By Devamrita Swami
Myths and fantasies are an essential part of ordinary human culture. Through science fiction, legends, and fairy tales, the mundane imagination soars, unfettered by reality.
But here’s one daydream Krishna’s devotees, in the real world of bhakti, can do without: we spiritually benefit the condemned cow by offering its milk to Krishna.
First of all, let’s avoid a straw-man response that often pops out of the closet when the milk issue arises: “Hmmm . . . I smell . . . veganism! You are advocating a concoction, in a spiritual culture wherein milk plays such a central role.”
Let’s brush that diversion aside. Though well-intentioned, it’s far off the point. The issue is certainly not veganism or banning milk, but whether we should exercise spiritual discrimination in choosing from where we source our milk.
Without criticising those opting for the non-selective approach to their dairy products, an increasing number of devotees, both junior and very senior, feel strongly motivated to:
1) drink only milk from protected cows
2) avoid implication in the cow-slaughter industry
3) actively seek ahimsa milk solutions
4) remind devotees of Srila Prabhupada’s vision of ISKCON farms supplying milk to ISKCON centres.
Too often, though, ready to relieve our milk-loving society from any angst or disquietude, a folk tale sincerely issues forth: the dead cow has benefitted by our offering its milk to Krishna.
At the recent GBC meeting in Mayapur, four GBC-persons, while making an official presentation on ISKCON’s need for ahimsa milk, also dealt with the “graced-though-dead” notion.
Take the USA, for example. Aside from the 32 million cows, bulls, steers, and calves slaughtered annually, the USA has 9 million dairy cows on their feet, giving milk.
Please tell me, when you offer your milk, which is the cow that has benefitted by giving that milk?
Visit any dairy processing plant and you will see technology blending milk from thousands upon thousands of cows, the number increasing as the centralisation of the dairy industry mounts. In Canada, for example, now just 3 processing plants handle 80% of Canadian milk.
Consider the case of cow X. Alive for the usual 3 to 5 years, dairy cow X will never see its normal 20-year lifespan. Somehow cow X mayâI repeatâmay have been able to contribute a droplet to the milk that happened to find its way to your temple or home altar. Now really . . . can we please reconsider the “benefit legend” . . .
The UN’s Food and Agriculture Organization says this planet has 260 million dairy cows. The UK has 1.8 million; Australia, 1.6 million; Canada, almost 1 million.
Let’s pick on New Zealand, a place famed for its top quality milk products. The Kiwis milk 4.6 million dairy cows, which annually produce 19.1 billion litres of milk for processing. Please find for me the cow that contributed the specific milk you offered?
Consider a few extrapolations, elastically based on shastra. The dust of the feet of devotees is spiritually invaluable. Therefore all pedestrians who tread an avenue where great devotees have walked now accrue spiritual credits? They benefit from the dust of Vaishnavas’ feet?
Okay, you say these pedestrians weren’t walking barefoot; nor did they put the dust on their head. Consequently they don’t really get the mercy. But haven’t they “followed in the footsteps” of the great souls?
That’s stretching things too much, you reply? How about this: besides the dust of the feet, the water that washed the feet of devotees is another treasure of bhakti.
Some devotees exercise by swimming in large public pools. Certainly some of the chlorinated pool water that envelops their feet then, throughout the day, flows over the submerged heads of other swimmers in the pool. What benefit unknowingly bestowed upon everyone in that Olympic sized pool! Though the pool contains 2,500,000 litres (648,000 gallons) of water, eventually recycled, surely some droplets of mercy will contact my head. And just think how I’d be benefitted . . . if some of the pool water . . . trickles into my mouth. After all, blended with the 2,500,000 litres of pool water must be a drop of holiness.
Some of us old-timers remember way back in the early 70s when devotees, motoring past seemingly endless cornfields in the American midwest, would decide to stop and offer to Krishna a whole cornfield, as far as they could see. Convinced they had transformed all the countless rows of corn into prasada, the fledgling devotees rejoiced at how they had struck a blow against maya and uplifted the world.
Other senior devotees recall enthusiastic cohorts who offered entire supermarkets to Krishnaâmentally subtracting the meat, fish, and eggs. “Unknowingly all the shoppers will take home krishna-prasada!”
Outrageous, you say? I agree. Let’s consider the fantasised benefits to the millions of slaughtered cows in the same way.
Moreover, don’t forget that not only female calves but also male calves take birth, all to be killed sooner or later. How does our imagined ocean of mercy apply to the males, whether the ones allowed to mature, for steaks and hamburgers, or the newborns killed almost immediately, for delicate veal cuisine?
Back to living in the USA, we see that out of the total of 32 million cattle slaughtered yearly, approximately half the dead are male. How can we hallucinate “bhakti benefit” for them? And 760,000 of the total annual kill are little calves, the “vealers” or “bobby calves,” as they are known in various parts of the dairy world.
City people take note: to produce milk, a dairy cow needs to be either pregnant or nursing. Therefore the mothers are made to birth a calf each year until their milk production falls below profitable levels. That means 3 to 5 years. Once the mother’s yearly gifts slipâin Australia, below 4,500 litres (1188 gallons)âshe dies.
Most of the male calves and some females are “surplus” to the farmerâs needs. This “excess” or “unwanted byproduct” cannot remain alive. You see, dairy calves do not grow as fast as beef calves, and their flesh, when mature, is considered unsatisfactory quality to justify the expense farmers would have paid to maintain them.
Immediately after birth, the “bobby calves” are removed from their mother and hand-fed. At merely 5 days old, they ride to the slaughterhouse, regardless of the hardships of the journey.
In Australia, the dairy industry allows these 5-day-old newborns to be unfed for 30 hours and transported for up to 12 hours, to be killed.
We should note that the animal humane society in Australia, the RSPCA, advocates compassion, urging farmers to increase the death-wait of calves from 5 days after birth to 10. The RSPCA also promotes heightened sensitivity: slaughter the newborns within 12 hours of their last feed rather than 30. Mercy in the Age of Darkness.
Without fear of condemnation, bhakti practitioners should make an informed personal choice about how and whether to cope with the milk problem. Regardless of our chosen option, please, let’s retire the tragic tale about the slaughtered cow receiving spiritual benefit when her milk is offered.
Hare Krishna. Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
Is this analysis by HH Devamrta Swami meant to imply that none of the living beings whose bodies are prepared as bhoga for Krishna are benefited spiritually by the offering, or does that misfortune only apply to cows?
If a devotee bakes some bread for offering to Krishna, we don’t know which plants provided the flour, but we know that many living beings suffered by our taking the bhoga for cooking. There are even insects, worms, etc., whose bodies were not offered but were hurt in the agriculture process.
BG 3.13: The devotees of the Lord are released from all kinds of sins because they eat food which is offered first for sacrifice. Others, who prepare food for personal sense enjoyment, verily eat only sin.
If the offering doesn’t benefit the living beings who unknowingly contributed to the offering, how or why are devotees released from the sins of hurting them?
Accepting the principle of ajĂąÄta-sukášti (“imperceptible benefit,” as Srila Prabhupada defined it in _Krishna, the Supreme Personality of Godhead_) does not imply that devotees should neglect to support cow protection. It is well known that Srila Prabhupada stressed the importance of Hare Krishna farms protecting cows and supplying milk. That should be more than adequate motivation.
Also, if I understand correctly, the intent of bhakti is to serve Krishna according to our best ability. Milk from cows protected by devotees is indisputably the best milk and of course should be offered to Krishna when it can be obtained. Therefore, to promote Hare Krishna dairies, it shouldn’t be necessary to negate the authentic principle of ajĂąÄta-sukášti, which is not a fantasy but rather something Srila Prabhupada described several times in his books.Â
As mentioned above, Srila Prabhupada defined ajĂąÄta-sukášti as “imperceptible benefit.”  Therefore it seems improper to challenge on the basis of empiricism. Since Srila Prabhupada said it is imperceptible, the principle of ajĂąÄta-sukášti should be accepted based on faith in His Divine Grace.
Hare Krishna.
Sincerely,
Pandu das
Maharaja concludes his article with this statement below:
In this conclusion, he makes two points:
1. Whatever side you take on this issue, it should be without fear of condemnation.
2. Donât use the tragic tale of the slaughtered cow receiving spiritual benefit because this is simply not true.
He did not follow his own rule in his first point. In a condescending way, he derides devotees who take the side of offering store bought milk to Krsna with their understanding that the cows that contributed to a particular batch of milk benefits. He almost condemns them with derision.
He sets out in the article to show how the slaughtered cow which has given milk, used by devotees to offer to Krsna is not benefited. He uses mostly empirical examples, without deep spiritual insight or realisation, unfortunately.
He challenges: Out of millions of cows offering billions of litres of milk; find the one cow that will benefit, if a devotee offers some of that milk to Krsna. He asks devotees to please find that cow that contributed that specific milk for their offering.
This is not a very advanced understanding of our siddhanta. Certainly, we cannot know which cows contributed to a particular offering but Krsna knows. Krsna is in every particle of material energy and even in the particles and atoms of milk and he is in every cowâs heart. Certainly, He knows where each and every droplet of milk came from which was offered to him.
Maharaja compares devoteeâs realisation and simplicity of faith as Daydreams, âMyths and Fantasiesâ and a Folk Tale. Having realisation that slaughtered cows which performed unknowing devotional service are benefited should not be derided. Perhaps less advanced devotees always have to justify empirically. More advanced devotees actually live the philosophy in their hearts and not just theoretically.
Continued
He likens this argument to devotees using public swimming pools for their exercise, the water touching these devoteesâ feet which then touches the heads of other swimmers.
Firstly, from my experience with devotees who go for their daily swimming in public pools, it is more sense gratification. Some of them discuss and wait eagerly for this daily moment from the morning. More advanced devotees will seek conventional ways to get their exercise or seek something away from dedicated sense gratification.
Anyway, Maharajaâs argument will not make sense to devotees with simplistic, more advanced faith. Krsna can show mercy to other swimmers in that pool, even if devotees enjoying the swimming are not very advanced. The unseen living entities in the walls or open spaces that are fortunate to hear devotees chant or do harinam are benefited in some inconceivable way. All these almost dormant souls that seem like dead matter will someday, by the mercy of Lord Caitanya, evolve into fully conscious devotees to populate the future of this golden age for the next ten thousand years. We have to understand the inconceivable nature of this.
Maharaja then says that often when this issue comes up, someone might cite a vegan agenda. But the vegan agenda is really strong and unfortunately, has influenced ISKCON devotees. This group have infiltrated and taken over regular animal right organisations such as the S.P.C.A and PETA. One only has to read on the internet and look on youtube to see how extremist they have become against any consumption of cows milk, even if produced non-violently. Their mantra is simply that humans are not meant to take bovine milk, not now, not ever.
Continued
Millions of people, even some very prominent, are subscribing to this fallacy. One prominent ISKCON devotee, Priyavata dasa, global FFL minister, was given a platform at the Euro RGB 2013 meeting through Syamasundara dasa, the Euro minister for cow protection and agriculture. Some of Priyavataâs points for no milk where:
⢠Srila Prabhupada was not an expert nutritionist and therefore we cannot accept his authority on diet.
⢠Milk is full of toxic chemicals, growth harmones and antibiotics and full of pain.
⢠Some people are lactose intolerant.
⢠He says Srila Prabhupadaâs comments about leather are applicable to milk.
⢠We donât have to use milk and can use what we like.
⢠The âPatram Pushpamâ verse does not include milk.
⢠It is a âwrong throw outâ comment that cows are killed because of their karma.
These comments above show a lack of understanding of our philosophy and these comments are more in line with radical vegan though â customised for ISKCON. And many devotees follow this path.
Instead of trying to look good in the eyes of these radical animal activists who say that milk is never intended for human consumption, devotees should preach to them.
I do not condone the millions of cows slaughtered each year. My heart goes out to them and I wish for a time when people all over the world will look through our eyes.
But in the meantime, instead of lashing out at devotees who use store milk through circumstance they cannot control, our leaders should encourage them to settle into farm communities which is a stepping stone towards varnasrama. How can devotees living in cities drink only milk from protected cows when they do not have the facility.
Maharaja says that four GBC members at the recent GBC meetings in Mayapur, while making an official presentation on the need for ahimsa milk also dealt with the âgraced-though-deadâ notion. He again speaks in derision here. Perhaps these four devotees were more advanced and fortunate to have this simple understanding.
At the very onset let me say that I support having our own protected cows and goshallas. Having said thatâŚ
Maharaja seems to have a very material way of calculating as if Krsna only accepts a glass of milk if it comes from one cow but not many.
Even if there are only a few molecules of milk from a particular cow in a liter of milk that means untold number of cows will be benefited by offering the milk to Krsna, not just one. All the more reason to offer such milk to Krsna.
Even if I had my own farm with super protected cows eating organic grass being hand milked etc. I would daily purchase one liter of milk from the store and offer it to Krsna just to benefit all those cows who offered a few molecules of their milk to Krsna.
And tiny amounts do matter. If just one grain of prasadam rice falls into a huge pot of bhoga rice, that huge pot cannot be offered to Krsna because it has been touched by prasad.
Or, if while cooking a drop of sweat falls from your brow into the pot it is unofferable.
Krsna ate only a tiny morsel of the flat rice that Sudama brought, Rukmini forbade Him from eating more, because that tiny amount was enough to bring fantastic good fortune to Sudama.
One drop of ganga water placed into a swimming pool converts the whole pool into ganga water. The devotees in Bergamo, Italy regularly did this at the local swimming pool for the benefit of the karmi swimmers.
After Bhaktisiddhanta won the Brahmana Vaisnava debate there was a mad rush to touch his holy feet. To avert a riot the police poured some water on his feet, collected it and mixed it with a huge amount of water and then sprinkled it on the huge crowds who were then pacified.
These things are beyond material calculation.
Glorious devotees,
Devamrita Swami seems to have forgotten KášášŁášadÄsa KavirÄja GosvÄmÄŤâs relating of the story of VÄsudeva Dattaâs discussion with ĹrÄŤ Caitanya MahÄprabhu from the 15th Chapter of ĹrÄŤ Caitanya-caritÄmáštaâs Madhya-lÄŤlÄ. Therein it is apparent that the desire of KášášŁášaâs pure devotee is sufficient to liberate an entire universe, what to speak of a few hundred, thousand, million or trillion cows whose milk has been offered with love and devotion by his devotee.
CC Madhya 15.167 â âIf you desire the deliverance of all living entities within the universe, then all of them can be delivered even without your undergoing the tribulations of sinful activity.
â¨CC Madhya 15.168 â âKášášŁáša is not incapable, for He has all potencies. Why would He induce you to suffer the sinful reactions of other living entities?
â¨CC Madhya 15.169 â âWhosever welfare you desire immediately becomes a Vaiᚣášava, and KášášŁáša delivers all Vaiᚣášavas from the reactions of their past sinful activities.
Let us never underestimate the power of bhakti, so powerful that KášášŁáša can be found eating the peal of a banana offered by his devotee overwhelmed by loving emotion.
I literally support the protection of cows and ahimsa dairies, having a small three cow dairy in my back yard, and would never advocate offering commercial milk if any other was available. A simple presentation of this desire would have been sufficient to satisfy the educated and devout Vaisnava audience assembled here. This misrepresentation of the efficacy of bhakti is both regrettable and uncalled for.
Your servant,
Dulal Chandra dasa
Thanks HH Devamrita Swami for article….I agree with you. Few month ago I heard from HH Bhakti Vikasa Swami about a book from Sahadeva Prabhuja: To kill Cow means to end human civilization. Bhakti Vikas Swami said that when he read this book, he decided to drink milk only from protected cows, if this milk is not available he takes vegan prasadam. I read this book…..excelent book. Here is the link if anyone want to read:
http://www.scribd.com/doc/19961218/To-Kill-Cow-Means-to-End-Human-Civilization
Pranams to all.
The milk issue is certainly loaded with complexities. I can certainly appreciate the point of view Maharaja presents here, just like I appreciate the opposing points of view offered by other devotees. In BG (18.48) Lord Krishna says: “Every endeavor is covered by some fault, just as fire is covered by smoke. Therefore one should not give up the work born of his nature, O son of KuntÄŤ, even if such work is full of fault.” And Srila Prabhupada writes in his purport to this verse: “In conditioned life, all work is contaminated by the material modes of nature. Even if one is a brÄhmanĚŁa he has to perform sacrifices in which animal killing is necessary. Similarly, a ksĚŁatriya, however pious he may be, has to fight enemies. He cannot avoid it. Similarly, a merchant, however pious he may be, must sometimes hide his profit to stay in business, or he may sometimes have to do business on the black market. These things are necessary; one cannot avoid them.”
Why single out commercial milk as being non-ahimsa? Modern agriculture relies on wholesale slaughter of various pests that like to eat the things we grow to sustain ourselves, like insects, rodents, and myriad of lower species. How do we get ahimsa potatoes or ahimsa rice? I have been growing food in my garden for decades, and I have not found a way to grow food without resorting to some violence. Of course we can say that producing milk commercially involves violence to cows. That is a very fair point. But if we love and care about cows so much, shouldn’t we show the world how to produce abundant milk without violence? Well, that would require a lot of hard work, sacrifices, plans, investment, management, and so on. Of course it is a lot easier to go vegan. Devotees tend to chose that road often. ‘Lazy intelligent’ is supposed to be the topmost approach, right? However, we could probably debate the ‘intelligent’ component. The ‘lazy’ part is definitely there.
Nitai,
In response to your quoting me:
1 Srila Prabhupada was not an expert nutritionist and therefore we cannot accept his authority on diet.
2 Milk is full of toxic chemicals, growth harmones and antibiotics and full of pain.
3 Some people are lactose intolerant.
4 He says Srila Prabhupadaâs comments about leather are applicable to milk.
5 We donât have to use milk and can use what we like.
6 The âPatram Pushpamâ verse does not include milk.
7 It is a âwrong throw outâ comment that cows are killed because of their karma.
1. Prabhupada admitted that he was not expert in nutrition. You can research that.
2. Commercial milk is toxic. How can you say it is not?
3. Not some, but most of the world is lactose intolerant and this is mainly because of the poor quality of commercial milk. It has been shown that these same people do better with raw milk.
4. Yes, indeed, as leather is violent so too is using commercial milk. If you have ever visited a modern dairy y0u will understand this clearly.
5. We do not need milk to advance in Krishna consciousness. It is not a regulative principle. What is important is bhakti and bhakti is dependent upon our sincerity. So the question is: Are we being sincere when we purchase low quality commercial milk and ignore Prabhupadas instructions on producing our own milk?
6. It does not include milk. However, pure milk is sattvic and therefore is offer able.
7. The idea that commercial dairy cows are killed because of karma is simply ruthless, insensitive and a cop out.
We can do better and all I and others are saying is that ISKCON should do better.
Pranams to all.
Will becoming Vegan solve the problem of cows being killed?
What is the solution to end this heartless cruel behavior?
How can we save our cows?
Ignoring the genocide of cows and becoming vegan is the solution?
Is consuming milk and milk product increasing the problem?
Is buying milk increasing the number of cows being slaughter every day?
Is there really no benefit to the cows being forced and mistreated to supply milk, of which a small portion is offered to Sri Krishna by devotees. Does Krishna accept such a milk?
Does Krishna somehow provide a spiritual benefit to cows whose milk is used in a bhoga offering?
Could this spiritual benefit be there beyond our conception?
Sorry I have no answers, just reflections and prayers for those cows.
I hope that we can soon fix this issue and stop this cruelty.
Devamrta Maharaja argues that the idea that cows benefit when commercially produced milk is offered are benefited is a myth. His arguments are: 1) due to the methods of production, it is impossible to determine which cow or cows produced any particular carton of milk therefore it is not possible for benefit to be rewarded; 2) the unreasonableness of broad based, generalizations of things that give spiritual benefit.
Although Maharaja clearly does not argue against the following principle, for the benefit of a complete and logical discussion, Iâll first present the principle, followed by three quotes from Srila Prabhupada.
The non human living entity, whose fruits (apples, tomatoes, etc), by products (milk, etc) or body (carrots, cabbage, etc.) are offered to the Lord, is spiritually benefited.
âThe fruits, grains, and vegetables which we offer to the Lord are not caused any suffering by our offering them to Krishna. Rather they are greatly benefited because to be offered for the pleasure of the Lord will grant for the living entity within the plant body certain liberation in the near future.â (letter to Ann Clifford, 8/2/69)
Prabhupada: âHuh? Yes. Machine was not made for chanting Hare Krsna, but we are utilizing it so that the machine-maker may be benefited. Because we employ everyone’s energy to Krsna. So by his energy he has manufactured this machine, so we are employing in Krsna’s service so that he may be benefited, purified. We are showing him the mercy. Just like one flower picked up from a plant offered to Krsna is offering benefit to that plant. Because his energy is in the service of Krsna. Similarly, the person who has manufactured this machine, when it is employed in Krsna consciousness business, he’s benefited. Indirectly, we are giving him opportunity, although he does not know it. But his energy is being utilized for Krsna.â (morning walk, 3/23/68)
Srila Prabhupada: Yes. Just like this milk. What is this milk? The separated energy of the cow. [Syamasundara and Bob, stunned, laugh in realization.] Is it not? It is the manifestation of the separated energy of the cow.
Syamasundara: Is it like a by-product?
Srila Prabhupada: Yes.
Bob: So, what is the significance of this energy’s being separated from Krsna?
Srila Prabhupada: “Separated” means that this is made out of the body of the cow but it is not the cow. That is separation. (Perfect Questions, Perfect Answers ch 1)
Srila Prabhupada clearly does not mention milk or the cow in the first quote. However the second, more general, quote presents the idea that when the living entityâs energy is offered to Krsna, that living entity benefits. The third shows that he considered milk the energy of the cow.
From the above statements, it would appear that when the cowâs milk is offered, the cow benefits. Wouldnât that be true for the cows that are used for commercial milk production? This is the proposition that Maharaja addresses.
No, he asserts, giving as evidence the two points listed at the beginning of this presentation. Letâs analyze them, taking the second one first.
The unreasonableness of broad based, generalizations of things that give spiritual benefit: In support of this, Maharaja presents âa few extrapolations, elastically based on shastraâ: the dust of devoteeâs feet or following in the devoteesâ footsteps (pedestrians walking on the same path Vaisnavas have tread); water that washes the feet of devotees (people swimming in pools that Vaisnavas have swam in); âblanketâ offerings (the âold daysâ practice of offering entire agricultural fields or supermarkets).
With all due respect to Devamrta Maharaja, these arguments are neither relevant or logical. Maharaja himself accepts, at least a little, that the âdust of the devotees feetâ argument may be stretching things too much. This is especially true considering that Maharaja presents the âfollowing in the footstepsâ concept literally and not in the figurative way that Srila Rupa Gosvami uses it in the Upadesamrta. As far as the âswimmersâ argument goes (and to some extent, the âdustâ argument, also), the point Maharaja is making is that something which can give spiritual benefit â water that has washed the feet of a devotee â becomes impotent if it is significantly diluted.
This is an interesting question, and perhaps one worth researching and discussing, but one that is not analogous to the issue being considered. Weâre not looking at whether something that is spiritual potent and then extremely diluted can give spiritual benefit to others. Rather weâre looking at something that is completely spiritually potent â milk that has been transformed into prasadam – and trying to understand if the benefits that come from having produced that milk, go back to the dozens, or hundreds, or thousands of cows that contributed to that milk.
Another way to look at it is that the issue at hand is not whether the milk has âdilutedâ, i.e. lesser, spiritual potency because it comes from many unknown cows but whether the spiritual benefits generated by offering the milk can go back to those cows.
A better analogy would be this: if a thousand (or ten thousand, or one hundred thousand, etc.) donations to the Temple of Understanding of one dollar (or one cent, etc.) each came in anonymously, would those who gave the donations receive spiritual benefit even though they couldnât be identified and any single donation is so small.
As far as the âoffering a supermarketâ goes, the issue is not that devotees are driving past commercial dairies, taking out their Brahman threads and offering all the milk in the dairy. Rather the question is whether commercial milk, offered properly â i.e. according to the procedures taught by Srila Prabhupada for offering bhoga â begets benefit for the specific cows that produced it, even if it is not possible for us to identify which cows they are.
All three examples that Maharaja cites in this argument are not analogous to the question being considered; because theyâre not analogous, they are therefore irrelevant to the discussion, and do not support Maharajaâs assertion.
Maharajaâs main support for his proposition is the first point: Due to the methods of production, it is impossible to determine which cow or cows produced any particular carton of milk, and therefore it is not possible for any benefit to be rewarded.
Although others have already indicated a logical answer to this argument in his response to Devamrta Maharajaâs article, I think it worth while to examine Maharajaâs assertion a little more closely.
In the first of Srila Prabhupadaâs statements quoted here, he clearly says that (spiritual) benefit accrues to the grains offered. Letâs take a bag of rice. Considering how rice is produced and packaged, is it possible to say which rice plants contributed to that particular bag? The same holds for other grains, nuts, beans, tomato paste, etc. Yet Srila Prabhupada clearly states that the grains benefit.
Maharajaâs argument is tainted with anthropomorphism: because we canât know which cows contributed to a particular carton of milk, therefore Krsna canât know which cows have contributed to the milk and hence spiritual benefit, which comes from Krsna, canât be given. I think it is clear, without going into the question of Krsnaâs inconceivable omnipotence, the existence of Paramatma in every atom, etc., that this argument â it is impossible to determine which cows contributed to any given carton of milk â is not valid in terms of Krsnaâs ability to know and to award spiritual benefit.
Conclusion:
If there is no sastric evidence that there are cases where a living entity does not receive benefit if that living entity has offered something to Krsna and
If there is no sastric evidence that shows that cows â and specifically, horribly mistreated cows – are somehow or sometimes excluded from the principle of spiritual benefit given to those who offer something to Krsna and
If there is no sastric evidence that Krsna is sometimes unable to determine from whom an offering comes,
Then
When commercially produced milk is offered to Krsna, the cows that contributed to that milk receive spiritual benefit.
Dante nidhaya trakam padayor nipatya, taking a blade of grass between my teeth and falling at Devamrta Maharajaâs feet, I beg that he, or anyone else, not take offense at this critique of his paper. This presentation is not meant to be an argument against or for devotees becoming vegan. Nor is it meant, in anyway, to rationalize the failure to establish more widespread examples of cow protection. It is simply a humble attempt to clarify the issue of whether cows benefit when commercially produced milk is offered.
Moderator, I .m just sending another comment, because in previous comment I wrote wrong one statement. Please send this one in public, not previous one. Thanks!
The question of drinking milk is best answered not in a forum, but on a visit to the slaughterhouse where the by-products of milk production- the unwanted calves- are routinely slaughtered. I strongly encourage devotees and others who view Krishna dairy diet as somewhat of a threat to the service of Govinda, to take this step. The only way to stop this slaughter of our innocent friends and mothers is to stop supporting it by drinking slaughterhouse milk, and to encourage others to do the same.
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. In respect to diet, the only difference between devotees who drink milk from unprotected cows and Krishna dairy devotees is that the latter love cows to the point that they sacrifice their addictions.
What hypocrisy it is to call out “jaya Govinda” and yet support the killing of the innocent creatures which He loves most of all. Krishna loves cows so much that His planet is called Goloka Vrindavan. As we would not allow the destruction of a forest of sacred tulasi bushes (Vrinda), we should not allow the destruction of a herd of dairy cows (Go) through modern methods of exploitation for milk, followed by meat. At the very least we should not support it. We should not even view vegans as a threat or even as outsiders, as they are pleasing Govinda in their own way, and may even be more pleasing to Him than we who call on His name without integrity of action.
Devoteesâ use commercially produced milk because it is a concession that was accepted by Srila Prabhupada—but it is not a rule. One does not have to drink or offer milk to practice Krishna consciousness. Bhagavad Gita 9.26 says that devotion (bhaktya prayacchati) is the essential element of any offering to Krsnaâmilk is not mentioned. Therefore it is not wrong for devotees to forgo commercially produced milk over the cruelty issue. Indeed, boycotting commercially produced milk is a practical way to display compassion for the plight of cows.
The idea that the tortured cows behind the supermarket milk offered to Krsna are benefited seems a bit of a stretch to me. If Srila Prabhupada specifically said this than someone should share the quote. Perhaps the efficacy of bhakti does come into play hereâor are we simply rationalizing unnecessary cruelty by promoting this idea. Itâs nice to think this…but is it respectable and virtuous to justify cruelty with such theology?
brahma
In the Seventies in New York City, devotees asked SrilaPrabhupada whether they should discontinue to offer milk products to Sri SriRadha-Govinda because all the milk available in NYC was âenriched with vitamin Dâ (or was it âEâ?), which contains fish oil. SrilaPrabhupada replied that they should continue to offer milk, sandesh, peda, and all other milk-based products made for the pleasure of the Lord. Of course, SrilaPrabhupada also stressed that devotees should become self-sufficient through their own farming and cow protection programs and thus avoid contaminated food.
So far it hasnât happenedâat least not much. My concern is that in the name of âit being Kali-yugaâ and âWhat can we do? SrilaPrabhupada did say we could offer contaminated milkâ we do not become complacent and keep gobbling up ice creams, flavored yogurt, Brie cheese, and whatever catches our fancy in the name of âoffering it to Krsna and benefiting the slaughtered cow. Here in India there is much talk about money laundering. But what about milk laundering? Whether the slaughtered cow whose milk was used benefits or not from being turned into ice cream which is then eaten by saintly devotees is not up to my pea brain to figure out; my responsibility is to see that Krsna is pleased with me.
A few weeks ago I watched a video clip of His Grace TukaramPrabhu speaking on the subject of ahimsa milk. The point that struck me the most was his suggestion to continue drinking just enough milk to honor SrilaPrabhupadaâs instruction that we should drink milk but leave aside all other concocted preparations available on the market and eat simply in order to keep body and soul together. Bhogi or yogi, the choice is ours and ours only.
Another thing to consider is the Vedic status of genetically modified cows. Does their milk help one develop the finer brain tissues necessary for advancement is spiritual life? Nowadays, some cows are bred with pigâs genes in order to increase their yield of milk, and they also look piggish. Could it be that by drinking that milk we develop piggyâs brains? â⌠if one supplies milk to a talented sage or saint, the sage will develop finer brain tissues by which he can contemplate higher, spiritual life. Thus the Lord is supplying everyone food, but according to the living entityâs association with the modes of material nature, the living entity develops his specific character.â (SB 4.18. 22p)
Yours in service to Srila Prabhupada, Visakha Priya dasi
Dear Priyavrata Prabhu,
On my second point quoting you that commercial milk is toxic, I mistook it for another statement of yours I think I read somewhere, where you said that cowâs milk is full of pus and not fit for human consummation, normally a vegan line. If you did not say that, I apologise.
I know the âPatram Pushpamâ verse does not âliterallyâ mention milk but my point is that if we take selected verses from sastra in isolation from other scriptures (includes our acaryaâs statements), then our conclusion will be faulty. A higher understanding will be that the âPatram Pushpamâ statement could include milk as an offering if so desired by the devotee. And why not? Krsna showed by example his love for cows and milk products and He spoke that verse.
My point throughout is that if devotees want to offer store bought milk to Krsna with faith that the cows which supplied that milk is benefited, they should not be derided.
And finally, you again reiterate: The idea that commercial dairy cows are killed because of karma is simply ruthless, insensitive and a cop out.
It may sound unkind but unfortunately, it is true. The basic philosophical foundation of our preaching strategy is the concept of Reincarnation and Karma. Karma includes reactions for past actions. Why not say it as it is, just like Srila Prabhupada would? Of course, we need to show sensitivity according to the situation but to completely distance ourselves from this basic truth is wrong â or a âcop outâ â to use your phrase.
Karma, commonly pronounced as Kama is a household word in the West. Ask anyone and they will define it as âwhat goes around comes around.â Why not build on this in our preaching.
Famous England football manager, Glen Hoddle, once made this statement:
“You and I have been physically given two hands and two legs and half-decent brains. Some people have not been born like that for a reason. The karma is working from another lifetime. I have nothing to hide about that. It is not only people with disabilities. What you sow, you have to reap.”
He was said to have a controversial belief that the disabled and others are being punished for sins from a previous live.
He was severely criticised for this from The Prime Minister of that time, other politicians, disabled organisations and the newspapers. Many called for his resignation.
If even devotees are in denial of this basic truth, how are we going to make this world understand?
It is important for all ISKCON devotees to understand Srila Prabhupada’s instructions on daily milk consumption.
He clearly states that one cup minimum, and two cups maximum, per day, is sufficient for an adult (with two cups minimum for kids).
One cup of milk is equivalent to of one of the following:
1 cup of yogurt
1 cup of cottage cheese
1 ½ ounces of cheese
1 ½ cups of ice cream
1 cup of sweet rice
½ ounce of butter
Anything more than two servings of what is described above, per day, is more than Srila Prabhupada instructed us to take.
I think we can all acknowledge that there are many sincere devotees whose consumption includes all of the above, practically on a daily basis.
I think we can all agree there is plenty of room for improvement to better follow Srila Prabhupada’s instructions in this regard, regardless of the source of diary products.
Let’s start treating dairy like the luxury and opulence Srila Prabhupada considers it to be (rather than an consumable commodity).
-Part 1-
Pranams to all. Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Sri Guru and Sri Gauranga.
All glories to Srila Prabhupada; the great Founder-Acharya of Iskcon.
I have been thinking about this ARTICLE in the last few days.
Actually, I very often thought about those miserable cows (mistreated, abused and unhappy…) who are providing this milk I offer to my deities of Sri Sri Gaura Nitai. I recently started drinking milk from a company named Harmony milk who claimed to take good care of their cows. Actually, Harmony milk has a Facebook account and I asked them if they do send their cows to the slaughter house eventually and they said YES (mostly, they may keep 1 or 2 if they got attached). Calves are taken away from their mothers, bulls are sold to the slaughter house… So let’s take this example: the Harmony milk company, who is mainly producing milk and mistreating their cows.
That company probably arranged cows to be born for the sole purpose of giving milk and these same cows are mistreated, unhappy and eventually killed or murdered. Therefore, if all the customers of Harmony milk go vegan, that company will go out of business, stop abusing these cows and find some other way to make money. Then the question is: “Should we continue supporting mistreated, abused and unhappy cows to supply milk to our deities?” Because in the end, if we all go Vegan, these cows won’t be born, mistreated and killed for our services… We are causing all this to happen by buying the milk from these companies.
I know, going Vegan is hard, especially for me… I could simply live off milk, sandesh and burfi…
It is a big austerity for me. But right now, it seems the only way for me to make a difference and voice my concerns for cows to the present human society.
Krishna may or may not accept the non-ahimsa milk and milk products but there are also the cows to be considered here.
-end of Part 1-
-Part 2-
Krishna is supplied by all the milk and milk products that He wants. He is God and He has Trillions and Trillions of servants all over the many material and spiritual universes offering Him delightful and extraordinary offerings of milk and milk products.
Krishna does not require the milk produced by these unhappy abused cows.
Actually, I am pretty sure that Krishna would prefer to fast completely for many years instead of accepting this non-ahimsa milk.
If Krishna does accept this non-ahimsa milk, it is simply because He feels pressured by His devotees to do so.
Anyway, I cannot claim to know what Krishna likes and does not like but one thing is certain; Krishna is not happy about the condition of these abused cows who are forced to produce milk under ignorant or greedy/lusty farmers and then murdered.
WE NEED TO CHANGE THIS.
How? Well, as far as I am concerned, I am going Vegan to voice my concerns about the cow abuses.
I WILL NO LONGER FINANCE COMPANIES THAT ARE ABUSING, MISTREATING AND KILLING COWS.
Please let me put this out there, it is not intended to anyone directly…
So what are YOU going to do to help the cows??
Hopefully, in a near future, I will be able to live off the land, produce my own food and have a few cows to get non-ahimsa milk.
-end of Part 2-
Srila Prabhupada knew that in the west (and now in India) milk cows were routinely slaughtered. When informed that milk was fortified with fish oil (vitamin D) he put his hands up in resignation and said, âEverything here is contaminated so what can we do.â
Regardless of these drawbacks it is clear that Srila Prabhupada encouraged the offering and consumption of milk. This is because milk products, which make vegetarianism easier and more enjoyable, are an important aspect of his movement of chanting, dancing, and feasting–and of course the scriptures tell us that Krsna is fond of milk products.
The Gita (3.13) says that food offered in sacrifice is free from sin, and (4.24) tells us that a life of sacrifice burns up all sinful activities. So we accept that milk is purified when it is offered with genuine devotion to Krsna. However, not everyone involved in Krsna consciousness is leading a life of complete sacrifice to Visnu; neither is everyone offering all they eat in sacrifice.
Outside of sacrifice the Gita says there are reactions to the things that we do. Therefore we should always remember that cows and their calves are slaughtered to provide the food that we eat more for enjoyment than for nourishment i.e. store bought ice cream, pizza, etc. and rarely is any of this truly offered in sacrifice. Better yet, we should consider giving up these things.
Indeed, vegans occupy the high ground in this regard. While many of us routinely eat unoffered milk products, vegans forgo this in consideration of the cruelty involved. This is laudable.
All considered, it is not necessary to offer and consume milk in order to practice Krsna consciousness therefore vegans should be accommodated and encouraged–not condemned.
brahma
TO WHOM IT MAY CONCERN
According to Krsna’s representative, His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Srila Prabhupada, Krsna does require milk. Krsna may not mention it explicitly, but Srila Prabhupada, our link to Krsna, does as follows:
Real life is that you keep your health nicely, save time, take ordinary very nutritious food within the jurisdiction of Krsna-prasada. Krsna says, patram puspam phalam toyam yo me bhaktya prayacchati. So Krsna eats all these things. Patram puspam phalam toyam, vegetables, liquid things, water, milk, and so many other things, grains. So you offer to Krsna. Krsna is here. Krsna, although He is very virat, universal form, but Krsna has accepted arca-vigraha so that you can serve, you can see, you can touch, and your life becomes successful. This is Krsna consciousness movement. Thank you very much. (end) Bhagavad-gita 4.22 — Bombay, April 10, 1974
And Krsna says, patram puspam phalam toyam yo me bhaktya prayacchati. âA leaf, a flower, fruit and liquid, milk or water, all these things, within these categories, whatever a devotee offers Me in love and devotion, I eat.â Bhagavad-gita 13.22-24 — Melbourne, June 25, 1974
Just like if you want to offer me something, so you inquire that âWhat shall I offer you? What do you like?â So similarly, if you invite Krsna to live in your house or temple, then you should ask Krsna, âSir, what can I offer You?â Krsna said, patram puspam phalam toyam yo me bhaktya prayacchati. Krsna said that âYou give Me patram, means vegetables, flowers, fruits, and phalam, fruits, and some liquid, water or milk.â Krsna does not say, âYou give Me meat or egg or fish.â No. Krsna can eat everything, Heâs all powerful, but He does not eat, although He is all powerful. He can eat everything. He can eat fire. That is another thing. But because we have to take prasadam, remnants of foodstuff, Krsna, therefore He says, âGive Me this: food grains, milk, or fruits and flowers.â Prepared or unprepared, it doesnât matter. Krsna wants that. We… So far the Vaisnava is concerned, sometimes they come forward to fight with us: âWhy we should be vegetarian?â No, no, we have no quarrel with the nonvegetarian. Let them eat at their risk. But because we recommend, âYou take Krsnaâs prasadam,â therefore we must be satisfied with this patram puspam phalam toyam, nothing more than that. Bhagavad-gita 16.10 — Hawaii, February 6, 1975
To Whom it may concern:
Chanting Hare Krsna is an essential principle of Krsna consciousnessâoffering and drinking milk is not.
In the quotes provided Srila Prabhupada cites-patram puspam phalam toyam yo me bhaktya prayacchati. Then he says to âtake ordinary very nutritious food within the jurisdiction of Krsna-prasada—-And: that within these categories, whatever a devotee offers Me (Krsna) in love and devotion, I eat— And: patram, means vegetables, flowers, fruits, and phalam, fruits, and some liquid, water or milk.â
While milk is in the âjurisdictionâ or âcategoryâ of Krsna prasada it is not absolutely essential to the offering. Indeed, Srila Prabhupada says that either âwater or milk âcan be offered. Ultimately the essential ingredient to every offering is bhaktya prayacchatiânot milk.
Srila Prabhupada preached in the 60âs and 70âs when vegetarianism in America was in its infancy. Now vegetarianism is considered respectable and the vegan movement, which was unknown in his time, is in the forefront of the campaign against animal cruelty.
Srila Prabhupada said, âWe should tax our brains as to what is the best way to present Krsna Consciousness to a particular people at a particular time and place.â (lecture 11/13/70)
To most vegans consuming supermarket milk is an act in support of animal crueltyâand they do have a point. Therefore we should tax our brains to accommodate these particular people (vegans) in this particular time, to the best of our ability. We should let them know that drinking milk is not essential to the practice of bhakti; and we should preach the philosophy of Sri Caitanya Mahaprabhu and live it such, that persons attracted to a cruelty free diet will also be attracted to chanting the holy name of Krsna.
AGAIN: The practice of Krsna consciousness goes perfectly well with a cruelty free vegan diet.
Brahma Das (ACBSP)
With all due respect to the author of Comment 24, the eating of Krsna prasada is essential to the practice of Krsna consciousness. And therefore Srila Prabhupada commented that, “Even the pigeons are vegetarians. We are Krsnatarians.” Srila Prabhupada also said that saving oneself first comes before preaching. And therefore, instead of sweeping under the carpet our (ISKCON’s) own shortcomings in the name of befriending the vegans or anyone else, we should look at our own practices. We can do and say so many things in the name of preaching, but ultimately, achar is more important than prachar.
Hare Krsna.
Your servant,
Visakha Priya dasi
I,m glad that Vishaka Praya Prabhu (in comment 23) wrote about food, which we can offer to Krishna, food which Krishna likes and He will eats with pleasure (if it is offered with love and devotion). And Krsna said: patram puspam phalam toyam yo me bhaktya prayacchati. You give Me patram, means vegetables, flowers, fruits, and phalam, fruits, and some liquid, water or milk.â But we know that we can not offer all vegetables to Him. In BG He gave us general instructions about food, but in Manu Samhita (Prabhupada said : ‘the lawbook for entire human society’ (SB 2.1.36, 3.13.12, 8.1.16; CC 1.2.91-92, etc.) calling it ‘revealed scripture’ and a ‘standard book to be followed by human society’ (BG 3.21P) Manu instructs us to avoid garlic, onion, leek, some kind of dhal etc…. and VERY IMPORTANT – Krishna (via Manu) in Manu Samhita wornes us in chapter 5. 8 that we should avoid:” The milk of a cow (or other female animal) within ten days after her calving, that of camels, of one-hoofed animals, of sheep, of a cow in heat, or of one that HAS NO CALF WITH HER.. and ALL dairy cows are without calves from the first day. So we can see that commercial milk is not even option for drinking and offering to Krishna in Vaishnava,s sampradayas.
I,m completely agree with Brahma Prabhu that milk is not absolutely essential to the offering because Srila Prabhupada says that either âwater or milk âcan be offered. And if we don,t have milk from protected cows (which is only appropriate for offering to Krishna-like Manu said)Krishna will accept our offering without milk.
The question is not whether prasadam is essential to the practice of Krsna consciousness, but whether milk is essential to the offering of prasadam. The answer is noâmilk is not essential.
Bhakti is the essential ingredient of any offering to Krsna.
Srila Prabhupada said that along with patram puspam phalam toyam âsome liquid–water or milkâ should be offered. Therefore if for health or moral reasons one cannot offer milk than water offered with devotion will suffice.
Of course, it is imperative to save oneself first, but drinking milk is not the prerequisite to salvation in Krsna consciousness. Bhakti is the prerequisite to salvation; indeed bhakti and salvation in Krsna consciousness are synonymous.
Bhakti can save everyoneâincluding Vegans.
Thatâs our philosophy.
brahma
Dear Brahma Prabhu,
Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.
In all the 35 years that I have been a fulltime devotee (aspiring devotee) in ISKCON, I n ever heard such a statement as you have repeatedly made–that milk is not essential to spiritual development. Srila Prabhupada himself drank milk every day and, as I have already written in a previous post, when devotees in the New York temple asked him whether they should discontinue offering milk products to Radha-Govinda because of the commercial milk being contaminated, he said no, they should continue. He said that in the early days of ISKCON, when the devotees weren’t very well established, and he expected that devotees would establish farms and live simply. He repeatedly said that anyone can leave peacefully with a family of five on one acre of land and a milk cow.
I am deeply disturbed to see how Srila Prabhupada’s teachings are being repeatedly distorted or misunderstood to suit various agendas. The book Bhagavata and the person Bhagavata are identical. Yet, the person Bhagavata is more important, Prabhupada said, “because he can catch you by the ear,” whereas the book Bhagavata will remain silent through our misinterpretations. Srila Prabhupada spoke out many times on many subjects. But we are now discarding his teachings as being irrelevant, although we simultaneously profess putting Prabhupada in the center. So, rather than try to get out of our duty to protect cows in the name of humanitarianism or whatever, we should protect cows to our ability and be prepared to make the necessary sacrifices and adjustments to reach this aim. We should depend on the land and cows, not on genetically modified vegetables.
I would appreciate your reply.
Thank you very much. Hare Krsna.
Your servant,
Visakha Priya dasi
“We spiritually benefit the condemned cow by offering its milk to Krishna.” is really ISKCON devotes mith or daydream. Not Prabhupada,s mith, because he never said this. I never read that BSST , BVT , VCT or any acharya in our sampradaya said or wrote that we spiritually benefit condemned cows by offering its milk to Krishna. If anyone can show me just ONE qoute about cow,s spiritual benefit by offering its milk to Krishna …..please write here! If not…..Devamrita Swami is right. This is really a fantasies of some ISKCON devotes.
I know that SP said for fruits, vegetables, trees ….but never for cows (he said that we shouldn,t even buy leather from murdered cow ). Do you know why? Because commercial milk is forbidden food (Manu Samhita) we should not even drink it or offer to Krishna. Because of that no acharya – not even one in our sampradaya dare to say “We spiritually benefit the condemned cow by offering its milk to Krishna.” Only some Iskcon devotes dare to say this…
Drinking cows milk is a material activity that is not essential (absolutely necessary) for spiritual development. If drinking milk were an intrinsically spiritual act then all the children in the world who were raised on cowâs milk would be spiritually advanced–but we see that they are not.
Drinking milk, like other material activities becomes spiritualized in association with bhakti.
Bhakti is User Friendly–it can be introduced and thrive in almost any situation. Therefore it matters not whether the practitioner is a Republican or a Democrat, lives in the city or the country, prefers Beethoven or the Beatles, or is a lacto-vegetarian or a veganâBhakti can be effectively practiced by all.
That is our philosophy in a nutshell.
Certain material circumstances may be more favorable than others for the cultivation of bhakti, but all considered bhakti is independent and can exert her influence anywhere, on anyone, at any time. If this is true for animal killers like Mrigari the Hunter, than why not for those involved in saving animalsâsuch as Vegans?
Iâm not saying anything revolutionary here ânothing against cowâs milk or varnasramaâ My point is simply that the practice of bhakti is compatible with a vegan diet. This is just common sense.
brahma
I would like to address three things from Mother Saciâs postings: 1) where are the quotes from Srila Prabhupada about cows benefiting when their milk is offered 2) Devamrta Maharaja is right 3) the quote from the Manu Samhita
1) Srila Prabhupada may not have directly mentioned that cows benefit when their milk is offered, but he clearly states the principle by which this is indisputably true:
Prabhupada: âHuh? Yes. Machine was not made for chanting Hare Krsna, but we are utilizing it so that the machine-maker may be benefited. Because we employ everyone’s energy to Krsna. So by his energy he has manufactured this machine, so we are employing in Krsna’s service so that he may be benefited, purified. We are showing him the mercy. Just like one flower picked up from a plant offered to Krsna is offering benefit to that plant. Because his energy is in the service of Krsna. Similarly, the person who has manufactured this machine, when it is employed in Krsna consciousness business, he’s benefited. Indirectly, we are giving him opportunity, although he does not know it. But his energy is being utilized for Krsna.â (morning walk, 3/23/68)
And in case thereâs a doubt about milk being the energy of the cow:
Srila Prabhupada: âYes. Just like this milk. What is this milk? The separated energy of the cow. [Syamasundara and Bob, stunned, laugh in realization.] Is it not? It is the manifestation of the separated energy of the cow.â (Perfect Questions, Perfect Answers ch 1)
As far as milk from condemned cows goes, unless it can be shown that Srila Prabhupada, who allowed commerical milk to be offered and took that milk himself, made any statement or indicated in any way that commerically produced milk â which he knew came from cows condemned to be slaughtered â could not be offered, or that the such cows were exempt from the above principle, then the conclusion is that according to Srila Prabhupada, milk offered from any cow, benefits that cow.
Continued in next posting
2) Devamrta Maharaja supports his assertion – when commerical milk is offered, the cows donât benefit – by an anthropomorphic, and thus incorrect, argument: we canât determine which cows contributed to a carton of milk therefore it is not possible to award spiritual benefit. While this is true for we mortals, itâs not true for He who awards spiritual benefit, and who is the possessor of inconcievable omnipotency, and who expands Himself as Paramatma in each living entity and every atom.
3) Itâa true that Srila Prabhupada repeatedly states that the Manu Samhita is the lawbook for mankind. He also repeatedly quotes from it. However he also explains that it is a dharma sastra, dealing with karma khanda: âFor karma-kanòa there are eighty authorized scriptures, such as Manu-samhita, which are known as dharma-sastras.â (SB 6.1.7 purport) In fact, he ocassionally indicates it is not so necessary for Vaisnavas:
âThere are twenty kinds of dharma-sastras, religious principles, in the Vedic literature, beginning from Manu, Parasara, and other great, great sages. So here, Sridhara Swami is also putting forward the argument that if simply by chanting the holy name of God, one becomes liberatedâeven mahatmas also, they have to take to this processâthen why, what is the necessity of so many, twenty kinds of dharma-sastras? So from the conclusion of various Vedic literatures, there is no need of studying even the dharma-sastras.â (lecture Gorakhpur 2/17/71)
âWe do not want all these rituals. Chanting Hare Krishna is our only business. According to the Manu-samhita you are all mlecchas and yavanas. You cannot touch the Manu-samhita, what to speak of translating it. So if you try to follow the Manu-samhita then you become a mleccha and yavana and your career is finished.â (letter to Madhusudana prabhu 5/19/77)
continued in the next posting
Letâs look at the section Mother Saci has quoted from. Itâs called Forbidden Foods. Although it says âThe milk of a cow (or other female animal) within ten days after her calving, that of camels, of one-hoofed animals, of sheep, of a cow in heat, or of one that has no calf with herâ is forbidden food, the section doesnât mention anything about offering to Lord Visnu. The verse prior is very telling. It describes something else that is forbidden: âmeat which has not been sprinkled with water while sacred texts were recitedâ [v.5.7.] This is quite interesting, because it seems to indicate that meat which has been sprinkled with water while sacred texts are recited is not forbidden. In fact, the section clearly describes items Vaisnavas know are unofferable as not being forbidden, and thus can be eaten:
â(But the fish called) Pathina and (that called) Rohita may be eaten, if used for offerings to the gods or to the manes; (one may eat) likewise Ragivas, Simhatundas, and Sasalkas on all (occasions).â [v.5.16.]
âThe porcupine, the hedgehog, the iguana, the rhinoceros, the tortoise, and the hare they declare to be eatable; likewise those (domestic animals) that have teeth in one jaw only, excepting camels. [v.5.18.]
Because this section says that different kinds of unofferable foods are not forbidden, then it is obvious that the section is not dealing with what can be offered to Krsna. Hence it does not support or prove the idea that milk from condemned cows can not be offered.
Unless there are other statements by Srila Prabhupada, or from Vaisnava sastras, or from our acaryas that indicate cows donât benefit when their milk is offered, or statements from these sources that indicate a distinction between protected cowsâ milk and non protected cowsâ milk in terms of offering to Krsna, then we have two choices: We can make a distinction in what can be offered that Srila Prabhupada did not make (condemned cowsâ milk versus protected cowsâ milk) and use it to ignore the principle he gave (offering the living entityâs energy to Krsna benefits that entity), supporting this position with a quote from a section of a dharma sastra which doesnât deal with offering to Krsna and allows for meat eating; or, we can accept the principle Srila Prabhupada taught as it applies to milk: When any cowâs milk is offered to Krsna, the cow benefits.
Cows or Gavam are to be worshiped. This worship is part of bhakti. If human society wants to be exalted, the leaders of society must follow the instructions of Bhagavad-gita and give protection to the cows, the brahmanas and brahminical culture. There is a misconception that mortal human beings like us can give sukriti to Cows and help them advance. Few people think they are giving cows sukriti by offering its milk to Krishna.It is not a right understanding. It is quite opposite. Cows give us sukriti to advance in bhakti. Shri Krishna is worshipped with names like Go-Brahmana-Hitaya ca.
Therefore one who worships Govinda must satisfy Him by worshiping the brÄhmanĚŁas and cows.
Regards
In the same section to forbidden food in Manu Samhita you can read”5.Garlic, leeks and onions, mushrooms and (all plants), springing from impure (substances), are unfit to be eaten by twice-born men” Isn,t it a little bit strange that you don,t think for this quote “the section doesnât mention anything about offering to Lord Visnu. In fact, the section clearly describes items Vaisnavas know are unofferable.”…..
So here is one text more which describes you which food from Manu samhita is forbidden for Vaishnavas.
Forbidden Food from Manu Samhita in relation to the practices of Vaishnavism:
“Since meat, wine, onions and garlic are by their inherent nature in the modes of raja and tama guna, the Vaishnava is forbidden to eat them, or even touch them. Other untouchable items are as follows: any form of intoxicants; milk mixed with salt; milk from animals other than the cow; milk from a cow WITHOUT CALF; milk from a cow during the ten day period after bearing a calf (giving cholestrum); milk from a cow that has been mated; milk mixed with buttermilk; milk in a copper vessel; red spinach – kalambi sak; burned rice; white eggplant (although most brahmins eat them); radish; coconut water in a bell metal vessel; honey and yoghurt in a copper vessel; ucchista (someone’s remnants) mixed with ghee; sesame, cornmeal, and yoghurt at night; barley during the day; burned preparations; ones own half-eaten fruit or sweets (saved and to be eaten later). A food product, even though it is in the mode of goodness, may, due to the influence of time and weather, become stale or rotten. Such food is transformed to the mode of ignorance and is unhealthy for the body. Thus these transformed foods are also forbidden for offering to the Lord and for consumption.”
More for read here:
http://www.salagram.net/Onions-Garlic-in-relation2Vaishnavism.html#Manu-samhita
And Murali Vadaka Prabhu, you don,t have specifically quote from Prabhupada or any other acharya in our sampradaya (about cow,s benefited) which I asked for. I ,ve seen many times that devotees select certain quotes” what Prabhupada said” from “here and there” (almost always out of context) on many things…..we know that whatever point we want to make, a Prabhupada quote is available to “use” to support our agenda.
“We are advocating cow protection and encouraging people to drink more milk and eat palatable preparations made of milk, but the demons, just to protest such proposals, are claiming that they are advanced in scientific knowledge, as described here by the words svÄdhyÄya-Ĺruta-sampannÄḼ. They say that according to their scientific way, they have discovered that milk is dangerous and that the beef obtained by killing cows is very nutritious. This difference of opinion will always continue.” SB 8.7.3 p
http://vedabase.com/en/sb/8/7/3
Excellent comments by Murlivadaka Prabhu.
I would like to change the perspective. Imagine in your mind’s eye if you were in a slave labor camp and destined to die but you had some small gift (a result of your slave labor) that you could give as an offering to the Lord in the temple. Would you want the devotees to take it or would you want them to refuse it in principle as an objection to your current situation. In either case you die. If they accept it you go back to Godhead, if they reject it you stay in samsara but they made their political statement.
Which would you prefer?
In #32 Muralivadaka Prabhu quoted this letter by Srila Prabhupada:
I personally contacted Madhusudana Prabhu about the context of that letter and he said it was a time and place thing not applicable to everyone. Hence this letter can not be taken as a tool to invalidate the Manu Samhita.
For more details see this text http://www.dandavats.com/?p=11251
Mother Saci, Thank you for taking the time to read my comments and to respond. As Iâm not very intelligent, Iâm a little confused about your position. Are you saying 1) cows never benefit when their milk is offered because Srila Prabhupada never directly said they did; or 2) commercially produced milk canât be offered (based on the Manu Samhita); or both? Iâll try to respond to each position although it will take several postings
1) Cows never benefit when their milk is offered because Srila Prabhupada never directly said they did.
If I may follow in the footsteps of Shyamasundara prabhu, who very expertly offered an analogy in his posting, I would also like to offer an analogy. With no intention of offending Eskimos in any way, we could ask the question, can Eskimos benefit if they chant Hare Krsna? Based on your line of reasoning, that it is not true if Srila Prabhupada did not directly say it – the answer would be no because Srila Prabhupada never directly said that Eskimos could benefit by such chanting (all Eskimos please turn in your japa beads). Obviously the answer is that they can, because Srila Prabhupada has clearly taught a principle, given in many places such as in the purport to SB 4.31.19: âEveryone can benefit spiritually by the chanting of the Hare Krsna maha-mantra.â Because Srila Prabhupada established the principle, itâs not necessary to specifically mention all possible details; that is, he doesnât have to mention each of the 8,400,000 species of life, stating one by one that each will benefit by chanting Hare Krsna because âeveryone can benefitâ. (All confiscated japa beads should be returned to the appropriate igloos.)
I suspect that you accept the idea that if a principle is given, then every detail does not have to be mentioned. Otherwise you couldnât put forward anything from the Manu Samhita because Srila Prabhupada never directly said that ISKCON, its members, or his disciples should or must follow the Manu Samhita. You apparently take the general principle, stated many times as in the purport to SB 2.1.36: âThe Manu-samhita is the standard lawbook for humanity, and every human being is advised to follow this great book of social knowledge.â, and, accepting that all members of ISKCON fall in the category of âhuman beingsâ (leaving me out so there can be no argument about this), apply it as follows: (continued in following post)
Every human being should follow the Manu Samhita (principle established by Srila Prabhupada)
All members of ISKCON are human beings (again, exempting myself)
Then all members of ISKCON should follow the Manu Samhita
Please donât misunderstand my point. Iâm not arguing that all members of ISKCON should follow the Manu Samhita. Iâm only trying to understand how it is that one hand, you demand a direct quote from Srila Prabhupada in terms of the cows and their milk, and on the other hand, in spite of there not being any direct quote from Srila Prabhupada stating that members of ISKCON should follow the Manu Samhita, you put forth a quote from the Manu Samhita as something we should follow.
Forgive me for being repetitive, but letâs again turn to the morning walk conversation of 3/26/68:
âMachine was not made for chanting Hare Krsna, but we are utilizing it so that the machine-maker may be benefited. Because we employ everyone’s energy to Krsna. So by his energy he has manufactured this machine, so we are employing in Krsna’s service so that he may be benefited, purified. We are showing him the mercy. Just like one flower picked up from a plant offered to Krsna is offering benefit to that plant. Because his energy is in the service of Krsna. Similarly, the person who has manufactured this machine, when it is employed in Krsna consciousness business, he’s benefited. Indirectly, we are giving him opportunity, although he does not know it. But his energy is being utilized for Krsnaâ
Are you saying that here Srila Prabhupadaâs point is that only the man who manufactured the particular machine heâs referring to and only flowers benefit when theyâre offered? Clearly this is not the case. The machine maker and the flower are details. Rather, he is establishing a principle: âwe employ everyoneâs energy to Krsnaâ. Why do âwe employ everyoneâs energy to Krsnaâ; âso that he may be benefited, purifiedâ. The principle is, when a (human or non human) living entityâs energy is offered to Krsna (whether or not the living entity is conscious of the offering), the living entity benefits. Because Srila Prabhupada has established this principle, it is not necessary for him to mention the cows, or any particular living entity, in order for the principle to apply to them. (continued in the next posting)
Is your position that Srila Prabhupada has not established this principle; that is, are you saying that when some living entitiesâ energy is offered to Krsna, they donât benefit? If this is your position, it wouldnât be unreasonable of me to ask that you support such a position with some quote from Srila Prabhupada (or the sastras or the acaryas), as this is the methodology youâre using when you argue that offered milk doesnât benefits the cows. And you wrote in your last posting, âwe know that whatever point we want to make, a Prabhupada quote is available to âuseâ to support our agenda.â
You also write: âIâve seen many times that devotees select certain quotesâ what Prabhupada saidâ from âhere and thereâ (almost always out of context) on many thingsâ Am I quoting the 3/26/68 conversation out of context? If I am, please tell how this is so. Otherwise, please support your agenda with a quote that indicates this principle is not true, or modifies it in some way, especially with regard to cows and their milk. If this is not possible, then weâre left with the following logical progression:
A living entity benefits when their energy is offered to Krsna (the principle established by Srila Prabhupada)
The cow is a living entity.
Milk is the energy of the cow.
Therefore, the cow benefits when its milk is offered to Krsna.
2) Commercially produced milk canât be offered (based on the Manu Samhita)
As indicated previously, we could challenge this idea using your own methodology: where are the direct quotes from Srila Prabhupada that say commercially produced milk canât be offered to Krsna or that we must follow the Manu Samhita. However â please donât take offense, because none is intended – there is a much more serious mistake in your last posting.
Before focusing on that mistake, Iâll mention a logical problem in your reasoning. You point out that in the âforbidden foodsâ section of the Manu Samhita, onions and garlic are forbidden. Since we know that Srila Prabhupada said they canât be offered to Krsna (although he never said that this was because they are forbidden in the Manu Samhita), you then postulate that the other things listed as forbidden in this section, specifically milk from a cow without her calf, also canât be offered to Krsna. (continued in the next posting)
Putting aside the legitimacy of making such a jump (especially considering Srila Prabhupada never referred to this section of the Manu Samhita and never referred to the Manu Samhita at all in terms of what could or couldnât be offered to Krsna), we can ask what about the other things mentioned in this forbidden foods section. If we are to accept as unofferable what is stated as forbidden, then it is logical that we accept what is allowed as offerable, which would include certain fish and certain meat (how does one prepare a rhinoceros for offering)? Either we accept the entire forbidden foods section â forbidden as unofferable, not forbidden as offerable â or weâre guilty of ardha-kukkuti-nyaya, the logic of accepting half a hen.
Failures in logic aside, your last posting has a very serious mistake, although I believe itâs an honest one. You write, âSo here is one text more which describes you which food from Manu samhita is forbidden for Vaishnavas: Forbidden Food from Manu Samhita in relation to the practices of Vaishnavism: âSince meat, wine, onions and garlic are by their inherent nature in the modes of raja and tama guna, the Vaishnava is forbidden to eat them, or even touch them. Other untouchable items are as follows: any form of intoxicants; milk mixed with salt; milk from animals other than the cow; milk from a cow WITHOUT CALF; milk from a cow during the ten day period after bearing a calf (giving cholestrum); milk from a cow that has been mated; milk mixed with buttermilk; milk in a copper vessel; red spinach – kalambi sak; burned rice; white eggplant (although most brahmins eat them); radish; coconut water in a bell metal vessel; honey and yoghurt in a copper vessel; ucchista (someoneâs remnants) mixed with ghee; sesame, cornmeal, and yoghurt at night; barley during the day; burned preparations; ones own half-eaten fruit or sweets (saved and to be eaten later). A food product, even though it is in the mode of goodness, may, due to the influence of time and weather, become stale or rotten. Such food is transformed to the mode of ignorance and is unhealthy for the body. Thus these transformed foods are also forbidden for offering to the Lord and for consumption.â
(continued in next posting)
The problem is that this quote beginning with âSince meat, wine, onions⌠and ending with âare also forbidden for offering to the Lord and for consumptionâ is not from the Forbidden Foods section of the Manu Samhita. In fact, itâs not found anywhere in the Manu Samhita. It is the interpretive application of the Forbidden Foods section by websiteâs author. If you look at the website a little above this quote, youâll see the actual words of the Forbidden Foods section of the Manu Samhita (verses 3-56), in which there is no mention of Vaisnavas, or offering to the Lord, but direct statements that certain fish and certain meat can be eaten and that there is no sin in doing so. In his writing, the website author has very liberally exchanged âtwice bornâ and âbrahmanaâ for Vaisnava and somehow or other come up with the idea â from where I canât say, but certainly not from the Manu Samhita verses he has posted â that thereâs some reference to âoffering to the Lordâ.
We all, certainly myself included, must take great care when claiming something is from a bona fide sastra. The fact is that in the whole of the Manu Samhita (I can e-mail my copy to you if youâd like), Lord Visnu is only mentioned 7 times (twice in the Invocation and five times in the Creation section where the 3 Purusavatars and Their descendents are being described) and never in reference to offerings. The twice born and brahmanas are mentioned repeatedly, but there is no mention at all of Vaisnavas or of offering to the Supreme Lord. The Manu Samhita simply doesnât deal with what can or can not be offered to Krsna. This is in line with what Srila Prabhupada has said: âManu-samhita is not religion. It is moral principles for conducting society. Religion is how to become devotee of Krsna. That is religion.â (morning walk 4/20/74) (continued in next posting)
Are there are direct statements from Srila Prabhupada, the sastras (especially Vaisnava sastras), or the acaryas, that negate or modify the principle that when a living entityâs energy is offered to Krsna, that living entity is benefited? Are there statements that exempt cows in general or commercial cows in particular? Are there statements that some cows milk canât be offered to Krsna? If not, then we have this choice: Either we can ignore a principle established by Srila Prabhupada, or state it doesnât apply to cows (even though Srila Prabhupada never said that), or make a distinction between milk from protected cows and from unprotected cows in terms of which can be offered (ignoring the fact that Srila Prabhupada never stated this directly or indicated this in his teachings or demonstrated it in his behavior by refusing to take milk from unprotected cows) and base this distinction on a second level sastra (second level in the sense that it deals with karma kanda and moral not religious principles) and never talks about what can and canât be offered to the Lord; or we can simply accept that when any cows milk is offered to the Lord, those cows benefit.
I think itâs obvious which choice I make.
Please donât misunderstand this presentation. Iâm not arguing for or against purchasing commercial milk; Iâm not minimizing or justifying in any way the horrors foisted on commercial cows; Iâm not rationalizing overindulgence in milk products, or minimizing our failure to implement Srila Prabhupadaâs instructions on varnasrama and cow protection, etc. Iâm simply trying to address the philosophical point that when any cows milk is offered the conclusion is that those cows benefit.
Thank you Shyamasundara prabhu for taking the time to read my comments and clarify the point about Srila Prabhupadaâs letter to Madhusadana prabhut so that it is not misunderstood:
âI personally contacted Madhusudana Prabhu about the context of that letter and he said it was a time and place thing not applicable to everyone. Hence this letter can not be taken as a tool to invalidate the Manu Samhita.â
It was not my intention to try and invalidate the Manu Samhita. I quoted the letter simply as an example to show that Srila Prabhupada occasionally indicated that the Manu Samhita, or parts of it, was not absolutely necessary for us.
Dear Muralivadaka Prabhu,
Hare Krsna.
Thank you again for your excellent comments #39-44 for the benefit to all lovers of clear thinking.
Regarding your comment to me in #45 in regards to Manu Samhita and its applicability to Vaisnavas and ISKCON. Srimad Bhagavatam tells us that Manu Samhita gives the laws for regulating Varna Asrama Dharma:
“All the Manus offered their prayers as follows: As Your order carriers, O Lord, we, the Manus, are the law-givers for human society, but because of the temporary supremacy of this great demon, Hiranyakasipu, our laws for maintaining varnasrama-dharma were destroyed. O Lord, now that You have killed this great demon, we are in our normal condition. Kindly order us, Your eternal servants, what to do now.” SB 7.8.48
It is also one of the texts mentioned by Rupa Goswami that must be followed to prevent so called Bhakti from becoming a disturbance in society.
Manu Samhita is written in such a way that it is accepted by all classes of followers of the Vedas. For example when it speaks of the “supreme destination” karma kandis take it to mean svarga, smartas to mean kaivalya, and Vaisnavas to mean Vaikuntha.
HH Bhakti Vidya Purna Svami has given a very in depth series of lectures on the Manu Samhita with explicit focus on how and which parts of it are applicable to Vaisnavas and ISKCON in particular.
The recorded lectures can be found here http://audio.iskcondesiretree.info/index.php?q=f&f=%2F02_-_ISKCON_Swamis%2FISKCON_Swamis_-_A_to_C%2FHis_Holiness_Bhakti_Vidyapurna_Swami%2FSeminars%2FManu_Samhita
Or, http://tinyurl.com/k2do57r
Hare Krsna
Inspiration has directed me to make 3 points in regards to this post:
1. It is widely accepted amongst the majority of respected scholars of indology, Sanskrit, and Vedic studies that the Manu Samhita and the dharma sastras have been heavily interpolated throughout the years and thus not intact in their original form. These interpolations are clearly identifiable and a plenty. Therefore, it is highly irrelevant to currently advocate a conclusive interpretation, or a practical application of the dharma sastras.
2. The more people get caught up in the weeds of these endless discussions that have little to do with self realization, the more ritualistic and less freeing the process of bhakti-yoga becomes.
3. Many of us self-proclaimed “bhakti benefactors” of the world talk about milk, cows, and cow protection night and day…until the milk comes out of our ears. We bash vegans as being “sentimental” or as “mlecchas” because they don’t accept milk products.
Meanwhile, “karmis” are showing the world compassion through loving action. With 4 million video views, these compassionate souls are getting more people questioning cow slaughter and protection than this discussion on dandavats, for sure.
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=kUZ1YLhIAg8
Let’s get our heads out of the esoteric clouds, stop the hustle, and get back to the muscle.
Hare Krsna.
Please accept my humble obeisance. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. Bhakti vigna-vinasha Narasimhadeva Bhagavan kijaya!
Some commentators have suggested that Bg 9.26 refers only to water but not to milk. Others suggest that milk is not essential or important and can best be avoided etc..
In the following conversation between Srila Prabhupada and Mr. Dixon recorded April 23, 1976 in Melbourne that I heard today our Acarya, Srila Prabhupada, has pointed out that Bg 9.26 refers to any liquid including milk and then tells us that milk is âvery very importantâ thus nullifying the argument that it is not essential.
In any case I have faith in Srila Prabhupada not others who have been influenced by demons who want to discourage milk consumption as pointed out in comment #36 quoting from SB 8.7.3 purport.
Your humble servant
Shyamasundara Dasa ACBSP
Krsne matirastu
The conversation will be in the next part.
Part 2
SP also points out that being a vegetarian is also violence, so we best not get caught up on the issue of violence. Living in the material world by definition means violence.
______
Prabhupada: Ah, yes. Patram puspam phalam. He is asking very simple thing which everyone can offer. Just like a little leaf, patram; a little flower, puspam; a little fruit; and little liquid, either water or ghee, er, milk. So we offer that. We make different varieties with these ingredients, patram puspam phalam toyam [Bg. 9.26], and after Krsna’s eating, we take it. We are servant; we take the remnants of foodstuff left by Krsna. We are neither vegetarian nor nonvegetarian. We are prasad-ian. We don’t care for vegetable or not vegetable, because either you kill a cow or kill a vegetable, the sinful action is there. And according to nature’s law, it is said that “The animals which has no hand, that is the food for the animals with hands.” We are also animals with hands. We human being, we are also animal with hands, and they are animals-no hand but four legs. And there are animals which has no leg; that is vegetable. Apadani catus-padam [SB 1.13.47]. These animals which has no leg, they are food for the animals with four leg. Just like cow eats grass, the goat eats grass. So eating vegetable, there is no credit. Then the goats and the cows are more credit, have more credit, because they don’t touch anything except vegetable. So we are not preaching to become goats and cows. No. We are preaching that you become servant of Krsna. So whatever Krsna eats, we eat. If Krsna says that “Give me meat, give me eggs,” so we shall offer Krsna meat and eggs, and we shall take it. So don’t think that we are after vegetarian, nonvegetarian. No. That is not our philosophy. Because either you take vegetable or you take meat, you are killing. And you have to kill, because otherwise you cannot live. That is nature’s way.
Mr. Dixon: Yes.
Prabhupada: So we are not for that way.
Mr. Dixon: Well, why do you put the stricture on…
Prabhupada: Stricture in this way: no meat-eating, because cow protection is required. We require milk. And instead of taking milk, if we eat the cows, then where is milk?
Mr. Dixon: So milk is very important.
Prabhupada: Very, very important.
Room Conversation with Minister Dixon,
State Minister for Social Services,
Sport and Recreation,
State of Victoria Liberal Party
–
April 23, 1976, Melbourne
In #47 BBD (who is bbd please reveal yourself?) wrote:
So Srila Prabhupada is not respected as an authority in Vedic culture? He accepted Manu Samhita as an authority. So now we must instead take lessons from mundane scholars who also tell us that Krsna was just a tribal leader who somehow morphed into an incarnation of Visnu. That actually Visnu was not so important in the Vedas but rather Indra and Agni and somehow these old gods got forgotten and replaced by Visnu. Who also think that the Bhagavatam was written around 1000 AD, that the 1st and last khandas of the Ramayana are extra add-ons to make it look like Rama is God. Who propagate the Aryan Invasion myth. Who claim that the eternal Vedas were authored by men in 1200 BC. Who claim that there is no such thing as Kali yuga, that it was a fraud created by the âwileyâ brahmanas who used Greek astronomy to back date a grand conjunction of planets in 3102 BC. That Vedic culture was from ancient times but is not current. That Vedic astronomy and astrology were imported into India in the 3rd century AD. Etc etc. The list of nonsensical opinions of such ârespected scholarsâ fills whole libraries.
The whole enterprise of Indology was created with the sole objective of destroying Vedic culture and promote European colonialism and imperialism. Thus, I completely reject such âscholarsâ and authorities that you accept. I only accept Guru, Sadhu, and Sastra.
Our acaryas ancient and modern have all accepted Manu Samhita for a more lengthy discussion of this topic including how to deal with potential interpolations in Manu Samhita or any sastra see:
http://www.dandavats.com/?p=11722#comment-18053
Comment 50:
The simple fact is that not a single contemporary Vaisnava acharya in over 100 years has set an example of strictly following the Manu Samhita.
Not only have the Manu Samhita and other Vedic texts (Bhavishya Purana, etc.) been interpolated. Madhvacarya recognized the interpolations even within the Mahabharata.
Madhvacarya’s âMahabharata-Tatparya-Nirnayaâ talks about extensive interpolation of the Mahabharata in Ch. 2.
kvacid granthan prakshipanti kvacidantaritanapi |â¨kuryuh kvacicca vyatyasam pramadat kvacidanyatha || 2.3
3. In some places (of the Mahabharatha) verses have been interpolated and in others verses have been omitted in some places, the verses have been transposed and in others, different readings have been given out of ignorance or otherwise.
anutsanna api grantha vyakula iti sarvasah |â¨utsannah prayasah sarve kotyamsoâpi na vartate || 2.4
4. Though the works are really indestructible, they must be deemed to be mostly altered. Mostly all of them have disappeared and not even one crore (out of several crores of slokas) now exists.
granthoâpyevam viluLitah kimvartho devadurgamah |â¨kalavevam vyakulite nirnayaya pracoditah || 2.5â¨harina nirnayan vacmi vijanamstatprasadatah || 2.6â¨sastrantarani sanjanan vedamscasya prasadatah |â¨dese dese tatha granthan drishtva caiva prithagvidhan || 2.7
5 â 7. When the original work itself is so altered, what is there to say of its meaning which is intelligible (even) to the Devas only with difficulty. When the work had thus become altered in the Kali age, under the direction of Hari for its clear understanding, I shall state the settled truths having known them through His grace, and also having well known the other (extinct) works and all the Vedas through His grace, and also having examined the various editions existing in several places.
Another Vaisnava acharya and scholar, Bhaktivinode Thakur clearly explains that one should take up the spirit of the shastras and not the literal words due to imperfections and errors that can lead to unfulfilled conclusions by the reader.
http://www.dandavats.com/?p=11259#comment-17472
When one sees the truth, nothing in this world is mundane.
SB 11.13.24: Within this world, whatever is perceived by the mind, speech, eyes or other senses is Me alone and nothing besides Me. All of you please understand this by a straightforward analysis of the facts.
You can read more about the milk (and commercial milk) issue within the Hare Krshna community from Kurma Rupa Prabhu ( founder of Care for Cows) and Balabhadra Prabhu ( ISKCON Global Minister for Cow Protection and Agriculture)!
http://www.iscowp.org/uploads/NL%20Volumne%2024%20Issue%201%20the%20onedistributewatermark.pdf