Guest guest Posted January 1, 2000 Report Share Posted January 1, 2000 > > > 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? > Text 1737639 (139 lines) > Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Florida Vedic College - USA) > 02-Oct-98 06:50 +0000 > GHQ [47] > More strategy > --------------------------- > Dear Maharajas and Prabhus, > > Please except my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada. > > Continuing on with Maharajas ideas about strategy and tactics: > > What exactly are our ultimate objectives? These objectives may go beyond > the next GBC meeting. Here is a list of some suggested objectives: > > 1) No women in leadership positions, this means in GBC, temple > presidents, the GBC secretaries, ISKCON officers or spokespersons (such as > in ISKCON communications which is heavily dominated by feminists). > Plus, just within the last month on these conferences the point was made quite strenuously. Have you just joined this discussion recently? So his current political campaign against Mothers Dhanyakunda and Madhusudhani is simply a continuation of his, and others, stated goal. For you to deny these things have been stated is almost incredulous. That GHQers would campaign so strongly against something, and then when shown evidence that Srila Prabhupada said they could be TPs, then deny the statements have been made, that is amazing to me. Well, as Canakya Paundit said, never trust a politician. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2000 Report Share Posted January 1, 2000 > That GHQers would campaign so strongly against something, and then when > shown evidence that Srila Prabhupada said they could be TPs, then deny > the statements > have been made, that is amazing to me. Well, as Canakya Paundit said, > never trust a politician. "Oh my gosh!" :-) Mr. "Gosh"... Would you kindly present us with just one, yes, "1" instance where Srila Prabhupada appointed a woman as a TP or GBC? Thank you very much! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2000 Report Share Posted January 1, 2000 On 1 Jan 2000, Basu Ghosh wrote: > > Would you kindly present us with just one, yes, "1" instance where Srila Prabhupada appointed a woman as a TP or GBC? > > Thank you very much! I hate to be clueless, but what difference does this make? When I think of Srila Prabhupada instructions to his followers, obsessing on women is not the first issue that comes to mind, what to speak of relentlessly lobbying in the political arena. Almost sounds anti-Vedic. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2000 Report Share Posted January 1, 2000 On 01 Jan 2000, Madhava Gosh wrote: > > 1) No women in leadership positions, this means in GBC, temple > > presidents, the GBC secretaries, ISKCON officers or spokespersons (such as > > in ISKCON communications which is heavily dominated by feminists). > > "Close but no seegar," prabhu. Those were the suggestions of one member of a COM conference. Please find something where someone says women "can't" be temple presidents, which was your direct claim. > Plus, just within the last month on these conferences the point was made quite > strenuously. By whom? Prove it, please. > So his current political campaign against Mothers Dhanyakunda and Madhusudhani > is > simply a continuation of his, and others, stated goal. For you to deny these > things have been stated is almost incredulous. For you to live in the illusion that there is some kind of "GHQ" conspiracy is the real illusion. Are you living in the past, prabhu? The GHQ conference was closed over a year ago. If you wabnt to complain about Shyamasundara Prabhu, that's your right, but what does it have tod owith the topics of these conferences, I wonder? > That GHQers would campaign so strongly against something, and then when shown > evidence that Srila Prabhupada said they could be TPs, then deny the > statements > have been made, that is amazing to me. Prabhu, I humbly submit that if you would just get your facts straight, then you wouldn't have to be so amazed. I humbly submit that you assume too much and draw hasty conclusions. It's the phenomenon of "making a mountain out of a mole hill," actually. For example, this idea that "the "GHQers would campaign so strongly against something." What does it mean? How many times will someone have to deconstruct such statements, and why? How do such statements facilitate topics of varnasrama development? >Well, as Canakya Paundit said, never trust a politician. Well, I don't --gkd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted January 1, 2000 Report Share Posted January 1, 2000 On 01 Jan 2000, Sthita-dhi-muni Dasa wrote: > I hate to be clueless, but what difference does this make? Now that's an interesting question, indeed: "What difference does it make? Are you thereby implying that it makes little or no difference? And to whom or what? To ISKCON? To you? To the king of Nepal? In the context of discussions on varnasrama development, dharma, and so forth, what is the significant value of that question? >When I think of Srila Prabhupada instructions to his followers, >obsessing on women... And perhaps you should verify your tele-cyberpsychoalyses with Dr. Ekstrand before making such public pronouncements? --gkd 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.