Guest guest Posted December 27, 1999 Report Share Posted December 27, 1999 > So what is the good reason (professional or sastric) for this > claim that GHQ members were/are misogynists? Study of their texts. It certainly will be a waste of energy to try explain it to you, so I won't try. It is more for the purpose of communicating to others who are capable of independent intellectual activity to understand what it actually going on. You use a series of arguments to try explain why misogyny isn't important because Srila Prabhupada never discussed it directly. He also never discussed knee capping directly either, never said there was anything wrong with it, but I imagine if you were an impending victim of such an act, it's lack mention by Srila Prabhupada would be irrelavant to your attempts to avoid it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 1999 Report Share Posted December 27, 1999 On 26 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: > > So what is the good reason (professional or sastric) for this > > claim that GHQ members were/are misogynists? > > Study of their texts. It certainly will be a waste of energy to try explain > it > to you, so I won't try. It is more for the purpose of communicating to others > who are capable of independent intellectual activity to understand what it > actually going on. Well, I may be a hopeless case, prabhu, but for the benefit of the innocent perhaps you should present the results of your study. Otherwise, anyone can claim anything about anybody--isn't it? And I again say that to call another a "hater of women" is a claim that ought be made only by one who is *absolutely* sure of that, lest he be reaping the results of his misjudgement in the future. What do you think, prabhu? > You use a series of arguments to try explain why misogyny isn't >important because Srila Prabhupada never discussed it directly. I've asked (challenged) you to back your statement, either sastrically or with material facts. I doubt you can do so sastrically, since that particular pathology isn't discussed in Srila Prabhupada's books. As for knee-capping, etc., that is obviously causing unnecessary pain to another, or violence, which topic *is* discussed by Srila Prabhupada. Also, if we know that someone has committed violence, then we can factually accuse him of being violent. So in the absence of sastic evidence, what is your material evidence that GHQ members were following the *misogynist* vani of Kirtanananda? I'm specifically asking you to back your claim that these members are *haters of women," if you would be so kind as to explain. Thank you, prabhu. --gkd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 1999 Report Share Posted December 27, 1999 > > > So in the absence of sastic evidence, what is your material evidence that GHQ > members were following the *misogynist* vani of Kirtanananda? I'm specifically > asking you to back your claim that these members are *haters of women," if you > would be so kind as to explain. > > Thank you, prabhu. > > --gkd And I am specifically saying that trying to explain the obvious to you would be a waste of my time. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 1999 Report Share Posted December 27, 1999 On 27 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: > > > > > > So in the absence of sastic evidence, what is your material evidence that GHQ > > members were following the *misogynist* vani of Kirtanananda? I'm > specifically > > asking you to back your claim that these members are *haters of women," if > you > > would be so kind as to explain. > > > > Thank you, prabhu. > > > > --gkd > > And I am specifically saying that trying to explain the obvious to you would be > a > waste of my time. Obvious? Anyone can say "It's obvious," but that doesn't explain or prove anything. So many things are apparently obvious to persons who maintain specific prejudices, even when the "obvious" isn't even fact! But OK, prabhu, it's obvious to you. We just wonder if it's also obvious to the Supreme Personality of Godhead, and if so, how it would be corroborated tobe so. .. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 28, 1999 Report Share Posted December 28, 1999 >> But their pride, arrogance, self-estime, eliticisam, low-class >> manners, lack of compassion and respect to others, obsession >> with women, hate of women, aggressiveness towards anybody who's >> "on their way", and so on,... all this quickly discloses their >> position. >> >> - Mahanidhi das >This was one of the best comments I ever read about this. What's so great about exaggerated or false accusations? It ight have been great if it were a great revelation of fact, but as it stands it's simply ignorant name-calling. 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.