Posts RSS Comments RSS

sitproperly on Jan 6th 2009 at 4:25 am Gaudia Vaisnava

Do cows really benefit when milk is offered?

Hi mom!I’ve recently read some interesting remarks by devotees who are anti-vegan. Now, I can understand why a devotee (or any vegetarian) doesn’t go vegan. It’s their choice and that’s fine with me. And morally, I have zero objection to a farmer taking cows milk if the cows are not harmed or killed. But what I cannot wrap my head around is how people, especially devotees who love cows very much, can be anti-vegan.

The vast majority of the vegans that I know are vegan for moral reasons. They don’t like how the dairy industry is the veal (and meat) industry. They go hand-in-hand. The only exception is farms that do not slaughter their cows. Those exceptions are sadly very few and far between.

One of the biggest arguments I hear from anti-vegan devotees is that the cows make spiritual advancement when their milk is offered. That scenario would be wonderful. If a happy devotee farmer raised happy cows and their milk was used in offerings, then sure, it would make little sense to be vegan. But that’s not the case. The cows are horribly abused and then slaughtered and it’s all funded by the money used to buy milk.

Thousands of cows contribute their milk to every carton purchased in a store. So how does that work out in the way of spiritual advancement? Do all of the many thousands of cows receive advancement? If one cow’s milk is more plentiful in the carton, is that cow more spiritually benefited? If so, the inhumane, brutal dairy industry would be the best thing that ever happened to the cows. That’s a very tough pill to swallow.

So I’m asking: Where is the sastric evidence that cows are spiritually benefited when their milk is used? If Srila Prabhupada said it, where did he get it?

Other arguments such as “vegans can’t get certain health benefits elsewhere” are simply not true. The big two are calcium (which can be obtained from a variety of beans, greens and nuts) and B12, which is where the “finer brain tissue” idea came from. B12 is easily obtainable in nutritional yeast. Your body doesn’t need much of it.

I’m not on some campaign to convert milk drinking devotees into vegan devotees. You have chosen what is best for you and I’ve chosen what is best for me.

But the argument that cows are spiritual benefited when their milk is offered needs to be proven with sastra.

43 responses so far

43 Responses to “Do cows really benefit when milk is offered?”

  1. Prema-Rupa ddNo Gravatar says:
    January 6, 2009 at 7:34 am

    I’ve heard this argument too- that the cows get benefitted from our offering their milk to Krishna. But it doesnt make sense to me. If that were the case then every yard of fabric I buy for the Deities, the fabric designer gets spiritual benefit and every time I bought some vegetables, the farmers advance just a little bit more.

    I remember I once asked my husband about this, if whoever created this stuff I use for Krishna, even though that wasnt their intention when they created it, gets some miniscule benefit from it because I use it for Him. My husband said no, thats not how it works.

    If there was a devotee run farm selling milk at my local store I would be more than happy to shell out the few extra bucks to buy that milk.

  2. Madhava GoshNo Gravatar says:
    January 6, 2009 at 9:11 am

    The justification is ugata sakriti (probably misspelled), unknowing devotional service.

    It was the same justification used by Kirtanananda to justify scamkirtan — collecting for one purpose but using the collections for another. That the donor would benefit because s/he did unknowing devotional service.

    Since the industrial cows are essentially raped for their milk, it definitely isn’t given knowingly for devotional service.

    By the same logic, someone could mug people, give the money to the temples, and claim it was okay because the victim got benefit.

    This “the cow benefits” is pure rationalization and a very comfortable one, deeply attached to ISKCON dogma.

    While Prabhupada did use industrial milk, he always had a plan for farms where milk would be produced from protected cows. He wasn’t complacent about it.

    Even if we accept the argument that the cow benefits, does that excuse devotees for being complacent and not making a better arrangement, especially when Prabhupada directed us to do so?

    The idea I have floated, that hasn’t really caught on, is that even if one is in a position where only industrial milk is available, buy that and then donate to a cow protection program. This milk offset program would be similar to the carbon offset programs being promoted by the green movement.

    Even though the specific cows the milk came from would still suffer, another cow would be saved and cared for.

    Anyone anywhere can do this immediately. It isn’t dependent on ISKCON management, so you can’t blame them, even if they aren’t providing any leadership in this regard.

    That devotees denigrate vegans is a symptom of their own inner guilt at the sense gratification they get from milk from cows that are exploited and slaughtered. That they are so attached to it they don’t support cow protection programs bewilders me.

  3. Ajit Krishna DasaNo Gravatar says:
    January 6, 2009 at 2:03 pm

    Pamho, agtSP!

    The right spelling is ajnata-sukrti (unknowing devotional service). It’s true that one can benefit from such ajnata-sukrti. But how far back in the causal chain we can go back before there’s no more ajnata-sukrti remains unknown to me – and I guess most devotees, if not all.

    Background: I’m not a fanatic vegan and I’m not making propaganda for veganism in ISKCON. I’m just trying to evaluate the arguments in a rational, detached, objective way. I think the discussed argument for drinking milk has several serious flaws.

    The “cows benefit argument” seems to lead to absurd and immoral results. Imagine that a given entity is forced to produce a specific product under conditions that inflict extreme pain, suffering and possibly death to the entity. Now imagine that we believe that if we buy the products produces by such an entity and offer them to Krishna the entity will benefit. Then it seems to me that it follows that it becomes our moral duty to buy and offer such products – as many of them as possible. The problem is that such entities are not only cows, but also child slaves – for example – that work 18 hours a day and are physically, mentally and sometimes sexually abused. If we can help them get spiritual benefit by buying their products we ought to stand in line to buy as many of these products as possible. But that seems absurd and immoral to me. You could argue that it’s the dharma of the cow to produce milk to Krishna. But then again the buyer of child slave products could argue that it’s the dharma of the all humans – and all other entities as well – to serve Krishna. So what’s the moral difference in buying milk and buying child slave products?

    There are many arguments for both sides in this debate. Whatever option you choose I think the argument for it not a single one but rather a cumulative argument. I would like to stress again that the above argumentation from my side is not propaganda for veganism, but simply an attempt to make a rational assessment of one of the arguments for drinking milk. So it’s not the end of the discussion. I’ve not even drawn my own conclusion of the matter yet.

    ericNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 7th, 2009 at 3:09 pm

    Well, that’s an interesting argument. Krishna likes milk, which unfortunately is now obtained through killing cows. Krishna also likes and accepts other offerings which can be made through the exploitation of slave labor. It’s sort of a shaky argument, but I guess it can work. Still, a bit sentimental. :)

    I take it that you’re vegan. If I were you, I’d stay vegan. Krishna does not *demand* milk. We are not duty-bound to offer milk. We are, however, duty-bound to protect the cow.

  4. Ryan BeggarNo Gravatar says:
    January 6, 2009 at 9:01 pm

    Ooo a post that may have some controversy. Now I feel like a coward for posting my “niceness is fun” blog. bravo!

    i signed up for veganism for chicks. little did i know how insane vegan chicks are…

    now i stay for the chicks. the baby chickens. those little guys are great.

  5. Prema-Rupa ddNo Gravatar says:
    January 6, 2009 at 9:15 pm

    BTW- have you ever seen the movie Universal Teacher? The one with the fake video of Bhaktisiddhanta Saraswati Thakur? What did you think of it?

    ericNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 6th, 2009 at 10:08 pm

    I’ve only seen the obviously faked clip and think that someone had way too much time on their hands.

    Was it ever discovered why it was produced?

    Prema-Rupa ddNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 7th, 2009 at 7:55 am

    Nope, they went ahead and put it in the movie.

    I was asking because I saw the movie and I wrote a review on my blog saying that it sucked. And now a bunch of people are arguing with me that it in fact does not suck. I was just wondering if I judged it too harshly or maybe I know more about Saraswati Thakur than the regular Bhakta Joe Shmo and so it just wasnt that good to me.

    here’s the movie if you have an hour:
    http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=1379748204367073318&ei=B9BkSei4EIL8rgL3mdSVDA&q=universal+teacher&hl=en

    ericNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 7th, 2009 at 8:11 am

    I forgot how awesome your blog is. Why why why don’t you put it up on Planet ISKCON?

    And why don’t you write more in it?

    So is the movie worth it?

    Prema-Rupa ddNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 7th, 2009 at 6:23 pm

    I sent an email to Sita-Pati Pr. a while ago so we’ll see what he thinks.

    I usually dont write much because I dont really have anything to talk about. Unless you want to hear about work and every time I pick up a bottle of viagra to count I keep thinking the label reads “vairagya”- which are two very different things. Thats…pretty much…it…yeah… But I plan to write more, even if I dont have much to say.

    The movie was okay. I didnt find it spectacular and eye-opening. But if you have an hour to kill, then go for it. To me, they didnt talk enough about the amazing things that Saraswati Thakur did, and the interviews were kinda blah. But maybe Im being too harsh? Im not sure.

    ericNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 8th, 2009 at 8:07 am

    The viagra/vairagya thing is great! Write about all of that!

    It’s not possible to be too harsh on a bad movie.
    (ok, it is.. but I doubt you’re crossing that line.)

  6. abrennanNo Gravatar says:
    January 7, 2009 at 4:51 am

    Here you will find some text on the dairy issue which you may find interesting. I would be interested to hear what more people say about it

    http://www.dandavats.com/?p=4745

    ericNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 7th, 2009 at 7:30 am

    Dannavir Maharaja’s paper is interesting and I’ll touch on a few points.

    In his opening, he lists four “solutions,” the first being to not boycott milk products (and I’m assuming he means industrial dairy). He then lists three (material) benefits these solutions will bring. While logically one can connect three of the solutions to the three benefits, he immediately fails to show the benefits of not boycotting milk products. It’s a small point, but sort of his main point.

    He uses the “best use of a bad bargain” idea. He claims: “He [Srila Prabhupada]j decided to “make the best use of a bad bargain” by using commercial dairy products on the basis of Canakya Pandita’s maxim: ‘take the nectar from the pot of poison or take gold from a filthy place).’” I would love to see where Prabhupada said that was why he was using industrial dairy.

    My only theory (since all we’re talking about is theories here) is that there simply were not alternatives. Also, industrial diary was not nearly as bad as it is now. In Prabhupada’s time, there were hardly any vegans compared to today. It was an issue that had not yet been addressed by most. I’d be surprised if it came up at all. Yet, Srila Prabhupada had a way to curtail this: cow protection, the best of both worlds.

    Srila Prabhupada’s plan was NOT to make “best use of a bad bargain,” it was *cow protection*. Just because we are doing nearly nothing to forward that cause doesn’t give us the right to rewrite history.

    He then goes onto the B12 argument, connecting it to the “finer brain tissue” argument. Again, in Srila Prabhupada’s time I’m not even sure if these were known, let alone alternatives made for it. Today, we have many alternatives.

    He continues by listing the health benefits of milk, which are indeed many. True, all of these can be obtained elsewhere, but they are indeed benefits in milk. Srila Prabhupada said that we should drink hot milk. Why? Because the human body has an incredibly hard time digesting it any other way (and some can’t even digest it when hot).

    From time to time, Maharaja will say, “Another reason that Srila Prabhupada decided to make use of commercial dairy….” I find that horribly misleading. There was no choice then. Veganism was practically unheard of and the only alternative to this whole problem was suggested by Srila Prabhupada.

    Srila Prabhupada said it was our duty to protect the cow, not our duty to drink milk.

    In his section “Treasure from the Condemned” he is putting words into Prabhupada’s mouth and thoughts into Prabhupada’s head. Honestly, that’s pretty messed up. He cites no references as to where he got these ideas as they are his own assumptions.

    And while he’s busy assuming, he assumes he knows all these vegan arguments. It’s very very easy to defeat arguments if you can present them in a way that makes them easy to defeat. This is a cheap, unprofessional and silly way to write.

    If he were to quote from vegan sources (cookbooks, magazines, books, etc), that would be one thing. But he just writes what he believes vegans should believe so that the arguments are easily defeatable.

    This is the bulk of his paper.

    It reminds me of when I was living at New Vrndavana and he started to live there too. The NV devotees went to the Rainbow Gathering every year for years and years. They knew their stuff. But all of a sudden, Danavir (then das) moves in, attends a few days of one Gathering, comes back and holds a seminar on the right way to preach to Rainbow kids!

    He’s doing the same thing now. He’s speaking on a subject that he’s not qualified to speak on.

    Thankfully, there is some redemption. He gives a website that rates “organic” dairy. Now those devotees who didn’t already know about that site can look at it and at least spend their money on dairy that isn’t *as* bad as industrial dairy. It’s a step.

    He ends his paper by paying very small lip service to cow protection.

    abrennanNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 7th, 2009 at 4:47 pm

    Thanks for the detailed response. I am not sure if the many readers of this take it to mean boycott industrial dairy not responsible dairy. No-one but us seems to take it that way.

    Industrial Agriculture the way we know it did not exist 30 years ago. It is the demand and the availability of easy credit that drove to the big guns to concentrate the Industry into the monster that we recognize today. In part they have created the demand by marketing and the manipulation of science and media.

    I think that the text is reactionary and not well thought out. It seems to me that the discussion on this issue has been inhibited by the reactionary response from both sides of the field.

    I think that you’re right. A bad argument does not help the debate. That is the mistake Richard Dawkins makes in his anti God book. He displays that he has no idea of religion or God. Then he proceeds to attack the mental concoction he has created. Even atheist scientists criticize his approach. Dawkins would criticize the approach himself if it were a debate on some scientific issue.

    The argument “what will happen to all the cows” is also used by meat eaters as a debating point. It is false. BILLIONS of creatures are murdered by the Agricultural Industrial Complex. I have read it estimated at 9 billion per annum, and growing. If we want to stop cow slaughter we must address the very source. the slaughterers and those who demand it of them.

    I don’t disagree at all with offering milk at all, but if you believe in cow protection and that is your only response it is pretty poor if you are capable of more. If we have the ability to stop the torture and slaughter we are obligated by that, it is incumbent upon us to do it.

    The link in the post below to the text from a transcription of part of a discussion with Hridayananda Goswami is the most rational I have heard so far.

    ericNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 8th, 2009 at 8:11 am

    you say “I think that the text is reactionary and not well thought out. It seems to me that the discussion on this issue has been inhibited by the reactionary response from both sides of the field.”

    But I don’t think there’s been any discussion at all about this. From what I’ve seen, in fake arguments written by devotees, the vegans are dumb or reactionary. Thankfully the devotees aren’t quoting real vegans. In those same fake arguments, the devotees come off as illogical and pompous, largely ignoring the duty of cow protection. Thankfully these arguments only take place in the mind.

    abrennanNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 8th, 2009 at 3:59 pm

    I am sure it is true to say: “I don’t think there’s been any discussion at all about this.”

    When I first read the Swami’s text I took it to be a an ‘inoculation’ against entering into the discussion. The more I hear from devotees who have read it that is how they are responding. Without looking into the issues they are saying “Thank God, I can stop feeling guilty now, end of discussion!”

    “Don’t kill cows, it is the greatest sin” -Srila Prabhupada.

    ericNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 8th, 2009 at 4:42 pm

    I get that feeling too that some devotees suddenly think, “oh thank god I don’t have to feel guilty anymore!” It’s all sorts of creepy and cult-like.

    One thing that has come to mind is how devotees are really, really discouraged from getting jobs where they’ll be working around meat. The idea is that even serving meat ties you up in the karma of killing the animal.

    Granted, milk being offered *does* alleviate your karmic reaction, but, as Ghosh said, that’s coming really close to sinning on the strength of the holy name. It’s not like killing cows is the same as pulling up carrots.

    It’s all sorts of messy and I’m glad that I don’t really have to deal with it. I’m vegan, problem solved.

  7. urukramaNo Gravatar says:
    January 7, 2009 at 5:02 am

    HH Hridayananda dasa Goswami has some good perspective on this issue:

    http://environmentkrishna.wordpress.com/2008/09/30/hh-hridayananda-das-goswami-speaks-on-veganism/

    ericNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 7th, 2009 at 7:31 am

    I do like his idea that it’s a personal choice. That’s what it comes down to.
    Thanks for the link.

  8. brianNo Gravatar says:
    January 7, 2009 at 8:17 am

    Vegan you follow and you don’t kill any animals,that’s perfect.We love milk product for it’s an aid to growing the subtle brain cells to help understand this science of Krsna Consciousness.
    Yes,it’s sad that mother cow is abused by modern milking practices,BUT when milk product is offered to Sri Sri Radha-Govinda,just one molecule of milk fat is sufficient for Krsna to elevate that family of cow,calf and bull and also those souls whose bodies were fodder for the cow.
    As long as you offer to Krsna,in my eyes you’re vegetarian,after all,chinese and japanese can’t digest milk after childhood but there is no bar to becoming God conscious for them.
    I rate vegan=vegetarian (Q.E.D.),so let’s all praise eric for being a sane and rational human being who knows that animals are people and who doesn’t cause them to be killed.

  9. Madhava GoshNo Gravatar says:
    January 7, 2009 at 8:34 am

    All cows on commercial organic farms end up being slaughtered. The profit margin is too slim to stay in business otherwise.

    At least some organic milk is produced in exactly the same way as regular milk. I have personal experience of that. See:

    http://walkingthefenceline.wordpress.com/2005/12/08/organic-foods-no-longer-locally-produced/

    Offering things to Krishna and using the guru as a karma filter can come dangerously close to committing sinful activity on the strength of chanting if the real motive is simply to satisfy our tongue with no attempt to protect cows, IMHO.

  10. Ajit Krishna DasaNo Gravatar says:
    January 7, 2009 at 9:03 am

    Organic milk here in Denmark is still produces in a way where the cows are forced to be pregnant all the time and they die after 5-6 years even though a cow normally lives 18-20 years. I guess it’s more or less the same in USA. So much for organic milk. The milk might be organic, but the cows are maltreated and killed.

  11. ericNo Gravatar says:
    January 7, 2009 at 3:06 pm

    I’ve been thinking a bit more and reading a bit more from some devotees about veganism. It really appears that many devotees don’t actually listen and learn the vegan arguments. They assume to know what vegans believe and then defeat it (just like Danavir Maharaja’s paper).

    Like the idea of “better to take milk because if you don’t then we’ll all forget about the cow.” Is that really true? That if you stop drinking milk, you’ll forget about the cow? I don’t know, there’s practically the whole of ISKCON that drinks milk AND has completely neglected the cow.

    While you would probably be hard-pressed to find many vegans who would take the milk of even protected cows, you’d be equally hard-pressed to find many vegans who wouldn’t join you in the struggle to protect the cow.

    Veganism is indeed a band-aid solution to cow protection. But supporting the dairy and meat industries is like digging a rusty fork into the wound that that band-aid would cover.

  12. Ajit Krishna DasaNo Gravatar says:
    January 7, 2009 at 3:30 pm

    Eric,

    I’ve not yet come to a conclusion about drinking milk. I’ve stayed vegan for some time while I’m looking at the arguments. It seems to have a good impact on my health, so if I start drinking milk again it will be very little.

    Let me ask you two questions. I’m not trying to challenge you. It’s just for consideration and because I’m curious about your answers.

    1) Prabhupada knew the cows were being treated in a horrible way, but he still drank their milk and instructed ISKCON devotees to use milk in temples. Do you think that Prabhupada did something immoral?

    2) Imagine this scenario: You’re observing a cow being abused the way they do it in the dairy industry. It’s about to be slaughtered. The only option you have to help it is to buy some of it’s milk and offer it to Krishna. It’s looks at you with big wet eyes. It’s full of fear and you can see it’s desperate, appealing to you for help. How will you react? Will you think: “Sorry, I can’t help you mother cow!” or will you buy and offer the milk? Or something else?

    Ys, AKD

    ericNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 7th, 2009 at 4:03 pm

    Ok, I’m up for a bit of fun!

    1) Like I’ve said a few times before, the options were not really there in Prabhupada’s time. Veganism was pretty unheard of. Also, the dairy industry was not as industrialized and nasty as it is now.

    Now, Srila Prabhupada, like ISKCON, would have to address it. Prabhupada didn’t even address it when he was here. It wasn’t the issue then that it is now.

    So, no, in consideration of time/place/circumstance, Prabhupada was not immoral (in my opinion).

    2) Goodness you’re sentimental! :) That scenario is unrealistic and simply impossible. Why would the milk industry suddenly free this one cow because I quickly bought some of her milk and offered it to Krishna? That’s just weird.

    But, if I have to answer it, then… yeah, I would do it… and then wake up from an incredibly freaky dream.

    Ajit prabhu, you’re a strange cat. I like it. Keep it up! :)

    RatiNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 8th, 2009 at 6:37 am

    Hey Eric! I don’t think he was meaning that the cow would be saved from slaughter if you bought milk, but just that at least some of her milk would be offered before she was slaughtered. (Or more accurately, sometime after, by the time you got an offering together.)

    ericNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 8th, 2009 at 8:16 am

    Well then that’s just weirder because it isn’t some analogy, it’s exactly what we’re talking about! All he’d be saying then was “ok, this thing that you’re saying isn’t true because there’s no sastric evidence to prove it… what if it WAS true? huh? far out, huh?! What then duuuuuuuuude…?”

    And I really want to believe he’s not doing that.

    RatiNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 8th, 2009 at 9:19 am

    Whoaaaaaaa, that’s like…whoaaaaaaa.

  13. Ajit Krishna DasaNo Gravatar says:
    January 7, 2009 at 4:17 pm

    1) I don’t think it would have been any problem to avoid milk in these days just because no one had heard of veganism and I’m sure a transcendentalist like Prabhupada would have easily seen if there was a need to avoid milk. The diary industry was very bad at that time also. I don’t think the difference was that big, but I would like to see some data so I can compare. Do you have such?

    2) Why am I being sentimental? I’m just setting up a moral dilemma. Even though the dilemma is unrealistic (I don’t even think it really is totally unrealistic. It could be arranged I think) it will still tell us a lot about what is right and wrong in this regard I think.

    I’m known for being extremely unsentimental in my debates and writings so it’s nice to be called sentimental for once :)

    You said that when Prabhupada was talking about fine brain tissues he was referring to the B12. Do you have a reference? Just curious.

    Before making up my mind I usually do extensive research and the more I read about this subject the more I realize how important it is to really research what Prabhupada said. So that’s what I’m going to do. I guess it will take some time – especially because my vedabase is down at the moment.

    From a non-Vedic perspective I’m totally on the vegan side here. But in light of Prabhupada’s example and teachings I’m leaning towards the opinion that there’s really no scope for turning ISKCON into a pro-vegan society even though it might become more vegan friendly.

    Hmm…

    Ys, AKD

    ericNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 7th, 2009 at 5:13 pm

    1) The dairy industry was “very bad” at the time. But it’s “very badder” now.

    It’s well known that family farming has been decreasing over the decades. In family farms, they treat the animals relatively well and then kill them. In industrial farms, they treat them horribly and then kill them. Both are hellish, obviously family farms are better.

    According to the EPA (Environmental Protection Agency), between 1974 and 2002, the number of corporate-owned U.S. farms increased by more than 46 percent. According to the USDA, between 2005 and 2006, the US lost 8,900 farms (a little more than 1 farm per hour).

    I grew up in a rural area, people losing farms is a pretty regular thing. Large, industrial farms coming in is too.

    2) The sentimental was the “big eyes” bit.

    A reference to B12 being good for the brain? I found one the other day. Google, my son! B12 does a lot of cool stuff, memory is one of those cool things.

    I don’t want ISKCON to be pro-vegan. I want ISKCON to practice cow protection. Until it does (and probably after, since I’m lacto-intolerant), I’m vegan.

  14. DwijaNo Gravatar says:
    January 8, 2009 at 2:58 am

    Well prabhu, you’re problem is that you can’t accept authority. You must simply hear from these advanced devotees and have faith that everything they say MUST be true and in line with Guru, Sadhu and Sastra. Don’t cause trouble, just give them worship and money and SHUT THE HELL UP!

    Here’s some words of wisdom from Kurma (yes, the chef).

    “If her milk is offered to God, she will go straight to a human birth”
    http://www.iskcon.net.au/kurma/2007/06/28

    Now be a good boy and drink your milk.

    ericNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 8th, 2009 at 8:14 am

    Haha.. It really bummed me out when I read that. Everything else he was saying, and even his conclusion, were good.

    It’s kooky that if stuff we want to be true, isn’t, we just pretend it is and eventually it becomes sastric. And I bet Prabhupada said it too!

    DwijaNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 8th, 2009 at 2:43 pm

    By the way, since I’m now a Mint Man, I followed your instructions for installing Vedabase, except I left Wine configured as XP just to see what would happen. Well, hey presto, it installed without a hitch untill I got an error message with the fonts. Not to worry thought I, you said the fonts were a bit wonky and I figured there’d be some way to fix them later. So I started Vedabase and it WORKS. HUZHAA. Even the fonts look normal, which is odd ‘cos they said they couldn’t be installed. I’m stoked, thanks.

    ericNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 8th, 2009 at 2:59 pm

    Very glad to help! Urukrama (who posted in these comments somewhere) is really to thank, he saw my plea on the Ubuntu forums and knew exactly what to do. Woo!

    DwijaNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 8th, 2009 at 3:17 pm

    Oh yes, many thanks to Urukrama prabhu. Now there’s one less reason to use nasty old Windoze.

    Eric, you must try out Felicia, there’s this totally cool feature where you can open anything as root simply with a mouse click. When you are root, everything is RED. It’s very groovy.

    ericNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 8th, 2009 at 3:33 pm

    I was planning on upgrading real soon, like. I heard about the root with a click thing. Great idea. Hopefully none of the Intrepid crapiness still exists in Felecia.

  15. Ajit Krishna DasaNo Gravatar says:
    January 8, 2009 at 12:31 pm

    Eric,

    You’re talking about the quantity of farms, but I’m asking about the way cows are treated in these farms. I don’t think the quantity of farms has any bearing on the ethical issues in regard to drinking the milk produced by these farms?

    As far as I remember you said that Prabhupada referred to B12 when he was talking about fine brain tissues. But that’s not proven by saying that B12 is important for brain tissue. There might be all kind of other subtles things involved also. So I was asking for a quote where Prabhupada said he was talking about B12?

    Remember…my mission is not to challenge your position.

    ericNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 8th, 2009 at 12:47 pm

    Ok, let me explain. Animals are generally treated better on smaller, less industrialized farms. When the quantity of farms goes down (like it has) and the human population and thus demand for food goes up, it can be concluded that larger farms are what’s being utilized (and it’s just true).

    There’s a whole ethical movement based around the family farm. Not only are these people concerned with how animals are treated (though they end up killing and eating them anyway), they’re also concerned with other issues like organics, families rather than corporations owning farms, buying/selling of local goods, the environment, etc.

    So, yes, the quantity (and especially size) of farms has a HUGE bearing on it.

    Also, I never said that Prabhupada mentioned B12. He didn’t. But chemically, it is B12 that would give what Prabhupada called “finer brain tissue.”

  16. Madhava GoshNo Gravatar says:
    January 9, 2009 at 12:53 pm

    On my last round of blood tests I requested and was granted a B12 test just for my curiosity. Fatigue is my constant companion and although I assumed my B12 was normal I thought wouldn’t it be a bitch if the fatigue was simple B12 deficient anemia.

    The normal range is 211 to 911.

    I scored 210.

    I was surprised it was that low because I am not a vegan. I eat various cheeses and yoghurt and assumed it would be okay. Which basically it is okay and not an issue. I don’t drink fluid milk.

    I don’t know how this relates to the subject, just throwing it in.

    ericNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 9th, 2009 at 2:15 pm

    Interestingly, the vast majority of B12 deficiencies are from normal folks with normal folk diets. There doesn’t seem to be a vegan (or vegetarian) corner on the market.

    Our bodies need so little of it, it makes you wonder how much is actually known.

    It *is* nice to know a vegan nutritionist (with a degree!)(in nutrition!) …

    abrennanNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 9th, 2009 at 2:45 pm

    I have read that the large majority of B12 deficiency is in the ‘meat eating’ world.

    I have come across a coupole of different explanations for this.

    One is that your body alters it’s intake based on availablity. When you have a pile of incoming B12 your body need not store as much or maintain a high blood level of it. You are going to keep piling it in.

    The other is that the main reason for deficiency is not availability, it is low absorbtion.

    Something else is that those who decided how much you should have are not the people who do the actual research, but those who use the research. As with most vitamins we are led to believe that the more the better. Which is almost always not the case. In this way most of the ‘requirement’ levels are way overstated.

    There is also the issue of analogues. Heroin addicts are given heroin ‘analogues’ that get them high but also at the molecular level hang on to the receptors much longer than the real heroin molecule. This works to reduce their dependence on the actual heroin, the analogue does not cause the same ‘high’ level of dependence that original does.

    Scientists trying to prove that you must eat meat to get B12 use this process to claim that analogue B12, such as spirulina*, is a B12 analogue and it hangs on to the receptor longer, tricking the body to believeing it has enough B12, the real stuff is flushed thus causing a reduction in blood B12 because your body alters it’s intake based on availablity.

    The B12 debate remains unresolved. The main problem is that most of the reseatch is carried out using money from the powerfully rich agricultural-industrial complex.

    *spirulina is a bacteria that makes B12, it is often called blue-green. B12 is manufactured by bacteria in the soil, in water and in the guts of mammals including humans. It is believed tha the destruction of the health of soil reduces the amount of B12 absorbed by plants to almost zero. A great advertisement for organic foods.

    I am no doctor so don’t ‘believe’ me.

    Sorry for the rant

    Madhava GoshNo Gravatar Reply:
    January 11th, 2009 at 9:00 am

    You call that a rant? Let me show you what a real rant is! Just kidding.

    Thanks for the info.

  17. ericNo Gravatar says:
    January 22, 2010 at 7:02 am

    All comments will be now over here:
    SitProperly.com