Honesty works both ways. . .

[Guest guest]

>> Mataji Madhusudani's quoting of

>>statistics in order to discredit Indian society

>

>You know very well that this is not what I'm doing. I do not want to

>discredit Indian society.

 

You don't exactly give it any credit either. Besides offering some

platitudes, I have yet to see you point out something about Indian culture

(at least those things that Srila Prabhupada thought were suitable for his

disciples) as something you and others should emulate.

 

Of course, you will say, "The men should be protective, caring, religious,

etc., etc.," and offer quotes from Srila Prabhupada, and that's fine--I

agree they should be, but when it comes to women, immediately the plea is

there for relaxing the standards Srila Prabhupada expected (read "hoped")

his ladies would also follow. Seems to me like a double standard.

 

For ladies, for example, Srila Prabhupada speaks about shyness and chastity,

but that is a big no-no in your camp. Certainly it was and will continue to

be a no-no with the ladies who refused to cooperate with the management in

Vrindavan. Of course, I know you will disagree with this, but then offering

respects to sannyasis, brahmacaris and other celibates never seemed to be

one of those aspects of Vedic culture that was something western women were

obliged to follow. Men respecting ladies, yes, that they must do; ladies

respecting sannyasis, well. . .whenever they feel like it, if they feel like

it.

 

>Don't try to attribute motivations that are not there

 

You've got a track record (read, lots of COM texts) that makes your plea

difficult to believe.

 

>and don't try to change the subject. I simply presented a *different*

>side of India than the one you are always holding up to advance your

>agenda.

 

And what is "our agenda"?

 

>Both parts of the picture are true. If you think that discredits

>India, that's a reflection of your mind, not mine.

 

Again, your track record speaks for itself. If you ever said anything about

Indian culture (at least those things that Srila Prabhupada had high regard

for, and, in particular, with regard to your own gender) that was something

you should emulate, I'll take your claim seriously -- honestly.

 

>I think India is

>wonderful, in spite of its problems. When you idealize anything to the

>extent that you do India, chances are that you become blind.

 

When assessing something, we don't go outside the limits of guru, sadhu, and

shastra. At least as far as I'm concerned, you should know by now I'm

particular on this point.

 

Sati yes, bride-burning, no. :-)

 

Because you seem to have a preference for empiric sources, and a disdain for

sabda (or at least lets say that you seem to consider empiric sources as the

basis for acceptance and rejection, even over scriptural testimony),

particularly when scriptural testimony (guru, sadhu, shastra) runs contrary

to feminist doctrines (by feminist, I mean the belief in the social,

political, and economic equality of the sexes), your views will necessarily

be faulty, because without sabda (scriptural testimony), your sensory

perception and inference are subject to defect.

 

Without shastra-chakshush, can we not say that your alternative "view" of

things is necessarily "blind" (read "erroneous")?

 

>That's

>dangerous.

>

Speculation is, indeed, dangerous. I hope you agree that the

guru-sadh-shastra that was valid in the ritvik debate is also valid in this

discussion, and that pratyaksa and anuman is subservient to

guru-sadhu-shastra.

 

ys KKdas

 

p.s. New articles at www.ghqd.org :

 

"The Myth of Equal Rights", by Sri and Srimati Jivan Muktaji

 

Table of Contents http://ghqd.org/articles/toc.htm

 

Introduction http://ghqd.org/articles/intro.htm

 

Section 1 Parts 1-4 http://ghqd.org/articles/1.htm