Can we at least be truthful?

[Guest guest]

On 16 Jan 1999, Jatukarnya das wrote:

> Did they! After Ardhabuddhi das has revealed himself,

 

For what it's worth, could this have been an "I'm Spartacus" (*)?

Ardhabuddhi's writing style didn't seem at all like Mahanidhi's ;

I have never seen any substantial message written by the latter

without at least a few dozen spelling errors (and VNN never edits

out spelling errors). Of course, he may have gone to great lengths

to make it seem that ABd was a different person, but that seems

at odds with the later admission of their oneness. For that reason,

I would take the confession with a grain of salt.

 

Yours,

 

Vijay

 

(*) Note for non-Western readers: Spartacus was a gladiator who lead

a slave revolt against the Roman empire. I believe that Kirk

Douglas played the role in the classic movie of the same name;

in the movie, when the Romans finally defeated Spartacus' army, they

wanted Spartacus brought before them so they could kill him. All

the slaves responded with "I'm Spartacus," because they didn't

want to turn over their leader. They were all crucified. I don't

know if this just happened in the movie, or if it also happened

in real life; I didn't learn that part of the Spartacus story in

Latin class.

[Guest guest]

At 14:16 -0800 1/16/99, WWW: Vijay Pai (Houston TX - USA) wrote:

 

 

>All

>the slaves responded with "I'm Spartacus," because they didn't

>want to turn over their leader.

 

And it worked for them? If so, maybe we're should all follow in Mahanidhi's

footsteps and admit one-ness with Ardhabuddhi?

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

ps. this is a reminder not to include Mukhya Prabhu on the list of

recipients. Besides her very busy sysop service, she is also half way

through her first pregnancy and has many more other things to think of. It

would be nice if we could help free up her time so she can instead read the

Krsna book (or something similar) to her unborn baby.

[Guest guest]

On 11 Jan 1999, Krsna Kirti wrote:

krishna.kirti.hdg (AT) com (DOT) bbt.se>

> We are not moved by the pleas of devotees, like Mataji, who repeatedly ask

for terms to be defined when either they have already been discussed, or they

are so central to the practice of our Krishna-consciousness that they should

be understood. If we mention such basic things such as the 4 regulative

principles, they will complain that we have not defined them.

 

> Furthermore, we would add that the above correspondents are quite aware of

the terms being discussed but are only trying to obfuscate matters in order to

introduce ideas which are against the teachings of our acharyas, as given to

us by Srila Prabhupada.

 

So if you will not "graciously condescend to oblige the members of this

conference" to explain what you are proposing, then why waste both your time

and ours in a long-winded discussion? You can just download on us and we are

supposed to swallow it as the unquesttionable absolute truth? Is that the

process?

 

Please come down off your throne or retire to your royal chambers and let us

vulgar folk content to speculate among ourselves.

 

If the terms under scrutiny (eg, *duty*) are so central to our practice and

disccussion, then it would seem logically necessary to fully explicate them,

no?

 

frankly,

 

Srila das