Guest guest Posted April 21, 1999 Report Share Posted April 21, 1999 > I have simply asked a question in regards to Malati and what seems to be > her > > supposed sannyasa status. Ghosh's reply was a complete misinterpretation > > of a scriptural quote. > > Whew! Such a chastisement and I was actually agreeing with his point > women shouldn't take sannyasa! Can you imagine the treatment I can expect > if I ever disagree with him? (well, you haven't yet get his "blessings" to be exposed in public as "licking the dripping vagina", you are just the case of "complete misinterpretation of a scriptual quote") Funny, I was also agreeing with the same philosophoical/varnasrama point of his, but... The man simply jumped in with all his heavy guns ready to shoot on anything that moves... "Anybody here dares to disagree with me!*!@?". Then nobody disagreed, but few agreed... but then those few also happened to move infront of him by doing so... But luckily (and hopefully), he has gotten an important business to take care of now, somewhere else... .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 1999 Report Share Posted April 21, 1999 On 21 Apr 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: > > > > > > No, I'm not making them up. On WWW-COM, click on the top menu item termed > > Users and you will find the details there. > > I don't understand. In Wincom, under commands, there is a User option, > but none of it's suboptions seemed to work. Could you give more details? > > I don't use Wincom, so am not familiar with what options are available with that program. You need an internet connection to connect to WWW-COM thru a browser (like Navigator or Explorer), then you will see the options I am reffering to. For those that don't want to spend laxmi on an ISP: I highly recommend Netzero at http://www.netzero.com for a FREE internet account. Local dialup numbers are not available in all areas, however the areas are expanding rapidly. The only drawback is a small banner window (similar to and obnoxious as the Geocities pop-up windows) that I havn't figured out how to get rid of yet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 21, 1999 Report Share Posted April 21, 1999 "COM: Mahanidhi (das) HKS (Lund - S)" wrote: > [Text 2253708 from COM] > > > I have simply asked a question in regards to Malati and what seems to be > > her > > > supposed sannyasa status. Ghosh's reply was a complete misinterpretation > > > of a scriptural quote. > > > > Whew! Such a chastisement and I was actually agreeing with his point > > women shouldn't take sannyasa! Can you imagine the treatment I can expect > > if I ever disagree with him? > > (well, you haven't yet get his "blessings" to be exposed in > public as "licking the dripping vagina", you are just the case > of "complete misinterpretation of a scriptual quote") Please don't keep this mood alive by quoting this language. ys hkdd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 1999 Report Share Posted April 22, 1999 [sorry, this one slipped below my radar some time ago...] On 15 Apr 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote: > VSP wrote: > >What devotional service is enabled by changing one's gender, > >though? You'll have to do better than "Oh, it makes a person > >feel better," as marijuana and vodka can also do that, but are > >nevertheless unacceptable. > Hmmmm..... but there is this tiny problem with using those to feel better > "no intoxication" - remember? I for one do not remember promising anything > during initiation about keeping my genitals in their original (in this > life) shape. You also did not vow not to kill a cow or watch a porno film; however, those are straightforward extensions of "no meat-eating" and "no illicit sex" and would be equally condemned in society. Similarly, willfully changing one's physical genitalia can only stem from a meditation on or identification with the genitalia. That's not exactly the same as gross illicit sex, but is certainly sexual in nature (at least to the same extent that, say, watching a porno film would be, and possibly more so because of the extra effort involved.). Either way, it's not clear how such could be practiced by one initiated into spiritual life. (Even the "Jennifer" letter is not relevant here, since that was not to somebody who had taken spiritual vows. Further, it only said to decide one's gender, not to actually get it changed.) Yours, Vijay > Ys, > Madhusudani dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 22, 1999 Report Share Posted April 22, 1999 [sorry, this one slipped below my radar some time ago...] On 15 Apr 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote: > VSP wrote: > >What devotional service is enabled by changing one's gender, > >though? You'll have to do better than "Oh, it makes a person > >feel better," as marijuana and vodka can also do that, but are > >nevertheless unacceptable. > Hmmmm..... but there is this tiny problem with using those to feel better > "no intoxication" - remember? I for one do not remember promising anything > during initiation about keeping my genitals in their original (in this > life) shape. You also did not vow not to kill a cow or watch a porno film; however, those are straightforward extensions of "no meat-eating" and "no illicit sex" and would be equally condemned in society. Similarly, willfully changing one's physical genitalia can only stem from a meditation on or identification with the genitalia. That's not exactly the same as gross illicit sex, but is certainly sexual in nature (at least to the same extent that, say, watching a porno film would be, and possibly more so because of the extra effort involved.). Either way, it's not clear how such could be practiced by one initiated into spiritual life. (Even the "Jennifer" letter is not relevant here, since that was not to somebody who had taken spiritual vows. Further, it only said to decide one's gender, not to actually get it changed.) Yours, Vijay > Ys, > Madhusudani dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted April 27, 1999 Report Share Posted April 27, 1999 On 26 Apr 1999, Sraddha dd wrote: > Sorry prabhu, but you are wrong. Prisni has never been a man, she just had a man body, but no man caracteristics. I have been married to her for 13 years and I should know it better, isn't it. We never had a husband and wife relationship and it is for the first time that Prsni is peacefull and happy, since we discover what was the real problem. Before this change Prsni was always very much disturbed in different ways. Not everything is black and white, there is always also a gray in between. > Yes, there is plenty of in between. If Prsni now feels more settled in her spiritual pursuits, then I am sure everyone agrees that is a positive development. Sometimes our subtle conditioning isn't in tune with our gross material situation. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.