Editing Srila Prabhupada's books

[Guest guest]

Are there examples of concrete disagreement on any of Jayadvaitas Sw.´s

editing?

 

Or is it simply the principle? That noone shall "touch" Srila Prabhupadas

books?

[Guest guest]

Are there examples of concrete disagreement on any of Jayadvaitas Sw.´s

editing?

 

Or is it simply the principle? That noone shall "touch" Srila Prabhupadas

books?

[Guest guest]

>Yes, please refer to the *date* above. This was written as part of the

>already described brainstorm that took place over a year ago. I outlined 3

>possibilities and did not state any preference, just what the implications

>of each would be. Even though your stubborn mind apparently won't let you

>understand it: this debate *ended* within days or at most weeks later,

>never to have surfaced again among the academics on the conference. The

>conclusion was to have disciples write their own books. The only reason

>I've ever commented on this again was in response to people's direct

>questions. (BTW what 5/20 text are you referring to?)

 

You are absolutely unbelievable. Do I have to type your May 1999

conversation again. You keep saying you dropped the subject after your

so-called brainstorming event and then write about it 1.5 years later. Why

didn't you comment on that in this posting? Stop acting like a nine year

old!

>

>Why can't you get it? The issue is *over*. I've never written a proposal to

>any authorities to do anything with Prabhupada's books, neither has any

>other VAST members (I actually left VAST in July that year) as far as I

>know. There are no smokescreens. Where is this paranoid ideation coming

>from?

>From so many people continuing to talk about it. It is near impossible to

believe that you all had the same idea at the same time, don't you think? It

isn't unfair to surmise that your initial statements regarding your academic

concerns about Prabhupada books was done to make the issue seem more

appealing than what is really only your gut reaction to Prabhupada's saying

that you are less intelligent because you are in a woman's body.

>

>So why can't you get the facts through your skull? Or is this a case of

>not being able to wake someone up who only pretends to be sleeping.......?

 

What can I do. You and Hare Krsna drop the topic at the first questioning.

Then you continue to state that you gave up the idea while in actuality you

continued to write about it. Do you really think we can't read your May '99

letter where you stated that Prabhupada books should be editted. There was

no reference in the conversation at all about the topic. You mentioned it

solely on your own volition.

What can you do when someone only pretends that they can't read.....? Maybe

you should take a lesson from Kirtananda when he stated that you can deny

anything that isn't written down. Too late for you on this one but maybe

next time.

>

>Ys,

>Madhusudani dasi

>ps. And please listen to both Mahanidhi and myself. My name is not

>Madhusudana, it's not Dr. Radha and it's not M Radha. My spiritual master

>told me when I was initiated that my name was Madhusudani Radha dd, but

>that I may also go by my first name. Take your pick, but please don't

>invent anything else.

Yes Mother. I don't read anything by Mahanidhi or Ardabhuti since he stated

that he was going to delete all my postings and can only deduce that when I

see him commenting on my offerings that it an imposter.

 

How would you like it if people started inventing

>names for you other than the one given to you by your spiritual master? Mr

>Vy? Or Mr. Paka? Or Mr Vy Cope?

 

Actually, many people call me many names. I don't see why you are so upset.

To my knowledge it is common etiquette to abbreviate names on the Internet.

There was never any malintent meant. The first time I used the name

Madhusudana it was an honest mistake and I mentioned that in a posting. You

seem very proud.

 

Respectfully,

 

Vyapaka dasa

[Guest guest]

>Yes, please refer to the *date* above. This was written as part of the

>already described brainstorm that took place over a year ago. I outlined 3

>possibilities and did not state any preference, just what the implications

>of each would be. Even though your stubborn mind apparently won't let you

>understand it: this debate *ended* within days or at most weeks later,

>never to have surfaced again among the academics on the conference. The

>conclusion was to have disciples write their own books. The only reason

>I've ever commented on this again was in response to people's direct

>questions. (BTW what 5/20 text are you referring to?)

 

You are absolutely unbelievable. Do I have to type your May 1999

conversation again. You keep saying you dropped the subject after your

so-called brainstorming event and then write about it 1.5 years later. Why

didn't you comment on that in this posting? Stop acting like a nine year

old!

>

>Why can't you get it? The issue is *over*. I've never written a proposal to

>any authorities to do anything with Prabhupada's books, neither has any

>other VAST members (I actually left VAST in July that year) as far as I

>know. There are no smokescreens. Where is this paranoid ideation coming

>from?

>From so many people continuing to talk about it. It is near impossible to

believe that you all had the same idea at the same time, don't you think? It

isn't unfair to surmise that your initial statements regarding your academic

concerns about Prabhupada books was done to make the issue seem more

appealing than what is really only your gut reaction to Prabhupada's saying

that you are less intelligent because you are in a woman's body.

>

>So why can't you get the facts through your skull? Or is this a case of

>not being able to wake someone up who only pretends to be sleeping.......?

 

What can I do. You and Hare Krsna drop the topic at the first questioning.

Then you continue to state that you gave up the idea while in actuality you

continued to write about it. Do you really think we can't read your May '99

letter where you stated that Prabhupada books should be editted. There was

no reference in the conversation at all about the topic. You mentioned it

solely on your own volition.

What can you do when someone only pretends that they can't read.....? Maybe

you should take a lesson from Kirtananda when he stated that you can deny

anything that isn't written down. Too late for you on this one but maybe

next time.

>

>Ys,

>Madhusudani dasi

>ps. And please listen to both Mahanidhi and myself. My name is not

>Madhusudana, it's not Dr. Radha and it's not M Radha. My spiritual master

>told me when I was initiated that my name was Madhusudani Radha dd, but

>that I may also go by my first name. Take your pick, but please don't

>invent anything else.

Yes Mother. I don't read anything by Mahanidhi or Ardabhuti since he stated

that he was going to delete all my postings and can only deduce that when I

see him commenting on my offerings that it an imposter.

 

How would you like it if people started inventing

>names for you other than the one given to you by your spiritual master? Mr

>Vy? Or Mr. Paka? Or Mr Vy Cope?

 

Actually, many people call me many names. I don't see why you are so upset.

To my knowledge it is common etiquette to abbreviate names on the Internet.

There was never any malintent meant. The first time I used the name

Madhusudana it was an honest mistake and I mentioned that in a posting. You

seem very proud.

 

Respectfully,

 

Vyapaka dasa

[Guest guest]

At 8:05 -0800 6/2/99, Robert Cope wrote:

 

Please refer to the following quote:

>

><<TEXT #1: Madhusudani Radha devi dasi (JPS)

>

>Tue, 27 Jan 98 12:22 -0700

 

Yes, please refer to the *date* above. This was written as part of the

already described brainstorm that took place over a year ago. I outlined 3

possibilities and did not state any preference, just what the implications

of each would be. Even though your stubborn mind apparently won't let you

understand it: this debate *ended* within days or at most weeks later,

never to have surfaced again among the academics on the conference. The

conclusion was to have disciples write their own books. The only reason

I've ever commented on this again was in response to people's direct

questions. (BTW what 5/20 text are you referring to?)

 

Why can't you get it? The issue is *over*. I've never written a proposal to

any authorities to do anything with Prabhupada's books, neither has any

other VAST members (I actually left VAST in July that year) as far as I

know. There are no smokescreens. Where is this paranoid ideation coming

from?

 

So why can't you get the facts through your skull? Or is this a case of

not being able to wake someone up who only pretends to be sleeping.......?

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

ps. And please listen to both Mahanidhi and myself. My name is not

Madhusudana, it's not Dr. Radha and it's not M Radha. My spiritual master

told me when I was initiated that my name was Madhusudani Radha dd, but

that I may also go by my first name. Take your pick, but please don't

invent anything else. How would you like it if people started inventing

names for you other than the one given to you by your spiritual master? Mr

Vy? Or Mr. Paka? Or Mr Vy Cope?

[Guest guest]

At 8:05 -0800 6/2/99, Robert Cope wrote:

 

Please refer to the following quote:

>

><<TEXT #1: Madhusudani Radha devi dasi (JPS)

>

>Tue, 27 Jan 98 12:22 -0700

 

Yes, please refer to the *date* above. This was written as part of the

already described brainstorm that took place over a year ago. I outlined 3

possibilities and did not state any preference, just what the implications

of each would be. Even though your stubborn mind apparently won't let you

understand it: this debate *ended* within days or at most weeks later,

never to have surfaced again among the academics on the conference. The

conclusion was to have disciples write their own books. The only reason

I've ever commented on this again was in response to people's direct

questions. (BTW what 5/20 text are you referring to?)

 

Why can't you get it? The issue is *over*. I've never written a proposal to

any authorities to do anything with Prabhupada's books, neither has any

other VAST members (I actually left VAST in July that year) as far as I

know. There are no smokescreens. Where is this paranoid ideation coming

from?

 

So why can't you get the facts through your skull? Or is this a case of

not being able to wake someone up who only pretends to be sleeping.......?

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

ps. And please listen to both Mahanidhi and myself. My name is not

Madhusudana, it's not Dr. Radha and it's not M Radha. My spiritual master

told me when I was initiated that my name was Madhusudani Radha dd, but

that I may also go by my first name. Take your pick, but please don't

invent anything else. How would you like it if people started inventing

names for you other than the one given to you by your spiritual master? Mr

Vy? Or Mr. Paka? Or Mr Vy Cope?

[Guest guest]

>

>You are absolutely unbelievable. Do I have to type your May 1999

>conversation again.

 

No, please just give me the text number. It was not in my files under May

20 and I could not find it when searching COM for that date either. Since

you have a tendency to quote out of context, I just wanted to make sure I

could re-read the whole thing.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

>

>You are absolutely unbelievable. Do I have to type your May 1999

>conversation again.

 

No, please just give me the text number. It was not in my files under May

20 and I could not find it when searching COM for that date either. Since

you have a tendency to quote out of context, I just wanted to make sure I

could re-read the whole thing.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

On 02 Jun 1999, Trayimaya das wrote:

 

> Are there examples of concrete disagreement on any of Jayadvaitas Sw.´s

> editing?

 

 

 

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8403/

[Guest guest]

On 02 Jun 1999, Trayimaya das wrote:

 

> Are there examples of concrete disagreement on any of Jayadvaitas Sw.´s

> editing?

 

 

 

http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8403/

[Guest guest]

>

> You are absolutely unbelievable. Do I have to type your May 1999

> conversation again. You keep saying you dropped the subject after your

> so-called brainstorming event and then write about it 1.5 years later.

 

It would be good to archive it all for the future generations,

for the next 10'000 years. They shouldn't miss this important

documents of the historical value. One could compile it, together

with your investigation material, in a booklet with the title

"How ISCKON was saved".

 

 

ys mnd

[Guest guest]

>

> You are absolutely unbelievable. Do I have to type your May 1999

> conversation again. You keep saying you dropped the subject after your

> so-called brainstorming event and then write about it 1.5 years later.

 

It would be good to archive it all for the future generations,

for the next 10'000 years. They shouldn't miss this important

documents of the historical value. One could compile it, together

with your investigation material, in a booklet with the title

"How ISCKON was saved".

 

 

ys mnd

[Guest guest]

> On 02 Jun 1999, Trayimaya das wrote:

>

> > Are there examples of concrete disagreement on any of Jayadvaitas Sw.´s

> > editing?

>

>

>

> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8403/

 

Sorry prabhu, I´m not on Internet.

I think some few examples could be more instructive, though, so we could

understand the importance of editing, or the importance of not editing Srila

Prabhupadas books.

 

your servant Trayimaya

[Guest guest]

> On 02 Jun 1999, Trayimaya das wrote:

>

> > Are there examples of concrete disagreement on any of Jayadvaitas Sw.´s

> > editing?

>

>

>

> http://www.geocities.com/Athens/Forum/8403/

 

Sorry prabhu, I´m not on Internet.

I think some few examples could be more instructive, though, so we could

understand the importance of editing, or the importance of not editing Srila

Prabhupadas books.

 

your servant Trayimaya

[Guest guest]

What is this standup comedy? How can you say I quote out of context when you

don't even remember the posting I put on two days earlier. Why don't you

just throw your full potency at me and label me a "woman hater" and that

will be end of the debate.

 

Maria Ekstrand <ekstrand (AT) slip (DOT) net>

vyapaka (AT) accel (DOT) net <vyapaka (AT) accel (DOT) net>; Varnasrama.development (AT) bbt (DOT) se

<Varnasrama.development (AT) bbt (DOT) se>

Wednesday, June 02, 1999 9:55 PM

Re: Editing Srila Prabhupada's books

 

 

>>

>>You are absolutely unbelievable. Do I have to type your May 1999

>>conversation again.

>

>No, please just give me the text number. It was not in my files under May

>20 and I could not find it when searching COM for that date either. Since

>you have a tendency to quote out of context, I just wanted to make sure I

>could re-read the whole thing.

>

>Ys,

>Madhusudani dasi

>

>

[Guest guest]

What is this standup comedy? How can you say I quote out of context when you

don't even remember the posting I put on two days earlier. Why don't you

just throw your full potency at me and label me a "woman hater" and that

will be end of the debate.

 

Maria Ekstrand <ekstrand (AT) slip (DOT) net>

vyapaka (AT) accel (DOT) net <vyapaka (AT) accel (DOT) net>; Varnasrama.development (AT) bbt (DOT) se

<Varnasrama.development (AT) bbt (DOT) se>

Wednesday, June 02, 1999 9:55 PM

Re: Editing Srila Prabhupada's books

 

 

>>

>>You are absolutely unbelievable. Do I have to type your May 1999

>>conversation again.

>

>No, please just give me the text number. It was not in my files under May

>20 and I could not find it when searching COM for that date either. Since

>you have a tendency to quote out of context, I just wanted to make sure I

>could re-read the whole thing.

>

>Ys,

>Madhusudani dasi

>

>

[Guest guest]

I have checked my files. The text is COM2286537 under the heading Jivan

Mukta Lashes out again. It appeared on the com on May 3/99 and was

downloaded by myself on May 20th. Your comment is placed in the bottom of

the paragraph starting with "The whole thing is so silly."

[Guest guest]

I have checked my files. The text is COM2286537 under the heading Jivan

Mukta Lashes out again. It appeared on the com on May 3/99 and was

downloaded by myself on May 20th. Your comment is placed in the bottom of

the paragraph starting with "The whole thing is so silly."

[Guest guest]

>[Text 2369882 from COM]

>

>I have checked my files. The text is COM2286537 under the heading Jivan

>Mukta Lashes out again. It appeared on the com on May 3/99 and was

>downloaded by myself on May 20th.

 

No wonder I didn't find it in any files under 5/20, as you had originally

stated.

 

 

I just checked back. And as I suspected you left out the first part of the

statement. That part was crucial and your omission shows clearly that you

are not interested in what I really said.

 

I'm re-posting the part you missed and the sentence you objected to here.

It's not for you, because you already know it and have decided to ignore

what I'm really saying, but just in case others here are interested and

since it was written one month ago.

 

I wrote:

 

So if Prabhupada *really meant "he or she" when saying he (which is what

the convention *used to be*), then that needs to be changed in academic

editions. Similarly, some kind of footnotes should be inserted to suggest

different ways of understanding what he meant by his "women are less

intelligent" statements and the comment about women liking to be raped

among others.

 

Please not the *IF* (second word of the sentence). I am thus not saying

that Prabhupada's words should necessarily be footnoted or changed. I'm

simply saying that *if* there is evidence suggesting that Prabhupada did

not think women liked to be raped, this should be indicated in *academic*

editions of the books. Please note, I'm saying *nothing* about mainstream

editions, simply that *if* those who have studied this in detail think that

Prabhupada wrote or said other things that indicated that he did *not*

think that women like to be raped, this would be very appropriate to

indicate with footnotes in scholarly editions of his books.

 

I really don't understand why you're getting so bent out of shape about this.

 

And in terms of your insistence that I'm pushing this agenda. Please note

that the only reason I even attempted to clarify my thinking here again 16

months later, was because Jivanmukta leaked confidential texts to VNN and I

was asked directly about it. If that was how I conducted activism, I'd

really be a poor activist.

 

Now, please just let it rest. I find it sad that you think academics

should simply continue to misunderstand Prabhupada and be turned off when

they think that our most merciful father actually suggested that women

enjoy this violent crime. I think you're wrong. However, since academic

preaching is not my field, I'm not invested in trying to correct that

misperception. But you should be very aware that it will mean that

thousands of college students and professors won't get to read Prabhupada's

words and be charmed by his descriptions of all-attractive little Blue Boy.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

>[Text 2369882 from COM]

>

>I have checked my files. The text is COM2286537 under the heading Jivan

>Mukta Lashes out again. It appeared on the com on May 3/99 and was

>downloaded by myself on May 20th.

 

No wonder I didn't find it in any files under 5/20, as you had originally

stated.

 

 

I just checked back. And as I suspected you left out the first part of the

statement. That part was crucial and your omission shows clearly that you

are not interested in what I really said.

 

I'm re-posting the part you missed and the sentence you objected to here.

It's not for you, because you already know it and have decided to ignore

what I'm really saying, but just in case others here are interested and

since it was written one month ago.

 

I wrote:

 

So if Prabhupada *really meant "he or she" when saying he (which is what

the convention *used to be*), then that needs to be changed in academic

editions. Similarly, some kind of footnotes should be inserted to suggest

different ways of understanding what he meant by his "women are less

intelligent" statements and the comment about women liking to be raped

among others.

 

Please not the *IF* (second word of the sentence). I am thus not saying

that Prabhupada's words should necessarily be footnoted or changed. I'm

simply saying that *if* there is evidence suggesting that Prabhupada did

not think women liked to be raped, this should be indicated in *academic*

editions of the books. Please note, I'm saying *nothing* about mainstream

editions, simply that *if* those who have studied this in detail think that

Prabhupada wrote or said other things that indicated that he did *not*

think that women like to be raped, this would be very appropriate to

indicate with footnotes in scholarly editions of his books.

 

I really don't understand why you're getting so bent out of shape about this.

 

And in terms of your insistence that I'm pushing this agenda. Please note

that the only reason I even attempted to clarify my thinking here again 16

months later, was because Jivanmukta leaked confidential texts to VNN and I

was asked directly about it. If that was how I conducted activism, I'd

really be a poor activist.

 

Now, please just let it rest. I find it sad that you think academics

should simply continue to misunderstand Prabhupada and be turned off when

they think that our most merciful father actually suggested that women

enjoy this violent crime. I think you're wrong. However, since academic

preaching is not my field, I'm not invested in trying to correct that

misperception. But you should be very aware that it will mean that

thousands of college students and professors won't get to read Prabhupada's

words and be charmed by his descriptions of all-attractive little Blue Boy.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

My long term goal is to teach using an actual

> self-sufficient, or at least self-reliant, homestead as a back drop. If I

> am ever successful, who knows. If so, it will only be by Prabhupada's

> grace.

 

Sounds like a good goal. Thanks for the information. Its a pity you cant be

on the agriculture conference. I am on it, but apart from Radha Krsna

Prabhu, there are practicaly no other contributors, apart from an

occaisional gem from Gokula Prabhu.

 

I have read most of Fukuokas books, and intend to try to emulate his ideas

here. Being a rank beginner however, I really need help from experts such as

you.

 

Thanks again.

 

YS Samba das

[Guest guest]

My long term goal is to teach using an actual

> self-sufficient, or at least self-reliant, homestead as a back drop. If I

> am ever successful, who knows. If so, it will only be by Prabhupada's

> grace.

 

Sounds like a good goal. Thanks for the information. Its a pity you cant be

on the agriculture conference. I am on it, but apart from Radha Krsna

Prabhu, there are practicaly no other contributors, apart from an

occaisional gem from Gokula Prabhu.

 

I have read most of Fukuokas books, and intend to try to emulate his ideas

here. Being a rank beginner however, I really need help from experts such as

you.

 

Thanks again.

 

YS Samba das

[Guest guest]

>I just checked back. And as I suspected you left out the first part of the

>statement. That part was crucial and your omission shows clearly that you

>are not interested in what I really said.

Frankly, I don't think you know what you said as is evidenced that we have

been having a discussion on this point for several weeks and you haven't

realized until just now which quote of yours that initially sparked the

debate. Talk about not paying attention.

>

>I'm re-posting the part you missed and the sentence you objected to here.

>It's not for you, because you already know it and have decided to ignore

>what I'm really saying, but just in case others here are interested and

>since it was written one month ago.

Believe me, I haven't ignored anything. You are persistently trying to water

down the Krsna conscious lifestyle by taking runs at the gurukula,

advocating homosexual unions, etc. Please don't say that I am misquoting you

since we have already been there.

>

>I wrote:

>

>So if Prabhupada *really meant "he or she" when saying he (which is what

>the convention *used to be*), then that needs to be changed in academic

>editions. Similarly, some kind of footnotes should be inserted to suggest

>different ways of understanding what he meant by his "women are less

>intelligent" statements and the comment about women liking to be raped

>among others.

>

>Please not the *IF* (second word of the sentence). I am thus not saying

>that Prabhupada's words should necessarily be footnoted or changed. I'm

>simply saying that *if* there is evidence suggesting that Prabhupada did

>not think women liked to be raped, this should be indicated in *academic*

>editions of the books. Please note, I'm saying *nothing* about mainstream

>editions, simply that *if* those who have studied this in detail think that

>Prabhupada wrote or said other things that indicated that he did *not*

>think that women like to be raped, this would be very appropriate to

>indicate with footnotes in scholarly editions of his books.

 

Well, I still disagree. The IF is referring to what Prabhupada meant by the

use of he or she. I don't have any problems with that. But then you make a

completely different point starting with the word SIMILARLY. It is here when

you suggest something quite different and that is to add footnotes TO

SUGGEST DIFFERENT WAYS OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT HE MEANT BY HIS "WOMEN ARE LESS

INTELLIGENT" STATEMENTS AND THE COMMENT ABOUT WOMEN LIKING TO BE RAPED AMONG

OTHERS... Now that is a very diffent supposition than your first. To comment

on the first suggestion of the he/she issue I cannot really respond because

it is too vague.

 

It is not I who am quoting out of context but it is you who have been caught

making a statement that Prabhupada's books be changed according to you

new-founded morality and perspective. I have had several people read this

paragraph giving them no suggestion of its meaning and everyone understands

it the same as I. Maybe you need to go back to school and study english.

Obviously, it isn't an important subject in the behavioural scientist

school!

 

Your new suggestion of a link to other parts of Prabhupada's books is a new

one. It took you a while to figure that one out. Even though this statement

by Prabhupada is considered controversial by some I cannot agree that his

books be changed or even footnoted because I don't believe that this is your

sole motivation. The tendency would be to continue the process indefinitely.

What about Srila Prabhupada's comments about certain races. They are equally

controversial to some. Just let his words stand as they are. People who

study the books will understand that Prabhupada was referring to and realize

that if you become self-realized all of these points are insignificant.

>

>I really don't understand why you're getting so bent out of shape about

this.

 

My wife's comment about you and Hare Krsna dasi is that you obviously have

had no training. I imagine I could crash this system by quoting from

Prabhupada's books on the importance of the spiritual master. Not to mention

Srila Prabhupada's special place in the parampara. Why can't you understand

this?

>

>And in terms of your insistence that I'm pushing this agenda. Please note

>that the only reason I even attempted to clarify my thinking here again 16

>months later, was because Jivanmukta leaked confidential texts to VNN and I

>was asked directly about it. If that was how I conducted activism, I'd

>really be a poor activist.

Read again, Dr. Ekstrand. There was ABSOLUTELY no suggestion to clarify your

"thinking" in the May 3-99 posting by Madhava Gosh. The two paragraphs

following are those that preceded your unsolicited comment about changing

Prabhupada's books.

 

M.G.:>>Well , Madhusudhani, I see your buddy JM is still going after you. I

didn't

>have time to plow through the whole thing, but he is hard at you on VNN.

 

>>Funny how all the victimization those GHQ types claimed when their texts

were

>>thrown out in public is conveniently set aside when it is in his percieved

>>interest to do the same. (End Madhava Gosh quote)

This second paragraph (Funny how all...) is the posting that your comment

followed above. So there is no misquoting me on this one but rather your

obfuscation of the facts.

 

>Now, please just let it rest. I find it sad that you think academics

>should simply continue to misunderstand Prabhupada and be turned off when

>they think that our most merciful father actually suggested that women

>enjoy this violent crime. I think you're wrong.

And I think you are wrong and my feelings are backed up by instructions from

SRila Prabhupada. This is just one quote and I can provide many more if you

so desire.

 

Now we have to accept knowledge from Vedas, Vedic knowledge, not this rascal

’s knowledge. Rascal knowledge is that “Yes,” as soon as he comes to the

imperfect point, “yes, we are trying.” You are trying. What is this trying?

Trying means that your knowledge is imperfect. And another rascal will come,

he will say, “Now here is the perfect.” And ten years after, another rascal

will come,“ No, this is not perfect. This is perfect.” This is going on.

This is called scientific advancement. This is... Advancement means... But

we don’t change our Vedic knowledge. We do not say, “Now, Kåñëa, five

thousand years ago, said like this. Now we are advanced. We change this

line.” Of course, others are doing. In the scriptures... Just like the

Christians, they are changing the words. But you cannot do that. Then where

is the authority? If you change the word of the scripture, then where is the

authority of the scripture? Just like in lawbooks, there is some law made

already. Whimsically you cannot, I mean to say, erase the words and put

something that “It should be changed like this.” That will not be accepted.

Law, if there is change... Actually, there is no change. There cannot be

change. Real law means there is no change. Çrémad-Bhägavatam 1.3.15; Los

Angeles, September 20, 1972

My suggestion to academics would be to read/study all of Srila Prabhupada's

books before passing judgement. What type of academic would cherry-pick one

statement out of so many books and come to a conclusion. Not a very good one

is my guess.

 

> However, since academic

>preaching is not my field, I'm not invested in trying to correct that

>misperception. But you should be very aware that it will mean that

>thousands of college students and professors won't get to read Prabhupada's

>words and be charmed by his descriptions of all-attractive little Blue

Boy.

 

That is your opinion and you have a right to it. Frankly I don't agree. But

you definietly have no right suggesting that Prabhupada's

books/letters/words be editted to sastisfy your premise.

 

I'll be happy to end the discussion here if you like.

[Guest guest]

>I just checked back. And as I suspected you left out the first part of the

>statement. That part was crucial and your omission shows clearly that you

>are not interested in what I really said.

Frankly, I don't think you know what you said as is evidenced that we have

been having a discussion on this point for several weeks and you haven't

realized until just now which quote of yours that initially sparked the

debate. Talk about not paying attention.

>

>I'm re-posting the part you missed and the sentence you objected to here.

>It's not for you, because you already know it and have decided to ignore

>what I'm really saying, but just in case others here are interested and

>since it was written one month ago.

Believe me, I haven't ignored anything. You are persistently trying to water

down the Krsna conscious lifestyle by taking runs at the gurukula,

advocating homosexual unions, etc. Please don't say that I am misquoting you

since we have already been there.

>

>I wrote:

>

>So if Prabhupada *really meant "he or she" when saying he (which is what

>the convention *used to be*), then that needs to be changed in academic

>editions. Similarly, some kind of footnotes should be inserted to suggest

>different ways of understanding what he meant by his "women are less

>intelligent" statements and the comment about women liking to be raped

>among others.

>

>Please not the *IF* (second word of the sentence). I am thus not saying

>that Prabhupada's words should necessarily be footnoted or changed. I'm

>simply saying that *if* there is evidence suggesting that Prabhupada did

>not think women liked to be raped, this should be indicated in *academic*

>editions of the books. Please note, I'm saying *nothing* about mainstream

>editions, simply that *if* those who have studied this in detail think that

>Prabhupada wrote or said other things that indicated that he did *not*

>think that women like to be raped, this would be very appropriate to

>indicate with footnotes in scholarly editions of his books.

 

Well, I still disagree. The IF is referring to what Prabhupada meant by the

use of he or she. I don't have any problems with that. But then you make a

completely different point starting with the word SIMILARLY. It is here when

you suggest something quite different and that is to add footnotes TO

SUGGEST DIFFERENT WAYS OF UNDERSTANDING WHAT HE MEANT BY HIS "WOMEN ARE LESS

INTELLIGENT" STATEMENTS AND THE COMMENT ABOUT WOMEN LIKING TO BE RAPED AMONG

OTHERS... Now that is a very diffent supposition than your first. To comment

on the first suggestion of the he/she issue I cannot really respond because

it is too vague.

 

It is not I who am quoting out of context but it is you who have been caught

making a statement that Prabhupada's books be changed according to you

new-founded morality and perspective. I have had several people read this

paragraph giving them no suggestion of its meaning and everyone understands

it the same as I. Maybe you need to go back to school and study english.

Obviously, it isn't an important subject in the behavioural scientist

school!

 

Your new suggestion of a link to other parts of Prabhupada's books is a new

one. It took you a while to figure that one out. Even though this statement

by Prabhupada is considered controversial by some I cannot agree that his

books be changed or even footnoted because I don't believe that this is your

sole motivation. The tendency would be to continue the process indefinitely.

What about Srila Prabhupada's comments about certain races. They are equally

controversial to some. Just let his words stand as they are. People who

study the books will understand that Prabhupada was referring to and realize

that if you become self-realized all of these points are insignificant.

>

>I really don't understand why you're getting so bent out of shape about

this.

 

My wife's comment about you and Hare Krsna dasi is that you obviously have

had no training. I imagine I could crash this system by quoting from

Prabhupada's books on the importance of the spiritual master. Not to mention

Srila Prabhupada's special place in the parampara. Why can't you understand

this?

>

>And in terms of your insistence that I'm pushing this agenda. Please note

>that the only reason I even attempted to clarify my thinking here again 16

>months later, was because Jivanmukta leaked confidential texts to VNN and I

>was asked directly about it. If that was how I conducted activism, I'd

>really be a poor activist.

Read again, Dr. Ekstrand. There was ABSOLUTELY no suggestion to clarify your

"thinking" in the May 3-99 posting by Madhava Gosh. The two paragraphs

following are those that preceded your unsolicited comment about changing

Prabhupada's books.

 

M.G.:>>Well , Madhusudhani, I see your buddy JM is still going after you. I

didn't

>have time to plow through the whole thing, but he is hard at you on VNN.

 

>>Funny how all the victimization those GHQ types claimed when their texts

were

>>thrown out in public is conveniently set aside when it is in his percieved

>>interest to do the same. (End Madhava Gosh quote)

This second paragraph (Funny how all...) is the posting that your comment

followed above. So there is no misquoting me on this one but rather your

obfuscation of the facts.

 

>Now, please just let it rest. I find it sad that you think academics

>should simply continue to misunderstand Prabhupada and be turned off when

>they think that our most merciful father actually suggested that women

>enjoy this violent crime. I think you're wrong.

And I think you are wrong and my feelings are backed up by instructions from

SRila Prabhupada. This is just one quote and I can provide many more if you

so desire.

 

Now we have to accept knowledge from Vedas, Vedic knowledge, not this rascal

’s knowledge. Rascal knowledge is that “Yes,” as soon as he comes to the

imperfect point, “yes, we are trying.” You are trying. What is this trying?

Trying means that your knowledge is imperfect. And another rascal will come,

he will say, “Now here is the perfect.” And ten years after, another rascal

will come,“ No, this is not perfect. This is perfect.” This is going on.

This is called scientific advancement. This is... Advancement means... But

we don’t change our Vedic knowledge. We do not say, “Now, Kåñëa, five

thousand years ago, said like this. Now we are advanced. We change this

line.” Of course, others are doing. In the scriptures... Just like the

Christians, they are changing the words. But you cannot do that. Then where

is the authority? If you change the word of the scripture, then where is the

authority of the scripture? Just like in lawbooks, there is some law made

already. Whimsically you cannot, I mean to say, erase the words and put

something that “It should be changed like this.” That will not be accepted.

Law, if there is change... Actually, there is no change. There cannot be

change. Real law means there is no change. Çrémad-Bhägavatam 1.3.15; Los

Angeles, September 20, 1972

My suggestion to academics would be to read/study all of Srila Prabhupada's

books before passing judgement. What type of academic would cherry-pick one

statement out of so many books and come to a conclusion. Not a very good one

is my guess.

 

> However, since academic

>preaching is not my field, I'm not invested in trying to correct that

>misperception. But you should be very aware that it will mean that

>thousands of college students and professors won't get to read Prabhupada's

>words and be charmed by his descriptions of all-attractive little Blue

Boy.

 

That is your opinion and you have a right to it. Frankly I don't agree. But

you definietly have no right suggesting that Prabhupada's

books/letters/words be editted to sastisfy your premise.

 

I'll be happy to end the discussion here if you like.

[Guest guest]

On 03 Jun 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

> Similarly, some kind of footnotes should be inserted to suggest

> different ways of understanding what he meant by his "women are less

> intelligent" statements and the comment about women liking to be raped

> among others.

 

 

While I do not advocate the footnoting of Srila Prabhupada's books or any

other editing without his consent, as I have made quite clear in previous

comments, I offer my understanding of the "women enjoy being raped" mis-quote.

 

As we have discussed this amongst my godbrothers over the years it was

understood to mean some women IMAGINE or FANTASIZE being raped or forcibly

taken and find a kind of taboo titillation of sorts. They would never ACTUALLY

want to be raped or forcibly sexually assaulted but in their fantasy the

forcefulness is mentally controlled and erotically oriented and the outcome is

entirely different than a real assault scenario.

 

Similarly it is known that many men fantasize about having homosexual

relationships imagining the erotic taboo nature of the acts as enjoyable but

never wanting it to actually happen. They are not necessarily closet

homosexuals anymore than the women are closet masochists. It is just a

fantasy; an erotically motivated and extended imagination. Temporary and

subtle.

 

The mind is a very powerful thing. I think that was the point of Srila

Prabhupada's statement. No need to edit books for such things, otherwise we

would be editing/footnoting things of a seemingly mistaken or socially

unacceptable nature endlessly. Are we going to footnote scriptural statements

of God's dancing with other men's wives in the dead of night next? Where

would it stop? Who are we trying to please? If they are potential devotees

that we are hoping to develop they should be trained in a daiva varna first

anyway and such philosophical spiritual discussion comes later when they have

been cleansed by the holy names and prescribed duties.

 

 

 

I see it as just an opportunity to discuss and explain and preach the glories

of the Vedic culture and transcendental knowledge of scripture and guru. If

they don't want to hear that, what good are footnotes and edits?