Google Groups no longer supports new Usenet posts or subscriptions. Historical content remains viewable.
Dismiss

More on Madhusudani Radha

0 views
Skip to first unread message

Dark Knight

unread,
Dec 1, 2002, 11:08:23 PM12/1/02
to
PADA: GHQ strikes back. So why was Madhusudani made the cheif of CHAKRA by
Tamal and the GBC? And if the followers of the GBC are making all of these
obtuse critcial statements against even Lord Rama, then why did the Gaudiya
Matha leaders endorse this lineage? Why does Sridhara, Narayana et al. say
that GBC, the source of these grevious complaints due to their bogus
preaching that Srila Prabhupada is out of touch with modern times, and
endorsing folks like Madhusudani as their spokespersons, is "a guru
lineage"? thanks yer baffled servants at pada

A few weeks ago you wrote:

* Another example of their false logic is that the above party, all men, in
the article below they try to demonize an innocent woman devotee like
Madhusudani Radha, saying de facto that she is a borderline severe ********
because her view is that: gurus make mistakes?

No. She is a demoness, you simply do not know this 'woman'. She has no real
respect for Srila Prabhupad. She absolutely has no faith in his words. She
is a feminist, which is another name for a demoness. In her own words she
has called Lord Ram Chandra S..t and spelled it out also. Why? Because Ram
banished Sita when the common men gossiped about her chastity. She thinks
s-it of Ram. And many times she has accussed SP of being backward, an old
Bengali man who was hampered by an outdated culture (because of his views on
dharma, that women are NEVER to be given independence). MRdd chokes on these
words of SP. That is why "WE" say the woman IS a demoness. We only mixed
words to be polite.

Of course, all woman are blameless, who is to blame are men who have no
sense of what is dharma who do not give women proper protection. But, some
women are too damn independent they reject any and all attempts to protect
them, they are not to be blamed, still, they are but less intelligent women,
after all, but neither are the men to be blamed who try in sincerity to
protect them.

Hey, Ram was a chauvist, so was Krsna, He married 16,108 wives, that is
after leaving his crying 16,108 girl friend gopis. And not one of His wives
were allowed to divorce and remarry. Even Nityananda Prabhu wasn't satisfied
with just Mother Jahnavi Devi, but He married two wives at the same time.
Some even say 3 wives. He too was a polygamist. And that is illegal today,
and is on the black list of every liberal feminist. And Lord Gauranga, what
a chauvist He was. His father died when He was young - still we do not find
Him encouraging poor mother Saci to find another husband and remarry. No. He
had no real compassion for women. Yet, when Gauranga's first wife died of a
snake bite, Lord Gaurange accepted another wife right away, a 14 year old
minor aged girl. Imagine, he was at least 10 years older, in his 20's and he
marriages a 14 yr old, 2 in a row. Then, just a few years later, when the
girl was no more than 16, still a minor aged girl, Gauranga goes and deserts
her. He leaves her. The poor minor aged girl, 16, poor Vishnu Priya, to cry
everyday for the rest of her life. He never gave her permission to remarry
someone else and have a real life. No, He EXPECTED her to be an obient slave
of dharma - to be an obeidiant slave of a wife - even after he leaves her.
She was forced to have to love her one and only husband in the form of a
piece of neem wood, carved to look like Him. Imagine that? The modern
feminsit woudl have him locked up. He really was a Mad Man. Even when He
came back to Bengal and inquired about His mother Saci, He didn't have the
courtesy to even inquire about poor Vishnu Priya. At least he could have
gone over and said, "hi", right. I mean, she gave her whole life to this
chauvist and he doesn't even blink. 1,000's fall at His feet and worship
Him, He is set up for life, food, cloths, followers, his poor abandoned wife
has to live like a beggar - provided by an uncle. What backwards culture.
She should have remarried. Had kids. (Yes, how would that have been written
in the CC???? ). This is Gauranga, the one we call the "Most Magnominous".
He sure wasn't very magnominous to his 2nd wife - was He?

Well, not by the materialistic standards of the modern feminist. They would
argue that Mother Saci should have remarried. I mean, she was hardly even
middle aged when her husband died. Come'on, she should have got a new
'devotee' husband and had more children. Then Mahaprabhu would have had a
step-father and half brothers and half-sister (how would vrndaban das and
Krsna das kaviraj handled that?). Yeah, that would be real pure - wouldn't
it? Yet, this is how the feminsts argue. They say that a society that
discourages divorce and remarriage for women is discriminating, unfair and
cruel.

Mahaprabhu, his first young wife dies, he goes and marries another young
minor aged girl right away, his mother, why can't she remarry? And what
about poor Vishnu Priya? 16 yr old girl, no children, no sons. The equal
right feminists want to see Vedic dharma abolished. They say that a society
that would not ENCOURAGE and empower someone like Vishnu Priya to remarry is
a cruel and backward society of chauvinistic men. They would classify
Mahaprabhu as a mysogenist. A Woman HATER. A WOMAN ABUSER. He goes and
marries one young minor aged virgin girl after another, some could even
argue that He even caused the death of His first wife by leaving her alone
when he took off on a vacation by Himself. Mahaprabhu should have taken her
with Him. Anyway, she dies, so he goes off and marries another minor aged
girl, lives 2 short yrs with her at the most, then takes off for good.
Deserts her. And the girl, no - she cannot remarry. That is not allowed in
Vedic dharma. According to the feminist vedic dharma sucks big-time. A man
can go from one young virgin girl to the next, but women are not allowed to
marry again. Even if the bum-husband takes off and deserts them in their
young age - even a minor - like Vishnu Priya. That is the excuss mother
Laxmimoni and this Madhusudani Radha give why girls MUST have college
education. They say that the BUM husband (like Mahaprabhu) might leave them
when they are young with children, so even though SP said NO SCHOOL for
girls, they say, f- him. Forget him, he was an old Bengali who was raised in
a backwards culture. No, we know better, girls shouldn't be married by 16,
they have to go to college first. My god, they might wind up marrying
someone like Lord Gauranga and be deserted in their youth, so to hell with
what SP said, to hell with your Vedic dharma and Vedic culture, we are going
to make our own culture and our own rules and we are going to lable it Krsna
Conscious and put ISKCON and Prabhupad's name on it so it looks official and
bonafied.

Mahaprabhu runs off leaving his 16 yr old wife - If Gauranga was alive today
they would send child protective services after him and have him locked up
for abuse to a minor, for wife abandonment. He was a mysogenist, a woman
hater, a chauvinist.

Got the point yet? You fight your homo guru fight, we will fight the dharma
fight, ok?

------
here is just a few of her emails on topical discussion as of 5 months ago:

----- Original Message -----
From: Maria Ekstrand
To: topical-d...@yahoogroups.com ;
topical-d...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Monday, June 24, 2002 3:45 PM
Subject: Re: [TD] Bodo Baba

At 02:10 PM 6/24/2002 -0400, Noma T. Petroff wrote:

Not to throw any spanners into the works, but I thought this was a
refrain that Srila Prabhupada specifically instructed devotees not to
use,

Does anyone know why? I'm just too hard headed to accept such a prohibition
without hearing the logic behind it. I thought the names sounded wonderful
together

Although if we're talking about personal preferences, I have to admit that
Lord Rama is on my s--t list for the way he treated Sita. I find it hard to
chant his name, so I think of Balarama instead for "Rama". However hard I
try, I just can't see anything "ideal" in banishing Sita simply because of
gossip. He should have known better I think he was cruel and selfish. Not my
ideal king at all.

Guess I can expect those excommunication papers in the mail now - -good
thing ISKCON is so disorganized. :-)

Madhu
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
topical-discuss...@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

----------------------------------------------------------------------------
-----------------

----- Original Message -----
From: Maria Ekstrand
To: topical-d...@yahoogroups.com ;
topical-d...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 12:22 AM
Subject: Re: [TD] Bodo Baba

At 11:28 AM 6/25/02 -0400, Noma T. Petroff wrote:

Madhusudani, now you're breaking my heart.

I'm sorry. I really am. It's not that I don't believe he's God - but I
really think he behaved like a ****. If there was some other explanation,
I'd really like to know. But he's not talking - at least not in any way that
I can hear. So I guess he doesn't really care what I think of his behaviors.

It's even possible that things have been
added to the account over time.

I think so too. There are several versions floating around. Linda Hess (at
Stanford U) wrote an article about the different versions not too long ago
(right as the movie Fire was coming out). If you haven't read it, I'll see
if I can find my copy and send it to you. It was really good.

Also, I have a hard time
accepting the idea that it was a "Maya" Sita who endured capture in Sri
Lanka.

I do too. That seems like an add-on to me by someone who couldn't handle the
idea that she had actually been in contact with Ravana. Sita was very cool
and her standing up to Ravana (and to Rama in at least one version) was
inspiring and courageous.

Think of the other things that Rama stands for: a leader who is humble
enough to bow down to the will of someone else, a king who chose to have
only one wife at time when kings normally had many wives, a man who went
through all kinds of trouble to rescue his wife, a leader who will
knock down bad government, a leader who deeply loves his people and
whose people are satisfied by him.

I don't think the man was all bad. Those are all good qualities (although I
think the thing about caring for his people was taken to extremes when it
came to listening to their gossiping about Sita) and better than just about
any other leader I can think of. But I still think he behaved badly when it
came to his treatment of Sita - after everything she'd gone through. That
was disappointing. made it seem like he cared more about his own reputation.
I wish he'd hurry up and let us know the real story. Or maybe it is that not
even
God is perfect when in a human form?

There are things we might not understand. Why did Narada Muni say
things that would cause Kamsa to kill so many babies? How could Krsna
the invinsible be killed by a hunter's arrow? How could Rama deny
Sita?

Exactly. Those are all puzzles. Krsna's departure story isn't even cool. He
came in with a bang and didn't even go out with a wimper. Very
anti-climactic.

Thus I cannot accept that He would actually unfairly reject His beloved
Sita-devi. Maybe I am a fool. I leave that up to Rama to prove or
disprove.

Please let me know if he ever reveals the real story to you. You're such a
sweet devotee that I'm sure he'll be knocking on your door way before he
comes this way.
Love,
Madhu
To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
topical-discuss...@yahoogroups.com

Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to the Yahoo! Terms of Service.

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

----- Original Message -----
From: Maria Ekstrand
To: topical-d...@yahoogroups.com ;
topical-d...@yahoogroups.com
Sent: Wednesday, June 26, 2002 9:35 PM
Subject: Re: [TD] Legalize Prostitution

At 05:26 PM 6/26/02 +0000, quantum42z wrote:

Definitely legalize the drugs, except the very dangerous ones, like
crack cocaine and X.

That's probably a good idea. If other drugs become safer and possibly
cheaper, the interest in more dangerous drugs may fade anyway.

As far as the same sex marriages, I will avoid
getting involved in that discussion. After all, it is really none
of my business, since I am not gay myself.

I'm not sure I understand your reasoning. You're not a woman either, but
does that mean you have no opinion about whether women should be allowed to
vote? Should African-Americans be the only ones who care about whether they
should be given the same rights as everyone else? Interracial marriages used
to be illegal too - should only those who wanted to marry a person of a
different race be concerned?

I think we all suffer when we live in an unequal and injust system. Why
should anyone want to limit the legal protections that marriage offers only
to those who are of opposite sex? If only gays and lesbians should consider
it their business, things will never change - as they comprise only a small
minority of the population.

Prabhupada's extreme
position is not going to go over big in today's political climate

True, just like some of his statements about Blacks and women. But that
doesn't bother me so much, as long as no one forces me to see him as God. If
we can see him as an elderly Bengali gentleman from the turn of the century,
who was educated in Christian schools and who didn't have the greatest
marriage himself, I think his attitude is very understandable. Maybe that's
another reason I don't really consider him an expert on social matters - at
least not on today's society.
Madhu

--------------

The above was light weight, she has made far more disrespectul statements
regarding SP.


pa...@neteze.com

unread,
Dec 8, 2002, 10:57:01 AM12/8/02
to
On Mon, 2 Dec 2002 04:08:23 +0000 (UTC), "Dark Knight"
<kishore...@btopenworld.com> wrote:
[PADA: You are the ones who are mixed up? You party takes one (at
worse) "demoness," (at best) "mixed up woman," and places her as the
legal owner at the helm of your party's GBC's web site? She is really,
or allegedly, making outrageous statements, and then your GBC team,
and her GBC "guru" "responds" -- gutless wonders that they are, by
saying and doing nothing? Nor does the rest of the GBC do anything of
substance? Jayapataka should have reigned her in years ago if this was
the case? And if he failed to act, then the GBC should have taken him
to task as well? You fail to tell us: why was no CONCRETE action EVER
taken to correct her statements -- years ago? And instead, after you
saw so many warning signs that she had some serious defects, you
promoted her as almost the equal status to your gurus like
Vipramukhya? And since her main statement of complaint is that gurus
fall down, why was not the origin of this idea traced back to the GBC
leaders like Trivrikrama and have him kicked out for making these
absurd attacks on the parampara system?

-----= Posted via Newsfeeds.Com, Uncensored Usenet News =-----
http://www.newsfeeds.com - The #1 Newsgroup Service in the World!
-----== Over 80,000 Newsgroups - 16 Different Servers! =-----

Dark Knight

unread,
Dec 13, 2002, 9:35:03 PM12/13/02
to
Pada,

your defences of Maria Ekstrand are incredibly pathetic.

This woman is an offender. It doesn't matter if she is repeating GBC
documents or whatever, the fact is that she has her own brain and I assume
that she has some morals.

There is no excuse for her to spell out her offences in such bad language in
public forums.

<pa...@neteze.com> wrote in message news:3df36ba7...@news.neteze.com...

0 new messages