Guest guest Posted September 15, 2000 Report Share Posted September 15, 2000 > Ajamila dasa asks - "Adri, can't you see that?" > > Ajamila's own vision has been shown to be severly lacking recently when he > mistook my name for that of Madhusudani. AND proceeded to rebuke her > needlessly. Only reluctantly coming to his senses after admonition from > concerned devotees. Ajamila Was it not you who wrongly posted misleading statements about the court case in Calcutta and when asked for verification as to the source of your statements you failed to provide for the assembled devotees any such verification? Reply No. The verification is there for all to see on the IRM site (issues 1, 2, 5, 6, 12, 13, 15, 21 & Supporting Brief For Case Against GBC) http://come.to/irm ..... and VNN also has posted many updates. Wake-up Ajamila! They would be on com but for the fact that you strongly object to the posting of Adri's IRM newsletters. Correct me if I am wrong but I do believe that Adri is directly involved in the case and is thus in a position to know as to what is taking place. Also Hari Sauri who told the initial lie ie: that Adri had withdrawn the case etc. never verified that, rather he retracted his statement under the cover of it being a rash statement. So Ajamila exactly who is trying to mislead who here? The fact remains that the Calcutta court case is still very much a live issue and no amount of deception on your part is going to change that. If you do not believe me ask Adri, or if you do not believe Adri ask Satadhanya. The GBC have selected this notorious pedophile to represent them in the Calcutta High Court in defence of their illegal guru system. Ajamila At least I had the decency to admit while responding to a flurry of many different texts I mistook Madhusudani for Madhusudana but you have not yet admitted whether or not you deliberately posted misinformation on a pamho conference. Until you do so we can only conclude that your main business is to mischievously mislead devotees with disinformation. Reply I have no objection to posting the evidence, but if I do, are you going to start crying again about spamming? As stated above, it is plain for all to see that Hari Sauri & yourself are the culprits in this saga. At least Hari Sauri having realised his mistake had the decency to retract his lie, and hide his shame in silence. > Perhaps Ajamila prabhu is showing more myopic tendencies in his analysis > of Adri's post. Could it be that Adri prabhu is simply posting FARE > warning, due to his compassion for the persons who might be goaded into > such an attack? Ajamila Nobody in ISKCON that I know of is planning any such 'attack'. Legitimate attempts to reclaim what has been stolen by Adri from ISKCON is an unavoidable responsibility of the GBC. Reply Just how offensive can you get Ajamila? Adri is still an official ISKCON TP so you are simply crying wolf again. You could similarly level the same accusations against any ISKCON TP. Ajamila And I'm quite certain that the GBC are not planning to kill Vaisnavas to get the stolen property and money back. Reply You may be certain, but the remarkable point of this whole scene is that no one else is! Check for yourself, look on VNN and some of the other forums. No one else has doubted that the GBC are capable of such gross stupidity. History has proven this, and you are simply wasting everyones time to trying deny this fact. Ajamila Adri's refusal to return what he is trying to steal from ISKCON Reply You have previously written just a mere few sentences before ....."Legitimate attempts to reclaim what *has* been stolen by Adri"..... So it is either he **has** stolen or is **trying** to steal. Either way it is simply more evidence of your offensive mentality since you provide no evidence to sustantiate your claims. If Adri is a thief take him to court, Srila Prabhupada said "a thief should be punished". What are you waiting for? Ajamila along with his threat to kill any Vaisnavas who try to take back the stolen property indicates that he is prepared to resort to ruthless criminal behaviour. Reply What sort of heartless vaisnava is it who would storm one of Srila Prabhupada's temples causing so much public embarressment to our movement and jepordising the safety of the Dieties? Answer. This is a misnomer Ajamila, since no vaisnava could even contemplate such an action, since Srila Prabhupada has confirmed that a vaisnava is a perfect gentleman. The correct word to use in this instance is *goonda*. Ajamila This is not the symptom of a Vaisnava but rather the symptom of Kamsa. I'm afraid our worst suspicions all along have now been confirmed. Adri Dharan and Madhu Pandit are not authorised representatives of ISKCON, they have broken their sacred 'Oaths of allegience to ISKCON' in the grossest and most offensive way possible thereby disqualifying themselves. Reply "Adri Dharan and Madhu Pandit are not authorised representatives of ISKCON" Ajamila are you telling lies again? When did they become unauthorised? Do the GBC not have a similar oath of allegience to ISKCON? Haven't they broken that oath by disobeying the supreme authority in ISKCON Srila Prabhupada? In case you are not following my thoughts here, I will spell it out for you. Srila Prabhupada sent out an institutional directive on July 9th 1977 to all GBC's and TP's, with no order for the instruction within to discontinue. In fact his final will signed days before his departure states NO CHANGE. Why was HDG's instruction disobeyed, and the bogus guru nonsense perpretated instead? Ajamila And your support of Adri being ready to kill Vaisnavas in order to retain stolen ISKCON property and money confirms that you have nothing of any importance to say. Reply Amply replied above. > As far as the remains of Ajamils spurious attack on Adri goes, Adri is > still a loyal member of ISKCON & Srila Prabhupada and always has been. > Though he may not agree with Ajamila's limited perception of reality. Ajamila Srila Prabhupada defined loyalty as COOPERATION with the GBC. Reply Where? Besides if the so called GBC is bogus, by disobedience to HDG, then how can they be the Governing Body Committee for the International Society FOR KRISHNA CONSCIOUSNESS? They are by default something completely different. Ajamila Those who don't agree with the GBC can respectfully propose their ideas but they can't FORCE them onto the GBC in the way Adri Dharan is trying to do. Aside from that, the entire GBC and nearly everyone in ISKCON are convinced that Adri's new ideas about post samadhi initiations in ISKCON are nothing but the wildest of concoctions because they have absolutely no basis whatsoever in guru, sadhu, and satra, ISKCON's only ultimate spriritual authority. Reply It seems that the ones proposing force here are the GBC, Adri is defending himself from the aggressors. Also HDG is the ultimate authority in his ISKCON. Who says so? The GBC say so ..... "The GBC has been established by His Divine Grace A.C. Bhaktivedanta Swami Prabhupada to represent Him in carrying out the responsibility of managing the International Society for Krsna Consciousness of which He is the Founder-Acarya and **supreme authority**. The GBC accepts as its life & soul His divine instructions and recognises that it is completely dependent on His mercy in all respects. **The GBC has no other function** or purpose other than to execute the instructions so kindly given by His Divine Grace and preserve and spread His Teachings to the world in their pure form." (Definition of GBC, Resolution 1, GBC minutes 1975, emphasis added) Thus if the GBC are found to have either failed to execute any instruction given by Srila Prabhupada, or introduce anything not directly given by Srila Prabhupada, then they would clearly be in *breach of their authority*, and the management of ISKCON would be brought into disrepute. When did HDG even teach us to check what he himself HAS ordered with other so called sadhus, or sastras, to make sure his order is bona-fide. When did any disciple do such a thing when HDG was with us pre-Nov.14th 1977? So why such a proposal now? Are you so learned now that you can question your guru's order on the basis of some other sadhu or sastra? If the guru is bona-fide then what ever he orders will surely be automatically in line with sadhu & sastra. " Sadhu sastra guru-vakya, tinete kariya aikya. Sastra is never changed. And the sadhu... sadhu means who follows the sastras. He is sadhu. He also does not change. Sadhu, sastra and guru? ***Guru means who follows the sastra and sadhu***. So there are three, the same." (S.P. Lecture 30/11/76,Vrindavana, emphasis added) The order of the spiritual master has not to be doubted. This simply further confirms your offensive mentality. Ajamila If Adri thinks that his interpretation of guru, sadhu, and sastra is right and that everyone else in ISKCON is wrong -- afterall, everyone is entitled to his opinion. Reply Well Ajamila it has been known before that "everyone else in ISKCON is wrong", flashback to the "good old" zonal acary days. Until Srila Prabhupada's Final Order is implimented in his society there will undoubtedly be many more instances of "everyone else in ISKCON" being wrong. So please do not be surprised when the inevitable arrives. Ajamila -- then the GENTLEMANLY thing to do, indeed the Vaisnava thing to do is RESIGN and then go and do your own thing rather than steel Srila Prabhupada's property and money and threaten to kill Vaisnavas. Reply As stated previously Ajamila if what you claim is true you will have NO PROBLEM solving all this through the proper channels ie: the judicial system. If you are simply causing more disturbance again, then the laws of karma are waiting for you with open arms. Ajamila Madhusudana, if you call that loyalty then perhaps a few fools will believe you but certainly not any sensible devotees. Reply Ajamila, a lot of so called "sensible" devotees were avidly promoting Jayatirtha then Bhagavan as being "good as God" and they fooled plenty. I seem to remember you as being one of them. You are still playing the same foolish game today not having learned from your past mistakes. How much longer are you going to continue with this pretense? btw Ajamila, just in case you have lost your glasses this time, and therefore did not see the following post from Adri. I'll re-post it just to make sure..... "Zonal acharya supporters such as Ajamila and Hari Sauri are always behind a violent solution since they can not debate using philosophy and reason. Indeed on the recent CHAKRA debate, Ajamila chickened out saying he had 'no more time', yet he finds plenty of time to write messages supporting mob rule such as this one. *****We challenge him to continue the debate on CHAKRA****** instead of wishing that we simply get crushed through violence." ysmd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 15, 2000 Report Share Posted September 15, 2000 "Madhusudana (das) GKG (New York, NY - USA)" wrote: > > Ajamila dasa asks - "Adri, can't you see that?" > > > > Ajamila's own vision has been shown to be severly lacking recently when he > > mistook my name for that of Madhusudani. AND proceeded to rebuke her > > needlessly. Only reluctantly coming to his senses after admonition from > > concerned devotees. During which time you were conspicious by your absense in that you never came forward to point out it was your post and not Madhusudhani's. That showed, IMHO, a real lack of gentlemanly conduct. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2000 Report Share Posted September 16, 2000 | |Madhusudana.GKG (AT) pamho (DOT) net [Madhusudana.GKG (AT) pamho (DOT) net] |re - GBC planning Bloodbath | |The GBC have selected this notorious pedophile to represent them in the Calcutta High |Court in defence of their illegal guru system. As a matter of accuracy, the Office of Child Protection ruled that ISKCON could no longer accept Satadhanya's service in this regard. My understanding is that this provision has been complied with. Your servant, Sri Rama das [srirama.acbsp (AT) pamho (DOT) net], or [sriramadas (AT) home (DOT) com] < Please note new address. [http://www.krishnagalleria.com] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 16, 2000 Report Share Posted September 16, 2000 >>The GBC have selected this notorious pedophile to represent them in the >>Calcutta High |Court in defence of their illegal guru system. Sri Rama das wrote in reply to the above: ... As a matter of accuracy, the Office of Child Protection ruled that ISKCON could no longer accept Satadhanya's service in this regard. My understanding is that this provision has been complied with. Your servant, Sri Rama das Sri Rama prabhu: I have checked your claim (as above) with Adri who is directly involved with this case and has access to all the legal documents. I'm sorry to say that your point of accuracy is being disputed. Nothing has changed since my previous post on Satadhanya's position re-The case IRM V GBC in the Calcutta high court. btw. It will not be the first time that the Office of Child Protection's ruling has been ignored. (See IRM newsletters 19-21 for details of the Dhanudhara Swami fiasco. http://come.to/irm) Below is Adri's reply. 1) The fact is that his name is the only name that appears as **power of attorney** in the GBC's reply to a CURRENT active and live case. 2) They may argue that he may not be active **TODAY** - but the case still is. Yes TODAY - he only (is still) OFFICIALLY involved in the case in the manner stated above. (ie: power of attorney) ysmd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 18, 2000 Report Share Posted September 18, 2000 > "Madhusudana (das) GKG (New York, NY - USA)" wrote: > > > > Ajamila dasa asks - "Adri, can't you see that?" > > > > > > Ajamila's own vision has been shown to be severly lacking recently > > > when he mistook my name for that of Madhusudani. AND proceeded to > > > rebuke her needlessly. Only reluctantly coming to his senses after > > > admonition from concerned devotees. > > During which time you were conspicious by your absense in that you never > came forward to point out it was your post and not Madhusudhani's. That > showed, IMHO, a real lack of gentlemanly conduct. This is the point and it would certainly be proper and well in order if Madhusudana apologised or explained why he remained silent when his contraversial posting was being called into question. ys ada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2000 Report Share Posted September 19, 2000 Ajamila wrote: This is the point and it would certainly be proper and well in order if Madhusudana apologised or explained why he remained silent when his contraversial posting was being called into question. Reply Ajamila you are simply 'clutching at straws' here. To be perfectly honest though, you have a tendency for clowning around and as such I was finding your ineptitude rather amusing. Rather like the Prabhupada disciples re-union in 1996 in London, when you were obviously feeling rather bored and wanting to draw attention to yourself. So our intrepid clown Ajamila decided to perform an acrobatic display. The problem was it was in a small English back yard already overcrowded with guests. Of course it was a matter of seconds before our clown crashed into Partha's back causing him much pain. Partha prabhu was shocked and showed some restraint from retaliating, perhaps this was because the program was being filmed. (Just to show how the *'senior'* devotees behave during satsang). So in sum I took it to be another of your 5 star top quality clown performances. Does this answer your question or do you wish to know more? Surely the more appropriate questions should be .... Ajamila why were you so slow in realising what mother Madhusudani was obviously trying to tell you? & For future reference can you kindly tell us how many times (and by how many devotees) do you require admonishment before you realise that you are mistaken? Thanks for your consideration of these questions. ysmd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2000 Report Share Posted September 19, 2000 "Madhusudana (das) GKG (New York, NY - USA)" wrote: > Ajamila wrote: > This is the point and it would certainly be proper and well in order if > Madhusudana apologised or explained why he remained silent when his > contraversial posting was being called into question. > > Reply > Ajamila you are simply 'clutching at straws' here. > > To be perfectly honest though, you have a tendency for clowning around and > as such I was finding your ineptitude rather amusing. Madhu- if you are going to cast aspersions than be prepared - the Universe is a mirror. Your silence while Madhusudhani was being chastised for what you did was the cowardly act of the politically motivated. As such, you have earned admittance to my list of those whom I disrespect. I don't know what motive you have coming onto the VAD conference and doing all this agitating, but it is being counterproductive to whatever aim you have in mind. Please cease and desist. I have for long taken a fairly neutral stance towards the rittviks, but you are alienating me with your boorish behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2000 Report Share Posted September 19, 2000 Pamho, agtSP May I ask who is Mark Middle Mountain? Y.s. Hariballabha dd > Your silence while Madhusudhani was being chastised for what you did was > the cowardly act of the politically motivated. As such, you have earned > admittance to my list of those whom I disrespect. > > I don't know what motive you have coming onto the VAD conference and doing > all this agitating, but it is being counterproductive to whatever aim you > have in mind. Please cease and desist. I have for long taken a fairly > neutral stance towards the rittviks, but you are alienating me with your > boorish behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2000 Report Share Posted September 19, 2000 This is Madhava Gosh. Are my messages only coming with Mark? I wonder why. I get my COM messages forwarded to my regular e mail account and just hit reply like I always have. Something must have changed. Guess I will have to sign my posts. Gosh "Hariballabha (dd) (Berlin - D)" wrote: > Pamho, agtSP > > May I ask who is Mark Middle Mountain? > > Y.s. Hariballabha dd > > > Your silence while Madhusudhani was being chastised for what you did was > > the cowardly act of the politically motivated. As such, you have earned > > admittance to my list of those whom I disrespect. > > > > I don't know what motive you have coming onto the VAD conference and doing > > all this agitating, but it is being counterproductive to whatever aim you > > have in mind. Please cease and desist. I have for long taken a fairly > > neutral stance towards the rittviks, but you are alienating me with your > > boorish behavior. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2000 Report Share Posted September 20, 2000 "Madhusudana (das) GKG (New York, NY - USA)" wrote: > Ajamila wrote: > This is the point and it would certainly be proper and well in order if > Madhusudana apologised or explained why he remained silent when his > contraversial posting was being called into question. > > Reply > Ajamila you are simply 'clutching at straws' here. > > To be perfectly honest though, you have a tendency for clowning around and > as such I was finding your ineptitude rather amusing. Mark. Madhu- if you are going to cast aspersions than be prepared - MD Prepared for what exactly? Strange how you fail to object to the multitude of aspersions cast by Ajamila in Adri's direction & aimed at me also. If you are honest, politically unmotivated, equipoised, neutral as you claim. Then surely you could spare a word or two of objection towards Ajamila also. The fact that you haven't done so, proves that you are another, unfortunate nonsense. Mark. the Universe is a mirror. MD And the moon is made of green cheese? Mark Your silence while Madhusudhani was being chastised for what you did was the cowardly act of the politically motivated. As such, you have earned admittance to my list of those whom I disrespect. MD Fame at last, I've made it onto Mark's list, whatever next I wonder? If you were aware of what went on, and you also remained silent, how can you be innocent while I am guilty? Is this this another example of your neutrality? Besides mother Madhusudani is far from being a helpless Draupadi and in my humble opinion she is perfectly capable of looking afer herself on these forums, and due to her superior intelligence, she is in fact more than capable of defeating Ajamila. Mark I don't know what motive you have coming onto the VAD conference and doing all this agitating, but it is being counterproductive to whatever aim you have in mind. MD I came onto the VAD conference (you also have a short memory) because I caught Hari Sauri misrepresenting some facts about the IRM vs GBC court case in the Calcutta High Court to Mother Madhusudani. Btw you have contradicted yourself by saying .... a) you do not know my motive. Then you say b)it is being counterproductive to whatever aim you have in mind. Can you explain how you can know b) without knowing a)? Mark Please cease and desist. MD No problem, I shall comply with your wish, now try not to worry about it. Mark I have for long taken a fairly neutral stance towards the rittviks, MD Now that's another prize piece of nonsense Mark! There is NO SUCH THING as a neutral stance on this issue. Either you accept Srila Prabhupada's Final Order on initiations OR you don't. You are living in a bubble of illusion Mark, thinking otherwise. Mark but you are alienating me with your boorish behavior. MD Can you be so kind as to detail the boorish behavior which you are refering to? So sorry, we cann't please everyone now can we? I suspect Kamsa was also rather upset when Krishna killed all the demons that Kamsa sent to kill Krishna. I'm sure Krishna never lost any sleep over the fact that he was disturbing Kamsa with his 'boorish' behavior by killing all the demons. ALL Glories To Srila Prabhupada! ysmd Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2000 Report Share Posted September 20, 2000 > > Mark. > Madhu- if you are going to cast aspersions than be prepared - > > MD > Prepared for what exactly? Strange how you fail to object to the multitude > of aspersions cast by Ajamila in Adri's direction & aimed at me also. If you > are honest, politically unmotivated, equipoised, neutral as you claim. I don't recall making that claim. > Then > surely you could spare a word or two of objection towards Ajamila also. The > fact that you haven't done so, proves that you are another, unfortunate > nonsense. > Check the archives. I did object. So there is an objective error on your part. > > Mark. > the Universe is a mirror. > > MD > And the moon is made of green cheese? Oops, sorry I didn't use the devotee jargon you are conditioned to understand. On the wheel of samsara if you do something you get an equal and opposite karmic reaction. Hence, the Universe is a mirror. Not having been to the moon, I won't comment on it's composition. > > > Mark > Your silence while Madhusudhani was being chastised for what you did was the > cowardly act of the politically motivated. As such, you have earned > admittance to my list of those whom I disrespect. > > MD > Fame at last, I've made it onto Mark's list, whatever next I wonder? See below. > If you > were aware of what went on, and you also remained silent, how can you be > innocent while I am guilty? Good point, but as I did respond, not relevant to me. > Is this this another example of your neutrality? > Besides mother Madhusudani is far from being a helpless Draupadi and in my > humble opinion she is perfectly capable of looking afer herself on these > forums, and due to her superior intelligence, she is in fact more than > capable of defeating Ajamila. Her capability is not at issue. Your allowing her to unnecessarily stay in a awkward poistion is. And who says Draupadi was helpless? I don't get that from her history. > > > Mark > I don't know what motive you have coming onto the VAD conference and doing > all this agitating, but it is being counterproductive to whatever aim you > have in mind. > > MD > I came onto the VAD conference (you also have a short memory) because I > caught Hari Sauri misrepresenting some facts about the IRM vs GBC court case > in the Calcutta High Court to Mother Madhusudani. Btw you have contradicted > yourself by saying .... > a) you do not know my motive. Then you say > b)it is being counterproductive to whatever aim you have in mind. > Can you explain how you can know b) without knowing a)? To you? Perhaps not. To a reasonable man, as follows: a. has to do with content b.) has to do with form. If someone were to barge into my home without knocking and shove the contents of my desktop onto the floor, no what how attractive the item he then places there nor how competitively priced it is, I will probably not buy it. Whatever aim you are trying to accomplish is obscured by your methodology. > > > Mark > Please cease and desist. > > MD > No problem, I shall comply with your wish, now try not to worry about it. I may not be the one who needs to worry. > > > Mark > I have for long taken a fairly neutral stance towards the rittviks, > > MD > Now that's another prize piece of nonsense Mark! There is NO SUCH THING as a > neutral stance on this issue. Either you accept Srila Prabhupada's Final > Order on initiations OR you don't. You are living in a bubble of illusion > Mark, thinking otherwise. > That black and white simplistic thinking, that demanding tone that the dichotmy you think is the most important must also be important to me is another example of egocentric off putting behavior. > > Mark > but you are alienating me with your boorish behavior. > > MD > Can you be so kind as to detail the boorish behavior which you are refering > to? So sorry, we cann't please everyone now can we? You certainly got that right. > > > I suspect Kamsa was also rather upset when Krishna killed all the demons > that Kamsa sent to kill Krishna. I'm sure Krishna never lost any sleep over > the fact that he was disturbing Kamsa with his 'boorish' behavior by killing > all the demons. > > ALL Glories To Srila Prabhupada! > > ysmd Make a thinly veiled death threat and then invoke the name of Srila Prabhupada. You real know how to win friends and influence people. As for your threat, the Universe is a mirror. 93 St.Mark's Place. Do you sleep there? Nice straw hat you wear on book distribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 20, 2000 Report Share Posted September 20, 2000 > > Mark > > I don't know what motive you have coming onto the VAD conference and > > doing all this agitating, but it is being counterproductive to whatever > > aim you have in mind. > > > > MD > > I came onto the VAD conference (you also have a short memory) because I > > caught Hari Sauri misrepresenting some facts about the IRM vs GBC court > > case in the Calcutta High Court to Mother Madhusudani. Btw you have > > contradicted yourself by saying .... > > a) you do not know my motive. Then you say > > b)it is being counterproductive to whatever aim you have in mind. > > Can you explain how you can know b) without knowing a)? > > To you? Perhaps not. To a reasonable man, as follows: > a. has to do with content b.) has to do with form. If someone were to > barge into my home without knocking and shove the contents of my desktop > onto the floor, no what how attractive the item he then places there nor > how competitively priced it is, I will probably not buy it. Whatever aim > you are trying to accomplish is obscured by your methodology. Mark's point about 'presentation methodology' is very relevant. Not only is the ritvik message wrong but the presentation is awfully wrong too. Its a double wammie loser. And if you throw in all the associated Vaisnava aparadhas then their on a triple wammie loser. So if anyone wants to be a looser just become a ritvik. When Srila Prabhupada presented us with Krishna consciousness he certainly didn't try to ram it down our throats in the way that the ritviks are trying to dupe everyone with their message by hook or by crook. The ritviks no doubt think the same of me. I only wish I had some of Srila Prabhpada's magic to convince them of their nonsense. I wish there was someone among us who could convince them because even one devotee lost to maya is a great loss. ys ada Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 21, 2000 Report Share Posted September 21, 2000 This is in reply to Mark Middle Mountain's continuous false alegations and I hope it will finally lay the issue to rest. I wrote > MD > Prepared for what exactly? Strange how you fail to object to the multitude > of aspersions cast by Ajamila in Adri's direction & aimed at me also. If you > are honest, politically unmotivated, equipoised, neutral as you claim. Mark replied.. "I don't recall making that claim." My reply.. You posted the following on the 19th "I have for long taken a fairly neutral stance towards the rittviks" I wrote... > Then > surely you could spare a word or two of objection towards Ajamila also. The > fact that you haven't done so, proves that you are another, unfortunate > nonsense. > Mark replied Check the archives. I did object. So there is an objective error on your part. My reply .... I have checked the archives and posted what i have found as the sequence of events below. Please note at no point do you object to Ajamila's attack on mother Madhusudani. Rather you change your name, then enter the fray attacking me for not pointing out to Ajamila his error in attacking Madhusudani. When I reply that several devotees had done so including mother Madhusudani herself, and ask you the logical question, "So what makes you think that he would have understood me, if he would not even accept the words of his friends?" Your reply was (17th Aug) ****" Don't patronize me, asshole. Any ordinary gentlemen, seeing a lady in distress, would have stepped forward." ***** As I have pointed out previously, you never stepped forward either! So the obvious question which spring's to mind is .. JUST EXACTY WHO IS THE REAL NONSENSE IN THIS ISSUE? Which you yourself created! The following is the log of events I have relative to this issue .... My post in reply to Hari Sauri's misinformation. Aug 10th Point of information: Firstly Hari Sauri states: "I don't know much about the details on what is happening with the court case ... " Then he states: "There was somelegal techincality that made it very difficult to withdraw the papers he originally signed but as far as I know its a mute point now because since then, the particular cases that were filed have all since gone through court proceedings and are now over and done with. The ritviks are not pursuing those cases anymore because they lost most of them. They are now pursuing some new ones and I am quite sure that Satadhanya isn't signing on any of them." For someone who claims that he doesn't know much he is happy to say quite a lot. Unfortunately all of the above is UNTRUE. Fact 1: Only one case was filed by the IRM in Calcutta. The GBC did an official reply. The only name on that document is Satyadhanya's. Fact 2: The reply submitted by the GBC contained a falsified document. Thus the Ritviks filed another connected case due to the perjury committed within the GBC reply. Fact 3: Thus Satyadhanya's name remains as the only name on a very live and active case. There is NO legal impediment to withdrawing his name and submitting it again in someone else's name. It WILL cause some legal disadvantage to the GBC case but there is nothing to stop it happening. Fact 4: No cases have been lost. On the contrary it is the GBC whose case now looks very weak having been exposed as having submitted a falsified document. The GBC have missed the deadline set by the court in terms of replying to the perjury charge. This is where things stand at the moment. Hari Sauri should at least issue an apology for deliberately misleading the conference. Thus Satyadhanya is still very much on the scene. Harsi dasa wrote .... Harsi Dasa Aug 10th How it comes that you in America are knowing things better than Hari Sauri Prabhu in India? Then Hari Sauri replied ..... Hari Sauri Aug 11th I have stated at the outset that I wasn't clear on all the details. Having thus made it clear that what I do know may not be completely accurate I see no need to issue an apology for 'deliberatly misleading' this conference. If you want all the techinical details you can write to one of the members of the legal committee that is dealing with this case. Your gurumaharaja, Gopal Krishna Goswami can probably give you all the techinical details. I would appreciate it if you didn't jump down people's throats when they are trying to be helpful. It really makes a terrible atmosphere in our Society and personally it makes me not want to communciate at all if as soon as I say something someone comes in and puts the boot in. There are polite and respectful ways to frame your questions, suspicions and statements and I would humbly like to request you to adopt a more reasonable tone in your communications. Your humble servant, Hari-sauri dasa At this point Ajamila enters the fray .... Ajamila Aug 11th Just as a matter of interest, since I've been reading this thread, Madhusudani Radhi, what is the source of your facts? If hereafter I quote you I must also quote your source without which your points can't really be considered facts. Looking forward to your reply. Hope you are well. Hare Krishna. ys Madhusudani replies with heading "please note mistaken identity" Aug 11th Madhusudani I did not present the facts below. Please don't spread the rumor that they came from me. They were submitted to these conferences by Madhusudana dasa GKG. However, I found them interesting and would also like to know their source. Please direct your inquiry to: <Madhusudana.GKG (AT) pamho (DOT) net> Ys, Madhusudani Radha dasi (please note the spelling of my name) Ajamila replies .... Ajamila 11th Madhusudani Radha, if you also would like to know their source would it not be more prudent and courteous to first check the source of the facts before blasting Hari Sauri Prabhu with them in a public forum? There is plenty of room in our Society for debate and discussion but publicly jumping to unqualified conclusions creates a needless discomforting atmosphere. I added Madhusudana.GKG the third party source of your facts as a receiver to this text with the hope that he may identify the source of what he stated earlier were the FACTS. If he remains silent, or can't confirm a direct source himself for the FACTS, we can only conclude that the below mentioned FACTS are unreliable, and indeed an apology would be in order from both Madhus. ys ada Madhusudani repied .... Madhusudani Aug 11th Dear Ajamila Prabhu, I'm confused. I did not post those "facts", neither did I "blast" anyone with them. I did not comment on Madhusudana's posting until you accused me of being the author. Why do you keep dragging me into this? I want to know where that information came from as much as you do, but why should it be up to me to check on their source? All I did was ask Hari Sauri some questions about Satadhanya, which he answered. i.e.: I wrote: >I'm very happy to hear that this is being enforced now. Do you know >when the last time was that he was on Mayapur's property? Also, >when was the last time he appeared on the gurus behalf in Calcutta >(re. the ritvik lawsuit) and the last time he signed any papers on >behalf of the gurus? Also, have the papers he previously signed on >behalf of the gurus now been re-signed by someone else, so that he >is no longer the gurus' representative on record? > >Thanks for any information you can provide. > >Ys, >Madhusudani dasi Hari Sauri answered (repposted at the bottom of this e-mail) and then Madhusudana accused him of providing incorrect information. Please don't re-write history. Ajamila Prabhu, I don't know what your motive is here. Are you *trying* to make me look bad? If so, I wonder who owes whom an apology...... Madhusudani dasi Harrivallabha devi dasi wrote pointing out Ajamilas error ... I am not intended to take any sides here, but even after rereading Madhusudani Radha's texts I really can't see that she has blasting Hari Sauri Prabhu in a public forum. But if you felt like this wouldn't it be more gentle to write her personally and clearify your concern than blasting her in a public forum? Y.s. Hb dd Hari Sauri 12th Aug wrote ..... Dear Madhusudhani Radha mataji, Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada! I am not very happy with your bouncing only part of my comments about Satadhanya to others. If you want to quote me I don't mind, but please quote ALL of what I said and not just parts that suit you. I made it quite clear in my replies that I wasn't aware of all the details and I said twice that I had no clear idea of them. Your selective quoting has removed that important qualifier from my text and frankly I don't much appreciate that. Here is what I replied to your questions about Satadhanya in full: > > Also, when > > was the last time he appeared on the gurus behalf in Calcutta (re. > > the ritvik lawsuit) and the last time he signed any papers on behalf > > of the gurus? > > I don't know much about the details on what is happening with the > court case except he is still allowed to do some legal backup work but > without being allowed to sign any documents or represent ISKCON or the GBC > in any official capacity. This is all within the CPO ruling. > > > Also, have the papers he previously signed on behalf > > of the gurus now been re-signed by someone else, so that he is no > > longer the gurus' representative on record? > > Again I have no clear idea about this. There was some legal > techincality that made it very difficult to withdraw the papers he > originally signed but as far as I know its a mute point now because since > then, the particular cases that were filed have all since gone through > court proceedings and are now over and done with. The ritviks are not > pursuing those cases anymore because they lost most of them. They are now > pursuing some new ones and I am quite sure that Satadhanya isn't signing > on any of them. Your humble servant, Hari-sauri dasa Ajamila 12th Aug. wrote ..... If you got your facts from 'public information' that was posted by various parties along with supporting court documents then please inform me WHERE I and others interested can also view those public documents which will verify your claimed facts. No offense intended but your word is not good enough, for if I'm to quote you I must also quote your exact source. ys ada Ajamila 12th again posted ..... > I am not intended to take any sides here, but even after rereading > Madhusudani Radha's texts I really can't see that she has blasting Hari > Sauri Prabhu in a public forum. > > But if you felt like this wouldn't it be more gentle to write her > personally and clearify your concern than blasting her in a public forum? > > Y.s. Hb dd 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. ys ada Bhadra Balaram Aug.12th entered the fray pointing out Ajamilas mistake > Ajamila Prabhu, I don't know what your motive is here. Are you > *trying* to make me look bad? If so, I wonder who owes whom an > apology...... sounds like a slight misunderstanding of ajamila pr between "madhusudan" and "madhusudani" words. I may be wrong but in any case I don't see any reason for others to jump in to defend a person who may be well enough to defend oneself or capable enough to solve the misunderstanding with the other party on his/her own. What I am doing here is not jumping in but trying to say that doing so is not a good habit. Pl forgive me if it sounds critical. Hare Krishna. ys, bb Madhusudani 12th wrote ... Ajamila wrote: >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. No need. I will repost them myself here (below). However, I find it disturbing that you keep changing your accusations against me and never acknowledge when you are simply wrong. First you commented on Madhusudana's text, attributing his facts to me and telling me that I should provide the sources. When I pointed out that those facts were not posted by me, you simply changed your tune and said that I had "blasted" Hari Sauri. Now you are saying that I was "needlessly disruptive", but you are still not clarifying what you're talking about. Vague, general accusations like that are simply not helpful. You still have not stated what sources you are interested in, but appear to have been more interested in trying to criticize me and provide false information about my texts. However, just in case you were wondering where I received information that there was some GBC involvement in the 4 cases (LS, BVP, NC, and DD), that information came from the child protection office. If you had wanted to know, you could simply have asked me directly. Personally, I think you have shown yourself to be both rude, disruptive and a sloppy reader in this discussion. I'm very disappointed in you. I know you can do much better than that. Ys, Madhusudani dasi Here are the two letters I sent Hari Sauri re. the current thread. Just for the record. >Wed, 9 Aug 2000 21:09:10 -0700 >"Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP" <Hari.Sauri.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net>, >ISKCON.India (AT) pamho (DOT) net, India.Open (AT) pamho (DOT) net, >Varnasrama.development (AT) pamho (DOT) net, CAP (AT) pamho (DOT) net, "Bhadra Balaram >(das) JPS (Mayapur - IN)" <Bhadra.Balaram.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> >Maria Ekstrand <mariaekstrand (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> >Re: GBC authority and responsibility > > >At 7:06 +0630 8/10/2000, Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP wrote: >> As far as Satadhanya is concerned, he was banned from doing any >>service for 10 years from Mayapur/ Calcutta temples and we have strictly >>enforced that. He isn't allowed on our property although he lives just down >>the road. > > >I'm very happy to hear that this is being enforced now. Do you know >when the last time was that he was on Mayapur's property? Also, >when was the last time he appeared on the gurus behalf in Calcutta >(re. the ritvik lawsuit) and the last time he signed any papers on >behalf of the gurus? Also, have the papers he previously signed on >behalf of the gurus now been re-signed by someone else, so that he >is no longer the gurus' representative on record? > >Thanks for any information you can provide. > >Ys, Madhusudani dasi >Wed, 9 Aug 2000 08:48:51 -0700 >"Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP" <Hari.Sauri.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net>, >ISKCON.India (AT) pamho (DOT) net, India.Open (AT) pamho (DOT) net, >Varnasrama.development (AT) pamho (DOT) net, CAP (AT) pamho (DOT) net, "Bhadra Balaram >(das) JPS (Mayapur - IN)" <Bhadra.Balaram.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> >Maria Ekstrand <mariaekstrand (AT) earthlink (DOT) net> >Re: GBC authority and responsibility > > >At 20:42 +0630 8/9/2000, Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP wrote: >> Just ask Dhira Govinda. > > >Will do, but the fact remains that we already know of one instance >in which the CPO decision was overriden by the GBC EC (Danurdhar), >one instance when they CPO was told not to investigate (Lokanath S), >one instance where local authorities allowed someone to continue >representing ISKCON (Satadhanya) and two instances where the GBC and >local authorities have been involved in some unclear capacity >(Bhakti Vidya Purna S and Nitai Chand S). What all of these cases >have in common is that they involve devotees who were/are in some >kind of leadership positions. It would be nice to hear the GBC's >side on these cases before we look for more. The one exception I >can think of re. the above tendency is re. Muralivadaka, which is >one of the few cases that involved a leader which was handled really >well. > >What will be interesting to find out is if all the wonderful >recommendations (e.g.seeking therapy, apologizing to victims, paying >into a victim's fund, staying away from events where children are >present, not giving class, giving kirtanas) that were carefully >developed have actually been enforced in each case. In some cases, >timelines were given within which some of these things had to happen >in order for the person to be considered rehabilitated. I will >write to Dhira Govinda to find out what kind of follow up or >progress reports that have been submitted to his office by the >various local communities and by the abusers. > >Ys, Madhusudani dasi Mahanidhi dasa 12th enters the fray again pointing out Ajamilas error .... > > 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. Hari Sauri 12th rightly apologises ... > > If you are unclear about the above facts, I sincerely apologize for > obscuring that reality by my removal of your qualifier. However, if > you are certain of those 4 points, I don't understand why any > qualifier would be needed? Ok, I really didn't want this all to blow up into an endless back and forth. Thanks for your apology, its appreciated. And I also apologise because I gave information in a casual way, rather than getting all the technical details before I wrote. This has obviously created confusion and that wasn't my intention. When I replied your original inquiries about Satadhanya it was a quick, off the top of my head response and therefore I put in the qualifier thinking that you'd understand that. In other words it wasn't a carefully considered reply but a quick 'email' reply -- I am sure you understand what that means. As far as what I did write, its what I generally understand to be the case; however as I have said several times, I am not in possession of all the technical facts. I have sent an email to Dayaram prabhu who is working on the case, giving him your specific questions and hopefully he will find the time to reply them. Sorry for the confusion and I hope this settles this particular thread. Your humble servant, Hari-sauri dasa Ajamila Aug 12th writes ... As I said before, you concluded from Madhusudana's unverified facts that Hari Sauri Prabhu was in error stating what he knew to be correct which didn't agree with Madhusudana's texts. You can't deny that you 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 Akilesvara 12th also points out Ajamilas error ..... Dear Ajamila Prabhu, Madhusudani did not draw any conclusion. I have deleted the text in question, but I remember that she was only asking clarification. I understand that you are one of those who want to reform the GBC. To me it is not clear what you want to reform exactly, but there is one thing that should be more apparent with the reformers; that is transparency, not to speak about honesty and humility. > In the meantime I suggest we drop this vein unless Madhusudana comes up > with proper verification. It will be so much easier if you recognised your mistake. I think you have hurt her unnecessarily. For a better society, Akhilesvara dasa Aug 12th Madhusudani wrote .... 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 Madhusudani 12th replies to Hari Sauri's apology At 18:20 +0630 8/12/2000, Hari Sauri (das) ACBSP wrote: > Ok, I really didn't want this all to blow up into an endless back >and forth. Thanks for your apology, its appreciated. And I also apologise >because I gave information in a casual way, rather than getting all the >technical details before I wrote. This has obviously created confusion and >that wasn't my intention. When I replied your original inquiries about >Satadhanya it was a quick, off the top of my head response and therefore I >put in the qualifier thinking that you'd understand that. In other words it >wasn't a carefully considered reply but a quick 'email' reply -- I am sure >you understand what that means. Thank you for clarifying. I've certainly written enough "off the top of my head" responses myself to know how that goes. > As far as what I did write, its what I generally understand to be >the case; however as I have said several times, I am not in possession of >all the technical facts. I have sent an email to Dayaram prabhu who is >working on the case, giving him your specific questions and hopefully he >will find the time to reply them. I hope so too. This case has caused a lot of concern and pain, both among gurukula alumni and the general devotee population, so it would be immensly helpful to hear the facts from those who are working on the case. Let's hope you have better luck than me in getting a response. > Sorry for the confusion and I hope this settles this particular >thread. Thank you. Yes, it does as far as I'm concerned - at least until we find out what the facts are from those directly involved. Thanks for trying to be helpful. That can be a thankless task. Ys, Madhusudani dasi Ajamila 12th finally realizes he is wrong .... > Dear Ajamila Prabhu, > Madhusudani did not draw any conclusion. I have deleted the text in > question, but I remember that she was only asking clarification. As pointed out by Akhilesvara Prabhu, I mistook Madhusudana GKG to be Madhusudani Radha, and for this I apologise unreservedly to Madhusudani Radha. Their names look so alike and I'm writing lots of texts these days. Krishna is telling me to slow down. Below I have bracketed the offending part of Madhusudana GKG's text to which I objected. > > > > {{{Hari Sauri should at least issue an apology for deliberately}} > > {{ misleading the conference.}} > > > > Thus Satyadhanya is still very much on the scene. Hari Sauri Prabhu was not trying to mislead the conference: He forwarded information and stated that there were some parts he wasn't quite sure about and that the rest was to the best of his knowledge. This is not misleading the conference. So it was Madhusudana GKG and not Madhusudani Radha who initially posted the accusative text without proper verification. It would be nice if Madhusudana GKG would either offer proper verification of his alleged facts or withdraw his accusation. > I > understand that you are one of those who want to reform the GBC. To me it > is not clear what you want to reform exactly, but there is one thing that > should be more apparent with the reformers; that is transparency, not to > speak about honesty and humility. > > > In the meantime I suggest we drop this vein unless Madhusudana comes up > > with proper verification. > > It will be so much easier if you recognised your mistake. I think you have > hurt her unnecessarily. > > For a better society, Akhilesvara dasa Thank you Akhilesvara Prabhu. ys ada Madhusudani 12th accepts apology .... At 20:02 +0100 8/12/2000, Ajamila (das) ACBSP (Goloka Books - UK) wrote: >As pointed out by Akhilesvara Prabhu, I mistook Madhusudana GKG to be >Madhusudani Radha, and for this I apologise unreservedly to Madhusudani >Radha. Their names look so alike and I'm writing lots of texts these days. >Krishna is telling me to slow down. Thank you Ajamila Prabhu. Apology accepted. I've certainly made my share of e-mail related mistakes over the years. Let's just move forward from here. Ys, Madhusudani dasi 15th Aug. Madhava Gosh changes his name and enters the fray as Mark Middle Mountain "Madhusudana (das) GKG (New York, NY - USA)" wrote: > > Ajamila dasa asks - "Adri, can't you see that?" > > > > Ajamila's own vision has been shown to be severly lacking recently when he > > mistook my name for that of Madhusudani. AND proceeded to rebuke her > > needlessly. Only reluctantly coming to his senses after admonition from > > concerned devotees. During which time you were conspicious by your absense in that you never came forward to point out it was your post and not Madhusudhani's. That showed, IMHO, a real lack of gentlemanly conduct. Mark Middle Mountain replies to my reply .... "Madhusudana (das) GKG (New York, NY - USA)" wrote: > Dear Mark; > > Pamho AgtSP. > > Others told Ajamila that it was not Madhusudani but Madhusudana but he was > so dull headed that he didn't understand them. So what makes you think that > he would have understood me, if he would not even accept the words of his > friends? Don't patronize me, asshole. Any ordinary gentlemen, seeing a lady in distress, would have stepped forward. That you let it play out indicates to me that you are simply an agitator, trying to stir things up and make people look bad. I dislike that. Cheap politics. And don't cheapen Srila Prabhupada by calling first his name and then dumping on a devotee. To which I did not reply due to the offensive language. 19th Aug. Mark Middle Mountain wrote ... "Madhusudana (das) GKG (New York, NY - USA)" wrote: > Ajamila wrote: > This is the point and it would certainly be proper and well in order if > Madhusudana apologised or explained why he remained silent when his > contraversial posting was being called into question. > > Reply > Ajamila you are simply 'clutching at straws' here. > > To be perfectly honest though, you have a tendency for clowning around and > as such I was finding your ineptitude rather amusing. Madhu- if you are going to cast aspersions than be prepared - the Universe is a mirror. Your silence while Madhusudhani was being chastised for what you did was the cowardly act of the politically motivated. As such, you have earned admittance to my list of those whom I disrespect. I don't know what motive you have coming onto the VAD conference and doing all this agitating, but it is being counterproductive to whatever aim you have in mind. Please cease and desist. I have for long taken a fairly neutral stance towards the rittviks, but you are alienating me with your boorish behavior. 20th Aug Mark Middle Mountain wrote .... > > Mark. > Madhu- if you are going to cast aspersions than be prepared - > > MD > Prepared for what exactly? Strange how you fail to object to the multitude > of aspersions cast by Ajamila in Adri's direction & aimed at me also. If you > are honest, politically unmotivated, equipoised, neutral as you claim. I don't recall making that claim. > Then > surely you could spare a word or two of objection towards Ajamila also. The > fact that you haven't done so, proves that you are another, unfortunate > nonsense. > Check the archives. I did object. So there is an objective error on your part. > > Mark. > the Universe is a mirror. > > MD > And the moon is made of green cheese? Oops, sorry I didn't use the devotee jargon you are conditioned to understand. On the wheel of samsara if you do something you get an equal and opposite karmic reaction. Hence, the Universe is a mirror. Not having been to the moon, I won't comment on it's composition. > > > Mark > Your silence while Madhusudhani was being chastised for what you did was the > cowardly act of the politically motivated. As such, you have earned > admittance to my list of those whom I disrespect. > > MD > Fame at last, I've made it onto Mark's list, whatever next I wonder? See below. > If you > were aware of what went on, and you also remained silent, how can you be > innocent while I am guilty? Good point, but as I did respond, not relevant to me. > Is this this another example of your neutrality? > Besides mother Madhusudani is far from being a helpless Draupadi and in my > humble opinion she is perfectly capable of looking afer herself on these > forums, and due to her superior intelligence, she is in fact more than > capable of defeating Ajamila. Her capability is not at issue. Your allowing her to unnecessarily stay in a awkward poistion is. And who says Draupadi was helpless? I don't get that from her history. > > > Mark > I don't know what motive you have coming onto the VAD conference and doing > all this agitating, but it is being counterproductive to whatever aim you > have in mind. > > MD > I came onto the VAD conference (you also have a short memory) because I > caught Hari Sauri misrepresenting some facts about the IRM vs GBC court case > in the Calcutta High Court to Mother Madhusudani. Btw you have contradicted > yourself by saying .... > a) you do not know my motive. Then you say > b)it is being counterproductive to whatever aim you have in mind. > Can you explain how you can know b) without knowing a)? To you? Perhaps not. To a reasonable man, as follows: a. has to do with content b.) has to do with form. If someone were to barge into my home without knocking and shove the contents of my desktop onto the floor, no what how attractive the item he then places there nor how competitively priced it is, I will probably not buy it. Whatever aim you are trying to accomplish is obscured by your methodology. > > > Mark > Please cease and desist. > > MD > No problem, I shall comply with your wish, now try not to worry about it. I may not be the one who needs to worry. > > > Mark > I have for long taken a fairly neutral stance towards the rittviks, > > MD > Now that's another prize piece of nonsense Mark! There is NO SUCH THING as a > neutral stance on this issue. Either you accept Srila Prabhupada's Final > Order on initiations OR you don't. You are living in a bubble of illusion > Mark, thinking otherwise. > That black and white simplistic thinking, that demanding tone that the dichotmy you think is the most important must also be important to me is another example of egocentric off putting behavior. > > Mark > but you are alienating me with your boorish behavior. > > MD > Can you be so kind as to detail the boorish behavior which you are refering > to? So sorry, we cann't please everyone now can we? You certainly got that right. > > > I suspect Kamsa was also rather upset when Krishna killed all the demons > that Kamsa sent to kill Krishna. I'm sure Krishna never lost any sleep over > the fact that he was disturbing Kamsa with his 'boorish' behavior by killing > all the demons. > > ALL Glories To Srila Prabhupada! > > ysmd Make a thinly veiled death threat and then invoke the name of Srila Prabhupada. You real know how to win friends and influence people. As for your threat, the Universe is a mirror. 93 St.Mark's Place. Do you sleep there? Nice straw hat you wear on book distribution. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 22, 2000 Report Share Posted September 22, 2000 "Madhusudana (das) GKG (New York, NY - USA)" wrote: > This is in reply to Mark Middle Mountain's continuous false alegations and I > hope it will finally lay the issue to rest. I was wondering why the riitviks seemed to have dropped off in energy lately - I had figured it would take them 5 or 10 years to go through the visionary - institutionalization - disillusionment cycle, but I can see how with guys like you championing the cause that an accelerated timeline is not unrealistic. Hari bol buddy - I hope the rest of your life turns out much better than your present. Agitated brahmacaris - sheeesh. Hare Krishna Gosh 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.