the most proud

December 21, 1999

> > Did you know that ISKCON devotees are known as the most proud and

> unfriendly

> > individuals amongst the religious people?

> >

> > Ys. Sraddha dd

>

> This is a very sad true. Sometimes I feel embarrased to go out and preach

> because many many devotees burn the faith of karmis before it arise,

> because of being so proud.

>

> and because of this proud, many nice devotees get tired of ISKCON and

> leave... but they are accused of leaving for sense gratification, but I

> know some of them that left and are hardly serving on other religious

> comunities.

>

> ys, Sridhari dd

Dear Sraddha and Sridhari and all other Prabhus!

Interesting my wife and I just recently met some Oshomembers.

Afterwards I said to my wife:" Always when I met them, I found very

peaceful and senstive persons".

Then my wife (a devotee since 15 years as SKTL and TP) said," yes they are

and the hare krsnas are mostly so dogmatically and allknowing."

I joined Iskcon in 1993 after some years of expierence in different

groups of religion and esoteric.

Sometimes I wondered why I´m not leaving Iskcon because of so many

horrible accusations and absurd preaching towards others.

As a preacher and on sankirtan I met many people on esotericfares,

interfaithmeetings and so on. But never I found so hardhearted people among

them, as one can see in Iskcon or in dogmatic groups of any religion.

Every Sankirtandevotees know the heavy christians.

Often I heard from people who think that devotees are a bit like

sudden attackers.

My main questions is, where did this mentality of proud and dogmatismen

came from?

Have you ever ask yourself this question?

It seems to me that often good, openhearted people join and after a while

they (MANY NOT ALL) became as described.

Is this all due to cleansing, so that the black stuff comes in front for

a while or what?

I would be happy to hear some thoughts.

ys Nigraha das

December 22, 1999

>

> My main questions is, where did this mentality of proud and dogmatismen

> came from?

> Have you ever ask yourself this question?

Here is an oversimplification:

The first disciple to move in with Srila Prabhupada was Kirtanananda. He was

the first to take sannyasa, and was the only sannyasa for 3 years, during the

very formative stages of the movement. Srila Prabhupada was a wonderful

being, older, mostly out of reach of the expectations of most of the

neophyte devotees, but Kirtanananda was an example that may have seemed more

reachable.

Whatever actions great men perform, common men follow. And for 3 long years,

Kirtanananda stood as the example of what a new devotee might see as platform

to aspire to. Naturally, others of same ilk would be atracted to what he was

doing, or worse yet, innocents would see that example and be swayed by it.

He was a great cook and a powerful preacher, with megastrong sadhana. Srila

Prabhupada showed him a lot of affection. He had been on the Columbia

University debating team, so debate was his strong point, and he used it. On

the surface he seemed to have it all going on.

However, under the surface he was a misogynist. That combined with his example

of debating, has set much of the tone for ISKCON, right from the beginning.

The GHQ are his siksa disciples, and are carrying on his vani, even though

his vapu is behind bars (did I get the vani /vapu thing right - sometimes I mix

then up).

As most of my devote life has been in New Vrindaban, these ongoing skirmishes

with misogyny have been a normal part of life for me. It was a little

disillusoning to go through all the pain of having Kirtanananda removed, only

to see his teachings so deeply infected in the larger ISKCON society.

Sort of like having a liver fail due to hepatitis C, having a new one

transplanted in, only to see that also infected with the HCV virons still

circulating in the blood. If you have some understanding of how viruses work,

that might make some sense to you, if not, don't worry about it, take too

long to explain it.

December 22, 1999

Madhava Gosh Dasa wrote:

>However, under the surface he was a misogynist. That combined with his

example >of debating, has set much of the tone for ISKCON, right from the

beginning. The >GHQ are his siksa disciples, and are carrying on his vani

Under-the-surface phenomena are not limited to the sinister, are they? Or,

in other words, illusion is illusion wherever it may repose. Whoever those

scapegoat GHQ alumni happen to be, I must question Madhava Gosh Prabhu's

material or spiritual credentials for having so definitively declared "the

GHQ" to be "carrying on [Kirtananda's] vani, or in a word, to be

"misogynists," (a real-life word with clearly demonic meaning).

Srila Prabhupada writes in Bg that to call a thief a thief is truthfulness

but to call an innocent man a thief is a great offense. So I also wonder if

Madhava Gosh Prabhu is qualified to explain to us whether it is also a great

(or "moderate"? "minor"?) offense to call an innocent man a misogynist? And

I humbly yet certainly wonder if he can very thoroughly and accurately

describe to us the symptoms of a misogynist, according to the three-fold

authority of guru-sadhu-sastra, or even if he can provide references from

Vedabase.

Srila Prabhupada said that everything is there in his books. I humbly ask

Madhava Gosh Prabhu to direct us to the portions of Srila Prabhupada's books

(or his lectures, conversations, letters) in which misogyny is defined,

explained, discussed, denounced, or whatever Srila Prabhupada had to say

about misogyny.

December 22, 1999

At 12:07 -0500 12/22/1999, COM: Guru-Krsna (das) HDG (Alachua, FL - USA) wrote:

>

>Srila Prabhupada writes in Bg that to call a thief a thief is truthfulness

>but to call an innocent man a thief is a great offense. So I also wonder if

>Madhava Gosh Prabhu is qualified to explain to us whether it is also a great

>(or "moderate"? "minor"?) offense to call an innocent man a misogynist?

Below are the characteristics of a misogynist. I'm sure that the

learned members of this forum will have no problem quoting examples

from sastra of men who meet at least some of these descriptions. For

example, the humiliation of Draupadi seems to be an example of #8.

The Twenty-six Characteristics

of a Misogynist

compiled by Mahanidhi dasa

1. He thinks that his masculinity depends on

dominating women.

2. He feels powerful by subjugating women.

3. His emotional security depends on women

being controlled.

4. He wants to insure that women are less

powerful than he.

5. He controls women by destroying their

self-confidence.

6. He is unnecessarily critical of women.

7. He intimidates women by finding faults with them.

8. He humiliates women in public and devalues

their opinions.

9. He sees encounters with or about women as

a battle to be won.

10. He must always win in a discussion with

or about women.

11. He blames women for failings that are not

related to them.

12. He blames women for his own failings and

shortcomings.

13. He accuses women of being too sensitive

if they get upset with him.

14. He will confuse issues by changing the subject.

15. He will confuse issues by denial or word jugglery.

16. He will confuse issues by acting as if

nothing happened after it did.

17. He belittles or ignores women's accomplishments.

18. He denies her feelings and makes her

wrong for feeling them.

19. He is condescending, taunting, jeering,

or angry toward her.

20. He is hostile, aggressive, contemptuous,

or cruel to her.

21. He makes derogatory comments about women

in general.

22. He wants to punish women when they displease him.

23. He has no remorse or guilt for the pain

he causes women.

24. He is in anxiety about women and meditates on

them.

25. He forces women not to do things that

they re qualified to do.

26. He selectively quotes authorities to

substantiate his position.

Misogyny is a mental disorder that requires

therapy. If someone you know has some

or all of the above symptoms, humbly request

that person to find qualified treatment

for their condition.

>Srila Prabhupada said that everything is there in his books.

So, just because Srila Prabhupada does not explain in his books how

to diagnose the need for a root canal or how to perform it, are we to

conclude that root canals don't exist? Wouldn't a more reasonable

explanation be that *everything we need for our spiritual lives* are

to be found in his books? After all, even Srila Prabhupada responded

to disciples' requests for medical advice by telling them to see a

doctor and reminded them that he was their *guru* not their doctor.

So it seems that you're once again reading more into Prabhupada's

books than he intended.

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

December 22, 1999

> Srila Prabhupada said that everything is there in his books. I humbly ask

> Madhava Gosh Prabhu to direct us to the portions of Srila Prabhupada's

> books (or his lectures, conversations, letters) in which misogyny is

> defined, explained, discussed, denounced, or whatever Srila Prabhupada had

> to say about misogyny.

Prabhupada also did not define, explain, discuss, denounce phedophili.

This is not a good argument.

December 22, 1999

>

> Srila Prabhupada said that everything is there in his books. I humbly ask

> Madhava Gosh Prabhu to direct us to the portions of Srila Prabhupada's

> books (or his lectures, conversations, letters) in which misogyny is

> defined, explained, discussed, denounced, or whatever Srila Prabhupada had

> to say about misogyny.

That's not at all true. Everything is not there.

You are again asking for grapes that grows on a mango tree,

and when not supplied such, you would conclude "See, there

is no such thing as grapes".

- Mahanidhi das

December 22, 1999

> Srila Prabhupada said that everything is there in his books. I humbly ask

> Madhava Gosh Prabhu to direct us to the portions of Srila Prabhupada's

> books (or his lectures, conversations, letters) in which misogyny is

> defined, explained, discussed, denounced, or whatever Srila Prabhupada had

> to say about misogyny.

"There was a Russian animated short movie for children, entitled "The

Magical Glasses." I saw it for the "good night" TV program several times

when I was small. It's about a young owl chick, whose grandfather owl is so

wise that the animals come to him from all over the forest and ask him to

settle their conflicts. The old owl would then pull out his glasses first,

clean them, put them on, and listen to the complaints. The animals always

went away satisfied, offering all respects to the owl."

"The young owl thought the magic surely sat in his grandpa's glasses. So

one day he stole them away and rushed to the forest, telling everyone: "I

have magical glasses, whoever needs advice, come and I will help you!" He

gets a few conflicts to settle (with glasses on), fails miserably and

even gets beaten up a few times, but his faith in the glasses is

unbreakable. His final mistake lands him in serious trouble -- he almost

gets eaten up by a wolf. He manages to escape, but breaks the glasses on

the way. He comes back to his grandfather, completely crushed and scared

that now the grandpa will lose all his power. But the grandpa consoles

him with words of wisdom... which sat not in his glasses of course, but

in his experience, intelligence and heart."

"If we, all devotees collectively, would now get our grandpa's glasses

broken -- if all the Vedabases were lost, all the books, all the

memorized quotes -- how would we set about resolving our difficulties,

now that we have been practicing Krsna consciousness and searching for

Krsna for a number of years?"

December 23, 1999