The real question is why Mother is considered offensive.

[Guest guest]

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

 

>Not many present-day devotees lived through these times, but the sad thing

>is that that initial family feeling never returned to ISKCON. The

>discrimination against women and householders has remained although it is

>certainly far more subtle.

>So please do not jump to the conclusion that women who do not like to be

>addressed as Mother are feminists or just plain puffed up. There are many

>reasons why this title strikes saddness in the hearts of many men, women and

>2nd generation devotees.

>Your servant, Praharana dd

>

>

 

If you felt that the word "Mother" is no longer abused, would you say

that it would be an appropriate form of address?

[Guest guest]

Babhru Das wrote:

 

> 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

 

Here's what one devotee friend of mine commented on this:

 

> * With other titles such as "Sir", "Ms.", "Mrs.", we expect they can be

> used everywhere without the expectation that someone will object to their

> usage. But if any of these terms are called into question, then we would

> be in search of some other term to substitute. That is what happened with

> "chairman", it was challenged as sexist, even if the chairman was a man.

> So now the annointed word is "chairperson", even if it is a man sitting on

> the post. This has not been uniformly instituted in the greater society,

> there are still "chairmen," but it is true that many people and many

> corporations now insist that "chairperson" is the appropriate form of

> address. By similarly insisting that the term "Mother" or "Mataji" are

> inappropriate forms of address, a small minority is attempting to force

> their discontinuation. The natural tendency in using honorific terms is

> to use one that we can be assured will be accepted. Remove that sureity

> from an honorific title and it will fall into disuse.

>

> * There are significant social and theological reasons for the continued

> use of the term "Mother" or "Mataji" as an honorific title. (See

> reference at the end of this post.) Srila Prabhupada has stated that

> training a boy to address women as "Mother" instills within him the idea

> that other women really are his mothers. If this connection is made then

> there will have been established a strong tendency to avoid exploiting

> other women. As a society we therefore have a strong interest in seeing

> that this becomes a normative form of speech. This is also a component of

> our theology, as Srila Prabhupada claims this is recommended in the

> shastras. So rejecting some aspect of our own theology cannot have a good

> outcome in two ways: we diminish the authority of our religious symbols

> (scripture, sadhu), and if we accept that scripture is an objective

> portrayal of reality, then we can expect that a departure from it will

> result in an eventual and unpleasant clash with reality.

 

--------

> 'That brahmacari rules and regulations are there in the Srimad-Bhagavatam,

> that he would go door to door for collecting alms for his spiritual

> master, and address every woman as mother, from the very beginning. From

> five years old, if a child is trained to call all woman as "Mother,"

> naturally his culture is different. Because he has learned to call all

> woman as "Mother." He has no other idea. A small child, any woman comes

> before him, he knows "(S)He is my mother." So this was the practice. That

> is not only religiously, but morally, it is so good, to look upon all

> woman as mother. That is the system still in India, any unknown woman who

> has no introduction with you, (s)he is addressed "Mataji." Address her.

> She may be just like daughter or granddaughter, but one would address, as

> a respect to the woman, as "Mother, Mataji." This is Indian system. Now

> some rascals have introduced "Bhaginiji, sister." But that is not

> shastric. In the sastra, all the woman, except one's wife, should be

> addressed as "Mother."'

>

> Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.16.10 -- Los Angeles, January 7, 1974

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 08:39 +0530, Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN) <

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

>

> Here's what one devotee friend of mine commented on this:

>

> > * With other titles such as "Sir", "Ms.", "Mrs.", we expect they can be

> > used everywhere without the expectation that someone will object to

> their

> > usage. But if any of these terms are called into question, then we would

> > be in search of some other term to substitute. That is what happened

> with

> > "chairman", it was challenged as sexist, even if the chairman was a man.

> > So now the annointed word is "chairperson", even if it is a man sitting

> on

> > the post. This has not been uniformly instituted in the greater society,

> > there are still "chairmen," but it is true that many people and many

> > corporations now insist that "chairperson" is the appropriate form of

> > address.

 

 

Actually, in my experience, "chair" is more commonly accepted. It's not

inappropriate or goofy, as some critics would suggest. Rather it's an

instance of the figure of speech called metonymy, like using "the White

House" for the president or his administration, or "10 Downing Street" for

the British Prime Minister.

 

By similarly insisting that the term "Mother" or "Mataji" are

> > inappropriate forms of address, a small minority is attempting to force

> > their discontinuation. The natural tendency in using honorific terms is

> > to use one that we can be assured will be accepted. Remove that sureity

> > from an honorific title and it will fall into disuse.

 

 

I think this is an overstatement in just about every respect. I'm not even

sure it's an honorific; it's a way of addressing someone. And I haven't yet

seen any instances of Srila Prabhupada telling us to use it together with

someone's name. It's more like "Ma'am" in common English usage.

 

>

> > * There are significant social and theological reasons for the continued

> > use of the term "Mother" or "Mataji" as an honorific title. (See

> > reference at the end of this post.) Srila Prabhupada has stated that

> > training a boy to address women as "Mother" instills within him the idea

> > that other women really are his mothers. If this connection is made then

> > there will have been established a strong tendency to avoid exploiting

> > other women. As a society we therefore have a strong interest in seeing

> > that this becomes a normative form of speech. This is also a component

> of

> > our theology, as Srila Prabhupada claims this is recommended in the

> > shastras. So rejecting some aspect of our own theology cannot have a

> good

> > outcome in two ways: we diminish the authority of our religious symbols

> > (scripture, sadhu), and if we accept that scripture is an objective

> > portrayal of reality, then we can expect that a departure from it will

> > result in an eventual and unpleasant clash with reality.

 

 

This is an interesting argument, but it's rather heavyhanded, I think,

strongly implying that anyone who prefers to be addressed otherwise is

inherently irreligious.

 

The form is nice, but only if the substance is actually there. It's more

important that we treat them as mother, in other words, not for our

enjoyment. That's the real point. Otherwise, it's too much like the senator

who refers to his "good friend from" whichever state, when he despises the

man and everything he stands for. What I see here appears primarily to be a

desire for some sort of control over others. Better to set a perfect example

than to insist that everyone else submit to your understanding of what Srila

Prabhupada wants, especially when his instructions and example are not so

cut and dried. Do you need me to paste in those quotations Vishakha found

that support our referring to female devotees as prabhu? I'm not saying that

we must call them prabhu, but that you haven't made that case that we may

not. Or as you put it earlier, that it's inconrtovertible "that Srila

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

 

Not 'prabhu.'"

 

Yours in service,

Babhru das

 

Yours in service

[Guest guest]

What a lot of tripe and madness.

 

> 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. KC means Fully COGNIZANT of our

> fully dependent position upon the Lord and His pure devotees. What you so

> cavalierly describe as POSITIVELY DEVIANT is the actual system we have

> always had in ISKCON. With Srila Prabhupada firmly and squarely

> positioned as the ABSOLUTE MONARCH OR - MONO - ARCH - ACHARYA - the men

> positioned to confirm the faith and committment of the aspiring disciples

> DO SO ON BEHALF of Srila Prabhupada and his entire mission. None of them

> are permitted to present themselves as THE ACHARYA. They are POSITIVELY

> prohibited from placing their picture on the alter as the exclusive

> CURRENT LINK in the Parmpara. They are PROHIBITED from adopting TITLES

> such as Vishnupada, Krsnapada or Prabhupada etc. They are PROHIBITED from

> obliging the devotees from including the glorification of their name or

> TITLE in the Prema Dhwani prayers within the general assembly of

> devotees. Their "disciples" are prohibited from openly canvassing

> "disciples" on their exclusive behalf. When "disciples" of these

> "authorized" men are abandoned by these men - ISKCON does not demand that

> they seek a new relationship with some other "guru" in ISKCON. There are

> at present HUNDREDS of men and women who have been "abandoned" so to speak

> by men such as Vipramukya Prabhu, Prithu prabhu, Satsvarup Swami, Jagadish

> Prabhu, Bhagavan prabhu, Ramesvara Prabhu, Bhavananda Prabhu etc etc etc.

> These men are not obliged to seek "reinitiation" ( though they are not

> DISCOURAGED either). These men - most already having received Brahmana

> Gayatri etc are still very actively engaged in their efforts to serve the

> mission of Srila Prabhupada and most or many feel no need to seek out

> another "guru".

>

> I could elaborate further but you get my point. Ritvik was a word - put

> forward by HH Tamal Krsna Goswami - (no doubt garnered from some previous

> conversation since it was not a word commonly bantered about in those days

> depite its application being fully in place since as early as 1970) and it

> was used by HDG merely to describe the "actions" of men deputed by him to

> act in a certain capacity. The above mentioned realities dealing with how

> the men initiating in ISKCON "act" demonstrate the simple POSITIVE truth

> that ISKCON - as an institution and mission has always and only ever had a

> system of RITVIK INITIATION on behalf of our Acharya Srila Prabhupada.

>

> SP's application of The Truth is mistakenly presented as following

> 'TRADITION" and it is nothing of the kind. We are not interested in

> TRADITIONS. This is a serious mistake to consider Krsna Consciousness a

> tradition - or to consider the Acharya as somehow or other tethered to

> TRADITION. He is never so postioned. Krsna Consciousness is TRUTH and

> TRUTH only. It is not tradition.

>

> We are the saved and Srila Prabhupada is the saviour. There is an eternal

> line of demarcation between the saviour and the saved. Srila Prabhuapda's

> appointment of men such as HH Tamal Krsna Goswami and HH Hrdayananda

> Goswami did NOT transform them into Saviours. Their position was not

> magically altered - no matter what they imagined. This misunderstanding

> was sadly introduced into the mission of Srila Prabhupada by means of

> their going to HH Sridhara Swami and seeking something "other than" the

> simple clear instructions of His Divine Grace. The rest is history. This

> one devotee - feeling ajitated by the apathy of the GBC towards him -

> deliberately worked to divide the GBC - first by means of the Guru/NonGuru

> - then the GBC/Non GBC. He did it expertly. Again the rest is history.

> Srila Prabhupada INSTRUCTED, not suggested...that the TP would send his

> letters of recommedation for inititation to WHOEVER WAS NEAREST. If you

> study the ideas of SRidhara Swami - introduced in a recorded

> conversation in 1978 - he said that the newcomer had to "study the

> candidates" to see where his sraddha - his faith lied" This meant that the

> instruction of HDG - WHOEVER IS NEAREST was changed to WHOEVER IS DEAREST

> to the newcomer. Srila Prabhupada had said N...earest and he said

> D...earest. He changed one letter - changing one word - (SP said if they

> change ONE word there will be chaos and he was POSITIVELY correct) The

> original men appointed by HDG were not offered as "candidates" to be

> studied by the newcomers. That was humbug on the part of Sridhar Swami.

> These men were SP's trusted loyal appointed representatives who were each

> commanded to take responsibility for specific regions of the planet. THIS

> IS THE HISTORY AND IT IS INDESPUTABLE.

>

> When Srila Prabhupada was asked "What about South America?" he responded

> "Oh yes. South America...Hrdayananda ....he can do". It does not get any

> clearer than that. An entire continent was INSTUCTED by Srila Prabhupad to

> skip the so-called "TRADTIONAL" path of searching for MY GURU or THEIR

> GURU and instead - by means of HIS Books - within which he openly stated

> he "would live forever" - and his duly appointed representatives such as

> HH Hrdayananda Maharaja - and ACCEPT the Acharya and his perfect

> presentation of the Absolute Truth - Lord Krsna and His Holy Name!!! Bas.

>

> So bringing the subject matter of initition in to this discussion misses

> the point and also distracts.

>

> Srila Prabhupada quoted many times Canakya Pandit in describing an

> intelligent man as one who sees all women as Mother. Arjuna was cursed for

> addressing Urvasi as Mother when she sought some other relationship.

> Mother is the honored title of all chaste women. 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.

>

> Keep it all simple. By making assumptions in the matter of the "positive

> deviancy" of Srila Prabhupada's coining the word Ritvik to describe how

> his deputed representatives would be duty bound to represent him - you do

> yourself and this discussion a disservice. Attempting to wed the two

> discussions on the basis of Tradition is pointless. We do not call women

> Mother because it is our TRADITION. We do so because they are either

> Mothers or potential MOthers or they are MOthers who have been denied

> MOtherhood and meditate upon their loss and are thus FRUSTRATED MOTHERS.

> But Mothers they are nonetheless.

>

> Similarly our "Gurus" are indeed ritviks or authorized representatives of

> HDG Srila Prabhpada.Their athority can and indeed has been revoked. This

> demonstrates their actual position. It is NOT diminished postion by the

> way. It is a most wonderful service for HDG and for the most part, most of

> them are performing it most capably. I applaud their continued efforts -

> as should all of us.

>

> Your servant Praghosa

>

>

>

>

> Christopher Shannon <cshannon (AT) netscape (DOT) com> wrote:

> 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

>

> -----------------------

> To from this mailing list, send an email to:

> Prabhupada.Disciples-Owner (AT) pamho (DOT) net

>

>

>

>

>

>

[Guest guest]

PAMRO AGTSP!

 

> 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.

 

personally I am interested in it. a few days back malati mataji sent an

attached .doc file. was it the same that you are mentioning about?

 

i am particularly interested in knowing who was/were the secretary/ies

during the time when apparently Srila Prabhupada's addressed some matajis as

prabhu/s in his letters, also i would like to know if anyone heard Srila

Prabhupada addressing / calling some mataji as prabhu?(doesn't have to his

disciples)

 

Hare Krishna.

 

ys, bbd