Guest guest Report post Posted April 17, 1999 On 17 Apr 1999, Prsnigarbha das 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. It is not "magic". It is the highly refined science of sound vibration. A lost art due to material consciousness obstructing the development of finer brain tissues. Most, if not 99.9%, of "sex changes" referred to in the scripture were done as the result of curses - against the choice of the recipient of the curse. The references are there and can be used to understand that body parts can be changed through the power of science, subtle or gross. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 17, 1999 On 17 Apr 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: > So anyone with an active tongue has the qualification of a woman? Let > me count my e mails and see who has the most (hmmm, could it be > Janesh?). Sorry, I couldn't resist. > Touche! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 17, 1999 On 17 Apr 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: > > So anyone with an active tongue has the qualification of a woman? Let > me count my e mails and see who has the most (hmmm, could it be > Janesh?). Sorry, I couldn't resist. >From the User's database: Sthita-dhi-muni 938 Janesvara 369 as of 04/17/99 10:38 PDT Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 17, 1999 On 17 Apr 1999, Bhuta-bhavana Dasa wrote: > On 17 Apr 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: > > > > So anyone with an active tongue has the qualification of a woman? Let > > me count my e mails and see who has the most (hmmm, could it be > > Janesh?). Sorry, I couldn't resist. > > > From the User's database: > > Sthita-dhi-muni 938 > Janesvara 369 > > as of 04/17/99 10:38 PDT And to be fair: Bhuta-bhavana 396 Madhava Gosh 1315 Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 17, 1999 WWW: Bhuta-bhavana (Dasa) ACBSP (Sandpoint ID - USA) wrote: > [Text 2242708 from COM] > > On 17 Apr 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: > > > > So anyone with an active tongue has the qualification of a woman? > Let > > me count my e mails and see who has the most (hmmm, could it be > > Janesh?). Sorry, I couldn't resist. > > >From the User's database: > > Sthita-dhi-muni 938 > Janesvara 369 > > as of 04/17/99 10:38 PDT Yet Sthi's tend to be short ("Brevity is the heart of wit") while Janesh makes up for the lesser numbers with greater size per message! :-) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 17, 1999 > And to be fair: Bhuta-bhavana 396 > > Madhava Gosh 1315 Hey, I'm crossing my legs at the logical implication of those numbers! Incidentally, are you making those numbers up? How did you find them out if you didn't? And how did you get a copy of your own post as it seems you did? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 17, 1999 >Hey, I'm crossing my legs at the logical implication of those numbers! The logical implication seems to be that men talk more than women. No need to cross your legs. I'm sure the scissors patrol is not heading your way. ;-) Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 18, 1999 > Most, if not 99.9%, of "sex changes" referred to in the scripture were > done as the result of curses - against the choice of the recipient of the > curse. The references are there and can be used to understand that body > parts can be changed through the power of science, subtle or gross. Aha, here we come somewhere. Curses. As as result of a curse you have to take a position against your own will. But such curses, and the result of curses only happened in Vedic times, they don't happen in our modern time, or do they? You will never find a pig that is actually the Lord Indra in today's times. Or is it possible? ys Prisni dasi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 18, 1999 > Most, if not 99.9%, of "sex changes" referred to in the scripture were > done as the result of curses - against the choice of the recipient of the > curse. The references are there and can be used to understand that body > parts can be changed through the power of science, subtle or gross. Aha, here we come somewhere. Curses. As as result of a curse you have to take a position against your own will. But such curses, and the result of curses only happened in Vedic times, they don't happen in our modern time, or do they? You will never find a pig that is actually the Lord Indra in today's times. Or is it possible? ys Prisni dasi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 18, 1999 > From the User's database: > > Sthita-dhi-muni 938 > Janesvara 369 I have 5189 letters. Do I win a price? Maybe a teddy-bear, even a very small one? ys Prisni dasi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 18, 1999 > > Aha, here we come somewhere. Curses. As as result of a curse you have > to take a position against your own will. We've all been cursed by our envy of Krsna. What are we supposed to think -- someone born in a guys body who thinks he is a guy is blessed? Or maybe only women are blessed. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 18, 1999 Yeah, but I keep mine short. If you added up all the lines in print, I think Janesvara got me beat. > > > From the User's database: > > Sthita-dhi-muni 938 > Janesvara 369 > > as of 04/17/99 10:38 PDT > .. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 18, 1999 > >Hey, I'm crossing my legs at the logical implication of those numbers! > > The logical implication seems to be that men talk more than women. No need to cross your legs. I'm sure the scissors patrol is not heading your way. ;-) > Ys, > Madhusudani dasi I think the real issue is that men need to use more words not to make any sense. .. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 18, 1999 > > From the User's database: > > > > Sthita-dhi-muni 938 > > Janesvara 369 > > I have 5189 letters. Do I win a price? > Maybe a teddy-bear, even a very small one? > > ys Prisni dasi As long as it's a boy teddy bear. .. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 18, 1999 At 1:44 -0800 4/18/99, COM: Jatukarnya (das) CI (Cintamani Intl, Oslo - N) wrote: >I suggest that we focus our criticism towards those who are performing >abusive acts and/or misusing power, instead of those we think do something >unusual, which is actually not our business anyway. Jatukarnya Prabhu, Please let me know whenever you decide to run for any office. I'd vote for you in a instant. very well said. Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 18, 1999 At 5:28 -0800 4/18/99, WWW: Sthita-dhi-muni (Dasa) SDG (Alachua FL - USA) wrote: >As long as it's a boy teddy bear. > Never seen one of those. Thought they were all hijras. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 19, 1999 On 16 Apr 1999, Prsnigarbha das wrote: > I have to correct you, it is a matter of sex change, not gender change. Dear Prsnigarbha Prabhu, What do you mean when you say that your gender is female? YS JvGs Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 19, 1999 On 17 Apr 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: > Incidentally, are you making those numbers up? How did you find them > out if you didn't? > > And how did you get a copy of your own post as it seems you did? 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 20, 1999 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). Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 20, 1999 > 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? Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 20, 1999 At 17:51 -0800 4/19/99, Robert Cope wrote: >What is wrong with debating an important philosophical point especially when >a GBC member may be deviating from such a misunderstanding. I remember reading a GBC resolution (or letter by the GBC) to Malati and other sannyasinis several years ago, stating that giving up that title was a condition of their return to ISKCON. It basically stated that they may continue to be renounced, but that the title and danda had to go. Malati prabhu accepted those terms before her re-entry, which was years before being nominated and voted in as a GBC. (actually the letter may also have addressed conditions for re-entry by other New Vrindavan devotees, but I remember it had a special section for women who had taken sannyasa from Kirtananda) I have seen Malati several times since then and whenever anyone has referred to her past, she has always talked about being a sannyasini in past tense. Yes, she's often given a great deal of respect, but that is due to her seniority and renunciation, not to any title. Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 20, 1999 > > What is wrong with debating an important philosophical point especially > when a GBC member may be deviating from such a misunderstanding. > "A GBC member may be deviating" is something what you got first to investigate in more accurately before you throw in public that GBC member's name for the public scrutinizing, under the label "debating an important philosophical point." I mean, I am really impressed seeing you so desperate to get on with bashing Malati prabhu (who happened to be the only non-male member on the GBC, btw.), so much so that you couldn't wait till some actual opportunity occurs. But you got to force upon your "important philosophical point" so passionately. You see, you seem simply to be too much eager to discuss "an important philosophical point" that my alarms went all off. (You asked me what's wrong, so I answered per your request. You don't have to agree with, of course.) > 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. > Don't worry for my "another guru's" un/graciousness, we two will be able to handle it in between us, without your "very gracious" interference. > 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). (Sorry to notice it but, I can's say that your memory serves you well. You started the letter with "And Mahanidi replied", and just few lines after you lost the idea what my name was.) I don't have such quotes. I guess you won your debate now. ys mnd Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 20, 1999 > 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. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 20, 1999 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. On 19 Apr 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: .. > > 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? > Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Guest guest Report post Posted April 20, 1999 On 20 Apr 1999, Jatukarnya das wrote: > > 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. Those against the ideas presented by the GHQ group have quoted little sastra in making their arguments. So where is the beef? 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. Please don't expect me to continue on with this discussion eternally. 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. Why don't we rename it to the Discussions conf. since there is practically nothing about varnasrama. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
