friendships

[Guest guest]

Sdd>>I still consider her my friend despite our philosophical

>>disagreements.

 

MRdd>Oh, I'm sorry, I couldn't tell. So let's see... According to your

definition:

 

>... a friend is someone who writes and complains to your guru about her

>speculative versions of your beliefs and behaviors and asks him to correct

>you.

 

Dear Madhusudani, who do you suggest we could have written to instead about

our particular concerns? You are no longer with your husband and you're not

yet married to Advaita Prabhu, who refuses to answer our e-mails anyways.

So I don't see how it was inappropriate for us to write your authority,

Jayapataka Maharaja.

 

You will have to elaborate on what "versions of your beliefs and behaviors"

were speculative if you expect me to consider this accusation. Also, if you

are opposed to a friend's going to her guru with concerns about what his

husband less disciple is saying or doing, why did you do so yourself with

someone you addressed as your "son". If you wrote to your "son"'s Guru

Maharaja out of motherly affection, what conflict do you see with what I

did and my being a friend?

 

>... a friend is someone who writes to your devotee co-workers and suggests

>that you are not appropriate for your service.

 

Yes, we did write to Vipramukhya Swami and Umapati Swami, the co-editors of

Chakra. Does this mean I became your enemy for doing this? I guess so,

since you told me afterwards to stay out of your life.

 

>... a friend is someone who conspires with others in a secret conference to

>collect dirt on you that can be used to discredit you.

 

With regards to this so-called dirt-collecting conspiracy, what things did

I say which could be used to discredit you?

 

>Wow! I can't wait to see how your "dictionary" defines an "enemy".

 

I guess there are some who consider me their enemy, but I'm not sure who

they all are.

 

With regards to the compilation of letters you sent us (see excerpts

below), maybe you can let me know if it was sent out of friendship for me

or motherly affection towards my husband?

 

Advaita Prabhu Dasa wrote, among other things that my husband's comments in

a Varnasrama conference discussion were "sexist, chauvinist, narrow-minded,

semi-literate expressions of one in the mode of darkness -- they are useful

in so far as they expose a fundamental issue that the Vaishnavis need to

address in order to advance their sociological suffrage."

 

Dhyanakunda Dasi wrote that my husband "has gotten too much under the influence

of the teachings of his sudrani wife... as we know, sudras are in the mode

of ignorance, and this is what the Gita says about knowledge in ignorance:

 

"And that knowledge by which one is attached to one kind of work as the

all in all, without knowledge of the truth, and which is very meager, is

said to be in the mode of darkness." (Bg 22)"

 

...."I think Jivan Mukta, in his heroism, comparable only to the gopis,' would

rather risk going to hell than admitting he and his wife are devotees..."

 

I don't know who wrote that my husband has a "misogynistic

agenda." or that what is at the root of his statements is "sexism and male

chauvinism. Not the thoughtfulness and spiritual vision of a brahmana. Nor

the wisdom, compassion and understanding of a Vaisnava."

 

I got the impression that you agreed with all these statements since you

didn't comment otherwise. You also lied to me about who two of the authors

were when I said I already knew. Was that also out of friendship?

 

Your friend and servant, Sita dd

[Guest guest]

Sita prabhu wrote:

 

>Dear Madhusudani, who do you suggest we could have written to instead about

>our particular concerns?

 

It's very simple really. I'm suggesting that you stop obsessing about my

life all together. You don't *have to* write to anyone. My guru maharaja

pretty much told you the same thing. This preoccupation with finding

faults with others is not healthy for anyone, least of all for you.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi