Guest guest Posted April 28, 2005 Report Share Posted April 28, 2005 Well thought out and spoken, as usual, Hare Krishna devi. Always a pleasure to hear your voice. Since I was one of the main people who pushed for the section prohibiting > cows meant for slaughter from grazing on ISKCON property, I'll contribute > my feelings on the question. > > It's useful to think of the original reason for this rule. There were > various instances where ISKCON was being implicated in cow slaughter, and > we felt it was spiritually corrosive for devotees of Krsna to be put in > the position of supporting cow slaughter. Examples: > > 1. Certain temples would get a bull calf from a local dairy and use it in > their Govardhana puja celebration. Once the celebration was over, the > calf was returned to the dairy for certain horror and eventual slaughter. > This seemed dangerous and hypocritical for a group which was supposed to > be an advocate of cow protection. > > 2. One farm was accepting direct monetary payments to allow a neighbor's > beef cattle to graze on it's land. Guests could come and see the beef > cattle and admire them -- only to learn that they were headed to a > slaughter house the next week. This also seemed hypocritical. > > 3. Another farm allowed beef cattle to graze on its land for a tax > exemption worth thousands of dollars. Again, the question was raised, how > can an organization which claims to protect the cows, be involved in > accepting financial benefits for helping enrich those who would then send > the cows to slaughter? > > So this is the type of issue that we were trying to address with this > rule. The point is that it's not appropriate for a group which claims to > value cow protection to turn right around and engage in some type of > activity which supports cow slaughter -- particularly when we accept a > substantial financial benefit from that activity. > > In particular, I was very strong on this point. Any activity which > supports cow abuse and cow slaughter definitely weakens the spiritual > potency of the temple or community that engages in that activity. > > But, in reference to the present situation, where the purpose is just > being neighborly, there is no substantial financial benefit since the > neighbors are involved in a hobby and not a business of selling horses for > meat -- this type of thing doesn't really seem to be offensive. > Especially due to the small scale of the situation. And, it can even be > hoped, by the gentle influence of the devotees, they may even be persuaded > eventually, not to sell their pet animals, but to let them live out their > lives just as they see the devotees next door doing with their cows. > > Thus I feel in this type of situation it should be permissable. It's > often a very fine line in these situations, but this does not seem like > abuse of the animals. > > I'd say that any hesitation in doing this would be more likely to stem > from the possibility that animals from outside might spread some type of > disease such as foot and mouth disease. But I would be confident that > Syamasundar prabhu would be competent to judge whether the risk of disease > is sufficient to make this a dangerous practice. > > your servant, > > Hare Krsna dasi > > - > "Syamasundara (das) (Bhaktivedanta Manor - UK)" > <Syamasundara (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Tuesday, April 26, 2005 12:00 pm > Horses on ISKCON owned or rented land > > > Dear Rupanuga Prabhu > > > > Thank you for your response. > > > > The present horses are a neighbourly jesture by us. They give a > > donation for > > the Cow Protection Project in reciprocation. > > > > At present the benefit to the temple is good-will and some > > finances. By next > > year we may well have excess land in that there will be more grass > > than our > > herd can graze or eat as hay. Having horses on for short periods > > until our > > herd builds up seems an advantage to us as long as there is ethical > > justification as well as financial benefit to the goshalla. > > > > ys syam > > > > ----------------------- > > To from this mailing list, send an email to: > > Cow-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net > > > (Text PAMHO:9751480) ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 28, 2005 Report Share Posted April 28, 2005 Dear Conference, I would like to make a point on this issue if I may be so bold. In relation to the quotes below, I do not see how it is acceptable to allow cows, horses or any domestic animal to graze on "sacred land", with the implicit knowledge that they will then be sent to slaughter. Just because a cow is a cow, not a horse, does not fit into the principle of compassion, from whence comes the practice of cow protection. The principle, the idea, is what drives these fixed practices, so it is to the principle we must look. S. Prabhupada clearly states the hypocricy of caring for a living being and then killing it; yet we should not need too many quotes just to see its hypocricy for ourselves, exactly as it is hypocritical to consume dairy products from non-protected domesticated animals. We must all live with our compassion, or lack of it, and our resultant hypocrisies; but as devotees we must try to transform ourselves and our actions to move further to compassion, which will then develop the soft-hearted nature of a true vaisnava. As the answer to drinking blood milk is to drink milk from protected cows or not at all, so is the answer to the hypocricy of allowing sacred land for the use of to-be-slaughtered animals to use the land differently; this also applies to selling hay. Surely the land should be used for cultivation if there is excess land. If there is a shortage of labour, then the best solution would be to grow grains or legumes. Of course we could live with our hypocricy, and here there are two ways: One is to state that this is not the ideal, but do it any way; the other is to twist the ideal to suit one's needs. Govinda, as in the cow protecter, has in its ideological basis the whole of nature to protect, to steward, not just a singular species called the cow. To turn cow protection into a sectarian concern just for one species belittles and undermines the real principles and grand ideals that are at the heart of life, not just vaisnavism, which itself is non-sectarian. A pure-hearted soul can not see a horse go to slaughter just as they can not see a cow go to slaughter. It is compassion and soft-heartedness that is the principle here, not some doctrine passed down second hand. Any way, even if we were just to follow party doctrine, then the quotes below from SP certainly show that this is what he wanted. Yours in service, Gopananda dasa "Animal race should be slaughtered, and human race shall eat." This is their philosophy. But we have already discussed Kapiladeva's philosophy, suhådaù sarva-dehinäm. Suhådaù sarva-dehinäm. The animal has got also body; we have also got body. But a Vaiñëava is not only a friend to the human society, but he is friend to the animal society also, the bird society, tree society, every society. A Vaiñëava does not like unnecessarily a tree should be cut down. That is Vaiñëava philosophy. A Vaiñëava does not like to trample over an ant. That is Vaiñëava philosophy. ============ REF. Çrémad-Bhägavatam 3.25.32 -- Bombay, December 2, 1974 So para-upakära. This human life is meant for doing, do, doing well to others, not exploiting others. That is animalism. "I kill this animal and eat." Tiger, very powerful. That is animalism. It has no value. Who is, who is asking for a tiger, although he's so powerful? There must be some upakära. So Caitanya Mahäprabhu's mission is not tigerism, but welfare activities. People are very much so-called philanthropists. They open hospitals, schools, and other things, but actually, they do not know what is the real disease of the human being. The real disease is that he has forgotten Kåñëa. That's all. Otherwise, there is no scarcity in the world. ============ REF. Çrémad-Bhägavatam 1.2.5 -- Våndävana, October 16, 1972 Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 30, 2005 Report Share Posted April 30, 2005 Good point to raise, Labangalatika devi. Regarding use of land at Gita Nagari and at the Manor, I'm thinking of Hare Krishna devi's question about depleting the soil of its nutrients. I agree with Syamasudara Prahu's understanding about selling excess produce; but I'm also wondering (as HKdd was) whether there is enough manpower to spread manure or to plant and cut in green manure crops after the hay has been harvested, or after the horses have grazed the plot. Of course, the horses will return nutrients to the soil while they are grazing; but haying will not. Perhaps there could be an agreement with the persons doing the harvesting that they will plant a green manure crop, or when the second growth of natural grass appears, that they will disc it in as green manure. Otherwise, there should be a beneficial crop rotation, with a period of allowing the land to lie fallow, as the old farmers used to do. Your servant, Rupanuga das > Dear Syamasyndara > > pamho agtSP > > Would it be possible to ask them to give you the old or horse or 2 instead > of killing them, and let them retire at the Manor. You could keep an area > for them and it wouldnt be much extra trouble. It would go down well with > the horsey English public . They are spirit souls who have come into > contact with devotees so should get compassionate treament.ys > Labangalatika dasi > - > Syamasundara (das) (Bhaktivedanta Manor - UK) > <Syamasundara (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Cow (Protection and related issues) > <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Tuesday, April 26, 2005 9:15 PM > Horses on ISKCON owned or rented land > > > > Dear Rupanuga Prabhu > > > > Thank you for your response. > > > > The present horses are a neighbourly jesture by us. They give a donation > for > > the Cow Protection Project in reciprocation. > > > > At present the benefit to the temple is good-will and some finances. By > next > > year we may well have excess land in that there will be more grass than > our > > herd can graze or eat as hay. Having horses on for short periods until > > our herd builds up seems an advantage to us as long as there is ethical > > justification as well as financial benefit to the goshalla. > > > > ys syam > > > > ----------------------- > > To from this mailing list, send an email to: > > Cow-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net > (Text PAMHO:9768115) ------ Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.