Call Off The Dogs!

[Guest guest]

>

> Or if you get annoyed by the previous user putting the seat in the wrong

> "state". I always wondered why women often get so upset about the

> toilet ring beeing up, until one day I also got bitten by that bug. Scary.

> Must be something primevial, affacted by the hormones.

> :-)

>

> ys Prisni dasi

 

In a proper Vedic home, the toilet would have been outside the dwelling. In

the study of Feng shui, it is recommended that if one does have a toilet

indoors, it is best to keep it covered as other wise the positive chi that is

desirable to accumulate indoors drains down the toilet.

 

>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.

 

So men, if your life doesn't seem to be going as well as you think it could

be, seriously consider keeping the toilet seat down for a while and see if it

makes a difference. (yes, I know, that is a "material" concept, but so is

turning on the heat when it gets cold outside.)

[Guest guest]

"WWW: Vyapaka (Dasa) ACBSP (Montreal - CAN)" wrote:

 

> [Text 2249674 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.

>

> 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?

> >

 

You amuse me. If you want a philosophical discussion, then I will talk

philosophy. You called Kirtananada a demon on the basis he didn't follow

religious principles. I ask a question about the premise, and your answer is I

don't understand English?

 

Instead of philosophy you hurl an implied accusation against me. Where is the

sastra in that? I use a statue of a Christian saint as a lawn ornament and

you

wonder when I will remove it? What do you suggest I replace it with? A

flamingo?

 

 

What was the name of the demon who in Krsna book was invoked, and when he

wasn't

able to accomplish the purpose he was invoked for, turned back on the invoker?

I

would be careful about calling someone a demon. That sort of invocation can be

dangerous to your own spiritual health.

 

Incidentally, if you wish to go ad hominem against me, there are much more

fruitful avenues then my choice of lawn ornamentation. For instance,

Kirtanananda frequently used my lack of attendance at mangala arotik to

denigrate

me. That was quite effective amongst his followers. If you would be

interested

in others, just ask, and I can point you in many more directions.

[Guest guest]

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

> you don't understand english.

 

Is that true, Gosh? And I thought you grew up with English as your first

language! I actually also secretly admired your English skills, but now I am

surely proven wrong :-)

 

> Please don't bother me with your nonsense.

 

That is really an impressive argument in this discussion. For those of us

who have been trying to follow it, it is not so obvious that Madhava Gosh's

texts have been nonsense and yours have been absolute unbiased truth.

Actually, you seem so agitated that it is hard to keep up with what you are

talking about.

 

> 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.

 

It is good that you are at the level where you are above material

considerations such as personal feelings and sensitivity while dealing with

others. 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.

[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]

>[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]

> 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.

 

Do we have to keep such a gross tone. Is that a gentleman's voice?

Reading your text I see nothing even remotly making me think about

Varnasrama, so I think it pretty much qualifies as off topic.

 

So please, just phone up the person you are angry at, and talk to

him personally on the telephone, and spare us your inner thoughts on the

matter.

 

Thank you

 

your servant Prisni dasi

[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.

 

So here we go again, starting to speak heavy words about others without

knowing them, the circumstances, and without them even beeing present.

I don't think is is very nice to read about such things, and I cannot see

what

it has to do with varnasrama. So in short, it is off topic. Please refrain

from this kind of speech in the future.

 

It would also be nice if those devotees who send texts from the internet

could sign with their devotee name, so we know who you are.

 

your servant Prisni dasi

[Guest guest]

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

 

>

> 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.

 

 

It is actually so, my English has gotten much better with all

this practice. For exemple, I learned to never use the Simple

Present Tense along with the Preterite Tense in the same passus,

what to speak in the same sentence and for the two activites that

happend in the same time in the past. Like, for exemple: "You

*don't have* courage...... when you *revealed*". It is not only a

gross grammatical blunder, but it becomes something meanengless as

well.

(Those who understand English will understand well what I mean

here.)

 

 

As far as my courage is concerned (if that's what bothers you),

well, maybe I did not have it in the past (something you seem to

love - to dwell on people's unfavorable pasts). Yet, then I got

the courrage to publicly reveal myself, in the middst of the

"blood-thristy" screems for Ardhabuddhi's head, and in the

situation when none was even close to trace me out. Funny.

But one can't satisfy everyone. Maybe I should cut off my

own head, to prove my courrage to some "GHQ-alike" people?

(just kidding)

 

 

> >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.

 

 

So, you want to say that you were called for those picking-up,

and that your theatre of not knowing my name was perhaps

high-class and far-out? And that your pointing me my "other

blooped spiritual master" was well-intended and something

very gracious? And that you take to yourself the granted right

to patronize me and my "another new spiritual master" before

you are even sure about wether I got one or who that might be?

Give me a break, and go take the care of your important

business that you are telling us about.

 

I just percieved it as I did, and I said it, publicly, with

courage (just see - nasty. Nothing more, nothing less

than that.

 

 

 

 

> Why are you so nasty?

 

(I am not in denying it, but am simply answering your question)

 

 

I sometimes react unpleasurably that when people are nasty to me.

Not the best way to react, agree, but that's how it is. I defend

myself (the animalistic propensity, yes, but that's how it is).

 

 

Do you know what it means to loose a spiritual master - the

person you worshiped the best part of your life, the person

who played the central role in your life, the person for

whom you were ready to give your life (and were giving it),

the person you admired,...?

But why I am telling this to you anyway? A fool. It is said

that one shouldn't reveal one's painful spots to the people,

because they will simply utilize it to stick their nails into

your wounds, when you expect it the least. Well, I don't

expect that you are fully aware of what I am saying here

about (since you don't have the experience of loosing your

spiritual master on the same way), but I am convinced that

you intuitively (at least) know where to hit the hardest,

where it pains the most. And there was no reason (except,

perhaps, something to do with my unfavorable past, you and

God must know it only) for you to do it, but you did it anyway.

 

 

Well, I am not exactly a kind of a quite, nice gurukuli boy,

sorry. Just count with it next time you decide again to

exercise on me, that's all.

 

 

 

 

yours

Whatever das.

[Guest guest]

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

 

>

> 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.

 

 

It is actually so, my English has gotten much better with all

this practice. For exemple, I learned to never use the Simple

Present Tense along with the Preterite Tense in the same passus,

what to speak in the same sentence and for the two activites that

happend in the same time in the past. Like, for exemple: "You

*don't have* courage...... when you *revealed*". It is not only a

gross grammatical blunder, but it becomes something meanengless as

well.

(Those who understand English will understand well what I mean

here.)

 

 

As far as my courage is concerned (if that's what bothers you),

well, maybe I did not have it in the past (something you seem to

love - to dwell on people's unfavorable pasts). Yet, then I got

the courrage to publicly reveal myself, in the middst of the

"blood-thristy" screems for Ardhabuddhi's head, and in the

situation when none was even close to trace me out. Funny.

But one can't satisfy everyone. Maybe I should cut off my

own head, to prove my courrage to some "GHQ-alike" people?

(just kidding)

 

 

> >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.

 

 

So, you want to say that you were called for those picking-up,

and that your theatre of not knowing my name was perhaps

high-class and far-out? And that your pointing me my "other

blooped spiritual master" was well-intended and something

very gracious? And that you take to yourself the granted right

to patronize me and my "another new spiritual master" before

you are even sure about wether I got one or who that might be?

Give me a break, and go take the care of your important

business that you are telling us about.

 

I just percieved it as I did, and I said it, publicly, with

courage (just see - nasty. Nothing more, nothing less

than that.

 

 

 

 

> Why are you so nasty?

 

(I am not in denying it, but am simply answering your question)

 

 

I sometimes react unpleasurably that when people are nasty to me.

Not the best way to react, agree, but that's how it is. I defend

myself (the animalistic propensity, yes, but that's how it is).

 

 

Do you know what it means to loose a spiritual master - the

person you worshiped the best part of your life, the person

who played the central role in your life, the person for

whom you were ready to give your life (and were giving it),

the person you admired,...?

But why I am telling this to you anyway? A fool. It is said

that one shouldn't reveal one's painful spots to the people,

because they will simply utilize it to stick their nails into

your wounds, when you expect it the least. Well, I don't

expect that you are fully aware of what I am saying here

about (since you don't have the experience of loosing your

spiritual master on the same way), but I am convinced that

you intuitively (at least) know where to hit the hardest,

where it pains the most. And there was no reason (except,

perhaps, something to do with my unfavorable past, you and

God must know it only) for you to do it, but you did it anyway.

 

 

Well, I am not exactly a kind of a quite, nice gurukuli boy,

sorry. Just count with it next time you decide again to

exercise on me, that's all.

 

 

 

 

yours

Whatever das.

[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?