The real question is why Mother is considered offensive.

[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,

 

It's not an "apparent" incident, Bhadra Balaram. It's right there on Folio.

Look it up.

[Guest guest]

At a recent Rathayatra I was greeted by one of our brahmacaris who then

addressed my six year old daughter "hare krishna mataji"

 

Totally cultural, what do you think

[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

 

Offhand, the only thing that comes to my mind after reading these comments

is that:

 

1. Many of ISKCON Western devotees haven't spent significant time in India

learning the cultural traits of the Hindus. Subjectively, I saw Srila

Prabhupada encourage his disciples to do so in many ways. For instance,

wearing Indian/Hindu/"devotee"/vaishnava dress, cooking Indian preparations,

speaking the language - Hindi & Bengali for the most part since most

devotees spend time in Vrindavan & Mayapur... what to speak of the Gaudiya

literatures in these languages and the "rasa" of reading them in the

original.

 

2. We draw up the "logic of our milieu" to figure things out. That's what

it appears from what's written above.

 

But that's not how vedic/vaishnava culture works. That's based on ancient

teachings & traditions, which I'll be the first to admit have broken down in

so many ways. But that doesn't mean "in & of itself" that it should be

abandoned.

 

A couple of verses in the Bhagavad-gita come to mind in this regard: sva

dharmam api chavekshya, na vikampitum arhasi...

 

sva-dharmam api chavekshya

na vikampitum arhasi

dharmyad dhi yuddhac chreyo 'nyat

kshatriyasya na vidyate

 

"Considering your specific duty as a kshatriya, you should know that there

is no better engagement for you than fighting on religious principles; and

so there is no need for hesitation." (Bg 2.31)

 

So just like there is "kshatriya dharma", there is "stri dharma": duties for

women. Becoming a devotee doesn't mean giving up duties. It means

performing them for Lord Krishna.

 

Srila Prabhupada's comments in the purport of this verse support my

contention:

 

> There are two kinds of sva-dharmas, specific duties. As long as one is not

> liberated, one has to perform the duties of his particular body in

> accordance with religious principles in order to achieve liberation. When

> one is liberated, one's sva-dharma—specific duty—becomes spiritual and is

> not in the material bodily concept. In the bodily conception of life there

> are specific duties for the brahmanas and kshatriyas respectively,and such

> duties are unavoidable. Sva-dharma is ordained by the Lord, and this will

> be clarified in the Fourth Chapter. On the bodily plane sva-dharma is

> called varnashrama-dharma, or man's steppingstone for spiritual

> understanding. Human civilization begins from the stage of

> varnashrama-dharma, or specific duties in terms of the specific modes of

> nature of the body obtained. Discharging one's specific duty in any field

> of action in accordance with the orders of higher authorities serves to

> elevate one to a higher status of life.

 

Otherwise, Lord Krishna would have advised Arjuna to give up the fight & go

to Vrindavan or Dwaraka & engage in his personal service!

 

Another point being made by some in this discussion is that we are not

supposed to be on the bodily platform. However, that doesn't come cheaply,

or by imitation. Or, if it seems to, then it's "sahajiya": easy, cheap, and

imitation.

 

Mahaprabhu wrote in his shikshastaka that he was fallen in the ocean of

birth & death, but we have transcended it by taking initiation, joining

ISKCON, and coming up with our own concepts of what vedic/vaishnava culture

is!

 

Also, some of the female devotees commenting here wrote that they don't want

to be considered/called "mother", but rather "devotee".

 

But in the Bhagavad-gita, Arjuna describes to Lord Krishna that the

degredation of women leads to unwanted progeny & causes chaos in society:

 

adharmabhibhavat krishna

pradushyanti kula-striyaha

strishu dusthasu varshneya

jayate varna-saìkaraha

 

"When irreligion is prominent in the family, O Krishna, the women of the

family become polluted, and from the degradation of womanhood, O descendant

of Vrishni, comes unwanted progeny." (Bg 1.40)

 

Read the purport of this verse, and be prepared for "the sauce" from Srila

Prabhupada!

 

And, in other places he condemned "artificial equality" between women & men:

 

> It appears from the verse that the inhabitants of Dvaraka were all owners

> of big palaces. This indicates the prosperity of the city. The ladies got

> up on the roofs just to have a look at the procession and the Lord. The

> ladies did not mix with the crowd on the street, and thus their

> respectability was perfectly observed. There was no artificial equality

> with the man. Female respectability is preserved more elegantly by keeping

> the woman separate from the man. The sexes should not mix unrestrictedly.

> SB 1.11.25

 

Why did Srila Prabhupada clearly distinguish between men & women? Why

shouldn't women mix unrestrictedly with men, as is now the norm in modern

society? Surely it wasn't based on subjective logic, but the teachings of

vedic/vaishnava civilization.

 

The same civilization that teaches all men to address all women, other then

their relatives as "mother" or "mataji".

 

But wanting vaishnavism/vedic culture on "our" terms that suit "us" is

sahajiyaism, not the teachings of Srila Prabhupada.

 

Of course, that's just "my subjective opinion"...

 

Basu Ghosh Das