Selective defense

[Guest guest]

>

> *I simply had not seen that text by Ekanath.* At the time, the conference

> was getting 80 texts per day. I was not aware of his text until Praharana

> objected to it and Ekanath apologized.

 

Actually, Ekanath apologized to *her* for upsetting her - he didn't

apologize for what he'd written. This is one of the major points - the

looseness.

 

> E.g., the issue of the Indian orphanage was raised by Isvara Prabhu in

> India, then a number of devotees, from different places of the world,

> wrote that ISKCON should do something about it, as this Manihara was an

> ISKCON devotee and confirmed child abuser. These were Raghunath,

> Vipramukhya Swami, Urmila, Ananta Purusottama, Madhumati, Hariballabha.

> But when Madhusudani Radha also expressed her concern, you started to

> attack her

 

No actually that is quite wrong, Mukhya, with all due respect. If we stick

to facts here we'll be able to see the light of day throughout all this. MR

was not "attacked" in this way - as I pointed out yesterday, it was quite a

regular - if touchy - conversation, but as usual, MR came in, boots and all,

stomping all over anyone else's opinion but her own, and creating an

extremely defensive and electric atmosphere. Suddenly we were not discussing

anything any more - we were defending ourselves against attacks of

"heartlessness". And it's a little strange to me to notice how all of this

is going on, when Raghunatha is not even here, and he is the one whom I was

discussing with - MR jumped in and tried to dominate my conversation with

him. He wrote to me privately and retracted what he'd said because he didn't

read all of it. The conversation between Raghunath and I was inflamed by MR.

I apologised to him also if I was too unclear, if he'd got the wrong

impression, and if I'd upset him. We were having a very nice discussion

off-conference, but MR was still firing the ammo up here. My call for

perspective then seems to be just as valid now.

 

Ys

Braja Sevaki dd