Like · · Share · 20 hours ago ·
Mohini Murti Devi Dasi, Paul Hawley and Jayasri Radha DeviDasi Acbsp like this.
5 shares
Tamohara Dasa Unfortunately, it has become a farce. A good idea, empowering more women, was stolen and turned into a tool for the NWO to destroy the family.
4 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
Paul Hawley A conversation with a feminist based on this post. (she subsequently blocked me and deleted our friendship) Men do not be afraid to ruffle feathers. We do not need feminists in our Krishna society.
Laura Mira
6:41am
what is that thing about feminism u have posted. i have never understood what that actually is
Paul Hawley
6:41am
Paul Hawley
The feminist ideology was not introduced by women, and does not benefit women.
Laura Mira
6:41am
Laura Mira
i dont even know what it is all about
what is the main idea
Paul Hawley
6:41am
Paul Hawley
It was introduced by zionist marxists in order to destabilize the family of the non jew
with the break down of the family unit comes social dischord, which leads to the break down of the society
its a kind of social engineering
Rockefellers, Rothchilds, and Fords poured big money into it in the 30's and 40's
Laura Mira
6:43am
Laura Mira
still i dont understand what is the main idea
what is it
Paul Hawley
6:44am
Paul Hawley
to break the family
Laura Mira
6:44am
Laura Mira
ok i give up
i think i wont understand
Paul Hawley
6:45am
Paul Hawley
at the most basic level the family is the basis for society. rather society starts with the family traditionally
so to break that tradition they introduced the feminist ideology
Laura Mira
6:47am
Laura Mira
and what is that ideology
Paul Hawley
6:47am
Paul Hawley
The main point is that feminsim was not actually created to benefit women. But to destroy the family unit and make women dependent on the state rather than the family
Laura Mira
6:48am
Laura Mira
but what is feminism
sounds like something about women
but what about them
Paul Hawley
6:48am
Paul Hawley
Well the pretext of feminism is womens liberation.
Laura Mira
6:49am
Laura Mira
liberation from what
Paul Hawley
6:49am
Paul Hawley
liberation from the so called male dominated society.
its quite complex to explain in a few sentences
Laura Mira
6:50am
Laura Mira
oh well leave it
it sounds like just a theory
such thing doesnt actually exist
Paul Hawley
6:51am
Paul Hawley
No its no theory its a very strong movement
Laura Mira
6:51am
Laura Mira
because women are not locked up so why would they need to be liberated, doesnt make sense
Paul Hawley
6:53am
Paul Hawley
The point is to change the womens thinking from dependence on the family which is the old way, to dependence on the state
100 years back the women went to the family for everything. All support was provided by the familly. Family traditions were so strong that if a woman broke the tradition, she would be kicked out of the family.
In many muslim countries its still like this.
Laura Mira
6:55am
Laura Mira
ok women went to family for everything and where did men go?
Paul Hawley
6:55am
Paul Hawley
Feminism teaches you don't rely on the family for anything. You rely on the state. The state becomes the family
this is social marxism
the introduction of the marxist state
The result is the break down of the strong family unit and family traditions. Marriage is no longer nescesarry.
It makes it easy for the state to control the citizens
Laura Mira
6:57am
Laura Mira
i asked if women went o family for everything then where did the men go?
and do men also need to be lierated?
liberated?
Paul Hawley
6:58am
Paul Hawley
its a concominent reaction that the men become feminized and become likewise dependent on the state
Laura Mira
6:58am
Laura Mira
funny thing
Paul Hawley
6:59am
Paul Hawley
make the whole population dependent on the state. so the men become like women also... they go to the state for support as well.
Laura Mira
6:59am
Laura Mira
if men become like women then women become like men
but how
all that sounds very funny
Paul Hawley
7:00am
Paul Hawley
no they both become like women, just the women think they are like men, because the man has been reduced to the state of the woman or less even
Laura Mira
7:01am
Laura Mira
reduced what do u mean
Paul Hawley
7:01am
Paul Hawley
if both are dependent on the state then they are equal
men have never relied on the state for welfare or jobs prior to 100 years back
Feminsm is just a tiny piece of the puzzle
For the men the state seizes control of all lands
so the man cannot work independently of the state
Laura Mira
7:03am
Laura Mira
ehhhh that is some faitylate here, for people who have nothing better to do with their time
Paul Hawley
7:05am
Paul Hawley
for you it is impossible to conceive of anything different because you live in the modern marxist state. but for those who have studied history we know better
Laura Mira
7:05am
Laura Mira
ok mister wise
Paul Hawley
7:08am
Paul Hawley
thus spoke the feminist victim
Laura Mira
7:13am
Laura Mira
i am not victim
so back off
i will not tolerate disrespect
Paul Hawley
7:16am
Paul Hawley
I am simply pointing out the feminist line of thinking. You brought up the topic. This another symptom of the feminist. The so called double standard. You may disrespect me, but if I counter then you are offended. This is the idea that women is equal to man. You indeed are a victim of this ideology and it shows in your reaction.
4 hours ago · Like
Tamohara Dasa Well placed words fell on ears that were not quite ready, but will no doubt start to hear more now, Paul Hawley, nice teachings. In the slavery days, the women were kept in the masters' houses, as they controlled their children and thus the men. Its a...See More
3 hours ago · Edited · Like · 1
Narada-kunda Dasi the bhagavatam and other scriptures give the real explanation of why women and children are trying for independence.
the other thing is that there is absolutely no comparison between the treatment of women in vedic culture and in islam....See More
3 hours ago · Unlike · 2
Tamohara Dasa We see that Srila Prabhupada, being raised in a Muslim-Hindu culture of Bengal, was rather predisposed to some of the more extreme Muslim practices in regards chastity, such as purdah. On the other hand, he also placed our ladies on the altar, gave the...See More
3 hours ago · Edited · Like
Narada-kunda Dasi the real devotee is interested in what he can give, not what he can take from others. by giving respect and service, we are automatically worthy of the same. by forcing we place ourselves in the demonic category. very simple.
3 hours ago · Unlike · 1
Tamohara Dasa NKDD; Words of experience, very nice. so you are saying that a service attitude towards the spouse is the answer to most domestic relation issues? I see the wisdom, its like living in the ashrama.
3 hours ago · Like
Narada-kunda Dasi culture needs to be learned from example. people learn the philosophy but they remain emotionally primitive, yet they think they are advanced... the false ego is the root of all problems expecting respect from others while giving none is the antithesis of the devotional attitude.
3 hours ago · Unlike · 2
Narada-kunda Dasi it's a service attitude toward krishna -- you do your duty for krishna. he says how to take care of the wife etc
3 hours ago · Unlike · 2
Narada-kunda Dasi and his own supreme example is that he was a "henpecked husband" as srila prabhupada says.
primitive men think they are powerful if they neglect and mistreat women. real men know that the more they give and sacrifice, the more powerful they are. it's ...See More
3 hours ago · Edited · Unlike · 2
Paul Hawley A big point for men Tamohara Dasa who have to stay in the USA, be very careful about what goods you use, and products you consume. Best limit everything to the bare essentials in all things. They are literally doing everything possible to do destroy our manhood. One of the main reasons I cannot will not live in USA any longer. I am here for two weeks on business. Can't wait to leave. On another note Jonas E Alexis has demonstrated practically the connection and evolution of this thought process from the Bolsheviks to the Marxists, and the Feminists all the way up to the modern day Neo Cons.
2 hours ago · Unlike · 1
Tamohara Dasa Women: Never Appoint Them
BY: HLADINI-SHAKTI DASI
Feb 16, 2014 — EUROPE (SUN) — In the Sampradaya Sun article by Agnideva dasa on the topic of women being on the Sastric Advisory Committee, Agnideva pointed out the SAC's "highly politicized activities, lack of neutrality and general lack of knowledge of sastra, dharma and Vedic culture", which has been cited and corroborated by Bharata dasa's article regarding the Sastric Advisory Committee.
Urmila dasi stated, as quoted by Agnideva:
"Because the verses and purports only talk about worship the woman is doing herself, with no mention of engaging someone else, the most straightforward understanding is that the woman is conducting the yajna. Any other understanding would be having an interpretation that is not present in the text, or any of the other texts in that section, nor in any of the purports."
Ambika dasi's paper comments on Urmila's above statement as being in contradiction to Manu Samhita:
"No sacrifice, no vow, no fast must be performed by women apart (from their husbands)".
Hari-bhakti-vilasa forbids women, i.e., Urmila and Narayani, to be appointed as members of the SAC (or GBC or FDG):
"A wise man should never insult women, nor should he trust them. He should never become jealous of women, nor should he ever appoint them."
(HBV 11:708/VP 3.12.30)
about an hour ago · Like
Tamohara Dasa The immediate above comment by Hladini Shakti DD is just placed as an example of the chaos itsacon co. has generated.
about an hour ago · Edited · Like
Tamohara Dasa pt 1;
Politically Motivated Wrongdoings of the Sastric
Advisory Committee
BY: BHARATA DASA
Feb 15, 2014 — GLOBAL (SUN) — In the penultimate paragraph of his recent article, "Why Women Should Not Be on the Sastric Advisory Committee", Agnideva Prabhu wrote:
"Urmila dd is a senior member of the Sastric Advisory Committee (SAC), which has recently come under fire from the GBC because of it highly politicized activities, lack of neutrality and general lack of knowledge of sastra, dharma and Vedic culture."
The following text, which has been circulating recently, gives substance to Agnideva's assertion that all is not well in the Sastra Advisory Committee (henceforth SAC). This should come to the notice of all the devotees. Mukunda-datta Prabhu is a courageous whistle blower who is giving us an insider's look at what is going on in the SAC.
I will make further comments at the end, after Mukunda Datta Prabhu's letter.
Yhs
Bharata dasa
From: Internet: "Mukunda-datta Dasa"
Date: 18-Jan-14 08:36 (14:06 +0530)
To: Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN) [161360] (received: 18-Jan-14 12:25)
To: "Badrinarayan Dasa"
Cc: "Sivarama Swami" (sender: Basu Ghosh (das)
ACBSP (Baroda - IN))
Subject: SAC concerns
------------------------------------------------------------
Dandavats, Guruprasada Maharaja. Jaya Srila Prabhupada.
Hare Krsna. Having always trusted you because of your sensible, intelligent, and dispassionate Krsna consciousness, I also appreciate your concern regarding the present state of the SAC. I would like to ask a favor. Despite several months of questioning the SAC chair [Yadunandana Swami] and secretary [Madana Mohana Das] about the ways in which its recent FDG paper was mishandled, I have not received clear, relevant, timely, and accurate explanations from them. Neither has anyone from the EC replied to the (below) list of concerns, which I shared with EC beginning on 31/12/13. I had also asked SAC members (on 8/1/14) to share it with the larger GBC body; SAC has not complied.
Thus, I now feel it optimal—and my moral obligation—to inform the GBC myself, since the GBC has to be informed of SAC wrongdoings. Any decisions following from such tainted papers are likewise tainted.
I know you had previously expressed concerns about both the SAC constituence as well as its most recent paper, and as a GBC member, you can post the concerns I've listed below to the GBC conference. If you would, kindly do so now. I apologize if this creates any botheration for you; I only hope my input helps you all to make adequately informed decisions regarding both the SAC generally, as well as its last FDG paper too.
Thank you for your attention, concern, and kind cooperation. I am copying this email to Badrinarayana and Basughosh prabhus, whom Yadunandana Swami has identified as being involved. I hope this meets you well. Hare Krsna.
Your humble servant,
Mukunda Datta dasa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
about an hour ago · Like
Tamohara Dasa pt 2
These concerns should be shared among the entire GBC body:
Over the last year, I (Mukunda Datta dasa) have lost faith in the current SAC led by chairman Yadunandana Swami and secretary Madanamohana prabhu, who fail to answer the substance of my questions about why my input was excluded from our recent paper on female diksa-gurus. This led to my withdrawing from the project (see below). Frankly, I sense the current SAC and its recent paper are both contaminated by partisan interests, partly because of the following:
1. Brijabasi Prabhu and I withdrew from the SAC paper only after we were denied our rightful—and any meaningful—voice within it.
2. Each of us separately identified various problems in the paper, but amidst suddenly imposed and restrictive conditions, a last minute SAC policy change (from consensus to majority rule) left us virtually no time to append any adequate response to the majority paper.
3. SAC leadership had significantly restricted both the scope and the objectivity of its FDG research from the very outset, while refusing to identify its de facto methodology when so requested.
4. Pre-existing SAC demographics were stacked so as to favor only one conclusion; I noticed a goal-oriented methodology operating by default—as if the outcome was considered a foregone conclusion, rendering SAC research but perfunctory.
5. Ultimately, no views questioning (nor research potentially jeopardizing) immediate FDG implementation were accommodated in the SAC paper. Secretary Madanamohana prabhu was supposed to have incorporated all members' input, but all of his drafts of our paper either ignored or distorted virtually all of my input, which he hasn't explained in substantial detail when asked to do so.
6. Of the four most senior SAC members, two are FDG candidates. Others ignored this conflict of interest when it was questioned early in our discussions. Among other qualities SAC members should demonstrate, the SAC mandate also explicates: "Apolitical" and "Not unduly ambitious for position or achievement, either socially, politically or academically."
7. Madanamohana prabhu's only complete draft of the paper wasn't available for all SAC members themselves to read or edit as planned—until about 24 hours before its 1/10/13 submission deadline. Then SAC inclusion policy was suddenly changed to majority rule, thereby effectively sidelining any dissenting voices.
8. For what it is worth, since August 2013 I've had the impression that I haven't been included in all consequential SAC discussions; however, this tangential suspicion is significant mainly because it coincides with so many validated concerns.
9. On 16/10/13, Yadunandana Swami explicitly stopped sending me SAC emails (citing my supposed breach of a confidentiality clause in the SAC mandate) after I shared my views in reply to a godbrother. My SAC email resumed weeks later (partially or not). When asked since October 2013 what specific allegations justified his action, he didn't give all the pertinent details requested. Although he has since indicated his exact allegations, in context, his decision appears to have been ulterior, as it better matches a political motivation than my alleged breach of SAC confidentiality.
10. Especially amidst violation of its mandates against partisanship, to only enforce Yadunandana Swami's interpretation of the SAC mandate on SAC confidentiality doubles as a virtual gag-order that effectively conceals genuine wrongdoings within SAC. Complying with it thus thrusts an unjust moral dilemma upon its victims, who must decide whether obedience is better than truth.
11. As my questions became increasingly pointed, Yadunandana Swami then announced his resignation from SAC, in a pre-planned decision he said was unrelated to the FDG project.
12. Notably, SAC secretary Madanamohana prabhu lately speaks (on 19/12/13) of disbanding SAC altogether, amidst various opinions from other SAC members in recent emails I've received.
13. I have not received substantial answers about my disfranchisement from either Yadunandana Swami or Madanamohana prabhu, despite my suggesting exactly how to clarify my concerns.
14. This (and more) seems to leave the SAC in a fairly doubtful state, with many unanswered yet crucial questions about its modus operandi. This is separate from issues about the specific content of its recent FDG paper—though it definitely impacts that as well.
Not at all confident that the recent SAC paper established a fair, objective, and carefully researched conclusion on all the topical questions we were assigned, I didn't want my name associated with it--especially since I was tacitly denied a voice in it. SAC diligently suppressed both important questions and dissent in its consequently imbalanced and perhaps politically motivated paper. Given that my research was excluded amidst the above factors, to imply that I declined to sign the paper only because I felt a need for further research is misleading. Under the circumstances, it seems my duty to relate the truth of my firsthand experience within SAC to our authorities, as Yadunandana Swami recently advised me. I wrote the EC with essentially the above list on 31/12/13, but it has not replied, nor has anyone in SAC, since my 8/1/14 request that SAC members inform the GBC of these concerns.
One legitimately wonders how each SAC member can substantially contribute to SAC amidst what amounts to implicit censorship, if SAC protocol remains until it is alleged violated (and even then isn't explicated in much detail), if it is moreover subject to sudden and drastic changes without notice, and if member participation requires bending truth to fit the majority opinion--as has now become the SAC policy.
I remain happy to participate in SAC, though I sense it could use more oversight or even reformation, in order to prevent future abuses.
Your humble servant
Mukunda Datta Dasa
The SAC is supposed to a neutral, apolitical committee of senior devotees notable for their sagacity, deep knowledge of sastra and realization. Instead it has become a political instrument to push forward at any cost Female Diksha Guru. Except for Srila Prabhupada disciples Urmila dasi, Drutakarma das, Mukunda Datta das, and Narayani dasi all the rest are unknown junior devotees who have been especially chosen to be on the SAC for the simple reason that they pass the pro-FDG litmus test, no other qualification required. The list of shame, that is, of corrupt SAC membership is as follows:
Chairman – Yadunandana Swami. Secretary Madana-mohana das. Members: Urmila dasi, Drutakarma das, Narayani dasi, Adi-purusa das, Isvarakrsna das, Caitanya-carana das, Sarvajna das, Vinoda-bihari das.
We note that the chairman Yadunandana Swami is principle for the so-called "Bhaktivedanta College" a non-traditional (not according to parampara standards) co-educational school where the sexes freely mix. As one former student described it, "it's not just a school, it's a date." However, I do not want to digress into bashing that school, though perhaps in a future article we shall. The point being that this school and its principle are very left of center, another way of saying, a weak link in the parampara. So with him as chairman of the SAC what outcome could be expected regarding any paper the SAC would do on the topic of Female Diksha Guru? As Mukunda Datta Prabhu puts it, it was a foregone conclusion and the SAC imprimatur was just a perfunctory show.
We also note that Adi-purusa Prabhu is also a member, he works for Prasanta Mataji's VIHE and does what she tells him to do. Considering that Prasanta Mataji is a major player in the Women's Ministry with major ambitions to become a guru herself then we can see why he was chosen.
Caitanya-caran das, another unknown, has recently published a spat of articles on Dandavats. Just wanted to let innocent readers know so that they can "consider the source" before reading his texts.
As for the senior devotees, we always wondered why Drutakarma Prabhu was on this committee. He is certainly not known as a learned scholar of Krsna's Vedic culture and civilization, although he does know something about archeology. We need people with deep knowledge of Vedic culture to be on SAC, that is not Drutakarma Prabhu.
To give an example, in the 2005 pro-FDG paper that he co-wrote for the SAC along with Purnacandra Swami, Drutakarma made a statement to the effect that the Pancaratra is recent in comparison to the Vedas. In actuality, Pancaratra is part of the Vedas and is mentioned in the Chandogya Upanishad as the practice followed by the "Ekantas" -- those who are one pointed in worshiping Lord Krsna. This point about the origin of Pancaratra was explained in great depth by both Yamunacarya and Vedantadesika from Sri Sampradaya. So while Drutakarma Prabhu may be ISKCON's "bone" expert, he is not knowledgeable in many important aspects of Vedic culture.
Another troubling fact about Drutakarma Prabhu is that he is closely aligned with Hrdayananda dasa Goswami. As the Spanish saying goes, "tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are."
Let us not forget the ladies -- Urmila and Narayani Matajis, neither of whom are known as deeply learned scholars. (Their main qualification seems to be their gender.) This fact especially in regards to Urmila Mataji has been recently demonstrated by Agnideva Prabhu in his article, cited above, as well as by other devotees, especially Bhaktilata Mataji. On several occasions Bhaktilata Mataji made a fool out of Urmila dd, like the time Urmila claimed that if a devotee lady follows Stri-dharma it is material. Bhaktilata Mataji showed with abundant evidence that according to sastra, a Vaisnavai who follows Stri-dharma goes back to Godhead. How then could something material get us back to Godhead? Urmila dd could not respond. Ironically Urmila dd brags on her Facebook page that the GBC often asks her for advice. If this is the case, then that answers a lot of questions about the performance of the GBC.
However, the fact that these two women are not actually qualified is not my point, but rather that they are dishonest. As Mukunda Datta Prabhu points out in his letter, both Urmila dd and Narayani dd have strong ambitions to be gurus. The SAC was tasked to write a paper on the FDG issue. So this becomes a very clear conflict of interest on their part. When there is a conflict of interest an honest person will recuse themselves from the matter. They did not. Instead they actively participated in writing the SAC paper to further their own ambitions. Didn't we learn our lessons with materially ambitious and dishonest men in the past? Is there some rule that says that we must now also have an equal number of materially ambitious and dishonest women to make trouble in ISKCON and disturb Lord Caitanya's preaching mission?
We also note that the SAC Chairman, Yadunandana Swami considered confidentiality of SAC business to be more important than the honesty and the neutrality of SAC. In this way he hoped to hide the corruption in SAC because such corruption should be confidential knowledge and kept away from the public. Things are so bad at the SAC that because of distrust in regards to the neutrality and sagacity of the GBC's SAC, ISKCON India has created its own SAC to get competent advice on important matters. And, on the basis of this advice the leadership of ISKCON India is strongly opposed to implementing Female Diksha Gurus in ISKCON.
In conclusion, the Sastric Advisory Committee has in the very short time of its existence become thoroughly corrupted. It needs to be completely overhauled and the tainted members removed. If these persons are left to remain then the effect will be the same as leaving a trace of yogurt in a pot and filling it with new milk - in the morning you will have a new pot of yogurt.
Yhs
Bharata dasa
about an hour ago · Edited · Like
Narada-kunda Dasi from what i heard from srila prabhupada's earlier disciples, iskcon was like an innocent affectionate family before the sannyasis started speaking against women and grihasthas. they poisoned everything with their motivated (profit) "preaching". since then it has been very hellish for the women and children. and the men are worse off for it.
about an hour ago · Unlike · 2
Narada-kunda Dasi about these iskcon wranglings, i just find it laughable that they try to use scriptures like the manu samhita against women, when the manu samhita itself says that they themselves are not allowed to even read it.
about an hour ago · Edited · Unlike · 1
Tamohara Dasa Yes, Srila Pabhupada warned us that we could never rate up to Manu Samhita, and was displeased that devotees brought it into discussion for implementation. This is a symptom of many deviants; they bring in new sastras, say they are also sastra, (never ...See More
about an hour ago · Edited · Like
Narada-kunda Dasi she is in with the SR abusers, that is her real qualification and what makes her a part of the gang. it consists of gurukul teachers, swamis and gbc's.
57 minutes ago · Like
Vishvambhara Priya And Srila Prabhupad has said in his purports to Srimad Bhagavatam; for man woman is woman and for woman man is woman..
15 minutes ago · Unlike · 1
Tamohara Dasa Good point, VPdd, but keep in mind, you are likely an exception amongst women and men, equal to all, muich better than most. No doubt , yes he said that a man is maya for the woman and vise versa, in regards unregulated karmi life. So, no one says that women are just plain in maya, actually, but that they are more suited to the job as representatives! lol> ? I am following their footsteps.
3 minutes ago · Like
Tamohara DasaNarada-kunda Dasi it's a service attitude toward krishna -- you do your duty for krishna. he says how to take care of the wife etc
3 hours ago · Unlike · 2
Narada-kunda Dasi and his own supreme example is that he was a "henpecked husband" as srila prabhupada says.
primitive men think they are powerful if they neglect and mistreat women. real men know that the more they give and sacrifice, the more powerful they are. it's like a mother -- the more she does for a child, the more of a mother she is, not less. so the more a husband does for a wife, the more of a husband he is. and the wife will naturally reciprocate, feeling that he is worthy.
if you get married, play your role right. otherwise stay single.
3 hours ago · Edited · Unlike · 2
Paul Hawley A big point for men Tamohara Dasa who have to stay in the USA, be very careful about what goods you use, and products you consume. Best limit everything to the bare essentials in all things. They are literally doing everything possible to do destroy our manhood. One of the main reasons I cannot will not live in USA any longer. I am here for two weeks on business. Can't wait to leave. On another note Jonas E Alexis has demonstrated practically the connection and evolution of this thought process from the Bolsheviks to the Marxists, and the Feminists all the way up to the modern day Neo Cons.
2 hours ago · Unlike · 1
Tamohara Dasa Women: Never Appoint Them
BY: HLADINI-SHAKTI DASI
Feb 16, 2014 — EUROPE (SUN) — In the Sampradaya Sun article by Agnideva dasa on the topic of women being on the Sastric Advisory Committee, Agnideva pointed out the SAC's "highly politicized activities, lack of neutrality and general lack of knowledge of sastra, dharma and Vedic culture", which has been cited and corroborated by Bharata dasa's article regarding the Sastric Advisory Committee.
Urmila dasi stated, as quoted by Agnideva:
"Because the verses and purports only talk about worship the woman is doing herself, with no mention of engaging someone else, the most straightforward understanding is that the woman is conducting the yajna. Any other understanding would be having an interpretation that is not present in the text, or any of the other texts in that section, nor in any of the purports."
Ambika dasi's paper comments on Urmila's above statement as being in contradiction to Manu Samhita:
Write a comment..
Hari-bhakti-vilasa forbids women, i.e., Urmila and Narayani, to be appointed as members of the SAC (or GBC or FDG):
"A wise man should never insult women, nor should he trust them. He should never become jealous of women, nor should he ever appoint them."
(HBV 11:708/VP 3.12.30)
about an hour ago · Like
Tamohara Dasa The immediate above comment by Hladini Shakti DD is just placed as an example of the chaos itsacon co. has generated.
about an hour ago · Edited · Like
Tamohara Dasa pt 1;
Politically Motivated Wrongdoings of the Sastric
Advisory Committee
BY: BHARATA DASA
Feb 15, 2014 — GLOBAL (SUN) — In the penultimate paragraph of his recent article, "Why Women Should Not Be on the Sastric Advisory Committee", Agnideva Prabhu wrote:
"Urmila dd is a senior member of the Sastric Advisory Committee (SAC), which has recently come under fire from the GBC because of it highly politicized activities, lack of neutrality and general lack of knowledge of sastra, dharma and Vedic culture."
The following text, which has been circulating recently, gives substance to Agnideva's assertion that all is not well in the Sastra Advisory Committee (henceforth SAC). This should come to the notice of all the devotees. Mukunda-datta Prabhu is a courageous whistle blower who is giving us an insider's look at what is going on in the SAC.
I will make further comments at the end, after Mukunda Datta Prabhu's letter.
Yhs
Bharata dasa
From: Internet: "Mukunda-datta Dasa"
Date: 18-Jan-14 08:36 (14:06 +0530)
To: Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN) [161360] (received: 18-Jan-14 12:25)
To: "Badrinarayan Dasa"
Cc: "Sivarama Swami" (sender: Basu Ghosh (das)
ACBSP (Baroda - IN))
Subject: SAC concerns
------------------------------------------------------------
Dandavats, Guruprasada Maharaja. Jaya Srila Prabhupada.
Hare Krsna. Having always trusted you because of your sensible, intelligent, and dispassionate Krsna consciousness, I also appreciate your concern regarding the present state of the SAC. I would like to ask a favor. Despite several months of questioning the SAC chair [Yadunandana Swami] and secretary [Madana Mohana Das] about the ways in which its recent FDG paper was mishandled, I have not received clear, relevant, timely, and accurate explanations from them. Neither has anyone from the EC replied to the (below) list of concerns, which I shared with EC beginning on 31/12/13. I had also asked SAC members (on 8/1/14) to share it with the larger GBC body; SAC has not complied.
Thus, I now feel it optimal—and my moral obligation—to inform the GBC myself, since the GBC has to be informed of SAC wrongdoings. Any decisions following from such tainted papers are likewise tainted.
I know you had previously expressed concerns about both the SAC constituence as well as its most recent paper, and as a GBC member, you can post the concerns I've listed below to the GBC conference. If you would, kindly do so now. I apologize if this creates any botheration for you; I only hope my input helps you all to make adequately informed decisions regarding both the SAC generally, as well as its last FDG paper too.
Thank you for your attention, concern, and kind cooperation. I am copying this email to Badrinarayana and Basughosh prabhus, whom Yadunandana Swami has identified as being involved. I hope this meets you well. Hare Krsna.
Your humble servant,
Mukunda Datta dasa
--------------------------------------------------------------------------
about an hour ago · Like
Tamohara Dasa pt 2
These concerns should be shared among the entire GBC body:
Over the last year, I (Mukunda Datta dasa) have lost faith in the current SAC led by chairman Yadunandana Swami and secretary Madanamohana prabhu, who fail to answer the substance of my questions about why my input was excluded from our recent paper on female diksa-gurus. This led to my withdrawing from the project (see below). Frankly, I sense the current SAC and its recent paper are both contaminated by partisan interests, partly because of the following:
1. Brijabasi Prabhu and I withdrew from the SAC paper only after we were denied our rightful—and any meaningful—voice within it.
2. Each of us separately identified various problems in the paper, but amidst suddenly imposed and restrictive conditions, a last minute SAC policy change (from consensus to majority rule) left us virtually no time to append any adequate response to the majority paper.
3. SAC leadership had significantly restricted both the scope and the objectivity of its FDG research from the very outset, while refusing to identify its de facto methodology when so requested.
4. Pre-existing SAC demographics were stacked so as to favor only one conclusion; I noticed a goal-oriented methodology operating by default—as if the outcome was considered a foregone conclusion, rendering SAC research but perfunctory.
5. Ultimately, no views questioning (nor research potentially jeopardizing) immediate FDG implementation were accommodated in the SAC paper. Secretary Madanamohana prabhu was supposed to have incorporated all members' input, but all of his drafts of our paper either ignored or distorted virtually all of my input, which he hasn't explained in substantial detail when asked to do so.
6. Of the four most senior SAC members, two are FDG candidates. Others ignored this conflict of interest when it was questioned early in our discussions. Among other qualities SAC members should demonstrate, the SAC mandate also explicates: "Apolitical" and "Not unduly ambitious for position or achievement, either socially, politically or academically."
7. Madanamohana prabhu's only complete draft of the paper wasn't available for all SAC members themselves to read or edit as planned—until about 24 hours before its 1/10/13 submission deadline. Then SAC inclusion policy was suddenly changed to majority rule, thereby effectively sidelining any dissenting voices.
8. For what it is worth, since August 2013 I've had the impression that I haven't been included in all consequential SAC discussions; however, this tangential suspicion is significant mainly because it coincides with so many validated concerns.
9. On 16/10/13, Yadunandana Swami explicitly stopped sending me SAC emails (citing my supposed breach of a confidentiality clause in the SAC mandate) after I shared my views in reply to a godbrother. My SAC email resumed weeks later (partially or not). When asked since October 2013 what specific allegations justified his action, he didn't give all the pertinent details requested. Although he has since indicated his exact allegations, in context, his decision appears to have been ulterior, as it better matches a political motivation than my alleged breach of SAC confidentiality.
10. Especially amidst violation of its mandates against partisanship, to only enforce Yadunandana Swami's interpretation of the SAC mandate on SAC confidentiality doubles as a virtual gag-order that effectively conceals genuine wrongdoings within SAC. Complying with it thus thrusts an unjust moral dilemma upon its victims, who must decide whether obedience is better than truth.
11. As my questions became increasingly pointed, Yadunandana Swami then announced his resignation from SAC, in a pre-planned decision he said was unrelated to the FDG project.
12. Notably, SAC secretary Madanamohana prabhu lately speaks (on 19/12/13) of disbanding SAC altogether, amidst various opinions from other SAC members in recent emails I've received.
13. I have not received substantial answers about my disfranchisement from either Yadunandana Swami or Madanamohana prabhu, despite my suggesting exactly how to clarify my concerns.
14. This (and more) seems to leave the SAC in a fairly doubtful state, with many unanswered yet crucial questions about its modus operandi. This is separate from issues about the specific content of its recent FDG paper—though it definitely impacts that as well.
Not at all confident that the recent SAC paper established a fair, objective, and carefully researched conclusion on all the topical questions we were assigned, I didn't want my name associated with it--especially since I was tacitly denied a voice in it. SAC diligently suppressed both important questions and dissent in its consequently imbalanced and perhaps politically motivated paper. Given that my research was excluded amidst the above factors, to imply that I declined to sign the paper only because I felt a need for further research is misleading. Under the circumstances, it seems my duty to relate the truth of my firsthand experience within SAC to our authorities, as Yadunandana Swami recently advised me. I wrote the EC with essentially the above list on 31/12/13, but it has not replied, nor has anyone in SAC, since my 8/1/14 request that SAC members inform the GBC of these concerns.
One legitimately wonders how each SAC member can substantially contribute to SAC amidst what amounts to implicit censorship, if SAC protocol remains until it is alleged violated (and even then isn't explicated in much detail), if it is moreover subject to sudden and drastic changes without notice, and if member participation requires bending truth to fit the majority opinion--as has now become the SAC policy.
I remain happy to participate in SAC, though I sense it could use more oversight or even reformation, in order to prevent future abuses.
Your humble servant
Mukunda Datta Dasa
The SAC is supposed to a neutral, apolitical committee of senior devotees notable for their sagacity, deep knowledge of sastra and realization. Instead it has become a political instrument to push forward at any cost Female Diksha Guru. Except for Srila Prabhupada disciples Urmila dasi, Drutakarma das, Mukunda Datta das, and Narayani dasi all the rest are unknown junior devotees who have been especially chosen to be on the SAC for the simple reason that they pass the pro-FDG litmus test, no other qualification required. The list of shame, that is, of corrupt SAC membership is as follows:
Chairman – Yadunandana Swami. Secretary Madana-mohana das. Members: Urmila dasi, Drutakarma das, Narayani dasi, Adi-purusa das, Isvarakrsna das, Caitanya-carana das, Sarvajna das, Vinoda-bihari das.
We note that the chairman Yadunandana Swami is principle for the so-called "Bhaktivedanta College" a non-traditional (not according to parampara standards) co-educational school where the sexes freely mix. As one former student described it, "it's not just a school, it's a date." However, I do not want to digress into bashing that school, though perhaps in a future article we shall. The point being that this school and its principle are very left of center, another way of saying, a weak link in the parampara. So with him as chairman of the SAC what outcome could be expected regarding any paper the SAC would do on the topic of Female Diksha Guru? As Mukunda Datta Prabhu puts it, it was a foregone conclusion and the SAC imprimatur was just a perfunctory show.
We also note that Adi-purusa Prabhu is also a member, he works for Prasanta Mataji's VIHE and does what she tells him to do. Considering that Prasanta Mataji is a major player in the Women's Ministry with major ambitions to become a guru herself then we can see why he was chosen.
Caitanya-caran das, another unknown, has recently published a spat of articles on Dandavats. Just wanted to let innocent readers know so that they can "consider the source" before reading his texts.
As for the senior devotees, we always wondered why Drutakarma Prabhu was on this committee. He is certainly not known as a learned scholar of Krsna's Vedic culture and civilization, although he does know something about archeology. We need people with deep knowledge of Vedic culture to be on SAC, that is not Drutakarma Prabhu.
To give an example, in the 2005 pro-FDG paper that he co-wrote for the SAC along with Purnacandra Swami, Drutakarma made a statement to the effect that the Pancaratra is recent in comparison to the Vedas. In actuality, Pancaratra is part of the Vedas and is mentioned in the Chandogya Upanishad as the practice followed by the "Ekantas" -- those who are one pointed in worshiping Lord Krsna. This point about the origin of Pancaratra was explained in great depth by both Yamunacarya and Vedantadesika from Sri Sampradaya. So while Drutakarma Prabhu may be ISKCON's "bone" expert, he is not knowledgeable in many important aspects of Vedic culture.
Another troubling fact about Drutakarma Prabhu is that he is closely aligned with Hrdayananda dasa Goswami. As the Spanish saying goes, "tell me who your friends are and I will tell you who you are."
Let us not forget the ladies -- Urmila and Narayani Matajis, neither of whom are known as deeply learned scholars. (Their main qualification seems to be their gender.) This fact especially in regards to Urmila Mataji has been recently demonstrated by Agnideva Prabhu in his article, cited above, as well as by other devotees, especially Bhaktilata Mataji. On several occasions Bhaktilata Mataji made a fool out of Urmila dd, like the time Urmila claimed that if a devotee lady follows Stri-dharma it is material. Bhaktilata Mataji showed with abundant evidence that according to sastra, a Vaisnavai who follows Stri-dharma goes back to Godhead. How then could something material get us back to Godhead? Urmila dd could not respond. Ironically Urmila dd brags on her Facebook page that the GBC often asks her for advice. If this is the case, then that answers a lot of questions about the performance of the GBC.
However, the fact that these two women are not actually qualified is not my point, but rather that they are dishonest. As Mukunda Datta Prabhu points out in his letter, both Urmila dd and Narayani dd have strong ambitions to be gurus. The SAC was tasked to write a paper on the FDG issue. So this becomes a very clear conflict of interest on their part. When there is a conflict of interest an honest person will recuse themselves from the matter. They did not. Instead they actively participated in writing the SAC paper to further their own ambitions. Didn't we learn our lessons with materially ambitious and dishonest men in the past? Is there some rule that says that we must now also have an equal number of materially ambitious and dishonest women to make trouble in ISKCON and disturb Lord Caitanya's preaching mission?
We also note that the SAC Chairman, Yadunandana Swami considered confidentiality of SAC business to be more important than the honesty and the neutrality of SAC. In this way he hoped to hide the corruption in SAC because such corruption should be confidential knowledge and kept away from the public. Things are so bad at the SAC that because of distrust in regards to the neutrality and sagacity of the GBC's SAC, ISKCON India has created its own SAC to get competent advice on important matters. And, on the basis of this advice the leadership of ISKCON India is strongly opposed to implementing Female Diksha Gurus in ISKCON.
In conclusion, the Sastric Advisory Committee has in the very short time of its existence become thoroughly corrupted. It needs to be completely overhauled and the tainted members removed. If these persons are left to remain then the effect will be the same as leaving a trace of yogurt in a pot and filling it with new milk - in the morning you will have a new pot of yogurt.
Yhs
Bharata dasa
about an hour ago · Edited · Like
Narada-kunda Dasi from what i heard from srila prabhupada's earlier disciples, iskcon was like an innocent affectionate family before the sannyasis started speaking against women and grihasthas. they poisoned everything with their motivated (profit) "preaching". since then it has been very hellish for the women and children. and the men are worse off for it.
about an hour ago · Unlike · 2
Narada-kunda Dasi about these iskcon wranglings, i just find it laughable that they try to use scriptures like the manu samhita against women, when the manu samhita itself says that they themselves are not allowed to even read it.
about an hour ago · Edited · Unlike · 1
Tamohara Dasa Yes, Srila Pabhupada warned us that we could never rate up to Manu Samhita, and was displeased that devotees brought it into discussion for implementation. This is a symptom of many deviants; they bring in new sastras, say they are also sastra, say they are also sastra, (never mind meant for those in the three modes or not), and try to force it upon us, because it differs from SP's conclusions, and that they want. They want to undermine SP's authority and minimize his instructions, setting themselves up as authorities. This Urmila dd seems most anxious to be a Guru?
about an hour ago ·
Narada-kunda Dasi she is in with the SR abusers, that is her real qualification and what makes her a part of the gang. it consists of gurukul teachers, swamis and gbc's.
about an hour ago ·
Vishvambhara Priya And Srila Prabhupad has said in his purports to Srimad Bhagavatam; for man woman is woman and for woman man is woman..
Tamohara Dasa Good point, VPdd, but keep in mind, you are likely an exception amongst women and men, equal to all, muich better than most. No doubt , yes he said that a man is maya for the woman and vise versa, in regards unregulated karmi life. So, no one says that women are just plain in maya, actually, but that they are more suited to the job as representatives! lol> ? I am following their footsteps.
Facebook © 2014 · English (UK)
.
Replies