Never called women mataji: let's change this to how to address

[Guest guest]

Please accept my obeiances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

 

I do not try to "refute" any nor exactly to "reconcile" but to explore

principles and application.

 

There's principles and culture and then there's rules or guidelines.

 

Principles, again:

 

1. All men should think of all women, except their wife, as mother, because

that is the safest non-sexual relationship. An aside: This does *not* mean

that men should see all women as mother in terms of women being their

authority in the way a mother is an authority for a little boy. (ISKCON

women sometimes say this. "I'm your mother, so listen to me.)

2. All Vaisnavas of any gender and/or varna, etc. should think of all other

Vaisnavas of any gender, etc. as their master and themselves as servant.

3. One should address others and refer to others according to various

considerations, keeping the above two principles in mind.

 

Some guidelines (not exactly rules) that Prabhupada gave and his own

examples:

Men, in direct address, second person, and rarely third person reference to

an individual woman: Mother (or Mataji, etc.) Prabhupada himself did this as

can be verified from written and recorded evidence, though it was not his

general practice, as can also be verified from recorded conversations and

from speaking with those who spent extensive time with him.

Vaisnava men, in direct address, second person, or in third person

reference, to a Vaisnavi woman: Prabhu. Prabhupada himself did this as can

be verified from written and recorded evidence and from speaking with those

who spent extensive time with him. (If someone wants to argue that this

should be Prabhvi for a woman, such is a valid argument from a Sanskrit

grammatical point of view.)

(Prabhupada also set various other examples of how he directly addressed

women, both his disciples and other women as I've written in other texts.

These other examples are more numerous than either the use of "mother" or

"prabhu." These examples can also be verified from written and recorded

evidence and testimony from those who were with him over long periods of

time.)

 

So, both the above, as well as others, are "correct" in terms of principles,

Prabhupada's instructions, and Prabhupada's example. Which to use?

 

(Side note: Please note that the use of the word "mother" is not referring

to women speaking to women, nor men speaking to a *group* of women, nor men

speaking *about* a group of women, or referring to items belonging to a

group of women. Nor do they refer to a woman speaking or writing about

herself. There are different guidelines or rules for these situations. For

example, if we extrapolate, "Well, Prabhupada said that devotees should

address each other as 'prabhu' so now we should refer to devotees in the

third person as 'the prabhus.'" Such is our own concoction, not Prabhupda's

instructions, example, nor tradition nor culture. Another example is to

concoct that if men should address women as mother than women should address

all other women as mother and call themselves mother.)

 

Since both men addressing women as "mother" and men addressing Vaisnavi

women as "prabhu" (prabhvi) are correct according to principle, Prabhupada's

instruction, and Prabhupada's example, and both embody different parts of

etiquette and culture, the answer as to which to use would depend on many

factors. (Again, there are other correct forms of address, as well.) Some

men use one or the other exclusively, in my experience, and some women

demand only one or the other, though I don't understand why they do so. And,

anyway, who can demand to be called "prabhu," or master? Is such a demand

commensurate with the etiquette we claim to establish? In any case, if

someone--and many do, I know--would like to present that only one of these

two alternatives is correct--well, fine. But both principles are there, both

instructions are there, and both examples are there. I suppose someone can

claim that because both are correct that I haven't "reconciled or refuted"

either. But one is not right with the other wrong. One form of address

recognizes the culture and etiquette of the social relationship--it

declares, "We have the relationship of mother and son; a non-sexual

relationship." The other form of address recognizes the culture and

etiquette of the Vaisnava relationship--it declares, "I see all those who

worship Krishna as my master, and I am their servant." These two

relationships are mutually supportive and interconnected. A sexual

relationship, albeit a subtle one, outside of husband and wife, is

exploitive. So, a man who calls a woman "mother" may feel that doing so

includes the concept of "prabhu"--I am not going to see you as an object of

exploitation, but of service, as one serves a mother. And one who uses the

term "prabhu" may feel that one is the servant in the mood of a son, so they

are complementary.

 

People who always want culture and etiquette in black and white terms will

be dissapointed. What is proper etiquette in one circumstance may not be in

another. A devotee man may always call me "Mother" but in the presence of

his own biological mother he might feel that she would be insulted if he

does so. And a man would neither call his wife "mother" nor "prabhu." I

already wrote about addressing one's own biological sister and daughter.

When a man refers to women who were given diksa by the same guru, he calls

them "godsisters" not "godmothers" or "godprabhus" even if in direct

address he says "mother" or "prabhu" to them. One could go on and on with

specific examples of when various forms of direct address or third person

reference would be the most respectful and the most appropriate in terms of

etiquette and culture. Etiquette and culture, are, by nature somewhat fluid

and individual, dependent on individual relationships and circumstances,

because the basis is respect.

 

I think what I've written up to now and here is all I have to say on this

topic. People will continue to find references of instructions and examples

of various types.

 

Your servant, Urmila devi dasi

 

 

 

 

-

"Shyamasundara (das) ACBSP (Vedic Astrologer) (USA)"

<Shyamasundara.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

"Bhakti Vikasa Swami" <Bhakti.Vikasa.Swami (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; "Trivikram Swami"

<victor_25175 (AT) msn (DOT) com>; "Ameyatma - ACBSP" <ameyatma (AT) futuresunltd (DOT) com>;

"Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN)" <Basu.Ghosh.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; "Urmila

(dd) ACBSP (ISKCON School NC - USA)" <Urmila.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; "Christopher

Shannon" <cshannon (AT) abq (DOT) com>; "guru krsna das" <gkd (AT) mail2Devotion (DOT) com>;

"Haripada Prabhu" <hpdasa (AT) juno (DOT) com>; "Jaya Tirtha Caran Das"

<jtcd (AT) xtra (DOT) co.nz>; "Jivanmukta and Sita" <sitadasi (AT) sympatico (DOT) ca>; "Kapilasva

Prabhu" <kapila (AT) gator (DOT) net>; "M. Tandy" <mpt@u.washington.edu>; "Patrick

Hedemark" <pdhedemark >; "PeterCorbett" <vatsal (AT) vnet (DOT) net>;

"Sridhari Mataji" <vrishni (AT) barak-online (DOT) net>; "Yugala Kishor"

<ykd108 (AT) hotmail (DOT) com>

Cc: "Sridhar Swami" <Sridhar.Swami (AT) pamho (DOT) net>; "Ganga IDS"

<Ganga.IDS (AT) pamho (DOT) net>

Wednesday, November 19, 2003 1:02 PM

Re: Never called women mataji

 

 

> This was a comment I recieved to your text:

>

> __

>

>

> PAMHO AGTSP

>

> I don't have time to get into this, but there are two major faults in her

> argument:

>

> 1) It excludes instructions and examples in SP's books.

> 2) She fails to reconcile her opinion with opposing evidence found not

only

> in books but in other letters and conversations.

>

> Examples from a handful of letters and conversations does not establish a

> conclusion. Also, opposing evidence needs to either be reconciled or

> refuted--she has done neither.

>

>

> > Please accept my obeisances. All glories to Srila Prabhupada!

> >

> > Oh, yes, there are a few instances where Prabhupada uses the term mataji

> > in direct address, as I mentioned. Thank you for finding some examples

> > with his disciples. However, this examples are vastly in the minority.

> > They are most certainly not his standard procedure and cannot be made

the

> > basis of some absolute rule such that anyone who says anything else is

> > violating his instructions, in maya, out of Vedic culture, and so on and

> > so forth. There are many more instances where he refers to his female

> > disciples as their name followed by "prabhu" or their name followed by

> > "devi dasi" (other than in initiation letters and lectures) and in

direct

> > address he generally just used the name as in "Satyabama" as I

personally

> > witnessed. And, just as one cannot make some absolute *rule* about

always

> > under all circumstances saying Mother or Mata or Mataji so one cannot

> > similarly say that all male Vaisnavas should address all female

Vaisnavais

> > as prabhu (or prabhvi if one wants to use technical Sanskrit) even

though

> > there are instructions from Prabhupada to that effect and he set such an

> > example. Or, to give another case--Prabhupada clearly says that a man

> > should see women (other than the wife) as mother, and not sister. But

what

> > of one's own biological sister, or one's sister-in-law? It is part of

> > Vedic culture to address such women as sister, isn't it? And Devaki, who

> > is Kamsa's cousin, is called his sister, not his mother. On the other

> > hand, Syambhuva Manu, when giving his daughter in marriage, one time

calls

> > her "amba" or mother, although he didn't address her in this way all the

> > time. But is it wrong to call your daughter as daughter? Certainly not.

In

> > fact, Sanskrit and the languages that derive from it have names for

every

> > variety of female relative, not just wife and mother.

> >

> > So, again, we come to the point of culture and principles being absolute

> > with rules being fluid, flowing according to time, place, and

> > circumstances according to those principles.

> >

> > The kinds of things that are clearly concoctions are temple

announcements

> > such as, "The prabhus should go to that room and the matajis should go

> > over there," or " would the devotees line up on the right and the

mothers

> > line up on the left," or a woman introducing herself as "Mother Radika"

> > and some such. It is quite humorous to hear women addressing other peer

> > women as a general rule as mother. While sometimes done in Vedic culture

> > (there are some instances of the gopis calling each other mother, but

> > usually it is friend) the implication here is that it is necessary for

> > women to establish a non-sexual relationship with one another. A bit

> > strange, to my way of thinking, anyway, but in the modern world, who can

> > say? The devotee who gives class saying, "Would the Mothers chant the

> > verse" is pretty much of a stretch and is certainly not Prabhupada's

> > instructions, example, nor coming from anything cultural or traditional.

> > Altogether, it's amusing and perhaps scary to fight about upholding a

> > concoction in the name of preserving tradition.

> >

> > Your servant, Urmila devi dasi

> >

> >

>

>