Guest guest Posted November 17, 1999 Report Share Posted November 17, 1999 > >Of all the texts that I read on this topic till now, this is the only one > that convinces me of its credibility.> > > Really? Including Vipramukhya Maharaja's? Yes. VMS' text was balanced but not all the time we need to neutralise everything. Ther is no harm in presenting what is truth and what is untruth, if we are sure about it. > I thought it was odd that Nayana-ranjana prabhu first said that he wtched > the events, and later in his text said that "This is what I was told by > Vaisnava prabhu." Which one was it? yah I also noted it but it didn't sound that important to me. > Also, in his text, he admits that "the devotees in the human > chain got upset and pushed & shoved back" > > but also that there was no "manhandling". you are a good doctor :-) > I find it shocking that anyone pushed anyone else away from the deities in > front of both the deities and Srila Prabhupada. If that's not > "manhandling" I don't know what is. i would be shocked to hear that men pushed women even when women were not doing anything. women must have tried to use force otherwise where is the question of men using force, unless they are not vaisnavas or even real men? Let me clear my stand here before it gets more complicated and I be wrongly seen as party line. I don't encourage a man's holding woman's hand in front of the Deities to prevent her from taking darshan, nor do i encouarge women exhibiting unwomanly qualities in temple for the same purpose. both are out of etiquette and offensive. Definitely kaliyuga has acted there. > The whole thing is just sad. I hope they'll take Braja Bihari Prabhu's > excellent advice and sit down with a skilled facilitator for some > mediation, before this turns into another "ritvik" or "Narayan Maharaja" > style conflict. tha's already in the list of kaliyuga's plans to divide and harm ISKCON. it's upto us if we will let him succeed or not. Hare Krishna! ys, bb Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 17, 1999 Report Share Posted November 17, 1999 I'm a little troubled by the tenor of the discussion on different lists regarding the discord in ISKCON's Vrindavana center. The first texts posted by Parvati were clearly meant to stir up action. They wre deliberately inflammatory, and many devotees responded with the greatest caution, if at all, because they were unsure of what the situation actually was. More recently, texts posted by Jivan-Mukta and Nayana-Ranjana prabhus really muddy the issue due to what appears to be careless writing. Jivan Mukta excerpted a quotation from Pranada's Chakra article in a way that makes it appear, as Kusa and others have poited out, that she was saying that ISKCON has no need to follow Srila Prabhupada's example. That is not at all what she said; rather, what she pointed out was that there is nothing in Srila Prabhupada's example that precludes giving women an opportunity to serve the Lord, regardless of temporary bodily designation. To imply otherwise shows either sloppy thinking or malice. Nayana-Ranjana's text mixes his observation and second-hand reports from Vaishnava and Mahaman without carefully distinguishing between them. All of this contributes to an environment of quarrel, much like what linguist Deborah Tannen refers to as America's "Argument Culture," which threatens to turn our company nothing more than another fool's paradies with a different cultural veneer. Moreover, Nayana-Ranjana's appeal for submission to authority, regardless of their rectitude, can't help but remind readers of how this same appeal has been used over the years. It's not very appealing. Perhaps we should all put our computers away and get together for congregational chanting of the holy names of Krishna, the only way to overcome Kali's influence. Wearily, Babhru das Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 18, 1999 Report Share Posted November 18, 1999 On 17 Nov 1999, Babhru das wrote: Jivan Mukta > excerpted a quotation from Pranada's Chakra article in a way that makes it > appear, as Kusa and others have poited out, that she was saying that ISKCON > has no need to follow Srila Prabhupada's example. That is not at all what > she said; rather, what she pointed out was that there is nothing in Srila > Prabhupada's example that precludes giving women an opportunity to serve > the Lord, regardless of temporary bodily designation. To imply otherwise > shows either sloppy thinking or malice. Jivan Mukta Prabhu wrote: > Dear Mother Kusha, > > PAMHO. AGTSP. > > >NEITHER local custom NOR examples set by Srila Prabhupada obligates > >ISKCON managers to enforce a rule that women cannot take darsana > >in the front. > > NEITHER "A" (local custom) NOR "B" (examples set by Srila Prabhupada) > o Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 18, 1999 Report Share Posted November 18, 1999 At 1:42 PM -0800 11/17/99, COM: Babhru (das) ACBSP (San Diego - USA) wrote: >[Text 2787220 from COM] >More >recently, texts posted by Jivan-Mukta and Nayana-Ranjana prabhus really >muddy the issue due to what appears to be careless writing. Jivan Mukta >excerpted a quotation from Pranada's Chakra article in a way that makes it >appear, as Kusa and others have poited out, that she was saying that ISKCON >has no need to follow Srila Prabhupada's example. Prabhu, you are an English teacher. Do you feel that Pranada's sentence is an example of well-constructed writing? >she pointed out was that there is nothing in Srila >Prabhupada's example that precludes giving women an opportunity to serve >the Lord, regardless of temporary bodily designation. It has been explained that Pranada dd was trying to say there was nothing in the example Prabhupada set that should give temple managers reason to prevent women from taking darsana in the front of the altar. However, it appears the custom for many years, which Prabhupada himself established, has been for the women to take darsana in the front of the altar *after* the sannyasis. Pranada dasi herself wrote: "As part of a tradition Srila Prabhupada started, sannyasis and others pay obeisances at the front of each altar when the doors open." and: "On the morning of the mangala-arati in question, evidently women advanced toward Radha-Syama's altar before the ghee lamp was offered, thus "blocking the sannyasis from offering their obeisances. If the WM is genuinely concerned with examples set by Prabhupada in India, then why do they want to change what he established as a standard in Vrindavana? Can't the women wait their turn and then see the deities at the front of the altar after the sannyasis and men? >Perhaps we should all put our computers away and get together for >congregational chanting of the holy names of Krishna, the only way to >overcome Kali's influence. > >Wearily, >Babhru das Yes, let's sit down and chant Hare Krsna together. And let's all study Prabhupada's books and worship him as well. And when we do these things, and gain a little faith in and understanding of the philosophy, how can we conceive to utter statements such as Dhyanakunda saying she has "a big problem trusting persons" (like Prabhupada) "who label others so easily and so unpredictably" or what "bothers" her "is that Srila Prabhupada is always so sure of himself". And how can we tolerate it when others say such things? I suppose the next thing we will hear is that Dhyanakunda dd, like Pranada dd and like Bir Krsna Maharaja, really didn't mean what we thought they said. Seems we are living in a world where black is no longer black and white no longer white. Sorry but I have to stop now, my screen is a blur of grey... Your servant, Sita devi dasi 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.