Sruti Kirti - Prabhupad - Remarriage-Polygamy

[Guest guest]

>Now, if I am not mistaken, you are known as someone who is making

>proposals to several gurukuli underaged girls to marry them all.

 

You do not know me and you do not know what I did or why. Not everything

you read on the Internet is 100% fact. Philosophically I will preach my

realizations on dharma and defend the principles of dharma - whether they

be the shastra's opposition to divorce and remarriage or to the promotion

of polygamy as one of the many shastricly authorized means of giving the

best protection ot the most women in society. But, I am have no longer the

time to deal with personal and often false and exagerated, twisted and bent

accusations that one mataji has broadcast about me world wide, who claims

in one com posting that she is proud to be called a feminist and who is

bent on seeing modern femisitic agenda equal rights issues established

formally in SP's ISKCON ashrams. To her, I am her worse enemy, so she has

carelessly and foolishy broadcaste many horrible and twisted things about

me. You want to believe her and hang me in a kangaroo court without even

hearing my side, what can I say, I do not care for your system of values

and judgements.

 

>You are already married, but you are insisting to practice polygamy.

 

I have and will defend the positive features of polygamy as it is related

to dharma and to the teachings of my guru maharaj, who from 1975 - 1977

(his later instuctions on the topic) many times promoted it favorably.

 

You seem to believe all of what this mother Prtha has said about me. She

will not debate with me philosophically. Her husband wrote and told me that

someone told her that I had asked to marry all the girls in Laksmimoni's

ashram. That was a totally false accusaton some ignorant person told her.

Then she broadcast this carelessly all over the ISKCON WWW and newsgroups

trying to defame me. Mahananda Prabhu, who knows both myself and is long

time friend of Mother Laksmimoni read what Prtha wrote and asked Laksmimoni

if it were true She told him the truth.- that I never made such a request,

that it was a riduclous and false accusation. 6 years ago I offered to the

mother of one girl who was having a hard time finding a husband for her

daughter, that I was thinking of accepting another wife and could give her

daughter protection. I never asked any other girls, rather, Laksmimoni one

told me that several of the other girls in her ashram had heard about my

offer and they were asking her and their parents to marry me as additional

wife. But, I did not ask the girls, and even after knowing of several of

the girls wanting to marry me, I did not persue it because of their young

ages and the reaction many devotees took over this. Even last year one girl

here, 18?, she kept looking at me and smiling, so I told her father to

please find some suitable young man for her. I did not ask to marry her.

Mother Prtha has tried to defame me all over COM, so she must be feeling

some ecsatcy in her brand of being KC, but, most of what she says, and the

mood she says it - about me - is offensive and should not be trusted by any

level headed devotee.

 

 

>So the point here is, what happen to the faith in guru and Krsna?

 

The real point is you do not know me. I have no problems with my personal

relationship with SP in these regards. And I know SP is not displeased with

me for what I have done. I always feel his protection and compassionate

smiling on my heart. That I can say honestly and without reservation.

 

There is no dichotomy in promoting polygamy as a means to protect women and

promoting that remarriage is bad for society and thus advise a young lady

who looses her husband to remain, if she can, life long widow. These are

the same things Guru-Sadhu-Shastra advise. Krsna married 16,108 wives.

16,000 of them were kidnapped, but never touched, and locked away in a

mountain cave. Krsna save them. But, they knew no other man would marry

them, having been kidnapped by a demon. So, they requested that Krsna

marry them all, and He did. But, of all the 16,108 wives of Krsna, not one

was previoujsly married to some other man. Neither were any of Arjun's

wives (except Draupadi, but that is special case - she was never a widow

who remarried). No where in shastra is it recommended that men seek out

and marry widows, of any age. But, polygamy, marriage to a virgin girl who

is in need of protection, that is dharma. Once she is married, that is it.

You have not heard this part of the philosophy, or you simply do not

understand Dharma or choose not to accept it?

 

>Two different approaches seam to be in practice by you:

>

>1. When a young girl stays husband-less and childless and wishes to

>get a husband and children, then the response is: "It is just fine

>to stay unmarried, Guru and Krsna gives you all protection". Guru and

>Krsna.

 

I repeated a story that was told by Sruti Kirti as what SP taught. Why put

my name on it? Why refute what I said, why not argue with what SP said?

Why not argue with Dharma-Shastra? A woman who has already married, if for

any reason she looses husband, yes, she should not remarry. Do you read

SP's books and teachings? You are not familiar with this law of dharma?

That is the most proper thing. If she does remarry, that is less then

ideal. That is simple understanding of dharma.

 

Anyway, if someone wants a philosophic discussion based on

guru-sadhu-shastra I will appreciate a level-headed debate based on SP's

teachings, but so many dark off-color, twisted accusations against me

personally I can see will benefit no one.

 

 

ys ameyatma das

[Guest guest]

>Now, if I am not mistaken, you are known as someone who is making

>proposals to several gurukuli underaged girls to marry them all.

 

You do not know me and you do not know what I did or why. Not everything

you read on the Internet is 100% fact. Philosophically I will preach my

realizations on dharma and defend the principles of dharma - whether they

be the shastra's opposition to divorce and remarriage or to the promotion

of polygamy as one of the many shastricly authorized means of giving the

best protection ot the most women in society. But, I am have no longer the

time to deal with personal and often false and exagerated, twisted and bent

accusations that one mataji has broadcast about me world wide, who claims

in one com posting that she is proud to be called a feminist and who is

bent on seeing modern femisitic agenda equal rights issues established

formally in SP's ISKCON ashrams. To her, I am her worse enemy, so she has

carelessly and foolishy broadcaste many horrible and twisted things about

me. You want to believe her and hang me in a kangaroo court without even

hearing my side, what can I say, I do not care for your system of values

and judgements.

 

>You are already married, but you are insisting to practice polygamy.

 

I have and will defend the positive features of polygamy as it is related

to dharma and to the teachings of my guru maharaj, who from 1975 - 1977

(his later instuctions on the topic) many times promoted it favorably.

 

You seem to believe all of what this mother Prtha has said about me. She

will not debate with me philosophically. Her husband wrote and told me that

someone told her that I had asked to marry all the girls in Laksmimoni's

ashram. That was a totally false accusaton some ignorant person told her.

Then she broadcast this carelessly all over the ISKCON WWW and newsgroups

trying to defame me. Mahananda Prabhu, who knows both myself and is long

time friend of Mother Laksmimoni read what Prtha wrote and asked Laksmimoni

if it were true She told him the truth.- that I never made such a request,

that it was a riduclous and false accusation. 6 years ago I offered to the

mother of one girl who was having a hard time finding a husband for her

daughter, that I was thinking of accepting another wife and could give her

daughter protection. I never asked any other girls, rather, Laksmimoni one

told me that several of the other girls in her ashram had heard about my

offer and they were asking her and their parents to marry me as additional

wife. But, I did not ask the girls, and even after knowing of several of

the girls wanting to marry me, I did not persue it because of their young

ages and the reaction many devotees took over this. Even last year one girl

here, 18?, she kept looking at me and smiling, so I told her father to

please find some suitable young man for her. I did not ask to marry her.

Mother Prtha has tried to defame me all over COM, so she must be feeling

some ecsatcy in her brand of being KC, but, most of what she says, and the

mood she says it - about me - is offensive and should not be trusted by any

level headed devotee.

 

 

>So the point here is, what happen to the faith in guru and Krsna?

 

The real point is you do not know me. I have no problems with my personal

relationship with SP in these regards. And I know SP is not displeased with

me for what I have done. I always feel his protection and compassionate

smiling on my heart. That I can say honestly and without reservation.

 

There is no dichotomy in promoting polygamy as a means to protect women and

promoting that remarriage is bad for society and thus advise a young lady

who looses her husband to remain, if she can, life long widow. These are

the same things Guru-Sadhu-Shastra advise. Krsna married 16,108 wives.

16,000 of them were kidnapped, but never touched, and locked away in a

mountain cave. Krsna save them. But, they knew no other man would marry

them, having been kidnapped by a demon. So, they requested that Krsna

marry them all, and He did. But, of all the 16,108 wives of Krsna, not one

was previoujsly married to some other man. Neither were any of Arjun's

wives (except Draupadi, but that is special case - she was never a widow

who remarried). No where in shastra is it recommended that men seek out

and marry widows, of any age. But, polygamy, marriage to a virgin girl who

is in need of protection, that is dharma. Once she is married, that is it.

You have not heard this part of the philosophy, or you simply do not

understand Dharma or choose not to accept it?

 

>Two different approaches seam to be in practice by you:

>

>1. When a young girl stays husband-less and childless and wishes to

>get a husband and children, then the response is: "It is just fine

>to stay unmarried, Guru and Krsna gives you all protection". Guru and

>Krsna.

 

I repeated a story that was told by Sruti Kirti as what SP taught. Why put

my name on it? Why refute what I said, why not argue with what SP said?

Why not argue with Dharma-Shastra? A woman who has already married, if for

any reason she looses husband, yes, she should not remarry. Do you read

SP's books and teachings? You are not familiar with this law of dharma?

That is the most proper thing. If she does remarry, that is less then

ideal. That is simple understanding of dharma.

 

Anyway, if someone wants a philosophic discussion based on

guru-sadhu-shastra I will appreciate a level-headed debate based on SP's

teachings, but so many dark off-color, twisted accusations against me

personally I can see will benefit no one.

 

 

ys ameyatma das

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/15/99 10:01:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

ameyatma (AT) iname (DOT) com writes:

 

<< Even last year one girl

here, 18?, she kept looking at me and smiling, so I told her father to

please find some suitable young man for her. >>

 

Oh please, are we still seeing every friendly childish glance as some lusty

desire? After so many years have we not matured past this point? Maybe she

actually feels sorry for you, and is glancing with compassion.

 

Srila Prabhupada had more than one opportunity to approve of polygamous

arrangements and he did not. That fact alone should be enough to put an end

to this seemingly perpetual male fantasy. Unless you were less than ten years

old when you got intitiated, your Dharma should be heading into the sunset

about now, not lining up second wives. I don't know that Srila Prabhupada

would encourage you for a minute in this mental rumination.

Kanti dd

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 7/15/99 10:01:24 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

ameyatma (AT) iname (DOT) com writes:

 

<< Even last year one girl

here, 18?, she kept looking at me and smiling, so I told her father to

please find some suitable young man for her. >>

 

Oh please, are we still seeing every friendly childish glance as some lusty

desire? After so many years have we not matured past this point? Maybe she

actually feels sorry for you, and is glancing with compassion.

 

Srila Prabhupada had more than one opportunity to approve of polygamous

arrangements and he did not. That fact alone should be enough to put an end

to this seemingly perpetual male fantasy. Unless you were less than ten years

old when you got intitiated, your Dharma should be heading into the sunset

about now, not lining up second wives. I don't know that Srila Prabhupada

would encourage you for a minute in this mental rumination.

Kanti dd

[Guest guest]

On 15 Jul 1999, ameyatma ACBSP wrote:

 

>

> You do not know me and you do not know what I did or why. Not everything

you read on the Internet is 100% fact. Philosophically I will preach my

realizations on dharma and defend the principles of dharma - whether they be

the shastra's opposition to divorce and remarriage or to the promotion of

polygamy as one of the many shastricly authorized means of giving the best

protection ot the most women in society.

>

 

 

Seems kinda curious that we need to constantly meditate on the women -- as in

how dharmic they seem to be acting in our minds and all.

 

I guess us 'Protectors of the Vedic Way' could also meditate on the adharmic

men, but that could get kinda gross.

 

 

> Even last year one girl

> here, 18?, she kept looking at me and smiling, so I told her father to

> please find some suitable young man for her.

 

 

Now that seems like a fired up dharmic preaching program. Whenever I see a

teenager girl smiling, I'll be sure to ask her father to get her married. What

would the world ever come to without people like me giving giving advice like

that?

 

 

>

> The real point is you do not know me.

>

 

 

Is this thread about you and the various teenage girls who may or may not have

smiled at you. Or is this thread about the practical application of dharma.

 

 

>

> There is no dichotomy in promoting polygamy as a means to protect women and

promoting that remarriage is bad for society and thus advise a young lady who

looses her husband to remain, if she can, life long widow.

>

 

 

Now here's a beaut -- what we almost seem to have are a bunch of guys

preoccupied if it's okay to shoot someone caught looking at their wife, and

then in the same breath advocating we should give them the opportunity to

marry more women (all at the same time) and thus then be able brandish their

Colt 45s at more of us poor men. Someone, please protect us!

 

It's like the Wild Wild West all over again!

 

 

>

> Anyway, if someone wants a philosophic discussion based on

> guru-sadhu-shastra I will appreciate a level-headed debate based on SP's

teachings, but so many dark off-color, twisted accusations against me

personally I can see will benefit no one.

>

 

 

Then let's talk philosophy and thus avoid sounding as if we are obsessed by

what other people may or may not be thinking about our personal lives. I mean,

I never realized you where such a colorful personality until you broadcast all

the details! Who said Vedic culture was dull?

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

On 15 Jul 1999, ameyatma ACBSP wrote:

 

>

> You do not know me and you do not know what I did or why. Not everything

you read on the Internet is 100% fact. Philosophically I will preach my

realizations on dharma and defend the principles of dharma - whether they be

the shastra's opposition to divorce and remarriage or to the promotion of

polygamy as one of the many shastricly authorized means of giving the best

protection ot the most women in society.

>

 

 

Seems kinda curious that we need to constantly meditate on the women -- as in

how dharmic they seem to be acting in our minds and all.

 

I guess us 'Protectors of the Vedic Way' could also meditate on the adharmic

men, but that could get kinda gross.

 

 

> Even last year one girl

> here, 18?, she kept looking at me and smiling, so I told her father to

> please find some suitable young man for her.

 

 

Now that seems like a fired up dharmic preaching program. Whenever I see a

teenager girl smiling, I'll be sure to ask her father to get her married. What

would the world ever come to without people like me giving giving advice like

that?

 

 

>

> The real point is you do not know me.

>

 

 

Is this thread about you and the various teenage girls who may or may not have

smiled at you. Or is this thread about the practical application of dharma.

 

 

>

> There is no dichotomy in promoting polygamy as a means to protect women and

promoting that remarriage is bad for society and thus advise a young lady who

looses her husband to remain, if she can, life long widow.

>

 

 

Now here's a beaut -- what we almost seem to have are a bunch of guys

preoccupied if it's okay to shoot someone caught looking at their wife, and

then in the same breath advocating we should give them the opportunity to

marry more women (all at the same time) and thus then be able brandish their

Colt 45s at more of us poor men. Someone, please protect us!

 

It's like the Wild Wild West all over again!

 

 

>

> Anyway, if someone wants a philosophic discussion based on

> guru-sadhu-shastra I will appreciate a level-headed debate based on SP's

teachings, but so many dark off-color, twisted accusations against me

personally I can see will benefit no one.

>

 

 

Then let's talk philosophy and thus avoid sounding as if we are obsessed by

what other people may or may not be thinking about our personal lives. I mean,

I never realized you where such a colorful personality until you broadcast all

the details! Who said Vedic culture was dull?

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

>Now here's a beaut -- what we almost seem to have are a bunch of guys

>preoccupied if it's okay to shoot someone caught looking at their wife, and

>then in the same breath advocating we should give them the opportunity to

>marry more women (all at the same time) and thus then be able brandish their

>Colt 45s at more of us poor men. Someone, please protect us!

 

Get a real life. No one said anything like what you are saying. Either

you are listening to your mind which is bent on some strange angle, or you

simply like to find fault with others. Look back at the thread, I simply

posted a story about dharma, and I was immediately attacked personally,

with false accusations made against me. I responded to that. But, I would

prefer to stick to an intellectual and philosophic discussion based on SP's

teachings. No one advocated shooting anyone for any reason. I simply

stated that is what happened in 73 in New Dwaraka. A philosophic question

was made, but I have not seen anyone advocate that this was the proper way

to handle the situation. Why do you insist on twisting others sane

comments and discussions into something that it is so bizzare and insane?

>

>It's like the Wild Wild West all over again!

 

>Then let's talk philosophy and thus avoid sounding as if we are obsessed by

>what other people may or may not be thinking about our personal lives.

 

 

 

ys ameyatma das

[Guest guest]

>Now here's a beaut -- what we almost seem to have are a bunch of guys

>preoccupied if it's okay to shoot someone caught looking at their wife, and

>then in the same breath advocating we should give them the opportunity to

>marry more women (all at the same time) and thus then be able brandish their

>Colt 45s at more of us poor men. Someone, please protect us!

 

Get a real life. No one said anything like what you are saying. Either

you are listening to your mind which is bent on some strange angle, or you

simply like to find fault with others. Look back at the thread, I simply

posted a story about dharma, and I was immediately attacked personally,

with false accusations made against me. I responded to that. But, I would

prefer to stick to an intellectual and philosophic discussion based on SP's

teachings. No one advocated shooting anyone for any reason. I simply

stated that is what happened in 73 in New Dwaraka. A philosophic question

was made, but I have not seen anyone advocate that this was the proper way

to handle the situation. Why do you insist on twisting others sane

comments and discussions into something that it is so bizzare and insane?

>

>It's like the Wild Wild West all over again!

 

>Then let's talk philosophy and thus avoid sounding as if we are obsessed by

>what other people may or may not be thinking about our personal lives.

 

 

 

ys ameyatma das

[Guest guest]

On 16 Jul 1999, ameyatma ACBSP wrote:

 

> But, I would

> prefer to stick to an intellectual and philosophic discussion based on SP's

teachings.

>

 

 

Please do. Hopefully now that we are all blissfully aware of how you feel when

you see a teenage girl smiling during kirtan we can actually discuss something

tangeable.

 

 

> Why do you insist on twisting others sane

> comments and discussions into something that it is so bizzare and insane?

>

 

 

The philosophy is sane, I agree. But I have some doubts about some of our

attempts to practically apply it, I must admit.

 

ys,

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

On 16 Jul 1999, ameyatma ACBSP wrote:

 

> But, I would

> prefer to stick to an intellectual and philosophic discussion based on SP's

teachings.

>

 

 

Please do. Hopefully now that we are all blissfully aware of how you feel when

you see a teenage girl smiling during kirtan we can actually discuss something

tangeable.

 

 

> Why do you insist on twisting others sane

> comments and discussions into something that it is so bizzare and insane?

>

 

 

The philosophy is sane, I agree. But I have some doubts about some of our

attempts to practically apply it, I must admit.

 

ys,

 

Sthita

[Guest guest]

>

> The philosophy is sane, I agree. But I have some doubts about some of our

> attempts to practically apply it, I must admit.

 

So, specifically, what are your doubts about the philosophy?

[Guest guest]

>

> The philosophy is sane, I agree. But I have some doubts about some of our

> attempts to practically apply it, I must admit.

 

So, specifically, what are your doubts about the philosophy?

[Guest guest]

Ameyatma prabhu wrote:

 

> You do not know me and you do not know what I did or why. Not everything

> you read on the Internet is 100% fact. Philosophically I will preach my

> realizations on dharma and defend the principles of dharma - whether they

> be the shastra's opposition to divorce and remarriage or to the promotion

> of polygamy as one of the many shastricly authorized means of giving the

> best protection ot the most women in society.

 

This is true that I don't know you. I also do not take all I

read on Internet as 100% fact, for sure (well, maybe 99% or 1%,

depending on occasion to occasion). Neither what you do, or what

you did, would be much of interest for me to go hearing.

 

However, when somebody advertises himself in the public as a

carrier of a torch light for the rest of the folk, wanting

to prove to the public his faith in Krsna, then you got to

count on that the public might become interested in wanting to

know the profile of their light-carrier.

 

As more as you go preaching to the world your "realization of

Dharma", that more the world will be checking your preferances

in practicing the same Dharma.

 

 

>

> >You are already married, but you are insisting to practice polygamy.

>

> I have and will defend the positive features of polygamy as it is related

> to dharma and to the teachings of my guru maharaj, who from 1975 - 1977

> (his later instuctions on the topic) many times promoted it favorably.

>

 

How about some negative features of polygamy, as pointed by the

same Srila Prabhupada, like the polygamy as being the suitable

excuse for one's lust only? I suppose you would not mind someone

preach against polygamy from that angle of view, as Prabhupada

promoted as many times as positive sides, perhaps.

 

 

Anyway, I certainly will not object preaching you the polygamy.

As far as I am concerned, I am more interested to hear the

preaching where the advocation of less sex, less young women,

less entanglement in the material affairs and less hard

work to maintain the whole "shop" is that more conductive

to one's spiritual life. THAT more the person is hitting his

fifties (like you and me).

 

The main objection to ISCKON polygamists is that they are

eventually targeting young underage girls, and not the

grown-up women that might *really* be in desperate situation

to get a husband. But a woman that is in such bad situation,

no polygamy will care to look upon. Let her depend on

the protection of Guru and Krsna, and they (polygamists)

will be rather saving young virgins that many others might be

interested in.

(Anyway, it's all old good story from old good material

world)

 

 

 

> I never asked any

> other girls, rather, Laksmimoni one told me that several of the other

> girls in her ashram had heard about my offer and they were asking her and

> their parents to marry me as additional wife. But, I did not ask the

> girls, and even after knowing of several of the girls wanting to marry me,

> I did not persue it because of their young ages and the reaction many

> devotees took over this.

 

I appreciate your taking the distance from the interest to marry

underage school girls. Yeap, you could be a grandpa' to them.

Apparently, the social pressure did play here the some role as

well.

 

 

> Even last year one girl here, 18?, she kept

> looking at me and smiling, so I told her father to please find some

> suitable young man for her. I did not ask to marry her. Mother Prtha has

> tried to defame me all over COM, so she must be feeling some ecsatcy in

> her brand of being KC, but, most of what she says, and the mood she says

> it - about me - is offensive and should not be trusted by any level headed

> devotee.

>

 

I can understand this, prabhu. This is the material world and

more of messing around with women will simply lead only to one

sure result -- more entanglement with women. Have you also gotten

some realizations about this? Looks like.

 

 

>

> >So the point here is, what happen to the faith in guru and Krsna?

>

> The real point is you do not know me. I have no problems with my personal

> relationship with SP in these regards. And I know SP is not displeased

> with me for what I have done. I always feel his protection and

> compassionate smiling on my heart. That I can say honestly and without

> reservation.

>

 

This was not meant to be the investigation into your personal

relationship with your Spiritual Master and Krsna. Sorry for

misunderstanding.

 

 

> There is no dichotomy in promoting polygamy as a means to protect women

> and promoting that remarriage is bad for society and thus advise a young

> lady who looses her husband to remain, if she can, life long widow.

 

In principle, I do not object the polygamy in itself as the mean

of regulating the situation of woman "overflow" in the society.

It is the part of varnasrama-dharma society. However, it is something

else that catches the attention:

 

- The polygamist of ISCKON do not have clue over wether there

is indeed "overflow" of women in this world that got no other

mean to get married.

 

- They did not first try to get exercise other ways of protection

to women, but they go straight for polygamy

 

- The establishment of other aspects of varnasrama system that are

of more priority than polygamy are pushed back. For example,

there is no even the proper division of "varna" being made, but

some are into polygamy already.

 

- The polygamists are interested primarily into very young and

innocent girls that have had no chance to even try to find

a suitable young husband for themselves, but they get to be

"snatched" quickly by an old polygamist. In other words, NONE

polygamist is really interested in the woman that stayed alone

and unwanted by anybody, and hence in REAL need to get married.

 

 

(If you would voluntary for such unwanted unmarried ladies,

I would say "Wow! Here is a real hero that cares for the

prosperity of the society and the protection of women".)

 

You have just the right to be convincing the public how

your interest in getting more women for yourself is for

the sake of rendering the service to the society. Of course,

the public has just right not to buy it, if it get to attention

that you become very *selective* in which particular women

you are interested to protect only. Not ugly, but beautiful.

Not older but very young. Not those in obvious need for

protection, but those in not obvious need for such. And so

on.

 

 

 

 

> These

> are the same things Guru-Sadhu-Shastra advise. Krsna married 16,108

> wives. 16,000 of them were kidnapped, but never touched, and locked away

> in a mountain cave. Krsna save them. But, they knew no other man would

> marry them, having been kidnapped by a demon. So, they requested that

> Krsna marry them all, and He did. But, of all the 16,108 wives of Krsna,

> not one was previoujsly married to some other man. Neither were any of

> Arjun's wives (except Draupadi, but that is special case - she was never a

> widow who remarried).

 

Prabhu, I think we know that polygamy exists. And also that Krsna

is the Supreme "Polygamist".

 

See, Krsna married them all because both He and ladies "knew

no other man would marry them". Well, just tell me now how do you

and those young virgins know that the some is going on in your

case?? I other words, why you would want to pretend Krsna's lila?

Well, just do the thing, but let's be honest that it is not

because, see, none else would take them otherwise.

 

This is where we come as soon as you propagate yourself for

a torch-carrier of Dharma, illuminating the ignorant folk

here around.

 

 

> No where in shastra is it recommended that men seek

> out and marry widows, of any age. But, polygamy, marriage to a virgin

> girl who is in need of protection, that is dharma. Once she is married,

> that is it. You have not heard this part of the philosophy, or you simply

> do not understand Dharma or choose not to accept it?

>

 

Yes, I heard that part of "philosophy", about virginity and

taking the virginity away. But why you call it *philosophy*

and *dharma*?? Are you being really serious here?

 

It is going for a simple psychology (as Srila Prabhupada himself

was explaining it somewhere, if I am not mistaken). It is that

if you are the first man in girl's life, i.e. you are the one

to take her virginity away, then she will most probably stay

faithful to you and not look later on for somebody else. You

are her hero, so to say. Every woman never forgets her first love,

the one who "made" a girl into a woman, one who took her virginity

away.

It must be that I don't understand this "Dharma" and "sastric

philosophy". Tell me all about it.

 

 

You know, my mother taught me already this same "Dharma" and

the "philosophy". She instructed me long time ago:

 

"My dear son, who first to a girl, the girl is his. So get

your lazy ass in action."

(sorry for the language, but that was my mom. not so flowery like

our mom Vedas.)

 

 

 

> I repeated a story that was told by Sruti Kirti as what SP taught. Why put

> my name on it? Why refute what I said, why not argue with what SP said?

> Why not argue with Dharma-Shastra?

 

Well, it was you who interpreted it. Srila Prabhupada did not

object remarriage in that story. You do. You blew another

kind of wind from it: "See the shameless nonsenses of today,

they are not so transcendental like the ladies from all good

time of Prabhupada."

 

 

> A woman who has already married, if

> for any reason she looses husband, yes, she should not remarry. Do you

> read SP's books and teachings? You are not familiar with this law of

> dharma? That is the most proper thing. If she does remarry, that is less

> then ideal. That is simple understanding of dharma.

 

Now, I agree with you here. The simple understanding of dharma is,

in your words, yes: "if she does remarry, that is less then ideal".

 

BUT. BUT. You seam to be not tolerating that someone lady might

settle herself for something **less then ideal**. I have all my

doubts that you yourself are an ideal vedic man. This is a simple

point that many have being making to those insisting in ideal

on others (women, particularly) before they themselves are

even close to the ideal Vedic men.

 

Thus we see the difference in between Srila Prabhupada's approach

and the approach of his imitators. Srila Prabhupada would advice

and encourage the person to strive for ideal. If they can't,

out of whatever reason, he would not object nor condemn. He

did not beat people's head with "Dharma".

 

But you are condemning. You seam to be almost making your life

mission to force everybody else (women, in particular) to be

the Vedic ideals. You claim to be the carrier of the "torch".

(Torches are known not only for giving ligh, but with them one

can burn around also)

 

 

> Anyway, if someone wants a philosophic discussion based on

> guru-sadhu-shastra I will appreciate a level-headed debate based on SP's

> teachings, but so many dark off-color, twisted accusations against me

> personally I can see will benefit no one.

>

>

 

So long the "accusations" are presented in front of you, take

the chance to clear them. Don't get upset.

 

 

Personally, I don't see this issue as even need of "guru-sadhu-

sastra" discussion. As a grown up, you can decide wether you

want to go for no wife, or one wife or fifty wives. Your

choice. Just expect that more wives you are heading for, that

less easy for you the social life is going to turn. And, yes,

expect that others will be keen in watching you wether you

are going to get some underage girl. Expect the troubles in any

case.

 

As far as remarriage of young ladies. Again, what discussion

on "guru-sadhu-shastra" is needed really? We all know the ideals,

we all know what's the next to ideals, and so on. So, like

in this story that you presented to us: the ideal is to depend

fully on the protection of Guru and Krsna and not on "fallible

soldiers".

 

 

- mnd

 

PS.

 

BTW. What happened to that young lady? Is she still walking

in white, being transcendental to the need for a husband's

protection? You highlighted her as the example of realized

person that even *then* knew what's right and what's wrong.

How's going with her *now*? Must be even more realized and

advanced, no?

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

Ameyatma prabhu wrote:

 

> You do not know me and you do not know what I did or why. Not everything

> you read on the Internet is 100% fact. Philosophically I will preach my

> realizations on dharma and defend the principles of dharma - whether they

> be the shastra's opposition to divorce and remarriage or to the promotion

> of polygamy as one of the many shastricly authorized means of giving the

> best protection ot the most women in society.

 

This is true that I don't know you. I also do not take all I

read on Internet as 100% fact, for sure (well, maybe 99% or 1%,

depending on occasion to occasion). Neither what you do, or what

you did, would be much of interest for me to go hearing.

 

However, when somebody advertises himself in the public as a

carrier of a torch light for the rest of the folk, wanting

to prove to the public his faith in Krsna, then you got to

count on that the public might become interested in wanting to

know the profile of their light-carrier.

 

As more as you go preaching to the world your "realization of

Dharma", that more the world will be checking your preferances

in practicing the same Dharma.

 

 

>

> >You are already married, but you are insisting to practice polygamy.

>

> I have and will defend the positive features of polygamy as it is related

> to dharma and to the teachings of my guru maharaj, who from 1975 - 1977

> (his later instuctions on the topic) many times promoted it favorably.

>

 

How about some negative features of polygamy, as pointed by the

same Srila Prabhupada, like the polygamy as being the suitable

excuse for one's lust only? I suppose you would not mind someone

preach against polygamy from that angle of view, as Prabhupada

promoted as many times as positive sides, perhaps.

 

 

Anyway, I certainly will not object preaching you the polygamy.

As far as I am concerned, I am more interested to hear the

preaching where the advocation of less sex, less young women,

less entanglement in the material affairs and less hard

work to maintain the whole "shop" is that more conductive

to one's spiritual life. THAT more the person is hitting his

fifties (like you and me).

 

The main objection to ISCKON polygamists is that they are

eventually targeting young underage girls, and not the

grown-up women that might *really* be in desperate situation

to get a husband. But a woman that is in such bad situation,

no polygamy will care to look upon. Let her depend on

the protection of Guru and Krsna, and they (polygamists)

will be rather saving young virgins that many others might be

interested in.

(Anyway, it's all old good story from old good material

world)

 

 

 

> I never asked any

> other girls, rather, Laksmimoni one told me that several of the other

> girls in her ashram had heard about my offer and they were asking her and

> their parents to marry me as additional wife. But, I did not ask the

> girls, and even after knowing of several of the girls wanting to marry me,

> I did not persue it because of their young ages and the reaction many

> devotees took over this.

 

I appreciate your taking the distance from the interest to marry

underage school girls. Yeap, you could be a grandpa' to them.

Apparently, the social pressure did play here the some role as

well.

 

 

> Even last year one girl here, 18?, she kept

> looking at me and smiling, so I told her father to please find some

> suitable young man for her. I did not ask to marry her. Mother Prtha has

> tried to defame me all over COM, so she must be feeling some ecsatcy in

> her brand of being KC, but, most of what she says, and the mood she says

> it - about me - is offensive and should not be trusted by any level headed

> devotee.

>

 

I can understand this, prabhu. This is the material world and

more of messing around with women will simply lead only to one

sure result -- more entanglement with women. Have you also gotten

some realizations about this? Looks like.

 

 

>

> >So the point here is, what happen to the faith in guru and Krsna?

>

> The real point is you do not know me. I have no problems with my personal

> relationship with SP in these regards. And I know SP is not displeased

> with me for what I have done. I always feel his protection and

> compassionate smiling on my heart. That I can say honestly and without

> reservation.

>

 

This was not meant to be the investigation into your personal

relationship with your Spiritual Master and Krsna. Sorry for

misunderstanding.

 

 

> There is no dichotomy in promoting polygamy as a means to protect women

> and promoting that remarriage is bad for society and thus advise a young

> lady who looses her husband to remain, if she can, life long widow.

 

In principle, I do not object the polygamy in itself as the mean

of regulating the situation of woman "overflow" in the society.

It is the part of varnasrama-dharma society. However, it is something

else that catches the attention:

 

- The polygamist of ISCKON do not have clue over wether there

is indeed "overflow" of women in this world that got no other

mean to get married.

 

- They did not first try to get exercise other ways of protection

to women, but they go straight for polygamy

 

- The establishment of other aspects of varnasrama system that are

of more priority than polygamy are pushed back. For example,

there is no even the proper division of "varna" being made, but

some are into polygamy already.

 

- The polygamists are interested primarily into very young and

innocent girls that have had no chance to even try to find

a suitable young husband for themselves, but they get to be

"snatched" quickly by an old polygamist. In other words, NONE

polygamist is really interested in the woman that stayed alone

and unwanted by anybody, and hence in REAL need to get married.

 

 

(If you would voluntary for such unwanted unmarried ladies,

I would say "Wow! Here is a real hero that cares for the

prosperity of the society and the protection of women".)

 

You have just the right to be convincing the public how

your interest in getting more women for yourself is for

the sake of rendering the service to the society. Of course,

the public has just right not to buy it, if it get to attention

that you become very *selective* in which particular women

you are interested to protect only. Not ugly, but beautiful.

Not older but very young. Not those in obvious need for

protection, but those in not obvious need for such. And so

on.

 

 

 

 

> These

> are the same things Guru-Sadhu-Shastra advise. Krsna married 16,108

> wives. 16,000 of them were kidnapped, but never touched, and locked away

> in a mountain cave. Krsna save them. But, they knew no other man would

> marry them, having been kidnapped by a demon. So, they requested that

> Krsna marry them all, and He did. But, of all the 16,108 wives of Krsna,

> not one was previoujsly married to some other man. Neither were any of

> Arjun's wives (except Draupadi, but that is special case - she was never a

> widow who remarried).

 

Prabhu, I think we know that polygamy exists. And also that Krsna

is the Supreme "Polygamist".

 

See, Krsna married them all because both He and ladies "knew

no other man would marry them". Well, just tell me now how do you

and those young virgins know that the some is going on in your

case?? I other words, why you would want to pretend Krsna's lila?

Well, just do the thing, but let's be honest that it is not

because, see, none else would take them otherwise.

 

This is where we come as soon as you propagate yourself for

a torch-carrier of Dharma, illuminating the ignorant folk

here around.

 

 

> No where in shastra is it recommended that men seek

> out and marry widows, of any age. But, polygamy, marriage to a virgin

> girl who is in need of protection, that is dharma. Once she is married,

> that is it. You have not heard this part of the philosophy, or you simply

> do not understand Dharma or choose not to accept it?

>

 

Yes, I heard that part of "philosophy", about virginity and

taking the virginity away. But why you call it *philosophy*

and *dharma*?? Are you being really serious here?

 

It is going for a simple psychology (as Srila Prabhupada himself

was explaining it somewhere, if I am not mistaken). It is that

if you are the first man in girl's life, i.e. you are the one

to take her virginity away, then she will most probably stay

faithful to you and not look later on for somebody else. You

are her hero, so to say. Every woman never forgets her first love,

the one who "made" a girl into a woman, one who took her virginity

away.

It must be that I don't understand this "Dharma" and "sastric

philosophy". Tell me all about it.

 

 

You know, my mother taught me already this same "Dharma" and

the "philosophy". She instructed me long time ago:

 

"My dear son, who first to a girl, the girl is his. So get

your lazy ass in action."

(sorry for the language, but that was my mom. not so flowery like

our mom Vedas.)

 

 

 

> I repeated a story that was told by Sruti Kirti as what SP taught. Why put

> my name on it? Why refute what I said, why not argue with what SP said?

> Why not argue with Dharma-Shastra?

 

Well, it was you who interpreted it. Srila Prabhupada did not

object remarriage in that story. You do. You blew another

kind of wind from it: "See the shameless nonsenses of today,

they are not so transcendental like the ladies from all good

time of Prabhupada."

 

 

> A woman who has already married, if

> for any reason she looses husband, yes, she should not remarry. Do you

> read SP's books and teachings? You are not familiar with this law of

> dharma? That is the most proper thing. If she does remarry, that is less

> then ideal. That is simple understanding of dharma.

 

Now, I agree with you here. The simple understanding of dharma is,

in your words, yes: "if she does remarry, that is less then ideal".

 

BUT. BUT. You seam to be not tolerating that someone lady might

settle herself for something **less then ideal**. I have all my

doubts that you yourself are an ideal vedic man. This is a simple

point that many have being making to those insisting in ideal

on others (women, particularly) before they themselves are

even close to the ideal Vedic men.

 

Thus we see the difference in between Srila Prabhupada's approach

and the approach of his imitators. Srila Prabhupada would advice

and encourage the person to strive for ideal. If they can't,

out of whatever reason, he would not object nor condemn. He

did not beat people's head with "Dharma".

 

But you are condemning. You seam to be almost making your life

mission to force everybody else (women, in particular) to be

the Vedic ideals. You claim to be the carrier of the "torch".

(Torches are known not only for giving ligh, but with them one

can burn around also)

 

 

> Anyway, if someone wants a philosophic discussion based on

> guru-sadhu-shastra I will appreciate a level-headed debate based on SP's

> teachings, but so many dark off-color, twisted accusations against me

> personally I can see will benefit no one.

>

>

 

So long the "accusations" are presented in front of you, take

the chance to clear them. Don't get upset.

 

 

Personally, I don't see this issue as even need of "guru-sadhu-

sastra" discussion. As a grown up, you can decide wether you

want to go for no wife, or one wife or fifty wives. Your

choice. Just expect that more wives you are heading for, that

less easy for you the social life is going to turn. And, yes,

expect that others will be keen in watching you wether you

are going to get some underage girl. Expect the troubles in any

case.

 

As far as remarriage of young ladies. Again, what discussion

on "guru-sadhu-shastra" is needed really? We all know the ideals,

we all know what's the next to ideals, and so on. So, like

in this story that you presented to us: the ideal is to depend

fully on the protection of Guru and Krsna and not on "fallible

soldiers".

 

 

- mnd

 

PS.

 

BTW. What happened to that young lady? Is she still walking

in white, being transcendental to the need for a husband's

protection? You highlighted her as the example of realized

person that even *then* knew what's right and what's wrong.

How's going with her *now*? Must be even more realized and

advanced, no?

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

> Look back at the thread, I simply

> posted a story about dharma, and I was immediately attacked personally,

> with false accusations made against me. I responded to that. But, I

> would prefer to stick to an intellectual and philosophic discussion based

> on SP's teachings. No one advocated shooting anyone for any reason. I

> simply stated that is what happened in 73 in New Dwaraka.

 

I don´t agree with you in your interpretation of Sruti Kirti´s story. I find

fundamentalistic your view, but, as an external observer, my feeling is that

you have answered with sobriety, humility and patience a nasty text

(Mahanidhi´s comment on you initial posting) wich was unnecessarily a

personal attack, revealing things —true or false— of your private life which

I don´t think anyone need to know. Your reaction of tolerance in front of

that disgusting attack speaks better than thousands of COM texts on your

devotional quality. Thanks for the lesson.

Sincerely

Bhagavata-Purana Dasa

[Guest guest]

> Look back at the thread, I simply

> posted a story about dharma, and I was immediately attacked personally,

> with false accusations made against me. I responded to that. But, I

> would prefer to stick to an intellectual and philosophic discussion based

> on SP's teachings. No one advocated shooting anyone for any reason. I

> simply stated that is what happened in 73 in New Dwaraka.

 

I don´t agree with you in your interpretation of Sruti Kirti´s story. I find

fundamentalistic your view, but, as an external observer, my feeling is that

you have answered with sobriety, humility and patience a nasty text

(Mahanidhi´s comment on you initial posting) wich was unnecessarily a

personal attack, revealing things —true or false— of your private life which

I don´t think anyone need to know. Your reaction of tolerance in front of

that disgusting attack speaks better than thousands of COM texts on your

devotional quality. Thanks for the lesson.

Sincerely

Bhagavata-Purana Dasa

[Guest guest]

On 16 Jul 1999, Krishna Kirti wrote:

 

> >

> > The philosophy is sane, I agree. But I have some doubts about some of our

attempts to practically apply it, I must admit.

>

> So, specifically, what are your doubts about the philosophy?

 

 

Which philosophy are you refering too? As for myself, I feel fairly

comfortable with KC, and that's why I'm here.

 

I'm not sure you read the comment accurately.

 

ys

[Guest guest]

On 16 Jul 1999, Krishna Kirti wrote:

 

> >

> > The philosophy is sane, I agree. But I have some doubts about some of our

attempts to practically apply it, I must admit.

>

> So, specifically, what are your doubts about the philosophy?

 

 

Which philosophy are you refering too? As for myself, I feel fairly

comfortable with KC, and that's why I'm here.

 

I'm not sure you read the comment accurately.

 

ys

[Guest guest]

On 16 Jul 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

 

>

> The main objection to ISCKON polygamists is that they are

> eventually targeting young underage girls, and not the

> grown-up women that might *really* be in desperate situation

> to get a husband. But a woman that is in such bad situation,

> no polygamy will care to look upon. Let her depend on

> the protection of Guru and Krsna, and they (polygamists)

> will be rather saving young virgins that many others might be

> interested in.

>

 

 

Is that what they really think? Gosh, I must be an idiot! I think I've been

arguing on the wrong side of this one.

 

 

 

> > I never asked any

> > other girls, rather, Laksmimoni one told me that several of the other

> > girls in her ashram had heard about my offer and they were asking her and

their parents to marry me as additional wife.

>

 

 

I guess that just goes to show how women are less intelligent, huh? I'd like

to hear what these teenage girls have to say about some 50 year old guy who

likes to stare at them in kirtan to see if they're staring at him. They must

be really KC to want to spend time with such a high caliber guy at the expense

of just being a regular teenagers.

 

Such is the burden of the choosen few who so ambitiously desire to uphold

Vedic dharma on behalf of the rest of us! I can only offer my most humble

obeisances again and again.

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

On 16 Jul 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

 

>

> The main objection to ISCKON polygamists is that they are

> eventually targeting young underage girls, and not the

> grown-up women that might *really* be in desperate situation

> to get a husband. But a woman that is in such bad situation,

> no polygamy will care to look upon. Let her depend on

> the protection of Guru and Krsna, and they (polygamists)

> will be rather saving young virgins that many others might be

> interested in.

>

 

 

Is that what they really think? Gosh, I must be an idiot! I think I've been

arguing on the wrong side of this one.

 

 

 

> > I never asked any

> > other girls, rather, Laksmimoni one told me that several of the other

> > girls in her ashram had heard about my offer and they were asking her and

their parents to marry me as additional wife.

>

 

 

I guess that just goes to show how women are less intelligent, huh? I'd like

to hear what these teenage girls have to say about some 50 year old guy who

likes to stare at them in kirtan to see if they're staring at him. They must

be really KC to want to spend time with such a high caliber guy at the expense

of just being a regular teenagers.

 

Such is the burden of the choosen few who so ambitiously desire to uphold

Vedic dharma on behalf of the rest of us! I can only offer my most humble

obeisances again and again.

 

 

..

[Guest guest]

> (Mahanidhi´s comment on you initial posting) wich was unnecessarily a

> personal attack, revealing things —true or false— of your private life

> which I don´t think anyone need to know. Your reaction of tolerance in

> front of that disgusting attack speaks better than thousands of COM texts

> on your devotional quality. Thanks for the lesson.

 

Certainly, everyone can have and express here his own opinion,

be it Mahanidhi das or Bhagavata-purana das.

 

As far as I am concerned, the idea of "secrecy of a private life"

when it comes to our preachers of Dharma, as Ameyatma prabhu is

presenting himself here to be, is straight out the window. You

may think that nobody needs to know what one is doing in his

"backyard", while in the same time he is assuming the role of

illuminating the way (as Ameyatma presented himself) in higher

values in life to everybody else. Stay "surprised".

 

You may also notice that I presented to Ameyatma the reflection

of what some public image on him has being made (out of whatever

reason), leaving the space to him to give his view. He is playing

a public profile in this society of ISCKON, a prominent figure

in following Dharma-path. So you got it, right on the spot:

"You'll be seen what you do". Simple.

 

 

-------------------

 

Polygamy is a touchy issue in every society, it really is

in ISCKON. You may give a "blanche-card" to Ameyatma to do

whatever he likes here ("his private business"), fine. But

when it comes to rumors (yes, rumors) that may something to

do with the ISCKON polygamists and the underage school girls,

then tell me all about nastiness of rising one's eyebrow on

that, and "nobody's-nose-in" so-called policy.

 

For me, it is going for an another, so-called "dharmic" and

"sastric", form of - pedophilia. For you may be "a private

life". So, we differ in opinions. You see something to be nasty,

I see something else to be nasty.

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

> (Mahanidhi´s comment on you initial posting) wich was unnecessarily a

> personal attack, revealing things —true or false— of your private life

> which I don´t think anyone need to know. Your reaction of tolerance in

> front of that disgusting attack speaks better than thousands of COM texts

> on your devotional quality. Thanks for the lesson.

 

Certainly, everyone can have and express here his own opinion,

be it Mahanidhi das or Bhagavata-purana das.

 

As far as I am concerned, the idea of "secrecy of a private life"

when it comes to our preachers of Dharma, as Ameyatma prabhu is

presenting himself here to be, is straight out the window. You

may think that nobody needs to know what one is doing in his

"backyard", while in the same time he is assuming the role of

illuminating the way (as Ameyatma presented himself) in higher

values in life to everybody else. Stay "surprised".

 

You may also notice that I presented to Ameyatma the reflection

of what some public image on him has being made (out of whatever

reason), leaving the space to him to give his view. He is playing

a public profile in this society of ISCKON, a prominent figure

in following Dharma-path. So you got it, right on the spot:

"You'll be seen what you do". Simple.

 

 

-------------------

 

Polygamy is a touchy issue in every society, it really is

in ISCKON. You may give a "blanche-card" to Ameyatma to do

whatever he likes here ("his private business"), fine. But

when it comes to rumors (yes, rumors) that may something to

do with the ISCKON polygamists and the underage school girls,

then tell me all about nastiness of rising one's eyebrow on

that, and "nobody's-nose-in" so-called policy.

 

For me, it is going for an another, so-called "dharmic" and

"sastric", form of - pedophilia. For you may be "a private

life". So, we differ in opinions. You see something to be nasty,

I see something else to be nasty.

 

 

 

- mnd

[Guest guest]

On 17 Jul 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

 

> > (Mahanidhi´s comment on you initial posting) wich was unnecessarily a

> > personal attack, revealing things -true or false- of your private life

which I don´t think anyone need to know. Your reaction of tolerance in front

of that disgusting attack speaks better than thousands of COM texts on your

devotional quality. Thanks for the lesson.

>

> Certainly, everyone can have and express here his own opinion,

> be it Mahanidhi das or Bhagavata-purana das.

>

 

 

But it was Ajamila Prabhu who enlightened us on all the details -- that's

whats got me scratching my head. All he had to do was say there were some

controversial situations regarding some younger women expressing various

desires, situations I really didn't seek out. Fortunately they're behind me

know, and I don't expect to be implicated in such events in the future. In the

final analysis, no one's honor was compromised -- something like that.

 

But what we get is a soloquiy how he finds that teenage girls are staring at

him in Kirtan and that agitates his meditation on Radha/Krsna. But even more

titulationg, then we learn (from him) how the ashrama girls are all secretly

lusting for him, as if he was their poster boy, or should I say, poster short

old man.

 

Such is the apparent brilliance of our self proclaimed 'Vedic' protectors.

[Guest guest]

On 17 Jul 1999, Mahanidhi das wrote:

 

> > (Mahanidhi´s comment on you initial posting) wich was unnecessarily a

> > personal attack, revealing things -true or false- of your private life

which I don´t think anyone need to know. Your reaction of tolerance in front

of that disgusting attack speaks better than thousands of COM texts on your

devotional quality. Thanks for the lesson.

>

> Certainly, everyone can have and express here his own opinion,

> be it Mahanidhi das or Bhagavata-purana das.

>

 

 

But it was Ajamila Prabhu who enlightened us on all the details -- that's

whats got me scratching my head. All he had to do was say there were some

controversial situations regarding some younger women expressing various

desires, situations I really didn't seek out. Fortunately they're behind me

know, and I don't expect to be implicated in such events in the future. In the

final analysis, no one's honor was compromised -- something like that.

 

But what we get is a soloquiy how he finds that teenage girls are staring at

him in Kirtan and that agitates his meditation on Radha/Krsna. But even more

titulationg, then we learn (from him) how the ashrama girls are all secretly

lusting for him, as if he was their poster boy, or should I say, poster short

old man.

 

Such is the apparent brilliance of our self proclaimed 'Vedic' protectors.

[Guest guest]

I am not a member of VAD, so I don't know if I will be allowed to respond

to these attacks against me?

 

Sthita dhi muni wrote:

>But what we get is a soloquiy how he finds that teenage girls are staring at

>him in Kirtan and that agitates his meditation on Radha/Krsna.

 

That is not what I said, or what was meant, or what happened. And it was

not in the temple room or during kritans, etc.

 

>But even more

>titulationg, then we learn (from him) how the ashrama girls are all secretly

>lusting for him, as if he was their poster boy, or should I say, poster short

>old man.

 

That was 6 years ago, not 6 days ago. Those girls are now in 19 or early

20's and gone. I doubt the current girls know much or anything about it,

and that would be best for me, for them, for everyone.

 

Ever heard of the story of the 2 sannyasis who came to a river and saw a

young marraigeable aged girl crying on the bank? The rains had washed out

the bridge, so she could not cross back over to her village. She pleaded

that it was getting dark, would one of them please carry her across, or she

will be left all alone all night in the forest. Sannyasi A agreed,

sannyasi B was in total shock. A sannyasi cannot even look at a woman,

what to speak of touch a young marriageable girl. And to carrying her on

his back, her legs wrapped around his body. Her arms around his neck.

But, how can they just leave her there crying all alone all night in the

forest? Sannyasi A took her up on his back and carried her across and sat

her down. Sannyasi B could not believe it. How could you do that? How

could you touch that young girl? How could you put her on your back? You

were holding onto her legs. How could you do that? You call yourself a

sannyasi? How could you touch her, helping her up on your back? How could

you do that? Day and night he kept carrying on and on. Finally sannyasi A

turned to B and said, "Yes, I did it, I carried that girl on my back for 5

minutes, then I sat her down. Bas. Finshed. I never thought about it again.

But you have been carrying her on your back day after day and can't seem

to be able to put her down. Now, put her down and be finished with it."

 

I know you will twist this around in some bizzare way to get your point

across just how gross and sick I am.

 

I very much question who ever is the organizer of VAD to allow such

postings. Are these personal attacks and prajalpa your idea of helping SP

establish Varnashram-Dharma?

 

I would not even give this the respect of a response, but if there are any

dhira devotees on the VAD conference, then since others are carrying on

about me, I should be given the right to respond, out fo fairness, so the

sober ones will at least hear my side.

 

 

 

ys ameyatma das