Search This Blog

Tuesday, December 27, 2011

Good Hand work on sand !!! Talent!!




























Rare pictures of Ceylon (Colombo)
























HOW TO READ BAR CODES...(very good to know)]


ALWAYS READ THE LABELS ON THE FOODS YOU BUY--NO MATTER WHAT THE FRONT OF THE BOX OR PACKAGE SAYS, TURN IT OVER AND READ THE BACK---CAREFULLY!

With all the food and pet products now coming from China, it is best to make sure you read label at the supermarket and especially Walmart (ASDA - US owned) when buying food products.
Many products no longer show where they were made, only give where the distributor is  located.
The whole world is concerned about China-made "black hearted goods".
Can you differentiate which one is made in Taiwan or  China ?

The world is also concerned about GM (Genetically Modified) foods; steroid fed animals etc in USA.
It is important to read the bar code to track its origin.
How to read Bar Codes .... interesting!
This may be useful to know when grocery shopping, if it's a concern to you.
GREAT WAY TO "BUY UK" AND NOT FROM CHINA or USA!!


cid:AEDEB1094B11464AB2748A1DCF9D7D95@BonniePagePC 


If the first 3 digits of the barcode are 690 691 or 692, the product is MADE IN  CHINA.  471 is Made in Taiwan .
If the first 3 digits of the barcode are 00 - 09 then it's made or sourced in USA
This is our right to know, but the government and related departments never educate the public, therefore we have to RESCUE ourselves.


Nowadays, Chinese businessmen know that consumers do not prefer products "MADE IN CHINA", so they don't show from which country it is made.

However, you may now refer to the barcode - remember if the first 3 digits are:




690-692 ... then it is MADE IN  CHINA

00 - 09 

...  USA  &  CANADA

30 - 37 

  FRANCE

40 - 44  GERMANY

471 ...  Taiwan

49 

... 
JAPAN50 ...  UK



BUY
 UK made by watching for "50" at the beginning of the number. 
We need every boost we can get!  Pass this on to everybody . 

The government won't help us, so we MUST help ourselves. 

KING COBRA







sai baba song 2012 .sai mara happy new year

Sunday, December 25, 2011

Protecting the Cows




Krishna with cow“Of all kinds of animal killing, the killing of cows is most vicious because the cow gives us all kinds of pleasure by supplying milk. Cow slaughter is an act of the grossest type of ignorance.” (Shrila Prabhupada, Bhagavad-gita, 14.16 Purport)
For those growing up in a tradition where meat eating is the norm, learning that other societies protect and sometimes even worship an animal like a cow seems a little strange. “Perhaps it is part of their tradition or just some sectarian belief. Like wearing different kinds of shirts, the different religions practiced are there to be accepted on faith or just inherited from the parents as a matter of obligation. I am this or I am that, but what ‘that’ actually means doesn’t really matter because all there is to ‘that’ is the acknowledgment that I am ‘that’ and nothing else.” Though the Vedic traditions may be followed for these reasons, each and every guideline is provided to fulfill a purpose. The purpose to cow protection is rather straightforward, for the same principles are followed in so many other areas of life. In addition, the cows are dear to Lord Krishna, the object of service in the discipline that gave us the concept of cow protection.
Krishna with cowsThe mother produces milk for her child based on need. This wonderful feature of nature gives the mother her strong standing, her position as the ultimate caretaker of the newborn that just spent nine months developing within her womb. The fetus felt safe in the comfortable environment of the womb because it was away from harm and it depended completely on the mercy of the mother. The dependency flows both ways, as the mother produces the much needed nourishment for her newborn once it enters the world. If a mother didn’t naturally harbor this affection for her child, the child wouldn’t automatically be placed into her custody.
Now, just imagine if after being protected in this way the child or someone else comes and kills the mother. Would the person who protested against such a practice be considered an oddball? Would their pleas to save the innocent life of an important caregiver be considered some strange sectarian principle that violates the edicts of other religions? Of course this wouldn't be the case, but when the same scenario applies to the killing of innocent mother cows, logic and sound reason are thrown out the window in favor of the passionate desire to eat the flesh of the slaughtered animal.
Lest we think the comparison isn’t valid because a human mother is different from an animal mother, we already see that dogs and cats are protected. The dog is considered “man’s best friend” because it offers unconditional love. No matter how hard a day you have at the office or what else is troubling you in life, you just go up to your dog and pet it and feel satisfaction. The dog allows you to love it without impediment. The dog doesn’t ask for anything in return except for some food and the ability to use nature’s restroom at the proper times. From a small amount of protection, the dog provides so much emotional satisfaction.
The cow actually provides just as much unconditional love, if not more. The cow produces products that can be sold for a profit, which can then be used to sustain life. Unlike the dog, the cow doesn’t even require love from the owner; just the ability to love its offspring. The cow only needs to graze on the field every now and then; otherwise it’s pretty easy to maintain. Even the stool and urine produced by the cow have antiseptic properties; something which can’t be explained by mundane science, for it defies all logic and reasoning.
If the unconditional love in the form of milk products and the ease of maintenance are present in the cow, why is it mercilessly slaughtered by the millions each year? Why is not the dog given the same treatment? Indeed, why is there outrage anytime there is cruelty to pets when other animals are treated much worse all the time? Why is it that those who do protect the cows and urge others to stop eating beef are seen as oddballs following a strange religion?
Obviously the only answer to these questions is ignorance. The sober person not only sees that cows need to be protected, they notice that the essence of individuality is present within all living beings. The ant, the owl, the cow, the dog, and the human being are the same in spiritual quality. Even amongst human beings, there is no difference between the infant and the fully matured adult capable of doing quantum physics.
“The humble sage, by virtue of true knowledge, sees with equal vision a learned and gentle brahmana, a cow, an elephant, a dog and a dog-eater [outcaste] .” (Lord Krishna, Bhagavad-gita, 5.18)
Krishna and Balarama with cowThe outward behavior and appearance may vary across species, but this doesn’t mean that the spark of life has changed. The learned man views all living beings as equal, but their treatment is not necessarily altered. For instance, I may know that a tiger is a spirit soul just like me, but this doesn’t mean that I will go up to the tiger and pet it. Just because I am aware of the equality of living beings doesn’t mean that others are as well.
But even if the tiger is unaware of the presence of spirit throughout nature, this doesn’t mean that the wise should unnecessarily kill them. Nonviolence towards animals seems like a strange principle in many parts of the world, but in certain areas the opposite is deemed the odd behavior. If you grow up in surroundings where animals aren’t killed, you will think that those who do eat animal flesh are the weird ones. In this sense both traditions can be taken as norms, as being legitimate. If both traditions already exist, why not make an honest assessment as to which one is more beneficial in the long run?
The proponents of bhakti-yoga say that nonviolence towards animals is a prerequisite for legitimate worship of God to commence. Bhakti is love and yoga is connecting the soul with the higher being, the person most of the world refers to as God. Bhakti-yoga is the religion of love and in order for that love to flow best, the mind must be sober. If I understand who I am worshiping and what their qualities are, I am more apt to be drawn to those features and form an attachment. If I am preoccupied by intoxication and killing innocent animals to eat their flesh, how sober can my mind really be?
The person connected with is also the Lord of all creatures; He is the original father. Therefore if I am to think of Him at all times, dedicate my life to His service, a natural byproduct of that engagement will be respect for everything He has created. The innocent cow that produces milk is obviously someone else’s child. Therefore showing respect to the cow means showing respect to its parents. If we expand out the scope of lineage even further, we see that no living being can claim to have been created through their own effort. In the Vedic tradition, Lord Brahma is considered the self-create, but even he has a father in Vishnu, the Supreme Lord.
Question: How will loving God’s creatures help me serve God?
Loving the creatures that God created serves as the prerequisite for pure bhakti, but it is not the final word. To show respect for other life forms is a given, for we already apply this deference to other human beings and to pets. In this sense we don’t consider any person noteworthy for not going around killing other human beings. We don’t go up to someone and say, “Hey, you’re a great person. You don’t kill your cat and dog. You are someone I want to model my behavior after.” Rather, the respect given to life forms is expected, something not considered noteworthy.
Lord KrishnaThe sobriety of mind is the key benefit resulting from the protection of innocent life. The sober mind can better concentrate on the forms, qualities and pastimes of the Supreme Lord. These aspects are non-different from Him and they are meant for the pleasure of the yogis looking to connect with Him in love. This is the special mercy of the Supreme Lord that is passed on in great abundance in the Vedic scriptures, the crown jewel of which is theShrimad Bhagavatam.
In one sense the Supreme Lord hasn’t given us enough of His pastimes. The original poem, arguably the first book ever composed, is theRamayana, which deals with the life and pastimes of Vishnu’s avatara of Lord Rama. The original Ramayana is quite lengthy according to standard estimation, but to those desiring to connect with God on a regular basis, there can never be enough verses describing the wonderful activities of the Supreme Lord and His spiritual forms which descend to earth to delight the saintly class of men. Therefore, people who follow in the disciplic succession of bhakti write their own poems, books and commentaries so that they can create even more points of interaction with their beloved Lord. The famous Ramacharitamanasa of Goswami Tulsidas serves as an example. The author took a different version of the telling of Rama’s life story so that his mind could have even more distinct pastimes to concentrate on. In the beginning of this work, the wonderful poet explains that there are actually millions of verses to describe Rama and His divine acts, but that he is only going to share a few that are known to please himself and also those interested in hearing about Rama.
With sobriety comes the ability to chant the holy names with full attention. Recite the sacred formula of, “Hare Krishna Hare Krishna, Krishna Krishna, Hare Hare, Hare Rama Hare Rama, Rama Rama, Hare Hare”, and try to hear the sound vibrations as you chant. Without any other effort, the hearing alone will bring God’s presence. With the personal influence of the Supreme Spirit resting comfortably within the consciousness, pious behavior will naturally follow. The restrictions on sinful activity that were previously followed with reluctance will be cast aside as being unimportant. Adherence to nonviolence will be as routine as getting up in the morning and taking a shower. Avoiding intoxication will be like avoiding foods that you don’t like; a restriction you don’t have to think about. The sweetheart loving the entire creation will cherish their bhakti-yoga even more, for through service to God one learns how to properly serve man and the rest of the creation.
In Closing:
To offer love the good mother never thinks how,
Provides milk on the spot for offspring does the cow.
Thus between humans and animals not much difference,
Both in protecting innocent children time is spent.
Places with violence and protection already exist,
Thus study both before either you dismiss.
Sober man knows existence’s purpose,
Following bhakti one animal flesh won’t miss.
To innocent creatures we already show compassion,
Why not to cows too following Krishna’s direction?

What are emotion expressions for?



(Medical Xpress) -- That cartoon scary face – wide eyes, ready to run – may have helped our primate ancestors survive in a dangerous wild, according to the authors of an article published in Current Directions in Psychological Science, a journal of the Association for Psychological Science. The authors present a way that fear and other facial expressions might have evolved and then come to signal a person’s feelings to the people around him.
The basic idea, according to Azim F. Shariff of the University of Oregon, is that the specific facial expressions associated with each particular emotion evolved for some reason. Shariff cowrote the paper with Jessica L. Tracy of the University of British Columbia. So fear helps respond to threat, and the squinched-up nose and mouth of disgust make it harder for you to inhale anything poisonous drifting on the breeze. The outthrust chest of pride increases both testosterone production and lung capacity so you’re ready to take on anyone. Then, as social living became more important to the evolutionary success of certain species—most notably humans—the expressions evolved to serve a social role as well; so a happy face, for example, communicates a lack of threat and an ashamed face communicates your desire to appease.
The research is based in part on work from the last several decades showing that some emotional expressions are universal—even in remote areas with no exposure to Western media, people know what a scared face and a sad face look like, Shariff says. This type of evidence makes it unlikely that expressions were social constructs, invented in Western Europe, which then spread to the rest of the world.
And it’s not just across cultures, but across species. “We seem to share a number of similar expressions, including pride, with chimpanzees and other apes,” Shariff says. This suggests that the expressions appeared first in a common ancestor.
The theory that emotional facial expressions evolved as a physiological part of the response to a particular situation has been somewhat controversial in psychology; another article in the same issue of Current Directions in Psychological Science argues that the evidence on how emotions evolved is not conclusive.
Shariff and Tracy agree that more research is needed to support some of their claims, but that, “A lot of what we’re proposing here would not be all that controversial to other biologists,” Shariff says. “The specific concepts of ‘exaptation’ and ‘ritualization’ that we discuss are quite common when discussing the evolution of non-human animals.” For example, some male birds bring a tiny morsel of food to a female bird as part of an elaborate courtship display. In that case, something that might once have been biologically relevant—sharing food with another bird—has evolved over time into a signal of his excellence as a potential mate. In the same way, Shariff says, facial expressions that started as part of the body’s response to a situation may have evolved into a social signal.
Provided by American Psychiatric Association
"What are emotion expressions for?." December 23rd, 2011.http://medicalxpress.com/news/2011-12-emotion.html
Posted by
Robert Karl Stonjek

Chinese Fossils Shed Light On Evolutionary Origin of Animals from Single-Cell Ancestors



570 million year old multicellular spore body undergoing vegetative nuclear and cell division (foreground) based on synchrotron x-ray tomographic microscopy of fossils recovered from rocks in South China. The background shows a cut surface through the rock - every grain (about 1 mm diameter) is an exceptionally preserved gooey ball of dividing cells turned to stone. (Credit: Image courtesy of University of Bristol)

Science Daily   — Evidence of the single-celled ancestors of animals, dating from the interval in Earth's history just before multicellular animals appeared, has been discovered in 570 million-year-old rocks from South China by researchers from the University of Bristol, the Swedish Museum of Natural History, the Paul Scherrer Institut and the Chinese Academy of Geological Sciences.

The fossils, reported this week inScience, preserve stages in the life cycle of an amoeba-like organism dividing in asexual cycles, first to produce two cells, then four, eight, 16, 32 and so on, ultimately resulting in hundreds of thousands of spore-like cells that were then released to start the cycle over again. The pattern of cell division is so similar to the early stages of animal (including human) embryology that until now they were thought to represent the embryos of the earliest animals.All life evolved from a single-celled universal common ancestor, and at various times in Earth history, single-celled organisms threw their lot in with each other to become larger and multicellular, resulting, for instance, in the riotous diversity of animals. However, fossil evidence of these major evolutionary transitions is extremely rare.
The researchers studied the microscopic fossils using high energy X-rays at the Swiss Light Source in Switzerland, revealing the organisation of the cells within their protective cyst walls. The organisms should not have been fossilized -- they were just gooey clusters of cells -- but they were buried in sediments rich in phosphate that impregnated the cell walls and turned them to stone.
Lead author Therese Huldtgren said: "The fossils are so amazing that even their nuclei have been preserved."
Co-author Dr John Cunningham said: "We used a particle accelerator called a synchrotron as our X-ray source. It allowed us to make a perfect computer model of the fossil that we could cut up in any way that we wanted, but without damaging the fossil in any way. We would never have been able to study the fossils otherwise!"
This X-ray microscopy revealed that the fossils had features that multicellular embryos do not, and this led the researchers to the conclusion that the fossils were neither animals nor embryos but rather the reproductive spore bodies of single-celled ancestors of animals.
Professor Philip Donoghue said: "We were very surprised by our results -- we've been convinced for so long that these fossils represented the embryos of the earliest animals -- much of what has been written about the fossils for the last ten years is flat wrong. Our colleagues are not going to like the result."
Professor Stefan Bengtson said: "These fossils force us to rethink our ideas of how animals learned to make large bodies out of cells."
The research was funded by the Natural Environment Research Council, the Swedish Research Council, the Paul Scherrer Institut, Ministry of Science and Technology of China, National Natural Science Foundation of China, and EU FP7.