The real question is why Mother is considered offensive.

[Guest guest]

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]

> 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.

 

I just had a discussion with two women friends--one South Indian and one

Bengali--both of whom said the word "mataji" or "prabhu" was never heard or

spoken. The ways you addressed a male were according to your r/ship with

him, same with the women, though "ma" was a common addition: Didima, Amma,

etc.

 

So what exactly is it you're referring to when you say that western devotees

haven't learned the cultural traits of the Hindus? Because the Hindus don't

seem to know what all the fuss about.

 

The reason Srila Prabhupada had us address each other in this way, and the

reason he told us to see each other as prabhu, was to take us out of this

conditioned state of casual intermingling. In the west it is so common for

men and women to call each other by their first names. It isn't the Vedic

culture, or the Hindu culture, which you seem much more familiar with than

the Vedic or Vaisnava culture.

>

> 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.

 

How and when did this discussion stretch to embrace the rather extreme

speculation that the women of ISKCON wanted to give up their duties? We're

discussing the language of respect, as encouraged by Srila Prabhupada.

 

> 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:

 

There isn't even a relationship between these two sentences above. What

exactly is the connection between you trying to see women as devotees, and

unwanted progency causing chaos? These two sentences you've quotes above

simply do not make sense.

>

> "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!

 

How does irreligion become prominent in the family if the men REMAIN

religious? Explain that. Stop putting the cart before the horse to support

your viewpoint.

>

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

> sahajiyaism, not the teachings of Srila Prabhupada.

 

Turning it into Hinduism is just as bad. We're not Hindus. The Hindus

weren't interested in this philosophy, remember? That's why Srila Prabhupada

left India and went to the west. I have absolutely no interest in hearing

someone's Hindu-slanted take on the philosophy and more than I want to hear

their sahajiyaism.

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 15:14 +0630, Bhadra Balaram (das) JPS (Mayapur - IN) <

Bhadra.Balaram.JPS (AT) pamho (DOT) net> wrote:

>

> 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?

 

Yes.

 

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)

 

Does that mean that VedaBase is pramana only if it supports a particular

position?

 

Hare Krishna.

>

> ys, bbd

>

[Guest guest]

On Mon, 15 Aug 2005 14:26 +0530, Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN) <

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

>

> > Letter PAMHO:10247157 (137 lines)

> > Internet: "Patrick Hedemark" <pdhedemark >

> > 14-Aug-05 15:28 (08:28 -0700)

> > Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN) [68828]

> > Reference: Text PAMHO:10246429 by Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN)

> > Re: The real question is why "Mother" is considered offensive.

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

> >> Babhru Prabhu ...I have to take issue here with you on this simple

> point.

> > Women are not called Mother for any other reason than that they are

> either

> > Mothers in fact - or potential Mothers in Waiting. That is all. And YES

> we

> > are duty bound by our actions and words to act with this wisdom. Letting

> > them in on this reality - by referencing them as such - whether they are

> > 15 or 40 is correct not "pretension" as you say. It is mercy upon them.

> It

> > is kindness.

> >

> > Prabhu means Master. Master is transformed linguistically into Meister

> in

> > German - "Mister" in English.

> > So we are now to appease a few women call them "Mister"? Are you kidding

> > me. I want men calling my beautiful gentle daughters "Mister Hedemark"?

> > Are you out of your mind?

 

Well, I see a couple of things here worth noting. One is that somehow,

although Praghosh appears to address me, the letter was apparently not sent

tot he list. I don't know what to make of that. I hope it's not talking

behind my back, especially considering the implied name calling here.

Another is that it is a clear demonstration of word jugglery by morphing

"prabhu" into "mister." I wrote earlier that the "Mother" Srila Prabhupada

used is apparently not used as part of a name ("Mother Braja-sevaki") but as

a stand-alone address, much as "Ma'am" is used in the culture I grew up in.

And if we take Srila Prabhupada at his word that we are to call devotees

prabhu, as we see in the quotations compiled by Vishakha, this word-jugglery

exercise is obviously ridiculous.

the third thing is that this shows just the hypocrisy I mentioned earlier.

"Babhru prabhu, . . . Are you out of your mind?" It's one thing to do this

in private, but doing it in public or behind someone's back just makes the

case for those who criticize this drive to enforce "Mother" as a sign of

respect and "Not prabhu," as Basu Ghosh would have it. Such contempt dressed

up with "honorifics" must make Kali proud.

The truth is that the way we discuss this is of greater interest to me than

who's right. (Srila Prabhupada is right, and he seems to support both

"sides.") And, quite frankly, the way we discuss it does not reflect well on

Srila Prabhupada.

And, yes--I must be out of my mind if I let myself get drawn into such a

discussion.

Yours in service,

Babhru das