not know who God is or how to love Him, I am practicing a cheating
religion.
"As far as the Christian religion is concerned, ample opportunity is given
to understand God, but no one is taking it. For example, the Bible contains
the commandment, 'Thou shalt not kill,' but the Christians have built the
world's best slaughterhouses.
"How can they become God conscious if they disobey the commandments of Lord
Jesus Christ?
"And this is going on not just in the Christian religion, but in every
religion. The title 'Hindu,' 'Muslim,' or 'Christian' is simply a
rubber-stamp. None of them knows who God is and how to love Him...
"...our only business is to love God. Our business is not to ask God for our
necessities. God gives necessities to everyone -- even to one who has no
religion. For example, cats and dogs have no religion, yet Krishna supplies
them with the necessities of life. So why should we bother Krishna for our
daily bread?
(Compare to Jesus' words in the Sermon on the Mount about the birds of the
air and the lilies of the field.)
"...Real religion means to learn how to love Him... you can see that my
disciples are not drunkards or meat-eaters... they'll never be attacked by
any serious diseases.
"Actually, giving up meat-eating is not a question of Krishna consciousness
but of civilized human life. God has given human society so many things to
eat -- nice fruits, vegetables, grain, and milk.
"From milk one can prepare hundreds of foods, but no one knows the art.
Instead, people maintain big slaughterhouses and eat meat. They are not
civilized. When man is uncivilized, he kills poor animals and eats them.
"Civilized men know the art of preparing nutritious foods from milk. For
instance, (on one of our farms) we make hundreds of preparations from milk.
Whenever visitors come, they are astonished that from milk such nice foods
can be prepared.
"The blood of the cow is very nutritious, but civilized men utilize it in
the form of milk. Milk is nothing but cow's blood transformed. You can make
milk into so many things -- yogurt, curd, ghee, and so on -- and by
combining these milk products with grains, fruits, and vegetables, you can
make hundreds of preparations.
"This is civilized life -- not directly killing an animal and eating its
flesh. The innocent cow is simply eating grass given by God and supplying
milk, which you can live on."
Srila Prabhupada then asked Ms. Nixon: "Do you think cutting the cow's
throat and eating its flesh is civilized?"
Ms. Nixon answers: "No I agree with you one hundred percent..."
In Elevation to Krishna Consciousness, Srila Prabhupada similarly writes:
"When we come to the platform of truth... and understand that we are not
these bodies, then our activities change from material activities to
spiritual activities. As long as we are operating under the bodily
conception of life, our activities are material, but as soon as we
understand, 'I do not belong to this body, aham brahmasmi, I am spirit
soul,' our activities will be in accordance to that realization, that is to
say that they will cease to be motivated from the material or bodily
platform. Knowledge of our proper identity as separate from the body is real
knowledge, but this knowledge is denied as long as we cling to this bodily
identification.
"In the scriptures it is said that as long as we are in this bodily
conception of life, all our activities will be defeated... everyone requires
to be educated as to his real identity... by following the purificatory
processes...
"...there are four basic characteristics of an impure life -- illicit sex,
intoxication, meat-eating and gambling. According to the Vedic principles,
sex should not be indulged in outside of marriage. In human society there is
therefore a system of marriage... Whether we are Hindu, Muslim, or
Christian, we acknowledge the system of marriage. The purpose of this system
is to avoid illicit sex.
"According to the Vedic system, intoxication is also discouraged; nor is
meat-eating advocated, for human beings should be nonviolent. We have been
given sufficient grains, fruit, milk, and vegetables, and there is no
necessity to kill poor animals... Gambling is also discouraged because it
simply agitates the mind..."
(Srila Prabhupada's words only make sense if the milk is obtained humanely
and nonviolently!)
Return to: Articles