Guest guest Posted December 26, 1999 Report Share Posted December 26, 1999 At 09:47 PM 12/26/99 +0100, COM: Trayimaya (das) HKS (Aarhus - DK) wrote: >[Text 2886468 from COM] > >> On 22 Dec 1999, Trayimaya das wrote: >> >> > > Srila Prabhupada said that everything is there in his books. I humbly >> > > ask Madhava Gosh Prabhu to direct us to the portions of Srila >> > > Prabhupada's books (or his lectures, conversations, letters) in which >> > > misogyny is defined, explained, discussed, denounced, or whatever >> > > Srila Prabhupada had to say about misogyny. >> > >> > Prabhupada also did not define, explain, discuss, denounce phedophili. >> > >> > This is not a good argument. >> >> Peophilia is obviously illict sex and is thereby discussed all throughout >> SP's teachings. > >Misogony is a mental disorder, a disease, also discussed throughout SP´s >teaching. So the argument is still not good. Depending upon what we are trying to accomplish, it may actually not be an illogical argument. I'm asking Madhava Ghosh Prabhu to prove his claim (or better yet, to withdaw it) that the GHQ members are misogynists. Now how will he do that? How will he do it on the authority of guru-sadhu-sastra, since misogyny per se is not directly discussed in SP's books? I agree that mental disorder and disease *are* discussed, but only very generally. My previous point was that illicit sex is *explicitly* defined and so therefore pedophilia is easily understood to obviously be illicit sex. But how does one identify a misogynist based upon Srila Prabhupada's teachings--that is my question? Or if one claims that SP's teachings aren't required in order to identify a misogynist, then I agree in principle. But in practice, what will be the method by which our Madhava Ghosh prabhu will verify that members of a COM conference, most of whom he has never even met, are in fact "women-haters"? In other words, what is the practical value of Madhava Ghosh prabhu's opinion that GHQ members were/are misogynists? If any of us wanted to play the same game, we could equally well accuse IWM or IWC to be man-haters. But as far as I know, no GHQ member ever made such an outrageous statement, and reasonably so. So what is the good reason (professional or sastric) for this claim that GHQ members were/are misogynists? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 1999 Report Share Posted December 27, 1999 > So what is the good reason (professional or sastric) for this > claim that GHQ members were/are misogynists? Study of their texts. It certainly will be a waste of energy to try explain it to you, so I won't try. It is more for the purpose of communicating to others who are capable of independent intellectual activity to understand what it actually going on. You use a series of arguments to try explain why misogyny isn't important because Srila Prabhupada never discussed it directly. He also never discussed knee capping directly either, never said there was anything wrong with it, but I imagine if you were an impending victim of such an act, it's lack mention by Srila Prabhupada would be irrelavant to your attempts to avoid it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 27, 1999 Report Share Posted December 27, 1999 On 26 Dec 1999, Madhava Gosh wrote: > > So what is the good reason (professional or sastric) for this > > claim that GHQ members were/are misogynists? > > Study of their texts. It certainly will be a waste of energy to try explain > it > to you, so I won't try. It is more for the purpose of communicating to others > who are capable of independent intellectual activity to understand what it > actually going on. Well, I may be a hopeless case, prabhu, but for the benefit of the innocent perhaps you should present the results of your study. Otherwise, anyone can claim anything about anybody--isn't it? And I again say that to call another a "hater of women" is a claim that ought be made only by one who is *absolutely* sure of that, lest he be reaping the results of his misjudgement in the future. What do you think, prabhu? > You use a series of arguments to try explain why misogyny isn't >important because Srila Prabhupada never discussed it directly. I've asked (challenged) you to back your statement, either sastrically or with material facts. I doubt you can do so sastrically, since that particular pathology isn't discussed in Srila Prabhupada's books. As for knee-capping, etc., that is obviously causing unnecessary pain to another, or violence, which topic *is* discussed by Srila Prabhupada. Also, if we know that someone has committed violence, then we can factually accuse him of being violent. So in the absence of sastic evidence, what is your material evidence that GHQ members were following the *misogynist* vani of Kirtanananda? I'm specifically asking you to back your claim that these members are *haters of women," if you would be so kind as to explain. Thank you, prabhu. --gkd 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.