Guest guest Posted December 26, 1999 Report Share Posted December 26, 1999 At 09:47 PM 12/26/99 +0100, COM: Trayimaya (das) HKS (Aarhus - DK) wrote: >[Text 2886468 from COM] > >> On 22 Dec 1999, Trayimaya das wrote: >> >> > > Srila Prabhupada said that everything is there in his books. I humbly >> > > ask Madhava Gosh Prabhu to direct us to the portions of Srila >> > > Prabhupada's books (or his lectures, conversations, letters) in which >> > > misogyny is defined, explained, discussed, denounced, or whatever >> > > Srila Prabhupada had to say about misogyny. >> > >> > Prabhupada also did not define, explain, discuss, denounce phedophili. >> > >> > This is not a good argument. >> >> Peophilia is obviously illict sex and is thereby discussed all throughout >> SP's teachings. > >Misogony is a mental disorder, a disease, also discussed throughout SP´s >teaching. So the argument is still not good. Depending upon what we are trying to accomplish, it may actually not be an illogical argument. I'm asking Madhava Ghosh Prabhu to prove his claim (or better yet, to withdaw it) that the GHQ members are misogynists. Now how will he do that? How will he do it on the authority of guru-sadhu-sastra, since misogyny per se is not directly discussed in SP's books? I agree that mental disorder and disease *are* discussed, but only very generally. My previous point was that illicit sex is *explicitly* defined and so therefore pedophilia is easily understood to obviously be illicit sex. But how does one identify a misogynist based upon Srila Prabhupada's teachings--that is my question? Or if one claims that SP's teachings aren't required in order to identify a misogynist, then I agree in principle. But in practice, what will be the method by which our Madhava Ghosh prabhu will verify that members of a COM conference, most of whom he has never even met, are in fact "women-haters"? In other words, what is the practical value of Madhava Ghosh prabhu's opinion that GHQ members were/are misogynists? If any of us wanted to play the same game, we could equally well accuse IWM or IWC to be man-haters. But as far as I know, no GHQ member ever made such an outrageous statement, and reasonably so. So what is the good reason (professional or sastric) for this claim that GHQ members were/are misogynists? 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.