Guest guest Posted July 4, 2002 Report Share Posted July 4, 2002 > "Robert Cope" <vyapaka (AT) nexicom (DOT) net> > Mon, 1 Jul 2002 22:26:45 -0400 > The last submission that I heard from Mother Urmila was that she sent a > private response to Mother Sita. Is there some reason that this email be > kept confidential? Dear Vyapaka Prabhu, Pamho. AgtSP! I have nothing to say privately on this that I cannot also say publicly but I will leave this decision up to her. Basically, what I gathered from it is she does not wish to respond further to me. She thinks I want her to "recant and apologize" because she doesn't completely agree with me. I don't agree with this assessment but have apologized if I hurt her feelings. > To my knowledge there was no declaration of a conclusion so I am still > wondering if there is a discussion going on regarding these matters in > private. If they all want to limit readership, then there isn't much that > can be done since that would be their perogative. But it did seem that it > was done unilaterally. There is no discussion taking place privately with me. As far as a conclusion goes, I have already made a concluding statement re. the thread I was involved with. It was as follows: > My conclusion from all this is that you need to withdraw your paper from > circulation and (brace yourself) offer a public apology for its misleading > content. I know you are sincere in wanting to uphold the truth and you're > very strict, much more than me, in wanting to practically apply varnasrama. > If you have changed your views since you wrote it, people who have read it > need to know. Again, I don't this to be taken as a personal attack. This discussion to me was never about winning or losing a debate but coming to an understanding of the truth. I appreciate most of Urmila's other points very much and we continue to wish each other well. Unfortunately, she has deemed my "attitude" to be "impossible", finding I "berate and challenge". I assume it is because of this that I was not included on this list of receivers on subsequent texts such as this: > ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- > > Letter PAMHO:5731845 (52 lines) > Urmila (dd) ACBSP (ISKCON School NC - USA) > 02-Jul-02 11:54 -0400 > Bhakti Vikasa Swami [46012] > Purnacandra (das) ACBSP [6340] (received: 02-Jul-02 13:53 -0400) > Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA) [20456] > Urmila (dd) ACBSP (ISKCON School NC - USA) [9198] > Bhaktivedanta Academy (Mayapur - IN) [439] > Ganga (dd) IDS (CIS SysOp) [38106] > Krsna-krpa (das) SDG (BI) (Alachua, FL - USA) [2134] > "Mukunda Datta Prabhu" <mpt@u.washington.edu> > "Robert Cope" <vyapaka (AT) nexicom (DOT) net> > Vidvan Gauranga (das) JPS (Mayapur - IN) [29891] > Reference: Text PAMHO:5730918 by Internet: Robert Cope > Re: desired activities > --------------------------- > On 2 Jul 2002, Robert Cope wrote: >> I do not remember >> any private or personal matters being discussed so still wonder why the >> necessity of Mother Urmila to declare she was going to take the discussion >> private with both Shyamasundara Prabhu and Jivanmukta Prabhu and Mother >> Sita. > > I have responded to you privately about the above. Why another private response? This appears to be indicative of an ad hominem campaign against me, a digressional tactic. >> To my knowledge there was no declaration of a conclusion so I am still >> wondering if there is a discussion going on regarding these matters in >> private. > > Sometimes there is no possibility of a conclusion so it is best to get on > with > other service for the Lord. At this point I'm not discussing it further in > private, though I hope that at some point Syamasundara Prabhu will assist me > in bringing my paper of 1988 to a better and more comprehensive and accurate > form. Why the need for revising the paper? > If they all want to limit readership, then there isn't much that >> can be done since that would be their perogative. But it did seem that it >> was done unilaterally. > > Yes, I took action unilaterally. Sorry. If there is more interest from other > parties, I'm glad to continue. You can take "other parties" to mean minus myself. Yes there is interest from others in knowing what is different now from when the paper was written. Mahat-tattva Prabhu has also asked: > Mataji Urmila didn't tell us if her understanding of the matter changed or > not. It seems evident by the way she is now explaining things compared with previously, that it has indeed changed. >> If the discussion has indeed been terminated, my question is does Mother >> Urmila now agree to your statement listed above? Did her response to Bhakti Vikasa Swami (which I was also forwarded) clearly answer your question re. his following statement: >> If the main point of the debate was whether in Vedic culture women have >> varna independent from their husbands, then there doesn't seem to be much >> more to discuss, as the fallacy of this position has been abundantly >> demonstrated. > I humbly beg that the way you have stated the above could be subject to > misinterpretation and misunderstanding, and perhaps uses terms that are not > clearly defined. The point about guna vrs varna has already been discussed over and gone over so where is the need for BVKS to define the terms again? In Vedic culture, do women have varna independent from their husbands or do they not, that is the question. Yes or no would suffice as an answer but I don't expect one. We look forward to seeing you and Trisakti in Montreal at Ratha Yatra this weekend. Haribol! Your servant, Sita dd 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.