Do women get a varna on their own?

[Guest guest]

>

> Sadhu, Sadhu, Sadhu!

>

> Wise words, Guru Krishna Prabhu... faithfully echoing the teachings and

> values of our Founder-Acharya Srila Prabhupada and the Vedic tradition

> that he worked so hard and selflessly to spread all over the world.

 

But except that a wife should be faithful to her husband (what

matches also with the opinion of 99.99 % of all males in this

word, btw) your holy man still managed not to give any philosophical

explanation of the process of determining the varna of the 50 %

of the humans in this world.

 

But he's back "home" now, and I guess you will keep your

"mauna-vrata" when it comes to these instances. But hopefully

they will close down all these atheistic conferences very soon...

 

 

- Mahanidhi das

[Guest guest]

> On 31 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

> > It is highly offensive and simply slanderous to label as

>

> feminists

>

No, it is not highly offensive or slanderous to refer to Vaisnavis who

advocate gender equality within ISKCON as "feminists," since the

definition of a feminist is "one who advocates the theory of the political,

economic, and social equality of the sexes." Actually, this constant attack

upon those who oppose feminism within ISKCON is very much like the scientsts'

attack upon those who oppose darwinism. Curious, isn't it?

[Guest guest]

>

> > feminists

> >

> No, it is not highly offensive or slanderous to refer to Vaisnavis who

> advocate gender equality within ISKCON as "feminists," since the

> definition of a feminist is "one who advocates the theory of the

> political, economic, and social equality of the sexes."

 

In other words, to call a thief a thief is speaking the truth,

yes?

 

It only depends wether it is you who calls someone a thief,

or is it someone who calls you a thief. So in the case of the

former it is "saying the facts", while in the case of the

later it is a "highly slanderous offence" punishable by

Yamaraja.

 

Typical.

 

 

> Actually, this constant attack

> upon those who oppose feminism within ISKCON is very much like the

> scientsts' attack upon those who oppose darwinism. Curious, isn't it?

 

Curiously, but you are using term "Vaisnavis" when referring

to "one who advocates... [atheism]". While "one" is of no gender,

you got only the females in your divine mind (as opposed to

"darwinistic mind") to attribute to this trouble making.

 

Typical.

 

 

 

- Mahanidhi das (typical)

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Actually, this

> constant attack upon those who oppose feminism within ISKCON is very much

> like the scientsts' attack upon those who oppose darwinism. Curious, isn't

> it?

[Guest guest]

On 31 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

> > We know

> > that the author of the above statement can provide no evidence of any

"GHQer"

> > (whatever that is!?) saying "can't be brahmanas, nor can there be woman

> temple

> > presidents," so we continue wonder what exactly he seeks to accomplish by

> such

> > consistently exaggerated claims.

>

> Next time someone says women can't be temple presidents, I'll refer them to

> you

> for similar calrification.

 

In order for there to be a "next time," there has to have been a "first time."

So prabhu, would you be so kind as to tell us who has said that women *can't*

be temple presidents?

 

Mahanidhi Prabhu, you are the expert in detecting straw-man arguments. Would

you also be so kind as to 1) either declare the above as a straw-man argument,

or 2) help Madhava Gosh Prabhu find a statement made by one of the "Gentl

[Guest guest]

On 31 Dec 1999, Guru-Krsna Dasa wrote:

 

> On 31 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote:

 

> Next time someone says women can't be temple presidents, I'll refer >them

to you for similar calrification.

>

In order for there to be a "next time," there has to have been a first time.

So prabhu, would you be so kind as to tell us who has said that women *can't*

be temple presidents?

 

Mahanidhi Prabhu, you are the expert in detecting straw-man arguments. Would

you also be so kind as to 1) either declare the above as a straw-man argument,

or 2) help Madhava Gosh Prabhu find a statement made by one of the "Gentle &

Humble Quarter" (GHQ) with which to verify his claim?

 

Thanks in advance.

 

you-know-who