Go-MAHATMYA - how to address e-coli problem?

August 31, 2005

This is a very nice selection. About a week ago I saw a lovely picture

of the cow with all these different personalities arrayed throughout her

body. I wish I had saved it.

I know from my own experience how beneficial cow products are. Not only

milk and yogurt, but also dung or manure. I remember that we would

often get smacked in the face by the tail of an exhuberant cow while we

were milking. When I first started milking the cows, I used to have

some problem with acne on my face, but after a few months, it

disappeared. I think somehow the little bits of cow manure from working

around the cows cured the problem. So in my own experience, there was

benefit to cow manure, not only as the best fertilizer, but also as a

beauty aid!

On the other hand, I wonder: What do we as devotees say about e-coli

poisoning from cow manure? Remember a few years back when all those

people died from e-coli poisoning at that Jack-in-the-Box fast food

chain out West? What is our response to that? Also what is our

response to health workers who say that in many cases to apply cow

manure to the umbilical cord of a newborn baby transmits e-coli germs

which kill the baby?

What is our response to situations like that? How do we balance the two

ideas: purity of cow manure vs. deadly germs it sometimes contains? Is

there a point at which, due to our failure to protect cows and maintain

them in a comfortable, healthy situation, there is some kind of backlash

which overpowers the fundamental beneficial qualities? For example, I'm

sure that the cows from American feed lots are raised in totally

different conditions than the cows in Krsna's Vrndavan. In one way, the

question seems to be: to what degree can you abuse the cow by

saturating her environment will toxins and germs, and still expect to

reap the benefits offered in the Vedas?

So basically, what do we say to people who counter our claims to the

purity of cow dung with statistics of people killed by e-coli bacteria?

your servant,

Hare Krsna dasi

Hrimati (dd) ACBSP (Mayapur - IN) wrote:

>This morning one Mataji gave me some interesting quotes about the

>exellences of the cow.

>These quotes from Padma Purana were compiled by Devarisi das Bramachary of

>Mayapur.

>

>I thought to sare them with you:

>(it was hand written, so please excuse if I may misspell something)

>

>GO-Mahatmya

>From Padma Purana 47th chapter

>

>In the mouth of the cow reside the Vedas, Vedangas, and Padakramas. In the

>horns always reside Hari and Keshava.

>

>In the belly Skanda. In the head Brahma. In the forehead Shankara, on the

>tip of the horn Indra.

>

>In the ears, the Aswinis; in the eyes, Surya & Chandra; in the teeth,

>Garuda; in the tonge, Saraswati.

>

>In the anus, all the holy places; in the urine, Ganga; in the pores of the

>skin, the Rishis. Back of the face (between the horns) Yama or Darmaraja.

>

>On the cow's right side, Kuvera &Varuna, and on the left side, powerful and

>effulgent Yakshas.

>

>On the middle of the face, reside the Gandharvas; and the Parnagas on the

>tip of the nose.

>In the hind part of the hoofs the Apsaras.

>

>In the cow dung, Laxmi resides who is all auspicious, as well as in the

>cow's urine.

>In the bellowing sound, the Prajapatis.

>

>In the udder of the cow reside the four oceans

>

>-One who takes his food without using any cow product for one month, his

>food will be eaten by Ghosts (Pretas) while eating.

>

>-All the cow products: urine, dung, milk, and ghee are pure and purify the

>whole world.

>

>-The products of the cow are the best of all things, the most auspicious.

>He, whose mouth does not take cow products, has a stinking body.

>

>AGNI PURANAS ch. 292. 2

>

>-Cow urine & dung are exellent destroyers of poverty.

>

>-Stroking a cow, and the water who touched the horns, destroy many sins of

>men.

>

>y.s.

>Hrimati dasi

>

>-----------------------

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

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

>

August 31, 2005

>On the other hand, I wonder: What do we as devotees say about e-coli

>poisoning from cow manure? Remember a few years back when all those

>people died from e-coli poisoning at that Jack-in-the-Box fast food

>chain out West? What is our response to that? Also what is our

>response to health workers who say that in many cases to apply cow

>manure to the umbilical cord of a newborn baby transmits e-coli germs

>which kill the baby?

....tit for tat...

In this case cow dung is also pure...pure Why?

It stops the people from the killing cycle, by killing them..

That is all I can say about this...

Srila Prabhupada:

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.

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 amongst

themselves -- Protestants and Catholics, Russia and America, this one and

that one. It is going on. Why? That 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. [imitating gunfire:] Tung! Tung! Kill! Kill! You

see? Just take Belfast, for example. The Roman Catholics are killing the

Protestants, and the Protestants are killing the Catholics. This is

nature's law. It's 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 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.

Mam sa khadatiti mamsah. The Sanskrit word is mamsa. Mam means "me," and sa

means "he." I am killing this animal; I am eating him. And in my next

lifetime he'll kill me and eat me. When the animal is sacrificed, this

mantra is recited into the ear of the animal -- "You are giving your life,

so in your next life you will get the opportunity of becoming a human

being. And I who am now killing you will become an animal, and you will

kill me." So after understanding this mantra, who will be ready to kill an

animal?

.....or you could get scientific...:

Being unable to provide any suitable mechanism for the formation of the

cell by simple physical laws, many scientists have turned to "chance" as

the ultimate causative factor. There is, however, a fundamental problem

with this approach. Strictly speaking, the term chance refers only to the

presence of certain patterns in the statistics describing the repetitions

of an event; it cannot be the "cause" of anything (see "Chance and the

Origin of the Universe" on page 9). As for the mathematical probability of

life arising from matter, there are some easily calculated estimates of

the chance of such an event occurring over the course of 4.5 billion

years, the age of the earth given by modern science.

Let's begin by looking at the basic ingredient of all living organisms --

proteins, which carry out many of the vital functions of the cell.

Proteins are formed in a highly complex process that can be compared to a

factory assembly line, where raw materials are organized with the help of

specialized machines. The elaborate protein macromolecules contain an

average of 300 amino acid molecules linked in a chain, and within even the

simplest E. coli bacteria there are approximately 2,000 different types of

proteins. (In mammals there are 800 times as many.) The formation of these

different protein molecules is controlled by the cell's genetic material.

According to a mechanistic model, prior to the development of a

self-reproducing system capable of performing the basic functions of a

cell and its genetic coding, any combining of amino acids into proteins

would have necessarily been due to random interaction.

To determine the probability of random interaction resulting in the

proteins required for even the simplest cell, the noted British astronomer

Sir Fred Hoyle and mathematician Chandra Wickramasinghe, of University

College, Cardiff, Wales, calculated as follows.5. Sir Fred Hoyle and

Chandra Wickramasinghe, Evolution from Space (New York: Simon and

Schuster, 1981), pp. 23–27.

5 As already mentioned, there are 2,000 different proteins necessary for

the single-celled E. coli bacteria, and these proteins average 300

amino-acid units in length. The function of a particular protein depends

upon the sequential order of its 300 or so amino-acid units, just as the

meaning of a paragraph depends on the order of its words. Since there are

20 amino-acid types to choose from, the odds of forming any particular

protein sequence is 20 to the power of 300 to 1.

Scientists have pointed out that there is some latitude for variation in

the exact sequence of the 300 amino acid units without disrupting the

protein's performance. Therefore Hoyle and Wickramasinghe generously

adjusted the 20 to the power of 300 to 1 probability to 10 to the power of

20 to 1 -- a tremendous reduction in the odds. Then, since the simplest

cell requires 2,000 different proteins to operate, they combined these two

figures (10 to the power of 20 and 2,000) and arrived at a mathematical

probability of 10 to the power of 40,000 to 1 that random interaction

could provide the necessary molecules for constructing even the simplest

self-reproducing system. These odds are so incredibly great that no one

could reasonably expect such an event to occur in the relatively brief few

billion years that scientists allow for the phenomenon (see "Could Life

Arise by Chance?" below). So much for pure chance.

y.s.

Hrimati dasi

December 9, 2005

-