Plea for defining terms: an ulterior motive to introduce atheism.

[Guest guest]

> Do you think Prabhupada was referring

> to spiritual intelligence, material intelligence or some third kind of

> intelligence not yet identified? If it's number 2, the books are clear as

> they are, but if it's number 1 or 3, they simply are not and that needs to

> be communicated.

 

I did not follow the discussion on VAST and thus may have missed something,

but to me it seems undefendable to change Srila Prabhupada's books, even if

it appears as if he made some mistakes in them. They are his books, not

ours, isn't it? If he wanted to write something in his books, who are we to

change them after his departure? Unless of course it was a translation

mistake, but that does not seem to be the case here.

 

If one has a problem with agreeing with something Prabhupada says in some of

his books, then that must be "allowed". Noone can force anyone to believe

anything, and even if one "disagrees" with Prabhupada on a "material" point,

does not necessarily mean that one rejects the spiritual philosophy or his

teachings.

 

Regarding the places where he says that women are less intelligent, I agree

that it may cause some reactions which theoretically could be avoided. I

remember that I also reacted on it when I read the Bhagavad Gita for the

first time. But I still cannot defend changing his words, be it in his books

or anywhere.

 

Ys

Jkd

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 99-01-12 08:10:02 EST, Krishna.Kirti.HDG (AT) com (DOT) bbt.se writes:

 

<<

P.S. Why did the Women's Ministry publish selected/hacked out of context

GHQ conf. texts to VNN? >>

 

 

Excuse me! This is one text I can't just let slide...

 

Who do you think you are making such an accusation? You'd better have reason

for making such a statement....you're definately crossing a line here accusing

us / me of such a thing...Something I 100% didn't do, wouldn't know how to do,

and wouldn't be interested to take the time to do! Fie on you, and the

immaturity you've shown repeatedly throughout your texts, not to mention this

untrue accusation.

 

To be honest, I don't even know why the printing of these texts is such a

problem for you. I don't remember anything said in private that hasn't been

said publically, or pretty implicity implied. It's not like anyone needed to

read the texts to know how most of you felt about women. Hasn't anyone joined

your cause as a result of the posting?

 

It's very convienant to try and publically blame the Ministry for posting your

words...instead of trying to blame others, why don't you just accept

responsibility...if you can't even do that, how can you expect to be respected

for you opinions about others?

 

By the way, defining terms is a perfectly reasonable request as far as I can

see. It's just common practice and common sense...look up any word in the

dictionary and see how many uses each word will have. There is no doubt that

your idea of protection, submission, independence, abuse, and more clearly

differ from mine.

 

Not to mention the word feminist...which is bantered about as if it equates to

the devil. I am not a feminist, I don't believe on any level...but heck, a

little concern for the welfare of women would go a long way in this movement.

Caring about the women and the exploitation they have experienced in the name

of protection is hardly social disruption!

[Guest guest]

Dear Sudharma Devi,

 

Pamho. AgtSP!

 

Would you kindly explain, for everyone's benefit, the sudden increase of

876 texts to the Women's Ministry COM conference at the end of November

'98. Were these or were these not texts from the GHQ conference?

 

Your honest answer to this question would help many of us to understand

this mysterious coincidence.

 

Your servant, Sita devi dasi

[Guest guest]

Yes, I'd be happy to tell you that they are not your GHQ texts....I still have

not read all of them (your texts on VNN)...nor do I have any intention to do

so....much less the hundreds of texts you copied to our conference, which you

now want to claim as proof we somehow circulated your GHQ private texts...I

have not read many of these either....they are at best boring...but in reality

have actually been, to my low-minded understanding, quite offensive....

 

re: texts written about / to Rukmini, Malati, Visakha, Radha, Mukunda

Maharaja, Bir Krishna Goswami, Pranada, Harivallabha, etc. etc. not to

mention private texts written by Syamasundar under the AOL address Atma1008

(or whatever the address was -- Syamasundar we know they were from you)

 

The GHQ arguments resemble those of the theif who breaks into the house and

says "I am not a thief", but theives you are. ... Jivan Mukta and Sita

responded with persistence and some would say, vehemence, to the GBC

resolution against domestic violence (is that the 'work' of the Ministry that

concerns you?!), you've repeatedly called me a feminist...which I'm sorry, I'm

not, ...and used any text by anyone, man or woman, which you disagree with to

be proof of a Women's Ministry conspiracy, which I'm sorry, there isn't

one....

 

on the other hand, the GHQ formed a conspiracy to convince others of 'our --

the women's -- conspiracy'....you are indeed the theives in the night who are

saying to others, we are not the theives, 300 + pages worth.

 

In reality, we've seen so much animosity directed towards women and children

in our society....we're not interested in generating any towards anyone

(though you've certainly tried as hard as possible to get an emotional or

angry response from us)....

 

In closing, I would like to say that the Women's Ministry is not, nor can it

be all things to all people, but...there are plenty of nice, powerful,

enthusing things to do, and that's where our energy -- the Women's Ministry's

energy, what little we even have, goes....

 

Why don't you try and do something positive and uplifting for others instead

of chasing around after everyone who shows any interest in the Women's

Ministry and publically defaming them....The time and anger you have given

trying to undermine the Ministry is testimony to the need for the Ministry in

the first place!

 

In fact, I challenge you....why don't you do something uplifting!...hold some

nice conferences like we have and take the time to care about others, like we

have, instead spending your time simply trying to tear us apart...

 

So, in closing, once again....we, the Women's Ministry did not have access to

your private GHQ texts before they went out on VNN...nor did we forward the

texts to VNN. Hope that clarifies things for those who have somehow become

forced to listen to the vast majority of this 'debate' which should have never

been spoken in the first place.

 

Sudharma dasi

[Guest guest]

I'm not sure to whom the Women's Minister is replying but I can see there

is not much point in responding to something so full of judgement and false

accusations.

[Guest guest]

> I'm not sure to whom the Women's Minister is replying but I can see there

> is not much point in responding to something so full of judgement and

> false accusations.

 

I would not blame them if the whole IWC feels the same way about you.

[Guest guest]

Sita Devi Dasi wrote:

 

> [Text 2032108 from COM]

>

> I'm not sure to whom the Women's Minister is replying but I can see there

> is not much point in responding to something so full of judgement and false

> accusations.

 

Well, now there is something you both seem to agree on!

[Guest guest]

On 20 Jan 1999, Sita Devi Dasi wrote:

 

> I'm not sure to whom the Women's Minister is replying but I can see there is

not much point in responding to something so full of judgement and false

accusations.

>

>

 

 

 

 

Especially when it is about us whom we believe mean things are being said.

Surely Krsna takes offence when our fealings are hurt by the other

neo-devotees.