Rubblings from the bottom of the BKs' cooking pot.
A UK BK follows ex-l's example and publicly asks, "Should BKs be Vegan?" A good question from an ethical point of view, the BKs have for far too long turned a spiritually blind eye to the ethical side of their diet, indulging in the by-product of animal suffer and slaughter whilst at the same time boasting emptily about being "non-violent".
"We're non-violent because we say we are so ... don't think, don't question, just ask Dadi and say, haji!"
Out of 800,000 aderents, the BK has garnered ... erm, 57 Supporters.
OK ... where to start?
BK dears, this is an ethical and intellectual battle that has waged for over 30 years and the dairy fat, homogenised and past-your-glazed-eyes leadership aren't interested. They like their dairy fat. It's cultural ... and ignorance ... for them. Many concerned BKs gave up over the issue, coercedly fed dairy into submission and adherence in some case.
And you know what ... such obstacles of resistances go back even further to when someone tried to ban tea (and coffee?) because they are not Sattvic either!!! Apparently there was a threat of a mass wall out if he had tried to enforce that one too (from memery, it was direct fromLK). Tea and coffee are not Sattvic. That is true.
So should BKs be Vegan? Basically, yes ... if they to "walk their talk" and have any spiritual integrity. And for the sake of their health (forget the environment and animals, the BKs don't care about them.
At least, I would say, "as vegan as possible" ... with exceptions for poorer, remote villagers who keep their own dairy animals AND treat them like family, ie care and not exploit them, and who cant afford the required vitamins etc.
Will it ever happen? "Snowball's chance in Hell", I would say.
Excessive dairy consumption is wrapped up with the symbols of power and wealth the Indian BK leadership so craves and the Bhakti they so enjoy (Krishna-related stuff). It would shock their system too much and, worse, require thinking about.
But, ultimately, it will be refused because of one of the oldest institutional syndromes ... the "Not Invented Here" syndrome. If it ain't out of the mouth of the Bull Brahma, or his virgin cow Gulzar, it's impure, body-conscious spiritual filth folks and can be safely ignored. The Kirpalani Klan don't want any pesky Westerner questioning their ethics and integrity, spoiling their Vaikunth-style party.
The BKs do know you cannot have milk without *******, don't they? Lots of bull and cow puffing and panting and pushing and sweat.
A UK BK follows ex-l's example and publicly asks, "Should BKs be Vegan?" A good question from an ethical point of view, the BKs have for far too long turned a spiritually blind eye to the ethical side of their diet, indulging in the by-product of animal suffer and slaughter whilst at the same time boasting emptily about being "non-violent".
"We're non-violent because we say we are so ... don't think, don't question, just ask Dadi and say, haji!"
Out of 800,000 aderents, the BK has garnered ... erm, 57 Supporters.
OK ... where to start?
BK dears, this is an ethical and intellectual battle that has waged for over 30 years and the dairy fat, homogenised and past-your-glazed-eyes leadership aren't interested. They like their dairy fat. It's cultural ... and ignorance ... for them. Many concerned BKs gave up over the issue, coercedly fed dairy into submission and adherence in some case.
And you know what ... such obstacles of resistances go back even further to when someone tried to ban tea (and coffee?) because they are not Sattvic either!!! Apparently there was a threat of a mass wall out if he had tried to enforce that one too (from memery, it was direct fromLK). Tea and coffee are not Sattvic. That is true.
So should BKs be Vegan? Basically, yes ... if they to "walk their talk" and have any spiritual integrity. And for the sake of their health (forget the environment and animals, the BKs don't care about them.
At least, I would say, "as vegan as possible" ... with exceptions for poorer, remote villagers who keep their own dairy animals AND treat them like family, ie care and not exploit them, and who cant afford the required vitamins etc.
Will it ever happen? "Snowball's chance in Hell", I would say.
Excessive dairy consumption is wrapped up with the symbols of power and wealth the Indian BK leadership so craves and the Bhakti they so enjoy (Krishna-related stuff). It would shock their system too much and, worse, require thinking about.
But, ultimately, it will be refused because of one of the oldest institutional syndromes ... the "Not Invented Here" syndrome. If it ain't out of the mouth of the Bull Brahma, or his virgin cow Gulzar, it's impure, body-conscious spiritual filth folks and can be safely ignored. The Kirpalani Klan don't want any pesky Westerner questioning their ethics and integrity, spoiling their Vaikunth-style party.
The BKs do know you cannot have milk without *******, don't they? Lots of bull and cow puffing and panting and pushing and sweat.
BK Erik wrote:Hi everyone,
I would like to support the dairy conversation too. We had an interesting conversation at the UN a few weeks ago. We offered a visiting Brahmin a bagel (from a store). She refused, as she doesn't eat any food prepared outside. Yet she wanted milk in her coffee. Luckily we use organic milk but - even when the milk is organic - the reason we get the milk in the first place is because the baby calves - who the milk is for - are taken for slaughter.
This inspired a conversation among all of us. Our principles are based on the idea of non-violence. On one hand we have strict disciplines about who cooks our food. Even if it is vegan many Brahmins won't eat food that is prepared by someone else. Yet, food that contain dairy products that directly support and fund The Cycle of animal slaughter are okay and offered to God and eaten.
The way dairy products were produced in the 1930s Subcontinent was undoubtedly very different than the industrial animal farming we have today. But why do we have the principles that we have? Is it to maintain tradition? Or to live non-violently? I think these are important questions. Presumably Baba gave us our principles so we could learn to live as karmically gently as possible, with as much benevolent impact and as little malevolent impact as possible in our lives. As the world changes, should we change in certain ways to maintain the underlying principles of peace and non-violence?