Guest guest Posted July 20, 1999 Report Share Posted July 20, 1999 > " Krsna Kirti Prabhu, here is a humble request from the former > " organizer/moderator of the DMW conference. I hope you might not post " > anything more to the conference from VAD members. This last offensive post > " from Akhilesvara Prabhu should also be removed. If his type of talk is > to " continue, then would you please remove me from the forum. > " Your servant, Sita devi dasi > > In my ignorance I don't even know what is DMW. I guess something is really > going on there. My little finger is telling me that Ameyatma might have > something to do with it. So, there is a kind of sect whose professes women > servility, blacks inferiority by the same token, and, as we can read, they > are ready to excommunicate devotees who think by themselves. I call that: > FANATISM. > Yhs "DMW" stands for "Dharma of Man and Woman". It's a private conference. "VAD" (Varnasrama development) is an open public forum that anybody may join any time, and leave any time. But to be "VAD member" seams to be a grave disqualification. It's crazy, but that's how the elitistic minds function. They create some elusive and "mission oriented" groups, and they also "create" some other, "untouchable" groups, thus nourishing themselves with their "right" food -- self- estimation and self-rightiousness. The other "groups" may not be even aware of their "untouchable" and "group" status, till they are told it at some moment. - mnd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 22, 1999 Report Share Posted July 22, 1999 "COM: Akhilesvara (das) ACBSP (Montreal - CAN)" wrote: > [Text 2487837 from COM] > > > > The children are not allowed to use a rope of any kind on > > > their teams. They must control them with voice commands and a small > > > stick only. > > Haribol Madhava Prabhu > > I am really sorry, but I begin writing simply to ask you a little question. > See what's happen! > Will you be able to find me this text you are referring too. I am intrigued. > If not, I will ask the author. Taht would be Hare Krsna dasi. I didn't keep a copy. > > > By the way, your letters on polygamy were quite to the point. After that, > with all respects to Ameyatma Prabhu, you really wonder what he has on his > mind? Does he want more wives or he is only trying to convince others to do > it? Is this his mission, to spread polygamy? > One thing that has been sadly lost in this exchange with Ameyatma, is that I think he was atually extending an olive branch in all this stuff. His initial offering was a story wherein Srila Prabhupada actually said he wouldn't be apposed to remarriage in certain circumstances. That is actually quite a departure from the position of the GHQers ( with whom, rightfully or wrongly, he was lumped in) who initially seemed to oppose remarriage in all circumstances. Instead of devotees seeing this side of his offering, it seems he was just attacked for all kinds of past baggage. Then he seemed to also retreat into a sort of hardline defense in reaction to those attacks. Too bad. We all may have more common ground then we think we do. I may agree that in rare circumstances that polygamy has it's place. But based on my observations of the numerous examples in NV history, I concur with Srila Prabhupada that for our ISKCON society, it should not be allowed. As for remarriage, yes the ideal is that there should never be remarriage, but just as Srila Prabhupada said in the story Ameyatma presented, I wouldn't be opposed if circumstances warranted it. As for casual divorce based on sense gratification, I am totally opposed to it. It is sad it is so rampant. Divorce for reasons of abuse is one thing, for simple boredom is another. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 1999 Report Share Posted July 23, 1999 On 22 Jul 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: > > I may agree that in rare circumstances that polygamy has it's place. > I think the rare case in which it could be justified is if I wanted to do it. Otherwise, it's bhogus. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted July 23, 1999 Report Share Posted July 23, 1999 > One thing that has been sadly lost in this exchange with Ameyatma, is > that I think he was atually extending an olive branch in all this stuff. > > His initial offering was a story wherein Srila Prabhupada actually said he > wouldn't be apposed to remarriage in certain circumstances. That is > actually quite a departure from the position of the GHQers ( with whom, > rightfully or wrongly, he was lumped in) who initially seemed to oppose > remarriage in all circumstances. Srila Prabhupada has been also "previously" quite few times departing from the position of the GHQers, but the "GHQ" interpretations of the same Srila Prabhupada don't seam to be so -- those who think like you (that the remarriage for women may be OK) remain to be ignorant of Dharma and Chastity. Perhaps hopelessly... I missed to notice his offering non-opposition to remarriage in certain circumstances. Ask him (thus he got to give right to one of us . It seams like your strawberry field have turned good this year. - mnd 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.