Plea for defining terms: an ulterior motive to introduce atheism.

[Guest guest]

COM: Krishna Kirti (das) HDG (Baltimore, MD - USA) wrote:

 

> [Text 2008287 from COM]

>

> > As all members of this conference can see, I did not advocate changing

> > Prabhupada's words to make it seem like he said that women are materially

> > as intelligent as men.

>

> If we can believe that, either we have mass dyslexia, or we might as well

> believe the moon is made of cheese.

>

> P.S. Why did the Women's Ministry publish selected/hacked out of context

> GHQ conf. texts to VNN?

 

Why did you publish selected/hacked out of context VAST conf. texts? Okay for

you, not for others? Same old same old double standard.

 

As per women being less intelligent - sheesh, get a life. If you act more

intelligently, that is more important then quoting that you are more

intelligent. If you can't, then I can understand why you need to cling so

fiercely to quotes.

 

If you are more intelligent you should be able to understand this: even if one

group is statistically superior to another as a statistical mean, that does

not mean that there aren't individuals within the inferior group that can

excel or exceed the statistical norm of the superior group. To constrain the

individual on the basis of belonging to a particular group is bigotry.

 

That women is general are less intelligent than men does not mean that all men

are more intelligent then all women.

 

Incidentally, if defining terms is an ulterior motive to introduce atheism,

why do Srila Prabhupada's books have a glossary?

 

I didn't actually read your whole first post under this thread, as it was a

little incoherent and I didn't have the time to try to penetrate what it was

you were actually saying. It seems the topic is if intelligence is material or

spiritual.

 

BG 13 6-7 purport.

 

"From all the authoritative statements of the great sages, the Vedic hymns and

the aphorisms of the Vedänta-sütra, the components of this world can be

understood as follows. First there are earth, water, fire, air and ether. These

are the five great elements (mahä-bhüta). Then there are false ego,

intelligence and the unmanifested stage of the three modes of nature. Then

there are five senses for acquiring knowledge: the eyes, ears, nose, tongue and

skin. Then five working senses: voice, legs, hands, anus and genitals. Then,

above the senses, there is the mind, which is within and which can be called

the sense within. Therefore, including the mind, there are eleven senses

altogether. Then there are the five objects of the senses: smell, taste, form,

touch and sound. Now the aggregate of these twenty-four elements is called the

field of activity. If one makes an analytical study of these twenty-four

subjects, then he can very well understand the field of activity. Then there

are desire, hatred, happiness and distress, which are interactions,

representations of the five great elements in the gross body. The living

symptoms, represented by consciousness and conviction, are the manifestation of

the subtle body—mind, ego and intelligence. These subtle elements are included

within the field of activities."

 

>From this , I can conclude that according to Srila Prabhupada, intelligence

is

a material element. Of course, not having followed the discussion you are

referencing , and not knowing how you have defined intelligence in that

discussion, maybe referencing Srila Prabupada is not relevant.

 

Anyway, Krishna Kirti, don't worry. Lord Chaitanya is so merciful. Even

though Srila Prabhupada has made the following determination, men still have a

chance.

 

 

"My Dear Krsnadevi,

Please accept my blessings. I am very much pleased to read your letter

dated 13 February, 1970, and thank you very much for your appreciation.

Now I see that in our society the girls are more intelligent than the

boys." (2/17/70

 

 

 

SB lecture 8-3-68

 

"So far spiritual life is concerned, it does not depend on the material

brain substance. It is different thing. It is spiritual platform. It has

nothing to do with this bodily construction. You must remember. We don’t

make any distinction that a man can be better Krsna consciousness than

woman. No. A woman can be better Krsna consciousness because they are very

simple. They can accept any religious system. Generally the women, they

accept it because they are very simple. They have no crooked mind"

 

So even though women in general are materially better at accepting Krsna

Consciousness then the men, and specifically the women in ISKCON are more

intelligent then the men in ISKCON, I personally believe that any men who do

get off the bodily platform will still get Lord Chaitanya's mercy. So don't

give up hope.

[Guest guest]

At 5:17 -0800 1/12/99, COM: Krishna Kirti (das) HDG (Baltimore, MD - USA)

wrote:

>[Text 2008287 from COM]

 

>If we can believe that, either we have mass dyslexia, or we might as well

>believe the moon is made of cheese.

 

I can't speak re. your beliefs re. the moon or whether you have a

diagnosable learning disorder. Such a diagnosis would explain many

symptoms, but since there are also many other reasons for those symptoms I

would recommend an appointment with an accredited learning disorder

specialist. S/he has the necessary training to make the required

differential diagnosis. Given the header, maybe the other diagnosis that

needs to be evaluated is paranoia. I don't know, but I sincerely do hope

you receive the help you need.

 

 

>

>P.S. Why did the Women's Ministry publish selected/hacked out of context

>GHQ conf. texts to VNN?

 

I thought those were posted by Ardhabuddhi. Ask him/her.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

On 12-Jan-99, Madhusudani Radha (dd) JPS (Mill Valley - USA) wrote:

 

>As anyone who reads my text will see, I'm proposing 3 possibilities and

it

>was only if people do *not* think that Prabhupada meant material

>intelligence that this would need to get clarified in future editions

since

>the way they currently read, that is what most people understand.

 

This explanation contradicts her original VAST statement wherein she

wrote that if it was *not* #1 (spiritual

intelligence) or #2 (material intelligence) Prabhupada meant, then she

reallly has nothing

to say. In other words if it was #3 (some other type of intelligence),

she "can not comment on whether he was right or wrong." (i.e the

books might be OK). BUT if we "really think" it *is* #1 (spiritual

intelligence) *OR* #2 (material intelligence), then we should "change

the books".

 

First she says if we think Prabhupada *is* talking about spiritual or

material intelligence then we should consider changing his books. Now

she says "if people do *not* think that Prabhupada meant material

intelligence that this would need to get clarified in future editions".

 

 

 

____

Get Your Private, Free Email at http://www.hotmail.com

[Guest guest]

At 9:28 -0800 1/12/99, Ardha-satya Dasi wrote:

 

Hmmm.... I didn't think we allowed anonymous postings on these conferences.

Maybe conference organizers should make postings "members only" to avoid

that in the future.

 

No dear "Ardha-satya", you misunderstood my text - maybe we really do have

a dyslexia epidemic here. I'll explain my views on this topic one last

time when I get home from work tonight. No time now. Until then, please

don't speculate about what "she" wanted. Besides, I do have a name and I

am on this conference, so no need to refer to me in third person (even

though from the GHQ texts, I realize most of you feel most comfortable

speaking about people behind their backs).

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

>

> As per women being less intelligent - sheesh, get a life. If you act more

intelligently, that is more important then quoting that you are more

intelligent. If you can't, then I can understand why you need to cling so

fiercely to quotes.

>

>

 

 

There's an old Vedic saying: "only a half-wit gets in an argument with another

half-wit.' Now there's some math any GHQer with half a wit should be able to

handle.

[Guest guest]

WWW: Sthita-dhi-muni (Dasa) SDG (Alachua FL - USA) wrote:

 

> [Text 2010147 from COM]

>

> On 12 Jan 1999, Krishna Kirti wrote:

>

>

>

> > > As all members of this conference can see, I did not advocate changing

> Prabhupada's words to make it seem like he said that women are materially as

> intelligent as men.

>

> > >

>

> >

>

> > If we can believe that, either we have mass dyslexia, or we might as well

> believe the moon is made of cheese.

>

> >

>

> Could you please define what you mean by the word 'cheese'.

 

Don't you mean to ask him to define the word eseehc? I thguoht os.

[Guest guest]

> Do you think Prabhupada was referring

> to spiritual intelligence, material intelligence or some third kind of

> intelligence not yet identified? If it's number 2, the books are clear as

> they are, but if it's number 1 or 3, they simply are not and that needs to

> be communicated.

 

I did not follow the discussion on VAST and thus may have missed something,

but to me it seems undefendable to change Srila Prabhupada's books, even if

it appears as if he made some mistakes in them. They are his books, not

ours, isn't it? If he wanted to write something in his books, who are we to

change them after his departure? Unless of course it was a translation

mistake, but that does not seem to be the case here.

 

If one has a problem with agreeing with something Prabhupada says in some of

his books, then that must be "allowed". Noone can force anyone to believe

anything, and even if one "disagrees" with Prabhupada on a "material" point,

does not necessarily mean that one rejects the spiritual philosophy or his

teachings.

 

Regarding the places where he says that women are less intelligent, I agree

that it may cause some reactions which theoretically could be avoided. I

remember that I also reacted on it when I read the Bhagavad Gita for the

first time. But I still cannot defend changing his words, be it in his books

or anywhere.

 

Ys

Jkd

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 99-01-12 08:10:02 EST, Krishna.Kirti.HDG (AT) com (DOT) bbt.se writes:

 

<<

P.S. Why did the Women's Ministry publish selected/hacked out of context

GHQ conf. texts to VNN? >>

 

 

Excuse me! This is one text I can't just let slide...

 

Who do you think you are making such an accusation? You'd better have reason

for making such a statement....you're definately crossing a line here accusing

us / me of such a thing...Something I 100% didn't do, wouldn't know how to do,

and wouldn't be interested to take the time to do! Fie on you, and the

immaturity you've shown repeatedly throughout your texts, not to mention this

untrue accusation.

 

To be honest, I don't even know why the printing of these texts is such a

problem for you. I don't remember anything said in private that hasn't been

said publically, or pretty implicity implied. It's not like anyone needed to

read the texts to know how most of you felt about women. Hasn't anyone joined

your cause as a result of the posting?

 

It's very convienant to try and publically blame the Ministry for posting your

words...instead of trying to blame others, why don't you just accept

responsibility...if you can't even do that, how can you expect to be respected

for you opinions about others?

 

By the way, defining terms is a perfectly reasonable request as far as I can

see. It's just common practice and common sense...look up any word in the

dictionary and see how many uses each word will have. There is no doubt that

your idea of protection, submission, independence, abuse, and more clearly

differ from mine.

 

Not to mention the word feminist...which is bantered about as if it equates to

the devil. I am not a feminist, I don't believe on any level...but heck, a

little concern for the welfare of women would go a long way in this movement.

Caring about the women and the exploitation they have experienced in the name

of protection is hardly social disruption!

[Guest guest]

Dear Sudharma Devi,

 

Pamho. AgtSP!

 

Would you kindly explain, for everyone's benefit, the sudden increase of

876 texts to the Women's Ministry COM conference at the end of November

'98. Were these or were these not texts from the GHQ conference?

 

Your honest answer to this question would help many of us to understand

this mysterious coincidence.

 

Your servant, Sita devi dasi

[Guest guest]

Yes, I'd be happy to tell you that they are not your GHQ texts....I still have

not read all of them (your texts on VNN)...nor do I have any intention to do

so....much less the hundreds of texts you copied to our conference, which you

now want to claim as proof we somehow circulated your GHQ private texts...I

have not read many of these either....they are at best boring...but in reality

have actually been, to my low-minded understanding, quite offensive....

 

re: texts written about / to Rukmini, Malati, Visakha, Radha, Mukunda

Maharaja, Bir Krishna Goswami, Pranada, Harivallabha, etc. etc. not to

mention private texts written by Syamasundar under the AOL address Atma1008

(or whatever the address was -- Syamasundar we know they were from you)

 

The GHQ arguments resemble those of the theif who breaks into the house and

says "I am not a thief", but theives you are. ... Jivan Mukta and Sita

responded with persistence and some would say, vehemence, to the GBC

resolution against domestic violence (is that the 'work' of the Ministry that

concerns you?!), you've repeatedly called me a feminist...which I'm sorry, I'm

not, ...and used any text by anyone, man or woman, which you disagree with to

be proof of a Women's Ministry conspiracy, which I'm sorry, there isn't

one....

 

on the other hand, the GHQ formed a conspiracy to convince others of 'our --

the women's -- conspiracy'....you are indeed the theives in the night who are

saying to others, we are not the theives, 300 + pages worth.

 

In reality, we've seen so much animosity directed towards women and children

in our society....we're not interested in generating any towards anyone

(though you've certainly tried as hard as possible to get an emotional or

angry response from us)....

 

In closing, I would like to say that the Women's Ministry is not, nor can it

be all things to all people, but...there are plenty of nice, powerful,

enthusing things to do, and that's where our energy -- the Women's Ministry's

energy, what little we even have, goes....

 

Why don't you try and do something positive and uplifting for others instead

of chasing around after everyone who shows any interest in the Women's

Ministry and publically defaming them....The time and anger you have given

trying to undermine the Ministry is testimony to the need for the Ministry in

the first place!

 

In fact, I challenge you....why don't you do something uplifting!...hold some

nice conferences like we have and take the time to care about others, like we

have, instead spending your time simply trying to tear us apart...

 

So, in closing, once again....we, the Women's Ministry did not have access to

your private GHQ texts before they went out on VNN...nor did we forward the

texts to VNN. Hope that clarifies things for those who have somehow become

forced to listen to the vast majority of this 'debate' which should have never

been spoken in the first place.

 

Sudharma dasi

[Guest guest]

I'm not sure to whom the Women's Minister is replying but I can see there

is not much point in responding to something so full of judgement and false

accusations.

[Guest guest]

> I'm not sure to whom the Women's Minister is replying but I can see there

> is not much point in responding to something so full of judgement and

> false accusations.

 

I would not blame them if the whole IWC feels the same way about you.

[Guest guest]

Sita Devi Dasi wrote:

 

> [Text 2032108 from COM]

>

> I'm not sure to whom the Women's Minister is replying but I can see there

> is not much point in responding to something so full of judgement and false

> accusations.

 

Well, now there is something you both seem to agree on!

[Guest guest]

On 20 Jan 1999, Sita Devi Dasi wrote:

 

> I'm not sure to whom the Women's Minister is replying but I can see there is

not much point in responding to something so full of judgement and false

accusations.

>

>

 

 

 

 

Especially when it is about us whom we believe mean things are being said.

Surely Krsna takes offence when our fealings are hurt by the other

neo-devotees.