How to train men in ISKCON

[Guest guest]

On 13 Dec 1999, Basu Ghosh wrote:

 

> Thank you, Guru Krishna Prabhu, for your well written reply to Mataji

> Madhusudani Radha devi dasi...

 

Only by the mercy of the Vaisnavas such as your good self...

 

Dasabaso 'smi,

gkdas

[Guest guest]

Regarding the "who is lustier" debate, I would like to remind that "lust" is

not only refering to gross sexual desire or conduct, but to all of its

variable aspects as well. Therefore, because ladies do not appear to be

overtly interested in sexul acts does not necesarrily imply a lack of lust.

 

 

The moderator and many partipants have noted that better we remember and

speak of KRishna...so why are we going on with this topic anyway?

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 12/13/1999 12:23:04 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Malati.ACBSP (AT) bbt (DOT) se writes:

 

>> The moderator and many partipants have noted that better we remember and

speak of KRishna...so why are we going on with this topic anyway?

>>

 

I was under the impression that the only reason we were talking about this

topic was because the GHQ and similar were using a woman's so called intense

lust to justify polygamy as well as the so called need to keep an eye on her,

keep her under their thumb or she will just go haywire. I agree though, it

would be better to speak of Krishna, but in truth, since when have the GHQ

done that? The majority of their posts have been about the opposite sex, and

that is for the purpose of sex whether they will openly admit it or not.

 

YS,

Prtha dd