Circumstances under which the government can arrange for eating

[Guest guest]

I entirely agree with Syamasudar and HKDD on bringing this to light. It is

often seen that devotees are vegetarian before Krsnatarian, or pacifists before

the need to kill for the better of the whole. In Krsna´s life he was seen to be

with the Pandavas who went hunting, killing hundreds of animals, and this is to

be praised.

Why? One may ask.

 

I have come to conclude that in a fructive ecology, sparse woodlands mixed with

grain fields near towns, cities and large villages become dense woodlands the

further from civilisation. Further still such dense woodlands turn into high

forest, wild in all its abundance. The cow and domesticated grazers are the

buffers maintained between the wild forest and the dense and sparse woodlands,

which maintains the agroecology of human-instigated plagioclimax ecology, that

of silvopastoral grasslands. The wild forest in its natural abundance will

produce excess, just as the human agroecology will. So those on the outskirts

of the civilization would plead to the ruling classes to help them rid the

excess from the high forest that was endagering their lifestock and their very

lives. Thus periodically the ruling class would mount to hunt game, reffering

to the game of war; thus killing two birds with one stone - ridding the wild

forest of a dangerous excess and training for war.

 

Also in the bible, it is seen that God gives to Noah the right to eat animals

after the devastation of the flood. Later God states that he is sick of their

burnt offerings for now there was no need to offer meat, but still the Jews

carried on this practice even unto today.

 

Gopananda dasa

 

 

 

 

Messenger NEW - crystal clear PC to PC calling worldwide with voicemail

[Guest guest]

Seila Prabhupada in the purport is making the point that slaughterhouses

are not to be sanctioned by the government and that grains are plentiful,

only distribution mismanaged. The situation of killing a cow to feed people

just doesnt arise. The way Syamasundar put it was that in an emergency a

cow can be killed and poor class Muslims in India today claim that beef

is the only cheap meat available to them and if there is ban on cow

slaughter they will be deprived. so they could call that an emergency. And

Tony Blair considered the foot and mouth outbreak in UK an emergency to kill

millions of cows. Maharaj Prthu is the Lord Himself and Bhumi was in the

shape of a cow and he wanted to punish her for withholding food and when she

surrendered he didnt. The whole verse and purport is far removed from the

statement that in an" emergency a cow can be killed. " In this state,

bullocks over age 16 or injured ones are allowed to slaughtered but all

young ones are being killed because vets are ordered to sign false

certificates , The meat lobby is very dangerous and powerful. ys

labangalatika dasi

-

Noma Petroff <npetroff (AT) bowdoin (DOT) edu>

Cow (Protection and related issues) <Cow (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Tuesday, August 23, 2005 10:26 PM

Circumstances under which the government can arrange for eating of

cow flesh

 

 

>

> >We know that in an emergency even the killing of a cow is allowed so what

> >can be killed in the normal farming process and in what circumstances.

> >

> >Comments please.

> >

> >ys syam

> >

> >

> >

> A couple weeks ago, Syamasundar made this comment and was completely

> shot down, with others pointing that a cow could never be killed under

> any circumstance.

>

> At the time, I was sure he was thinking of Prabhupada's statement in the

> Bhagavatam, but I didn't have time to look it up then.

>

> But I just wanted to note that Syamasundar is indeed correct about

> Prabhupada's position in this matter. I finally got a chance to look up

> the relevant quote, which appears in the 4th Canto in the pastimes of

> Prthu Maharaja. In the context, Prthu is threatening to kill the

> cow-shaped earth and feed her flesh to his starving citizens:

>

> *****************************

>

> TRANSLATION

>

> Now, with the help of my arrows, I shall cut you to pieces and with your

> flesh satisfy the hunger-stricken citizens, who are now crying for want

> of grains. Thus I shall satisfy the crying citizens of my kingdom.

>

> PURPORT

>

> Here we find some indication of how the government can arrange for the

> eating of cow flesh. It is here indicated that in a rare circumstance

> when there is no supply of grains, the government may sanction the

> eating of meat. However, when there is sufficient food, the government

> should not allow the eating of cow's flesh just to satisfy the

> fastidious tongue. In other words, in rare circumstances, when people

> are suffering for want of grains, meat-eating or flesh-eating can be

> allowed, but not otherwise. The maintenance of slaughterhouses for the

> satisfaction of the tongue and the killing of animals unnecessarily

> should never be sanctioned by a government.

>

> As described in a previous verse, cows and other animals should be given

> sufficient grass to eat. If despite a sufficient supply of grass a cow

> does not supply milk, and if there is an acute shortage of food, the

> dried-up cow may be utilized to feed the hungry masses of people.

> According to the law of necessity, first of all human society must try

> to produce food grains and vegetables, but if they fail in this, they

> can indulge in flesh-eating. Otherwise not. As human society is

> presently structured, there is sufficient production of grains all over

> the world. Therefore the opening of slaughterhouses cannot be supported.

> In some nations there is so much surplus grain that sometimes extra

> grain is thrown into the sea, and sometimes the government forbids

> further production of grain. The conclusion is that the earth produces

> sufficient grain to feed the entire population, but the distribution of

> this grain is restricted due to trade regulations and a desire for

> profit. Consequently in some places there is scarcity of grain and in

> others profuse production. If there were one government on the surface

> of the earth to handle the distribution of grain, there would be no

> question of scarcity, no necessity to open slaughterhouses, and no need

> to present false theories about over-population.

>

> SB 4.17.26

>

> *****************************

>

> I always thought this was a remarkable quote from Srila Prabhupada.

> Just as the mayavadis use the Bhagavad-gita as a pretext for

> non-violence by converting all the killing aspects to symbolism, Srila

> Prabhupada could have presented an evasive purport here. He could have

> said that Prthu was not really going to kill the cow.

>

> But, on the contrary, as befits a brahmana gifted by the quality of

> arjavam or straightforwardness, Prabhupada deliberately addresses the

> issue head-on. He states that Prthu's actions are an example of a rare

> circumstance where a government can sanction the eating of meat. Then

> he carefully goes on to emphasize that this is not the situation in the

> modern world, and cannot be taken to sanction the opening of

> slaughterhouses.

>

> In reality, I believe that faced with the actual situation, no one on

> this conference would be able to kill a beloved family cow, even if it

> meant his children had to starve to death. I personally don't think I

> could bring myself to do it. But, in theory, Prabhupada clearly states

> that in extreme circumstances that the government can make such

> arrangements.

>

> Thus, Syamasundar prabhu should be vindicated for his comment, which is

> completely in keeping with Prabhupada's instructions. It's important

> that we be aware of all aspects of Prabhupada's presentation on this

> topic so we can convey the fine points to others.

>

> your servant,

>

> Hare Krsna dasi

-----------------------

> To from this mailing list, send an email to:

> Cow-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net