The real question is why Mother is considered offensive.

[Guest guest]

I could tell you stories of olden days Germany after a certain Swami (not

Swami any more) took over.

We ( the Householders) were not even allowed to see Srila Prabhupada in

London for his last Vyasa Puja. This was just because we were Householders.

It came to a point where he ordered that he did not want any Householders

in his Zone.

if I look at the vyasa puja books from that time, we were not even given

ANY title. It was just our name that was written, no Prabhu, no das or dasi

or not even Mother or Mataji.

before those days it was "Prabhu, may I serve you" Prabhu referring to men

and women disciples alike.

 

y.s.

Hrimati dasi

[Guest guest]

If ISKCON as an institution became appropriately respectful,affectionate and

caring of it's mothers than maybe so... because there would be genuine

sentiment and real action to support the title. Pdd

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/13/05 8:00:29 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

Gauri.TKG (AT) pamho (DOT) net writes:

 

 

> > I am amazed how one can react as feeling offeded when addressed as mother.

>

> That's exactly the point!

>

> Why are mature devotee ladies reacting in such a way to being categorised as

> "matajis".>

 

Yes, seek first to understand and then to be understood.

 

If devotees get too hung up on this issue, isn't that more of a problem than

how we address women?

 

Your servant,

Mahatma das

[Guest guest]

Praharana (dasi) ACBSP (Toronto - CA) wrote:

 

>If ISKCON as an institution became appropriately respectful,affectionate and

>caring of it's mothers than maybe so... because there would be genuine

>sentiment and real action to support the title. Pdd

>

>

 

I hope you pardon me, but at this point I have a doubt as to whether or

not this statement, which is more or less a declaration that women

continue to be mistreated by the institution, is a means to some other

end. Last year in a meeting of senior Vaishnavis attended by you,

members of that meeting produced this statement:

 

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

"Vedic life, as extolled in our scriptures, is highly interpretive.

Understanding what is truly Vedic is elusive. Srila Prabhupada, taught

us about Vedic society and the role of varnashrama in elevating society,

but he did not practically speaking, engage his spiritual daughters

within such a system. They were active preachers, pujaris, cooks, etc.

Srila Prabhupada in fact, introduced a new model with new standards; one

based on preaching." (Meeting of senior Vaishnavis. Feb 18, 2004, Mayapur)

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

 

What concerns me most about this statement is the last sentence: "Srila

Prabhupada in fact, introduced a new model with new standards, one based

on preaching." This statement is worrisome because of its disconnect

with scripture and our parampara. We find "old standards" in shastra,

we don't find "new standards". If the "old standards" are no longer

valid, then how do we understand the new standards are genuine? Of

course, it is said that the new standards are genuine because they will

help us become Krishna conscious or help spread it. But that itself is

highly questionable. Indeed, philosophies we positively know are

deviant have made exactly the same claim, and in the same way:

 

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

The important point is that although the ritvik system may be totally

unique, . . . it does not violate higher order sastric principles. It

is testament to Srila Prabhupada's genius that he was able to mercifully

apply such sastric principles in new and novel ways according to time,

place, and circumstance. (The Final Order, page 31)

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

 

kkd

[Guest guest]

Hare Krishna prabhu. Actually I was not at this meeting. I did not arrive in

Mayapura until about a week later. I have no particular "means to an end" in

mind. I'm just simply stating that if women felt confident that devotees

actually felt that they were being offered affection,protection, respect and

care, then "mother" would likely be well received as a title. By the way who

are you prabhu? I don't know your spiritual name.. Your servant, Praharana

dd

[Guest guest]

Praharana (dasi) ACBSP (Toronto - CA) wrote:

 

>Hare Krishna prabhu. Actually I was not at this meeting.I did not arrive in

>Mayapura until about a week later.

>

Interesting. Your name appears in the list of Vaishnavis recorded as

being in attendence:

 

Meeting of Senior Vaisnavis, February 18th, 2004

Sridhama Mayapura:

 

Present: Malati dasi ( GBC, New Vrindavana ), Subuddhi dasi ( Temple

President, ISKCON Toronto), Gaurangi dasi ( India and France ), Ali

Krishna ( Italy ) dasi, Urvasi dasi ( Ohai praching center, USA), Visaka

dasi ( Saranagati Farm, Canada ) , Sudamani dasi ( Philadelphia , USA ),

Prasanta dasi ( India ), Acintya Rupa dasi ( Australia ), Praharana dasi

( Toronto), Rupa Manjari dasi Radha Desh, Belgium), Vishnu Priya dasi (

Italy ), Arcana dasi ( Bolivia ), Racitambhara dasi ( Vancouver, Canada,

lived in Mayapura for many years ), Paurnamasi dasi, Toronto, Canada),

Saranga dasi ( Bombay and Vrindavana )

 

>I have no particular "means to an end" in

>mind. I'm just simply stating that if women felt confident that devotees

>actually felt that they were being offered affection,protection, respect and

>care, then "mother" would likely be well received as a title.

>

And I'm simply stating that a group of women with which you have been

associated have made signifiant statements which raise the question if

you and others really want an ISKCON in which "Mother" is used as an

appropriate form of address. I think we have to consider all the facts

available, including those that aren't simply an expressed feeling. I

am concerned that all the relevant facts be considered.

 

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG)

[Guest guest]

Sorry prabhu. I thought you were referring to the meeting this year in

Mayapura.. the ICC and the Women's Ministry. I was not part of that.

No I was just speaking for myself actually. Some women may never accept the

term mataji but for me it is rather an issue of making the term mean

something. Sorry to mislead you. I am not willing to have our conversation

turn into something political.. so signing out! Your servant, Praharana dd

[Guest guest]

Well, I just read the ongoing correspondence on this subject, and find that

Giri Nayaka Prabhu presented the "incontrovertable evidence" that Srila

Prabhupada wanted women to be addressed as "mataji" or "mother".

 

Not "prabhu".

 

Why is that so hard for some of our respected godsisters to accept?

 

Something is wrong if they don't want to accept Srila Prabhupada's clear &

"time & again" instructions.

 

That doesn't make me "100% pure" or "holier than thou".

 

But the fact is the fact. Thank you, Giri Nayaka Prabhu for doing the

research in the SP Vedabase & posting those quotes here. Maybe it will get

some devotees who were uninformed or ignorant of the subject matter to

understand the truth...

 

And what's "political" about that?

 

> Hare Krishna prabhu. Actually I was not at this meeting. I did not arrive

> in Mayapura until about a week later. I have no particular "means to an

> end" in mind. I'm just simply stating that if women felt confident that

> devotees actually felt that they were being offered affection,protection,

> respect and care, then "mother" would likely be well received as a title.

> By the way who are you prabhu? I don't know your spiritual name.. Your

> servant, Praharana dd

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 09:09 +0530, Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN) <

Basu.Ghosh.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net> wrote:

>

> Well, I just read the ongoing correspondence on this subject, and find

> that

> Giri Nayaka Prabhu presented the "incontrovertable evidence" that Srila

> Prabhupada wanted women to be addressed as "mataji" or "mother".Not

> "prabhu".

 

 

Actually, it's not incontrovertible. Srila Prabhupada also indicated that

women may be called "prabhu." He showed this by his instructions and his

example, as shown in the quotations compile some years ago by Vishakha. If

you like, we can repost some of those quotations in this thread.

 

What partisans of one side or another of so many of these disputes seem to

miss is that Srila Prabhupada said and wrote different things at different

times, some of which take some realization to reconcile. If participants in

such discussions cannot give others the benefit of the doubt, concede that

they may be making an honest point supportable by acceptable pramana,

there's not much real point to the discussion. If an intelocutor presumes

that someone from the "other" perspective has some dark, sinister (sorry--I

don't mean to insult any left-handed folks here), hidden agenda, there's no

real conversation going on, no real argument in a genuine sense--just

bickering, posturing, maneuvering for power.

 

Why is that so hard for some of our respected godsisters to accept?

>

> Something is wrong if they don't want to accept Srila Prabhupada's clear &

> "time & again" instructions.

>

> That doesn't make me "100% pure" or "holier than thou".

>

> But the fact is the fact. Thank you, Giri Nayaka Prabhu for doing the

> research in the SP Vedabase & posting those quotes here. Maybe it will get

> some devotees who were uninformed or ignorant of the subject matter to

> understand the truth...

 

 

The Truth is something broader, grander, and more interesting that is

thought of in your or my philosphy.

 

And what's "political" about that?

 

 

Well, if we carefully cull Srila Prabhupada's instructions, ignoring any

that don't seem to support the point we want to make, in order to get the

upper hand over another, that is the definition of "political." If women

feel some discomfort in men calling them "Mother" as a way of keeping them

in their place, calling them "Mother" while designing some plan to exploit

them somehow, just as we too often do with the address "prabhu," why

complain? Even more important that calling them "Mother" is seeing them as

mother, treating them as mother. What does that mean? Consider that Chankya

sloka Srila Prabhupada cited:

matrivat para dareshu para dravyani loshtavat

atmavat sarva-bhuteshu yah pashyati sah panditah

The sign of a cultured, educated person is seeing women other than one's

own wife as mother, others' property as garbage, and others' suffering as

our own. That means that we are not to identify other women, or others'

property, as objects for our exploitation. They're not ours to enjoy. But we

are to identify personally with all suffering others endure. 1) other

women:notmine; 2) property: not

mine; 3) others' suffering: mine! If, after all their efforts, we fail to

identify with the suffering of these women, but decide that it's our place

to point theirs out to them, we will have failed to exhibit the culture and

education Srila Prabhupada expects of us.

 

So what does that have to do with the argument itself? Men should be at

least a little sensitive to the perception many have that insisting on

calling all women Mother in order to enforce some temporary

distinction (sarvopadhi

vinirmuktam) and cut them a little slack if it bothers them. Srila

Prabhupada also called his female disciples "prabhu" and suggested that we

do the same. So if you encounter a woman who prefers this, why not cut her

(and yourself) a little slack? And women should be at least a little

sensitive to men who feel they're cultivating a gentler culture and not

freak out whenever someone calls them "Mother." If you don't care for it,

try to find a gentle way to make your preference clear.

 

Here's one thing that strikes many as really wierd: 48-year-old men who call

19-year-old women (or 15-year-old girls) "mataji." If you're looking down

your nose at her because of her youth, or disturbed by her youthful beauty,

everyone sees through your pretension, and it's not a pretty thing to see.

 

One more thing: calling me "prabhu" as you dismiss everything I write as

some misguided (or evil) left-wing plot to undermine Srila Prabhupada's

movement. That's just hypocrisy.

 

Yours in service,

Babhru das

[Guest guest]

Patrick Hedemark wrote:

 

> Hello prabhus and Mothers, PAMHO AGTSP

>

> I will try to be as brief as possible for it is a simple matter.

>

> /"What concerns me most about this statement is the last sentence: "Srila

> Prabhupada in fact, introduced a new model with new standards, one

> based

> on preaching." This statement is worrisome because of its disconnect

> with scripture and our parampara. We find "old standards" in shastra,

> we don't find "new standards". If the "old standards" are no longer

> valid, then how do we understand the new standards are genuine? Of

> course, it is said that the new standards are genuine because they will

> help us become Krishna conscious or help spread it. But that itself is

> highly questionable. Indeed, philosophies we positively know are

> deviant have made exactly the same claim, and in the same way:"/

>

> SP did not introduce anything NEW - KC is eternal. It is the

> conscious, loving and fully submissive relationship that ETERANALLY

> exists between the soul and the Supersoul - Lord Krsna.

>

> Your claim that SP's appointment of Ritvik Representatives is known

> POSITIVIELY as deviant is a "learned" or accepted position. This has

> no basis whatsoever in the reality of KC.

>

First of all, the reference, which I made clear in my post, was from The

Final Order by Krishnakant Desai. (There is even a page number given in

the reference. Yes, I bought their book.) Whatever your opinions on

the matter, ritivikism as it has been promoted by Krishnakant Desai and

the IRM has been POSITIVELY and OFFICIALLY identified by the GBC as a

deviant philosophy. If you read the latest GBC resolutions, you will

see that a temple president was just "fired" because of his espousing

ritvikism. If you want to be an apologist for Krishnakant Desai and the

IRM in this forum, go ahead, but then your argument is not with me--it

is with official ISKCON.

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 8/14/05 7:30:37 AM Eastern Daylight Time,

Damana.Krishna.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net writes:

 

 

> <I am amazed how one can react as feeling offeded when addressed as mother.>

>

>

I managed in Iskcon for about 27 years and I never took others feelings as

seriously as I should have. When a devotee would express feelings that I

thought

were wrong or just plain maya, I would not acknowledge or validate those

feelings. I realize now that was a big mistake.

 

If a devotee has been hurt and our reaction is that we are amazed they feel

hurt, that does not help them and it doesn't aid good communication. Often, if

the feelings are acknowledged and the person can openly express those feelings

and get sympathy without being judged, it will help the person sort out their

own issues. And certainly this aids in good communication. It is possible to

understand and sympathize with someone even if I don't agree with them. This

forms the basis of good communications and good relationships.

 

Your servant,

Mahatma dasa

[Guest guest]

On Sun, 14 Aug 2005 13:06 -0400, Mahatma (das) ACBSP (Alachua, FL - USA) <

Mahatma.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net> wrote:

>

> I managed in Iskcon for about 27 years and I never took others feelings as

> seriously as I should have. When a devotee would express feelings that I

> thought

> were wrong or just plain maya, I would not acknowledge or validate those

> feelings. I realize now that was a big mistake.

>

> If a devotee has been hurt and our reaction is that we are amazed they

> feel

> hurt, that does not help them and it doesn't aid good communication.

> Often, if

> the feelings are acknowledged and the person can openly express those

> feelings

> and get sympathy without being judged, it will help the person sort out

> their

> own issues. And certainly this aids in good communication. It is possible

> to

> understand and sympathize with someone even if I don't agree with them.

> This

> forms the basis of good communications and good relationships.

 

 

Wonderfully expressed by the voice of experience! Thank you so much, prabhu.

We should note that Krishna consciousness is about nothing if not

relationships--our relationship with Krishna and the relationships among His

servitors of so many kinds.

 

Yours in service,

Babhru das

[Guest guest]

>Women who reject it should understand that they are

>shooting themselves in the foot. Whether they endured some kind of

>aberration

>in the past do to misguided application of our Philosophy or not does not

>justify their CUTTING THEIR NOSE to spite their face. Prahu means Master -

>and

>though womAn IS in fact the master in the material world - she is an idiot

>if

>she blatently exposes this fact!!! Complete idiot! In the material world -

>men

>might be the "head" BUT....WOMAN IS THE NECK and she DICTATES WHAT IS TO

>BE

>DONE IF THE MAN'S LIFE IS TO BE EVEN REMOTELY PEACEFUL as long as he is

>dealing

>with her.

 

>This simple fact is easily understood by wise women. It is not by women

>who are

>less gifted.

 

yes Pragosh Prabhu, I know that I am less gifted and an complete Idiot,

...Oh I forgot, My foot is still hurting and the nose is also gone now...

(I wish it would have been cut off by my Lord Ram)

........Maybe i am missing something, but I really do not know what the heck

you are talking about.

 

If I address mother Malati as Prabhu, it is because I respect her as such.

She is not demanding to be addressed that way.

 

 

y.s.

Hrimati dasi