please note mistaken identity

[Guest guest]

> >

> > I humbly suggest you go back and read the relevant texts of Madhusudani

> > Radha to which Hari Sauri Prabhu responded. Her texts were needlessly

> > disruptive.

>

> Well, you go back and read the relevant texts. Then you will

> see that you made a blunder of getting on the case of Madhusudani

> Radha dd for something written by Madhusudana das. You could

> rather apologize to her for that. You made an obvious mistake.

 

As I said before, Madhusudani Radha concluded from Madhusudana's unverified

facts that Hari Sauri Prabhu was in error stating what he knew to be

somewhat correct which didn't agree with Madhusudana's texts. You can't deny

that Madhusudani Radha drew conclusions based on Madhusudana's unverified

claims. Let's see if Madhusudana actually verifies the public places he

claims to have gotten the info and then we can see for ourselves.

 

All I ever wanted was that no conclusions be drawn until the alleged facts

have been properly clarified.

 

In the meantime I suggest we drop this vein unless Madhusudana comes up with

proper verification.

 

Hope you are well. Hare Krishna.

 

ys

 

ada

[Guest guest]

At 13:20 +0100 8/12/2000, Ajamila (das) ACBSP (Goloka Books - UK) wrote:

> > >

>As I said before, Madhusudani Radha concluded from Madhusudana's unverified

>facts that Hari Sauri Prabhu was in error stating what he knew to be

>somewhat correct which didn't agree with Madhusudana's texts.

 

No, I didn't. I don't understand why you keep saying that I did.

Until you asked me where my sources came from, *I never even

commented on Madhusudana's text*. If you're so convinced that I did,

please provide us with a copy of such a text. If you can't find one,

you need to simply acknowledge that you're wrong.

 

>You can't deny

>that Madhusudani Radha drew conclusions based on Madhusudana's unverified

>claims.

 

Yes, I am denying that I did such a thing and if you go through the

texts carefully you will find out that this is in fact correct. I

never commented on Madhusudana's text and I never drew any

conclusions based on it. My letter to Hari Sauri at approximately

the same time was unrelated to Madhusudana's text and simply involved

asking Hari Sauri for clarification based on *his reply to me*. That

is very obvious from my text to him (I've already re-posted that here

and won't burden the conference members with it yet a third time).

 

The only time that I quoted Madhusudana's text was later, after Hari

Sauri had suggested that Gopal Krishna Maharaja may be able to

provide clarification. Then I sent copies of Hari Sauri's and

Madhusudana's texts to GKG and others directly invovled and asked

them to please clarify what is in fact going on. At no time did I

conclude that one of them was right or wrong.

 

>In the meantime I suggest we drop this vein unless Madhusudana comes up with

>proper verification.

 

I would be glad to, but I can't let your lies about me stand

unchallenged. So please either show where I commented on

Madhusudanana's text, concluding that he was correct, or admit that

I never did such a thing.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

>

> No, I didn't. I don't understand why you keep saying that I did.

> Until you asked me where my sources came from, *I never even

> commented on Madhusudana's text*. If you're so convinced that I did,

> please provide us with a copy of such a text. If you can't find one,

> you need to simply acknowledge that you're wrong.

 

I confirm that Madhusudhani Radha mataji did not comment on

Madhusudana's text. This is a pointless discussion. Please lets just end

this here.

 

Your humble servant,

Hari-sauri dasa