Guest guest Posted September 15, 2004 Report Share Posted September 15, 2004 >From the text below it appears that Sriman Prabhupacarya prabhu may not be the only one accused of being, "out spoken about things he has little > knowledge of ". Since the author of the below text was not there in Brndabana to witness the events and the consequences refered to previously, he would do well NOT to advise others to hear from one side only. He would do similarly well to consider his bold statements cautiously before making obviously rash and one-sided comments which patently try to engender support for the status quo 'management', rather than elicit a balanced understanding of what transpired. Otherwise it would seem that someone, somewhere, hopes to gain something from such ill-proportioned judgements. To suggest that devotees hear the so-called REAL story from the 'management' is inherently spurious - especially if one considers the Iskcon history of 'leadership' - and any such lopsided proposition warrants measured scrutiny by any thoughtful man or woman. Surely that would NOT be the clear picture. From the heavy handed tone of the below email, one wonders just how many of those persons are left in Iskcon. <"I request those devotees who have seen this message and are > concerned about> what really happened in this situation please write to Devakinandan > the> temple president of Vrindavan."> What sort of (email) author of any repute would "request those devotees who have seen this message", to hear from one source only and to try and deride others (Subodh ) in the same email? Surely any reasonable person would want to know the opinions from all sides, rather than be clubbed over the head with it from one side. Or is Iskcon still suffering from the once overt (now covert?) manifestation of "Zonal acarya-ism" which featured the allegedly unassailable managers who spoke and performed any nonsense and made any demand upon unthinking subordinates, with impunity? On Fri, 3 Sep 2004 21:05 -0400 "Bhima (das) ACBSP (TP Mumbai, Juhu - IN)" <Bhima.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net> writes: > Prabhupadacarya wrote: > > > For the Record > > I think that if we are to get a clear picture of what went on with > this > Mataji from Australia we would need to hear from Devakinandan > Prabhu. > > I had not heard of Prabhupadacarya until his name appeared around > the time > of the unfortunate problem with Mahamantra. It appears that > Prabhupacarya > has a history of being out spoken about things he has little > knowledge of. > Again now Prabhupacarya without understanding the real situation is > making > his judgemental comments. So, we sort of see a pattern here in Pa's > behavior. > > I request those devotees who have seen this message and are > concerned about > what really happened in this situation please write to Devakinandan > the > temple president of Vrindavan. > > Devakinandan sacrificed tremendously to come from Mumbai and help > in > Vrindavan on the request of the Gbc body. It is not easy to manage > in > Vrindavan still Devakinandan worked hard and at the same time > continued his > service in Mumbai. > > You should also know that Subodh has been illegally occupying the > Vrindavan > Temple restaurant and is fighting in the court. Subhod has made > changes in > the restaurant which is illegal to do without permission. However, > worse > then that he is not even paying the fixed rent which is only $550 > per month > to the Deities who own the restaurant. > > Further to that I can say it appears we have a case of "pinching the > baby > and rocking the cradle". Things in Vrindavan have been complicated > by some > self interested persons. So, again I would request those who are > concerned > about this to just put a word to Devakinandan and get the record > straight. > > ______________ Get your name as your email address. Includes spam protection, 1GB storage, no ads and more Only $1.99/ month - visit http://www.mysite.com/name today! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted September 19, 2004 Report Share Posted September 19, 2004 > Please try to understand the point, mataji: > It is obvious that we cannot separate Krishna from any situation. > When I say dragging Krishna into this, it should have been obvious that > since both parties were at fault, they should both repent , try to make > amends, and at the same time be grateful to Krishna for the happy > outcome. At the same time, we cannot shirk our responsibility and > attribute this gruesome incident to Krishna's will just as by rash driving > we will have an accident,but we cannot blame Krishna for this. By your > logic it might have been alright even if we did not try to have her > released, as suffering produces glory. However, it did not produce any > glory for her. That would possibly be your own conclusion drawn from my words, not specifically what my words meant. I wouldn't suggest that Indulekha was put thru this *only* for the reason I suggested; I said that the situation was possibly a catalyst for other things. I wouldn't espouse the whole "it's her karma, tough luck" routine, and if I had, then I would understand your reaction. > Indeed, it is a miracle that she survived the ordeal. And > now ,if anything, she continues to be disglorified.... > Anyways I do not intend to offend YOU in any way, and prefer not to debate > on this particular point further. Nor do I. I hope someone can resolve this with her, and not just be happy to leave it now that she's "out of sight, out of mind." Your servant Braja Sevaki 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.