Guest guest Posted November 15, 1999 Report Share Posted November 15, 1999 At 09:46 PM 11/14/99 +0100, COM: Madhusudani Radha (dd) JPS (Mill Valley - USA) wrote: >So anyone please >correct me if I am wrong: Sannyasis, being male, may no longer be preferred >over ladies to give SB class; husbands, being male, may no longer be >preferred over their wives to authoritatively represent their families in >the context of society;>> > >Well since you asked so nicely for a correction, how could I refuse. :-) > >The directive says nothing about personal family relationships, nor does it >say anything about preferential treatment based on seniority. Thank God. >Thus the fact that sannyasa and male sex are correlated are irrelevant to this >discussion. You say. But I've yet to meet a female sannyasi. >It only says that you can't treat anyone preferentially due to their *sex*. Indeed. "The GBC will not tolerate any...preferential treatment given to male devotees in any form," which means that the GBC will not tolerate the treatment of a male (as opposed to female) sannyasi preferentially. If the sannyasi were female, then it would be allowed to treat her preferentially, based on her asrama or her seniority; but if the sannyasi happens to be male, then such treatment will not be tolerated. Gosh, Mataji, that sounds like discrimnation *against* sannyasis in male bodies!?! What is your *honest* opinion? >It says nothing about preferential treatment due to asrama or seniority. Thank God. >In an earlier letter to me you told me that you were a math major in college. >Remember correlations? They don't allow you to draw conclusions about cause >and effect. Since all sannyasis, fathers, husbands, and brahmacaris (lest any of them happen to be female) are included within the "set" of all males, and if they are also devotees, then it MUST follow that: "The GBC will not tolerate any...preferential treatment given to [sannyasis, husbands, fathers, or brahmacaris] in any form." Please also note "in any form." In no form will preferential treatment be tolerated. [bas] Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 15, 1999 Report Share Posted November 15, 1999 Guru-Krsna wrote: >If the >sannyasi were female, then it would be allowed to treat her preferentially, >based on her asrama or her seniority; but if the sannyasi happens to be >male, then such treatment will not be tolerated. Gosh, Mataji, that sounds >like discrimnation *against* sannyasis in male bodies!?! What is your >*honest* opinion? ????????? My opinion? I'm wondering if you're for real. Here it goes, one *very* last time: 1. No one (that means males *and* females) can receive *preferential* treatment (i.e. better treatment, more privileges etc.) based on their sex. No one. This has nothing to do with asrama. Get it? 2. The directive says *nothing* about preferential treatment based on seniority. 3. The directive says nothing about legislating family relationships. 4. The directive says nothing about equal rights (that was *your* straw man). It's very, very simple..... at least for the simple. If you still don't get it, I honestly feel sorry for you, but I hope you won't embarrass yourself further by admitting it. Ys, Madhusudani dasi Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 15, 1999 Report Share Posted November 15, 1999 At 07:24 PM 11/14/99 -0800, COM: Madhusudani Radha (dd) JPS (Mill Valley - USA) wrote: >[Text 2779223 from COM] > >Guru-Krsna wrote: >>If the >>sannyasi were female, then it would be allowed to treat her preferentially, >>based on her asrama or her seniority; but if the sannyasi happens to be >>male, then such treatment will not be tolerated. Gosh, Mataji, that sounds >>like discrimnation *against* sannyasis in male bodies!?! What is your >>*honest* opinion? > >????????? > >My opinion? I'm wondering if you're for real. > >Here it goes, one *very* last time: > >1. No one (that means males *and* females) can receive *preferential* >treatment (i.e. better treatment, more privileges etc.) based on their >sex. No one. This has nothing to do with asrama. Get it? Using your own words: "No one [including (male) gurus, (male) sannyasis, (male) husbands, (male) fathers] can receive *preferential* treatment...based on their sex. No one. This has nothing to do with asrama. Get it?" Nope. Because if it has nothing to do with asrama, then why are (male) sannyasis included? Of course, I realize that "it has nothing to do with" the *female* sannyasis, because it does *not* discriminate on the basis of sex--as you keep pointing out--but I still don't understand how it has nothing to do with the *male* sannyasis--although you do keep pointing out that it has *nothing* to do with sex.? >2. The directive says *nothing* about preferential treatment based on >seniority. Again using your words from both (1) and (2) above: "No one [including senior (male) gurus and senior (male) sannyasis and just plain senior males] can receive *preferential*treatment... based on their sex. No one. The directive says *nothing* about preferential treatment based on seniority. Get it?" Nope. Because although it says *nothing* about preferential treatment based on seniority, it still just so happens to directly apply to so many (male) *senior* devotees. >3. The directive says nothing about legislating family relationships. Again I thank God for that. >4. The directive says nothing about equal rights.... It doesn't have to. It establishes equal rights without saying "equal rights." >It's very, very simple..... at least for the simple. >If you still don't get it, I honestly feel sorry for you, but I hope you >won't embarrass yourself further by admitting it. Having come to this material world, I should feel embarassed at every moment. If you can help me to remember that, I will offer my sincerest appreciations and thanks to you for thus helping this pitiful, fallen soul. --gkdas Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 1999 Report Share Posted November 17, 1999 > > Having come to this material world, I should feel embarassed at every > moment. really awakening! with this wonderful words, coincidently, as well as significantly, the song "jiva jago jiva jago..." is also playing behind my ears and I am realising that THIS is the time for me to get serious about my spiritual life. It might get too late otherwise. thankyou vaisnavas! please forgive my offenses I may have committed at your lotus feet. pl if you can do a little favor and keep reminding me, if I seem to forget, that I am a fallen soul in this material world and that there is a way to get rid of it most easily just by perfectly following Srila Prabhupada's instructions without an iota of deviation and specualation. Srila Prabhupada ki jai....Hare Krishna! ys, bb 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.