Anyonymous replies to Babhru Prabhu....

[Guest guest]

> >I appreciate Mahaman prabhu's posting the temple management's perspective

> >on these events. However, I doubt that we'll ever know just what happened

> >in any "objective" sense.

>

> That could be said about anything that ever happens to anyone. Why then

> do we need managers if no one can discriminate between proper and improper

> action?

>

> There are a lot of devotees whose names are appended to Mahaman Prabhu's

> letter, many of them well known and respectable devotees. Was everyone

> listed on that letter (or even most of them) either not present, mistaken,

> or just lying?

>

> >REMEDIAL MEASURES SHOULD BE ENFORCED AGAINST ALL MEMBERS WHO

> >>PARTICIPATED

> IN WHAT PRACTICALLY AMOUNTS TO GANG-RAPE.

>

> Has a qualified doctor confirmed Parvati Mataji's version that she was

> "PRACTICALLY" gang-raped--that someone, in front of the Deities,

> "PRACTICALLY" cohabited with her, against her will?

>

> You might find the "language" of the above sentance crude, but Parvati

> Mataji had no compunction in leveling such false accusations, in

> Vrindavan, during kartika (or is this another one of those things we will

> never really know for sure). And the GBC Executive Committee also had no

> compunction in taking her story at face value, without bothering to find

> out the Vrindavan Temple Management's side of the story first. If she or

> anyone else thinks she may have been "gang-raped", practically or

> otherwise, then show us a medical report.

>

> >Many of us will find this a very interesting cycle to

> >engage in; others will realize quickly that they already have a full

> >plate to work on with their sadhana and practical engagements.

>

>

> What is mangala-arati? It comes under the heading of "sadhana", and not

> only "practical engagement", but "essential engagement". Aparently,

> Parvati Mataji, et. al., are creating unnecessary disturbances that

> interfere with the above activities. Therefore she and her cohorts should

> be taken to task.

>

> >Perhaps, following Howard Beale in Sidney Lumet's film "Network," I

> >should shout, Turn your computers off! Turn them off right now! Turn them

> >off right in the middle of reading this sentence! Turn them . . .

> >

>

>

> You have used a very good example here.

>

> Yes, in that film, "Network," the reason Howard Beale was telling everyone

> to turn off their televisions (or in this case computers), is because the

> television network had hired a group of terrorists (who were also their

> own TV program on the network) to assasninate the show's anchorman, who

> was plumetting the network's ratings.

>

> So, here we see some devotees, when their provocative, atheistic, feminist

> agenda flies in their faces, they tell you to "Turn your computers off. .

> ., Turn them off now. . ." so that you don't hear anything more than the

> garbage they feed you, like the feminist garbage that comes on CHAKRA.

>

> CHAKRA has yet to post Mahaman Prabhu's version of "what happened",

> although they publish articles on this issue like Mother Pranada's and an

> official statement from the Women's Ministry, which unsurprisingly protray

> Parvati and her accomplices as innocent.

>

> What is shocking (or maybe we shouldn't be shocked) is that a star witness

> used in an article, Brajabihari Prabhu (head of the VIHE), wasn't even

> personally present during the incident to comment on what happened or what

> didn't happen. And Brajabihari Prabhu's testimony still stands in that

> article as an authority. That we have yet to see erratas so long after

> this fact was pointed out to Maharaj means we are unlikely to ever see

> them.

>

> The editors of CHAKRA were in a rush to get the women's ministry article

> and mother Pranada's article up on their site, but they are taking their

> own sweet time to post Mahaman Prabhu's article. Since it is against

> CHAKRA's obvious pro-feminist stance, it is unlikely to be published.

>

> CHAKRA is even more dangerous than VNN, because while they advertise

> themselves as pro-ISKCON, and pro-GBC (and it is a fact that there is

> material on CHAKRA that is Krishna-conscious), lying among their

> Krishna-conscious articles are articles which are contain anti-vedic,

> atheistic, feminist propaganda. Here is an example from Mother Pranada's

> article on the Vrindavan temple crisis:

>

> "Neither local custom nor examples set by Srila Prabhupada obligates

> ISKCON managers to enforce a rule that women cannot take darsana in the

> front. "

>

> Yes, it is true that women do come up front in these temples, but not when

> there is a sannyasi present. Local Indian women (and men as well), in all

> these temples keep a respectful distance from a sannyasi whenever he

> comes.

>

> For mother Pranada to make this statement means she is only superficially

> acquainted with "local customs." If in the name of taking darshan she

> ever tried to stand next to a sannyasi in ANY of these these temples, she

> would be immediately asked to stand away, or more likely be forcibly

> thrown out of the temple.

>

> In Udipi, for example, if you would like to meet with a sannyasi there,

> you must be male, and furthermore, you are not allowed to wear any

> stitched cloth in his presence. Whenever they come for darshan,

> chokidharas, disciples, etc., will see to it that you don't interfere with

> them while they take darshan. They are that strict. Sannyasis I have met

> in the Ramanuja Sampradaya are similar in their strictness. And yes, the

> local people, not just women, but men as well, ALWAYS defer and give room

> for sannyasis. Even as a brahmacari, wearing saffron, in South India, I

> was accorded the respect of a sannyasi in most places I went.

>

> The standard is, within the institution of Varnasrama, the sannyasi is the

> spiritual master of all other varnas and ashramas. When your spiritual

> master comes, do you stand on his head while he offers his obeisances? Do

> you take the Ghee lamp before he does? What etiquette is due to him?

>

> On CHAKRA there are many other examples like Mother Pranada's misleading

> statement. Such feminist propaganda on CHAKRA is dangerous, because under

> the guise of being an official purveyor of the truth, many articles on

> CHAKRA exhort the reader to reject Vedic behaviour in favour of western

> behaviour, which favours co-mingling, "equal-rights", and other nonsense

> deplored by Srila Prabhupada and our acaryas.

>

> ys Anonymous das