Do GHQers get credibility on their own?

[Guest guest]

>

>

> In order for there to be a "next time," there has to have been a "first

time."

> So prabhu, would you be so kind as to tell us who has said that women *can't*

> be temple presidents?

 

> Text 1737639 (139 lines)

> Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Florida Vedic College - USA)

> 02-Oct-98 06:50 +0000

> GHQ [47]

> More strategy

> ---------------------------

> Dear Maharajas and Prabhus,

>

> Please except my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada.

>

> Continuing on with Maharajas ideas about strategy and tactics:

>

> What exactly are our ultimate objectives? These objectives may go beyond

> the next GBC meeting. Here is a list of some suggested objectives:

>

> 1) No women in leadership positions, this means in GBC, temple

> presidents, the GBC secretaries, ISKCON officers or spokespersons (such as

> in ISKCON communications which is heavily dominated by feminists).

>

 

Plus, just within the last month on these conferences the point was made quite

strenuously. Have you just joined this discussion recently?

 

So his current political campaign against Mothers Dhanyakunda and Madhusudhani

is

simply a continuation of his, and others, stated goal. For you to deny these

things have been stated is almost incredulous.

 

That GHQers would campaign so strongly against something, and then when shown

evidence that Srila Prabhupada said they could be TPs, then deny the

statements

have been made, that is amazing to me. Well, as Canakya Paundit said, never

trust a politician.

[Guest guest]

> That GHQers would campaign so strongly against something, and then when

> shown evidence that Srila Prabhupada said they could be TPs, then deny

> the statements

> have been made, that is amazing to me. Well, as Canakya Paundit said,

> never trust a politician.

 

"Oh my gosh!" :-)

 

Mr. "Gosh"...

 

Would you kindly present us with just one, yes, "1" instance where Srila

Prabhupada appointed a woman as a TP or GBC?

 

Thank you very much!

[Guest guest]

On 1 Jan 2000, Basu Ghosh wrote:

 

 

>

> Would you kindly present us with just one, yes, "1" instance where Srila

Prabhupada appointed a woman as a TP or GBC?

>

> Thank you very much!

 

 

 

I hate to be clueless, but what difference does this make? When I think of

Srila Prabhupada instructions to his followers, obsessing on women is not the

first issue that comes to mind, what to speak of relentlessly lobbying in the

political arena. Almost sounds anti-Vedic.

[Guest guest]

On 01 Jan 2000, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

> > 1) No women in leadership positions, this means in GBC, temple

> > presidents, the GBC secretaries, ISKCON officers or spokespersons (such as

> > in ISKCON communications which is heavily dominated by feminists).

> >

 

"Close but no seegar," prabhu. Those were the suggestions of one member of a

COM conference. Please find something where someone says women "can't" be

temple presidents, which was your direct claim.

 

> Plus, just within the last month on these conferences the point was made

quite

> strenuously.

 

By whom? Prove it, please.

 

> So his current political campaign against Mothers Dhanyakunda and

Madhusudhani

> is

> simply a continuation of his, and others, stated goal. For you to deny

these

> things have been stated is almost incredulous.

 

For you to live in the illusion that there is some kind of "GHQ" conspiracy is

the real illusion. Are you living in the past, prabhu? The GHQ conference was

closed over a year ago. If you wabnt to complain about Shyamasundara Prabhu,

that's your right, but what does it have tod owith the topics of these

conferences, I wonder?

 

> That GHQers would campaign so strongly against something, and then when

shown

> evidence that Srila Prabhupada said they could be TPs, then deny the

> statements

> have been made, that is amazing to me.

 

Prabhu, I humbly submit that if you would just get your facts straight, then

you wouldn't have to be so amazed. I humbly submit that you assume too much

and draw hasty conclusions. It's the phenomenon of "making a mountain out of a

mole hill," actually. For example, this idea that "the "GHQers would campaign

so strongly against something." What does it mean?

How many times will someone have to deconstruct such statements, and why?

How do such statements facilitate topics of varnasrama development?

 

>Well, as Canakya Paundit said, never trust a politician.

 

Well, I don't

 

--gkd

[Guest guest]

On 01 Jan 2000, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

 

> I hate to be clueless, but what difference does this make?

 

Now that's an interesting question, indeed: "What difference does it make? Are

you thereby implying that it makes little or no difference? And to whom or

what? To ISKCON? To you? To the king of Nepal? In the context of discussions

on varnasrama development, dharma, and so forth, what is the significant value

of that question?

 

>When I think of Srila Prabhupada instructions to his followers, >obsessing on

women...

 

And perhaps you should verify your tele-cyberpsychoalyses with Dr. Ekstrand

before making such public pronouncements?

 

--gkd

[Guest guest]

On 01 Jan 2000, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

 

> I hate to be clueless, but what difference does this make?

 

Now that's an interesting question, indeed: "What difference does it make? Are

you thereby implying that it makes little or no difference? And to whom or

what? To ISKCON? To you? To the king of Nepal? In the context of discussions

on varnasrama development, dharma, and so forth, what is the significant value

of that question?

 

>When I think of Srila Prabhupada instructions to his followers, >obsessing on

women...

 

And perhaps you should verify your tele-cyberpsychoalyses with Dr. Ekstrand

before making such public pronouncements?

 

--gkd

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Would you kindly present us with just one, yes, "1" instance where Srila

> Prabhupada appointed a woman as a TP or GBC?

>

> Thank you very much!

 

Would you kindly present us with just one, yes, "1" instance where Srila

Prabhupada ever used a computer or the internet?

[Guest guest]

On 01 Jan 2000, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

 

> On 01 Jan 2000, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote:

>

> > I hate to be clueless, but what difference does this make?

>

> Now that's an interesting question, indeed: "What difference does it make?

Are you thereby implying that it makes little or no difference? And to whom or

what? To ISKCON? To you? To the king of Nepal? In the context of discussions

on varnasrama development, dharma, and so forth, what is the significant value

of that question?

>

 

 

What other people does not necessarily have to effect me adversely, by Krsna's

grace. But it seems that 'women' are so powerful that every time they breath

some say you begin to barage the conference with a half dozen posts.

 

 

> >When I think of Srila Prabhupada instructions to his followers, obsessing

on women...

>

> And perhaps you should verify your tele-cyberpsychoalyses with Dr. Ekstrand

before making such public pronouncements?

>

 

 

Prabhupada obsessed on Krsna, if obsessed is the right word to describe such

things. There seems to be a plethoria of talk from some quarters with regards

what women should and shouldn't do, as compared to what they should or

shouldn't be doing -- as if all the problems of life are found 'elsewhere'.

[Guest guest]

On 1 Jan 2000, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

> >

> >

> > Would you kindly present us with just one, yes, "1" instance where Srila

Prabhupada appointed a woman as a TP or GBC?

> >

> > Thank you very much!

>

> Would you kindly present us with just one, yes, "1" instance where Srila

Prabhupada ever used a computer or the internet?

>

>

 

 

By the way, what exactly are the criteria for the new millenium with regards

to relevant and irrelevant com conferences?

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

>

> "Close but no seegar," prabhu. Those were the suggestions of one member of a

> COM conference. Please find something where someone says women "can't" be

> temple presidents, which was your direct claim.

 

Not to go too far back in history, what point do you think Basu Ghosh is

trying

to make as recently as this morning? To quote:

 

 

"COM: Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN)" <Basu.Ghosh.ACBSP (AT) bbt (DOT) se>

 

6:46 AM

 

Subject:

Re: Do GHQers get credibility on their own?

To:

"COM: DMW (Dharma of Men and Women)" <DMW (AT) bbt (DOT) se>,

"COM: India (Continental Committee) Open (Forum)" <India.Open (AT) bbt (DOT) se>,

"COM: Varnasrama development" <Varnasrama.development (AT) bbt (DOT) se>

 

 

 

 

[Text 2898379 from COM]

 

> That GHQers would campaign so strongly against something, and then when

> shown evidence that Srila Prabhupada said they could be TPs, then deny

> the statements

> have been made, that is amazing to me. Well, as Canakya Paundit said,

> never trust a politician.

 

"Oh my gosh!" :-)

 

Mr. "Gosh"...

 

Would you kindly present us with just one, yes, "1" instance where Srila

Prabhupada appointed a woman as a TP or GBC?

 

Thank you very much!

 

>

>

> > Plus, just within the last month on these conferences the point was made

> quite

> > strenuously.

>

> By whom? Prove it, please.

>

 

Does the above post meet an acceptable level of proof for you?

 

So, here I am simultaneously attacked from 2 sides, one by Basu Ghosh arguing

against women as temple presidents and demanding proof to the contrary, and

on

the other side, Guru Krsna arguing that noone has spoken out against women as

temple presidents and demnading proof that from me someone is against women as

temple presidents.

 

Is the logic here that if Guru Krsna can convince me noone is making the point,

then Basu Gopal will win the argument by default because, convinced by Guru

Krsna

noone is making the point, I don't respond to Basu Gopal?

 

 

 

For example, this idea that "the "GHQers would campaign

 

> so strongly against something." What does it mean?

 

That private issues have been taken public out of context and splashed all over

VNN. That there is currently a very strident campaign being waged to have

woman

who are outspoken to be expelled from ISKCON.

 

>

> How many times will someone have to deconstruct such statements, and why?

 

I will repeat what I have stated in the past, no amount of deconstruction will

have any effect because you give the impressio of being unteachable.

 

In any case, would you and Basu Gopal please get together and first decide if

someone is against women as temple presidents or not, as I will only respond

to

one premise or the other, but not both simultaneously. Talk amongst

yourselves,

then get back to me.

[Guest guest]

>

>

> By the way, what exactly are the criteria for the new millenium with regards

> to relevant and irrelevant com conferences?

>

> .

 

Everyone who agrees with me is relevant, and everyone who disagrees is not

only

irrelevant, but also offensive and has no faith in Srila Prabhupada ( just

kidding).

[Guest guest]

> > shown evidence that Srila Prabhupada said they could be TPs, then deny

> > the statements have been made, that is amazing to me.

 

>

> Mr. "Gosh"...

>

> Would you kindly present us with just one, yes, "1" instance where Srila

> Prabhupada appointed a woman as a TP or GBC?

 

Why?

 

The point here was wether Srila Prabhupada said a woman can be a

TP or he did not. Did he say it or did he not? Just give the plane

and simple answer "yes" or "no". Why all this "dancing" around

this simple point, prabhuji?

 

 

- Mahanidhi das

[Guest guest]

Basu Ghosh wrote:

> > > Would you kindly present us with just one, yes, "1" instance where

> > > Srila

> Prabhupada appointed a woman as a TP or GBC?

> > >

> > > Thank you very much!

> >

 

M.Gosh wrote:

> > Would you kindly present us with just one, yes, "1" instance where Srila

> Prabhupada ever used a computer or the internet?

 

 

 

> By the way, what exactly are the criteria for the new millenium with

> regards to relevant and irrelevant com conferences?

 

 

I do not believe the new millenium starts until one year from now? As of

today the calendar is 1,999 years and one day old (A.D.) How is the world

going to celebrate next New Years when we ACTUALLY enter the third

millenium?

 

 

In additional response to Madhava Gosh's above reply to Basu, Srila

Prabhupada never started even ONE varnasrama college in his movement.

 

Maybe this is why the ISKCON leaders have failed to start one, too? Maybe

they all think like the GHQ guys? Nah.

[Guest guest]

On 1 Jan 2000, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

> > Would you kindly present us with just one, yes, "1" instance where Srila

> > Prabhupada appointed a woman as a TP or GBC?

> >

> > Thank you very much!

>

> Would you kindly present us with just one, yes, "1" instance where >Srila

Prabhupada ever used a computer or the internet?

 

Prabhu, no one is suggesting that computers should be temple presidents or

assume roles in any of the four varnas. Therefore, we need not go to the

Vedabase or ISKCON history to research that topic. The discussions about

whether or not women should occupy managerial posts within ISKCON,

however, *are* pertinent to the objectives of (at least some of) these

conferences.

 

I've asked you this before, prabhu, but you haven't yet answered: What is your

understanding of why SP never did post women as TPs or GBCs? Have you ever

actually wondered or thought about that?

 

--gkd

[Guest guest]

> I've asked you this before, prabhu, but you haven't yet answered: What is

> your understanding of why SP never did post women as TPs or GBCs? Have you

> ever actually wondered or thought about that?

>

You see, I don't even bother very much about that one. The thing is that

the TP and GBC positions might not exist very much longer, neither the

ISKCON in the way that we know it.

Yes, you can continue wasting your time arguing about it, if you wish.

Ys. Sraddha dd

[Guest guest]

On 1 Jan 2000, Sraddha dd wrote:

 

> > I've asked you this before, prabhu, but you haven't yet answered: What is

> > your understanding of why SP never did post women as TPs or GBCs? Have you

> > ever actually wondered or thought about that?

> >

> You see, I don't even bother very much about that one. The thing is that

> the TP and GBC positions might not exist very much longer, neither the

> ISKCON in the way that we know it.

 

Well, I was asking Madhava Gosh prabhu because he is fond of slandering the

"GHQ" along that line. And you may be quite right about what you say above.

 

> Yes, you can continue wasting your time arguing about it, if you wish.

 

Personally, it has not been our attempt or purpose to convince anyone here of

that. We already have DMW on which devotees are open to such discussions.

Here, though, we have had to defend spurious claims meant to discredit sincere

devotees whose primary intention in discussing such topics is to help preserve

and/or reinstate the standards that Srila Prabhhupada introduced and/or wanted

to be introduced for ISKCON and its members.

 

So now I'll take this opportunity to beg forgiveness from any/all rs

to these conferences who have been bored, disturbed, perturbed, angered,

harassed, or whatever, by so much apparent bickering herein. Although not

immune from that tendency myself, still I have humbly tried to stick to the

points throughout these recent "debates," aiming only for the (absolute)

truth. Please forgive my shortcomings and bestow your blessings for my further

advancement in Krsna consciousness.

 

your servant,

gkdas

--gkd

[Guest guest]

> On 01 Jan 2000, Madhava Gosh wrote:

>

> > > 1) No women in leadership positions, this means in GBC, temple

> > > presidents, the GBC secretaries, ISKCON officers or spokespersons

> > > (such as in ISKCON communications which is heavily dominated by

> > > feminists).

> > >

>

> "Close but no seegar," prabhu. Those were the suggestions of one member of

> a COM conference. Please find something where someone says women "can't"

> be temple presidents, which was your direct claim.

>

> > Plus, just within the last month on these conferences the point was

> > made

> quite

> > strenuously.

>

> By whom? Prove it, please.

>

> > So his current political campaign against Mothers Dhanyakunda and

> Madhusudhani

> > is

> > simply a continuation of his, and others, stated goal. For you to

> > deny

> these

> > things have been stated is almost incredulous.

>

> For you to live in the illusion that there is some kind of "GHQ"

> conspiracy is the real illusion. Are you living in the past, prabhu? The

> GHQ conference was closed over a year ago. If you wabnt to complain about

> Shyamasundara Prabhu, that's your right, but what does it have tod owith

> the topics of these conferences, I wonder?

>

> > That GHQers would campaign so strongly against something, and then when

> shown

> > evidence that Srila Prabhupada said they could be TPs, then deny the

> > statements

> > have been made, that is amazing to me.

>

> Prabhu, I humbly submit that if you would just get your facts straight,

> then you wouldn't have to be so amazed. I humbly submit that you assume

> too much and draw hasty conclusions. It's the phenomenon of "making a

> mountain out of a mole hill," actually. For example, this idea that "the

> "GHQers would campaign so strongly against something." What does it mean?

> How many times will someone have to deconstruct such statements, and why?

> How do such statements facilitate topics of varnasrama development?

>

> >Well, as Canakya Paundit said, never trust a politician.

>

> Well, I don't

>

> --gkd

 

Guru Krishna Prabhu; you forgot to point out that Chanakya Pandit also said,

in the very same shloka, "to never trust a woman"! :-)

[Guest guest]

>

> And try to answer the question... which might be difficult to do, since

> SP... SIMPLY DIDN'T DO IT! :-)

 

There was no need then. It was a very beginning of the movement.

The society very much undeveloped.

Prabhupada didn't want women in the movement at all in beginning,

when he came to America. But then he changed his mind, as the

need for it arouse.

 

Why are you hanging yourself on this simple managerial principles?

Why can't you understand that freezing the status quo of ISCKON

at the moment of Srila Prabhupada's departure is not going to

bring us no further. According to your mentality, Srila Prabhupada

would have never started ISCKON. Indeed, quite many of the

"vedic" godbrothers of his were objecting all what he did accomplish

and introduced, since, see, they were posing the same kind of argument

as you are doing it here "Our Guru Maharaja SIMPLY DIDN'T DO IT! There

is no record of it in Mahabharata!"

 

Update yourself, prabhuji. We are in the movement of Srila

Prabhupada, and not of some smarta-brahmana mentality Guruji.

(At least, that's the hope)

 

 

It is simply a wrong method, to look back and observe how something

did not happen then, and then conclude "See, therefore it will

be wrong if it happens now". Please try to think on this and

understand it. It may be not so difficult as you might be wanted

us to believe in.

 

 

- Mahanidhi das

[Guest guest]

>

> What millenium? Of the birth of Jesus Christ?

>

 

Oh, you don't know that much?

 

> According to vedic culture & history there is no millenium.

>

> Wake up. Or convert to Christianity! :-)

 

I am sure that in your day-to-day life you are using the Christian

date system and not the vedic, or? Do you wake up every morning and

start acting according to Vedic calendar, or according to the

calendar that the whole world is applying?

 

 

 

- Mahanidhi das

[Guest guest]

>

>

> Guru Krishna Prabhu; you forgot to point out that Chanakya Pandit also

> said, in the very same shloka, "to never trust a woman"! :-)

 

Yes. This is the very core of the problem -- the misunderstanding

and misuse of this CP's statement about women.

 

You can only dream about your ideal and happy "vedic" society

that is to be based on mistrust from the side of one half of

the population towards the other one.

 

You seem not to be bale to understand the basic principle of

trust: You get trusted to by others when you are able to trust

to others.

 

 

- Mahanidhi das

[Guest guest]

>

> Wake up. Or convert to Christianity! :-)

 

This is how you are applying everything else "vedic" here.

 

You don't understand how someone can be well aware of the

vedic calendar and yet be aware of the christian one and

even be *using* it instead of the vedic one, and yet be

a Krsna's devotee and the follower of Vedas.

 

No, we are not the follower of Christianity, nor the atheists

who reject the authority of Vedas, inspite of using the christian

calendar and inspite of trusting our women.

 

 

- Mahanidhi das

[Guest guest]

On 2 Jan 2000, Basu Ghosh wrote:

 

 

>

> What millenium? Of the birth of Jesus Christ?

>

> According to vedic culture & history there is no millenium.

>

> Wake up. Or convert to Christianity! :-)

 

 

On the other hand, why not, when preaching KC to those who have some

affection for Lord Jesus Christ.

 

Scholarly speaking, though, don't they often say Jesus was born 4 AD, and

all kids of interesting stuff like that. At the time of the American

Revolution, New Years was celebrated on March 15th, I have also heard.

And then of course when the Christian calendar was created, they used

Roman Numerals, and there is no zero in Roman Numerals, so the begining

of the first year was considered one, sort of like a baby being born and

already considered one years old.

 

Now as far as I'm concern, this couldn't have been the real Y2K we've all

been talking about -- I mean nothing happened, what a dissapointment! Y2K

must be coming next year, during the 'real' millenium in 2001. Yep, that

mu

[Guest guest]

> What millenium? Of the birth of Jesus Christ?

>

> According to vedic culture & history there is no millenium.

>

> Wake up. Or convert to Christianity! :-)

 

 

Why *convert* ? I am a Christian now. Like Srila Prabhupada said, "Krsna or

Christ, the name is the same."

 

I would like to treat my Christian godbrothers and godsisters the same as my

Vaisnava godbrothers and godsisters. I have a brother who is not very

devotional but I do not ask Krsna to abolish him. I still love him.

[Guest guest]

> >

> > And try to answer the question... which might be difficult to do, since

> > SP... SIMPLY DIDN'T DO IT! :-)

>

> There was no need then. It was a very beginning of the movement.

> The society very much undeveloped.

> Prabhupada didn't want women in the movement at all in beginning,

> when he came to America. But then he changed his mind, as the

> need for it arouse.

 

Very interesting, Srila Prabhupada, er, Mahanidhi Prabhu, (er, as I have now

learned, "Dr. Frog" from Lund, Sweden) ... :-)

 

Your version of the beginning of the movement varies quite a bit from what I

and everyone else who read the Srila Prabhupada biography written by H.H.

Satsvarup Maharaj. When Jadurani & Yamuna were right there... and Malati

too! And he, kindly excuse the truth of the history of ISKCON during the

days of Srila Prabhupada; DID NOT make either one or any of them TPs or

GBCs. (But you know better, right, "Dr. Frog"? :-) )

 

And by the time SP disappeared in 1977 ISKCON was expanded all over the

world and there were at least 108 temples, if not more.

 

Where was the women TP/GBC in 1977?

 

> Why are you hanging yourself on this simple managerial principles?

 

Who's hanging who, my dear "Dr. Frog"? :-)

 

> Why can't you understand that freezing the status quo of ISCKON

> at the moment of Srila Prabhupada's departure is not going to

> bring us no further.

 

Why can't YOU understand that your speculative opinions are just not on the

same level as those of Srila Prabhupada and vedic literatures, such as the

Bhagavatam, Mahabharata, etc.?

 

> According to your mentality, Srila Prabhupada

> would have never started ISCKON.

 

Thank you for the analysis, my dear "Dr. Frog". Glad to know this from the

Nobel prize winner that you are! :-)

 

> Indeed, quite many of the

> "vedic" godbrothers of his were objecting all what he did accomplish

> and introduced, since, see, they were posing the same kind of argument

> as you are doing it here "Our Guru Maharaja SIMPLY DIDN'T DO IT! There

> is no record of it in Mahabharata!"

 

So what Srila Prabhupada himself DID is of little concern to us... or so it

seems you would have us think, my dear "Dr. Frog Prabhu"?

 

> Update yourself, prabhuji. We are in the movement of Srila

> Prabhupada, and not of some smarta-brahmana mentality Guruji.

> (At least, that's the hope)

 

Did you ever meet/talk/see Srila Prabhupada? And if you did... which I very

much doubt; did you even spend any time with him in India?

 

And yet YOU write without an iota of compunction as if YOU ARE THE SOLE

AUTHORITY ON THE OUTLOOK AND OPINIONS of Srila Prabhupada.

 

Thank you very much for that Prabhu. You are really an ocean of mercy.

 

Especially to us ignorant souls. We just don't possess the knowledge of

"Dr. Frog"... :-)

 

Therefore I bow down to your lotus feet and offer you my most humble

obeisances again and again.

 

> It is simply a wrong method, to look back and observe how something

> did not happen then, and then conclude "See, therefore it will

> be wrong if it happens now". Please try to think on this and

> understand it. It may be not so difficult as you might be wanted

> us to believe in.

>

> - Mahanidhi das

 

Oh great personality, Mahanidhi Prabhu, (aka "Dr. Frog" from Lund), once

again I offer you my most humble obeisances.

 

dasabhas,

 

Basu Ghosh Das

[Guest guest]

> I for one won't trust someone who rejects Srila Prabhupada's "clear as the

> sky is blue" instructions... that's for sure! :-)

You are doing that too. So many things which Srila Prabhupada said you

reject to see. How is that you trust yourself so much?

Ys. Sraddha dd