Call off the dogs!

[Guest guest]

Previously, Vyapaka dasa wrote:

She explicitly implied when she commented to me and others that she would

>> never take off saffron no matter who told her to do so. I deduced that

she

>> meant that she was stillconsidering herself a sanyasini or whatever the

>> Kirtananda concoction was (and she seems to share). But as many on this

>> conference advocate the equality of men and women, shouldn't she be

>> allowed to take sannyasa. Does anyone have any sastric quotes?

>

And Mahanidi replied

>But out of what reason you would want to steer up such kind

>of discussion or debate? As far as you are concerned, you seem

>to be quite clear about ISKCON women taking a sannyasa - a

>"Kirtananda's concoction". And I haven't noticed anybody here

>being interested to push forward the idea of "sannyasinis in

>ISKCON." So what is your point?

 

What is wrong with debating an important philosophical point especially when

a GBC member may be deviating from such a misunderstanding.

 

I find it very strange that you of all people would raise such a point.

Weren't you the one who anonymously submitted the GHQ quotes for the benefit

of all mankind under a pseudonym. What was your name again? I remember

something about nitwit dasa or something along that vein. Is this truly a

pseudonym or a name given to you by another guru since your other one

blooped? If so, he hasn't been very gracious to you.

 

In any event I would like to mention that this organization is Srila

Prabhupada's and the quality and direction must have root in his mood and

vision. It is my personal understanding that a lady taking sannyasa is a

deviation sprouting from the demon Kirtananda. I say a demon because he has

erred from religious principles and there is not much in between demoniac

and relligious principles. So does anyone have any sastric quotes that allow

such an action? How about you, Ardabhuti dasa (if memory serves me well).

[Guest guest]

> It is my personal understanding that a lady taking sannyasa is a

> deviation sprouting from the demon Kirtananda. I say a demon because he has

> erred from religious principles and there is not much in between demoniac

> and relligious principles.

 

So , since sannyasis are not supposed to manage men or money according to

religious principles, if would appear you are saying most of our sannyasis are

demons?

[Guest guest]

> > > What is wrong with debating an important philosophical point

> > > especially when a GBC member may be deviating from such a

> > > misunderstanding.

> >

> > I have the feeling you are not very much into that women should have any

> > authority ever, right? Your important philosophical points may seem to

> > be tingued with envy of women in positions, as also is seen with the

> > rest of the GHQ members.

>

> What nonesense! I have never participated in the GHQ confernece. Prove me

> wrong on that one.

 

If you were not a member of the conferance, I guess it is hard to prove you

wrong. But I have to admit that I would be surprised if you don't agree with

their general anti-woman-agenda... Can you prove me wrong about that?

 

> Those against the ideas presented by the GHQ group have

> quoted little sastra in making their arguments. So where is the beef?

 

Without quoting sastra, there is nothing to say, right?

 

> Padyavali's article on Chakra was embarassing if that is what you have to

> offer for a philosophical presentation. And when I saw Hare Krsna dasi

> start calling these devotees the Vedics or whatever it is preposterous.

> Where are the quotes. Hare Krishna dasi quotes Prabhupada in regards to

> the cows ad nauseum but I didn't see anything quoted on the women's issue

> by her.

 

That is a touchy subject for those who need quotes to have an opinion,

because Srila Prabhupada did say many things about women which seem strange

if they are generalized.

But there were a lot of quotes from Prabhupada also from those who were

against GHQ. Maybe you failed to see them? What was driving me in that

discussion was not quotes, it was my own personal conviction. I guess I am

not far from a demon if I follow that some times without referring to

sastra. But then again, if I am, I would be in good compay, because we can

see that many GHQ'ers are also doing things without being based on quotes

from sastra.

 

I have to admit that I appreciate those who don't only live by quotes, but

who also have some personal realizations behind their arguments. And if one

cannot show kindness to the weaker members of society, one is immideately

disqualified as someone who can teach others about sastra or how to behave,

in my opinion. I don't care how many quotes come out of such a person's

mouth (or fingers, when we are talking e-mail).

 

> Please don't expect me to continue on with this discussion eternally.

 

You may definately quit at any time. But as long as you go on with the same

attitude, you cannot expect to be silently listened to in this conferance, I

am afraid.

 

> I am

> in the middle of a very busy time presently. Unfortunately, I just can't

> find the time to discuss or even read "what is female and what is male."

> Prabhupada would scream at the quality of the discussion on this

> conference.

 

Then why are you a member?

[Guest guest]

>

> From that perspective, and acknowledging that women have a stronger

> propensity for nesting, and for keeping a nice home, then the need to have

the toilet seat down is a simply a type of common sense that is more easily

recognised by the women.

>

>

 

 

Gee, I was leaving it up to try and keep it clean as a curtessy for the

opposite gender. Boy, no one appreciates nuthin you do anymore.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

>

> > Please don't bother me with your nonsense.

>

>

 

 

That's why God invented the 'delete' button. It is a non-sectarian utensil,

you don't have to first convert to Christianity to use it.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

>

> >

>

> Gee, I was leaving it up to try and keep it clean as a curtessy for the

> opposite gender. Boy, no one appreciates nuthin you do anymore.

>

> .

 

A little mantra for you.

 

keep it up when you pea

put it down when you flee

[Guest guest]

On 17 Apr 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

> >

> >

> > There are stories about sex changes in

> > our books, but how they are accomplished is never explained. Mostly

> > by *magic*. But many other common day-to-day activities was also

> > accomplished by *magic*, in our books, so I don't find that too odd.

> > Today it appears that everything has become much more troublesome.

 

 

What is now called technology, or science, used to be called Magic. All three

terms basically mean "know-how." What used to be accomplished elegantly (with

mantra and ritual) on the more subtle levels by qualified people in Vedic

times is now done (comparatively) ineptly by unqualified people with the

grosser implements of modern technology.

 

Both systems (magic and modern science) work, but due to the influence of

Kali-yuga, people are both less inclined to accept the unreliable results of

magic, which depend on the will of the demigods and other higher beings, and

less patient with the process, what to speak of developing the purity required

of the practioner.

 

The reason I quit practicing magic was because it was not a total solution to

my problems, but it did get the job done as far as fulfilling some material

desires. It was fun. It's not more spirtiual, just more subtle. The fact that

Prsni Prabhu's sex got changed by a knife instead of a mantra doesn't really

matter much, it's just less exciting.

 

I think I can speak for Madhusudani Prabhu as well in saying to Prisni,

"Welcome to the club!"

 

 

Ys,

Tulasi-priya dasi

[Guest guest]

> From that perspective, and acknowledging that women have a stronger

> propensity

> for nesting, and for keeping a nice home, then the need to have the

toilet

> seat down is a simply a type of common sense that is more easily recognised

by

> the women.

 

 

When I was little my mother and step-father fought about such an issue, mainly

because my sister and I (ages three and four) would get up in the middle of

the night to pass without turning on the bathroom light. We'd fall in and get

stuck and start screaming for help.

[Guest guest]

> Obviously, from this posting and the one you made before on this matter

> you don't understand english. Please don't bother me with your nonsense.

> It is not my fault you are so attached to that rascal Kirtananda. When are

> you going to take the statue of the Christian saint off of your lawn?

> Obviously, Bhakti Keith is still honoured by some.

 

 

I knew that Madhava Gosh must be also deviating somewhere.

Now it is obvious where... on his lawn! Good catch, Vyapaka

prabhu. And he has been cheating us all for so long time

by pretending that he understands English! Yeap. Now it's

over. As it is said, "One can cheat all for some time, and

some all the time. But one can't cheat all for all the time."

Another good catch, worthy of "Sherlock Holmes" award! Obviously.

 

..

[Guest guest]

> And it is good that you prove to be the authorized judge of

> Kirtanananda and Harikesa, since you obviously are the one who knows all

> sides of the story.

 

That is his way of "discussing important philosophical points".

 

Just as he was uncalled for to pick-up up on the "deviant" Malati

dd and on the "demon" Kirtanananda, so was he uncalled for to

play his low-class cheap theatre of not knowing my name so he could

create an opportunity for himself to point on my "other one guru

that blooped". Nasty, nasty.

 

And then he plays the odd show of someone who is in the "middle of

very busy time" (got no time for nonsense talk "a'la Madhava Gosh

and other members"), and he lets us kindly know how he is disgusted

with the quality of the current discussions - "Prabhupada would

scream at the quality...". Yes, perhaps he would... but he does not

read Vyapaka dasa's "discussions of important philosophical points",

luckily.

 

 

 

mnd

[Guest guest]

Ardabhuti (or whatever) das a.k.a. Mahanindi wrote

 

>> And it is good that you prove to be the authorized judge of

>> Kirtanananda and Harikesa, since you obviously are the one who knows all

>> sides of the story.

 

Are you trying to defend these two. Kirtananda is a convicted felon, a

pedophile, cow-killer (where are all the cows go in New Vrindavana?), etc.

Harikesa blasphemes his spiritual master and cannot even use this initiated

name. I don't need to hear both sides of the story. They are both rascals.

>

>That is his way of "discussing important philosophical points".

>

>Just as he was uncalled for to pick-up up on the "deviant" Malati

>dd and on the "demon" Kirtanananda, so was he uncalled for to

>play his low-class cheap theatre of not knowing my name so he could

>create an opportunity for himself to point on my "other one guru

>that blooped". Nasty, nasty.

 

My experience is that you are very expert in being nasty so I will take this

criticism to heart since you know the subject inside out.

 

You don't even have the courage to announce your proper name when you

revealed the GHQ discussions but hid behind a psuedonym, unless of course

you go by that name now. When I first read those submissions and later found

out that you wrote them I was quite suprised since your use of the english

language was never so polished. I guess your english has gotten better with

all the practice on the COM.

>

>And then he plays the odd show of someone who is in the "middle of

>very busy time" (got no time for nonsense talk "a'la Madhava Gosh

>and other members"), and he lets us kindly know how he is disgusted

>with the quality of the current discussions - "Prabhupada would

>scream at the quality...". Yes, perhaps he would... but he does not

>read Vyapaka dasa's "discussions of important philosophical points",

>luckily.

 

You really are pathetic. On top of the morning program I work generally 12

hours a day. Today I planted a ten acre field, harrowed it and picked stone.

In several days I open four mall shows selling a craft item that i produce.

My attempt at the business is to establish a financial basis for other

devotees wanting to live in the country and pursue their spiritual life

here. I do not have any help other than the partnership of my good wife and

one other devotee helping out here. We are also working a large garden which

last year made us self-sufficient in potatoes and tomatoes plus a full five

months of vegetables. All of this is grown organically which takes a lot of

time and attention. Why are you so nasty? I will be leaving soon for two

weeks to do shows but I think I better call them off so I can continue to

contribute to this wonderful conference and definitely I don't want to miss

your pearls of wisdom Ardabhuti dasa.

 

 

 

I have simply asked a question in regards to Malati and what seems to be her

supposed sannyasa status. Ghosh's reply was a complete misinterpretation of

a scriptural quote.

[Guest guest]

>[Text 2250598 from COM]

>

>> Obviously, from this posting and the one you made before on this matter

>> you don't understand english. Please don't bother me with your nonsense.

>> It is not my fault you are so attached to that rascal Kirtananda. When

are

>> you going to take the statue of the Christian saint off of your lawn?

>> Obviously, Bhakti Keith is still honoured by some.

>

>

>I knew that Madhava Gosh must be also deviating somewhere.

>Now it is obvious where... on his lawn! Good catch, Vyapaka

>prabhu. And he has been cheating us all for so long time

>by pretending that he understands English! Yeap. Now it's

>over. As it is said, "One can cheat all for some time, and

>some all the time. But one can't cheat all for all the time."

>Another good catch, worthy of "Sherlock Holmes" award! Obviously.

 

You are so funny Ardabhuti dasa.

[Guest guest]

On 20 Apr 1999, Robert Cope wrote:

 

>

>

> >[Text 2250598 from COM]

> >

> >> Obviously, from this posting and the one you made before on this matter

> >> you don't understand english.

 

 

Is the person who wrote this the same one who said that Malati "explicitly

implied" something?

 

Gosh and Sthita-dhi, why didn't you guys catch this?!?

[Guest guest]

On 20 Apr 1999, Robert Cope wrote:

 

>

> You really are pathetic.

 

 

Boy, now here is someone who knows how to relish the association of devotees!

[Guest guest]

At 18:42 -0800 4/20/99, Robert Cope wrote:

>

>Ardabhuti (or whatever) das

 

The pseudonym was Ardabuddhi.

 

>You really are pathetic.

 

There is no need to be so rude. I'm sure you can get your points across

without resorting to such labels.

 

>I have simply asked a question in regards to Malati and what seems to be her

>supposed sannyasa status.

 

Why don't you write her directly? She's not a member of this conference.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

At 18:42 -0800 4/20/99, Robert Cope wrote:

 

 

>You are so funny Ardabhuti dasa.

 

Finally something we agree on.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

At 19:23 -0800 4/20/99, WWW: Tulasi-priya (Devi Dasi) SDG (?) wrote:

>

>Gosh and Sthita-dhi, why didn't you guys catch this?!?

 

It obviously took a woman..... :-)

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

> I have simply asked a question in regards to Malati and what seems to be

> her supposed sannyasa status. Ghosh's reply was a complete

> misinterpretation of a scriptural quote.

 

I believe that Malati is not a member of this forum, so maybe you should

write and ask her about this, instead of making your own interpretations in

public?

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Is the person who wrote this the same one who said that Malati "explicitly

> implied" something?

>

> Gosh and Sthita-dhi, why didn't you guys catch this?!?

 

LOL. If I commented on everything I caught I would be writing full time.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Are you trying to defend these two. Kirtananda is a convicted felon, a

> pedophile, cow-killer (where are all the cows go in New Vrindavana?), etc.

> Harikesa blasphemes his spiritual master and cannot even use this initiated

> name. I don't need to hear both sides of the story. They are both rascals.

> >

 

These qualities of a devotee, twenty-six in number, are listed as follows: (1)

kind to everyone,

 

>

> You don't even have the courage to announce your proper name when you

> revealed the GHQ discussions but hid behind a psuedonym, unless of course

> you go by that name now. When I first read those submissions and later found

> out that you wrote them I was quite suprised since your use of the english

> language was never so polished. I guess your english has gotten better with

> all the practice on the COM.

 

(6) charitable,

 

>

>

>

> You really are pathetic.

 

(19) respectful,

 

>

> I have simply asked a question in regards to Malati and what seems to be her

> supposed sannyasa status. Ghosh's reply was a complete misinterpretation of

> a scriptural quote.

 

(23) friendly,

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => SB 4.20.16

[Guest guest]

>

>

> I have simply asked a question in regards to Malati and what seems to be her

> supposed sannyasa status. Ghosh's reply was a complete misinterpretation of

> a scriptural quote.

 

Whew! Such a chastisement and I was actually agreeing with his point women

shouldn't take sannyasa! Can you imagine the treatment I can expect if I ever

disagree with him?

[Guest guest]

>

>

> No, I'm not making them up. On WWW-COM, click on the top menu item termed

> Users and you will find the details there.

 

I don't understand. In Wincom, under commands, there is a User option,

but none of it's suboptions seemed to work. Could you give more details?