The real question is why Mother is considered offensive.

[Guest guest]

> 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.

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

> 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.

>

> 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? Who wants that. Is that how we were raised by

> our parents? Mr Hedemark referred to my father growning up; not my MOTHER.

> She was called Mrs or Missus Hedemark. That was considered respectful. My

> Mother never complained because someome called her Missus Hedemark instead

> of calling her Mister Hedemark. Good Grief...this thing gets richer and

> richer.

>

> If a woman demands to be called Mister or Master - instead of the gentle

> word Mother - well then I suppose like a madman who insists that he is

> Napolean and we are all his subjects and is so addresssed by the nurses in

> his mental ward - we should cooperate with their insane wishes and just

> call them Mister!!

>

> Praghosa (ACBSP)

>

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

> ---------- Forwarded Message ---------- Letter PAMHO:10245379 (90 lines)

> Babhru (das) ACBSP (Keaau - HI)

> 14-Aug-05 04:59 (18:59 -1000)

> Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN) [68800]

> Cc: "Christopher Shannon"

> Cc: India (Continental Committee) Open (Forum) [4853]

> Cc: ISKCON Temple Presidents [2694]

> Cc: Prabhupada Disciples [6451]

> Cc-For: ISKCON India (news & discussion)

> Cc: ISKCON India (news & discussion) {6033}

> Reference: Text PAMHO:10245256 by Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN)

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

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

> 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

> (Text PAMHO:10245379) -----

>

> ------- End of Forwarded Message ------

[Guest guest]

> Prabhupada: These are all bogus things. One should train himself that

> matravat para-daresu, all women, "my mother." Then it will be possible to

> live... Therefore the etiquette is to address every woman, "Ma, ma,

> mother." That is the etiquette.

> Brahmananda: You say like "Mother Rukmini"? There's a devotee named

> Rukmini. You say, "Mother Rukmini"? How do you address a woman? Do you

> say, "Mother," and then the name of the devotee?

> Prabhupada: No. "Mother," simply.

> Brahmananda: Just "Mother."

> Prabhupada: Yes. They should be addressed, "Mother." That will train.

> Indian man (4): In our Indian culture they don't call the name of the

> mother never, children don't.

> Prabhupada: No. "Mother," simply "mother," that's all. And if the woman

> treats man as son, then it is all right. It is safe.

> >>> Ref. VedaBase => Morning Walk -- November 2, 1975, Nairobi

 

 

> So one instruction is that the earth is addressed, "amba." Amba

> means mother. So the earth is also our mother. There are seven

> kinds of mother: atma-mata guroh patni. Real mother, from whose

> womb we have taken birth, she is called atma-mata, first mother.

> Then second mother, the guroh patni. Guru means teacher or

> spiritual master. His wife, she's also... Actually, according to

> strict moral instruction... Why strict? Ordinary. Any woman except

> his own wife is mother. Any woman. It doesn't matter whether she is

> elderly or young. No. That is the way. Still in India, any woman by

> unknown person, he can address any woman "Mother." The first

> relationship is mother. Now they have introduced "Sister,"

> "Bahinaji." No, that is not Vedic etiquette. No bahinaji. Bahinaji

> means sister. Mother. Everyone should be addressed. We should learn

> this. Except one's one wife, all women should be addressed as

> "Mother." This is civilization. Then there will be no corrupt

> relation. If you, from the very beginning, you establish your

> relationship with other women as mother, then there is no question

> of other relationship.

>

> (Srila Prabhupada. SB lecture 1.16.23, LA, July 13, 1974)

[Guest guest]

Since most of the places we find "Srila Prabhupada" addressing women as

"Prabhu" are in letters (I'm not sure if there's even one reference where he

does so in a lecture or a conversation) there is a doubt that's arisen in

this regard.

 

And the doubt is this: SP's secretaries might have written those letters &

he signed them without correcting their using "Prabhu" to address women.

 

SP was busy, & it was a small thing. And.... using "Prabhu" to address a

women contradicts his other CLEAR AS THE SKY IS BLUE statements that all

women are to be addressed as "mother".

 

> > Prabhupada: These are all bogus things. One should train himself that

> > matravat para-daresu, all women, "my mother." Then it will be possible

> > to live... Therefore the etiquette is to address every woman, "Ma, ma,

> > mother." That is the etiquette.

> > Brahmananda: You say like "Mother Rukmini"? There's a devotee named

> > Rukmini. You say, "Mother Rukmini"? How do you address a woman? Do you

> > say, "Mother," and then the name of the devotee?

> > Prabhupada: No. "Mother," simply.

> > Brahmananda: Just "Mother."

> > Prabhupada: Yes. They should be addressed, "Mother." That will train.

> > Indian man (4): In our Indian culture they don't call the name of the

> > mother never, children don't.

> > Prabhupada: No. "Mother," simply "mother," that's all. And if the woman

> > treats man as son, then it is all right. It is safe.

> > >>> Ref. VedaBase => Morning Walk -- November 2, 1975, Nairobi

>

>

> > So one instruction is that the earth is addressed, "amba." Amba

> > means mother. So the earth is also our mother. There are seven

> > kinds of mother: atma-mata guroh patni. Real mother, from whose

> > womb we have taken birth, she is called atma-mata, first mother.

> > Then second mother, the guroh patni. Guru means teacher or

> > spiritual master. His wife, she's also... Actually, according to

> > strict moral instruction... Why strict? Ordinary. Any woman except

> > his own wife is mother. Any woman. It doesn't matter whether she is

> > elderly or young. No. That is the way. Still in India, any woman by

> > unknown person, he can address any woman "Mother." The first

> > relationship is mother. Now they have introduced "Sister,"

> > "Bahinaji." No, that is not Vedic etiquette. No bahinaji. Bahinaji

> > means sister. Mother. Everyone should be addressed. We should learn

> > this. Except one's one wife, all women should be addressed as

> > "Mother." This is civilization. Then there will be no corrupt

> > relation. If you, from the very beginning, you establish your

> > relationship with other women as mother, then there is no question

> > of other relationship.

> >

> > (Srila Prabhupada. SB lecture 1.16.23, LA, July 13, 1974)

 

 

> 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 Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:08 +0530, Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN) <

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

>

> Since most of the places we find "Srila Prabhupada" addressing women as

> "Prabhu" are in letters (I'm not sure if there's even one reference where

> he

> does so in a lecture or a conversation) there is a doubt that's arisen in

> this regard.

 

 

The object of that doubt is Srila Prabhupada. Most of those letters were

written in the very early '70s, when things weren't quite as hectic as they

may have been later. Srila Prabhupada did very often check letters over when

he signed them, after having dictated their contents to his secretaries. At

least that's what a couple of those secretaries have told me. Moreover, I

asked Srila Prabhupada himself about doubts regarding the content of his

letters. His response: "That is my system. To doubt my system is to doubt

me."

 

Yours in service,

Babhru das

[Guest guest]

On Tue, 16 Aug 2005 09:08 +0530, Basu Ghosh (das) ACBSP (Baroda - IN) <

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

>

> I've added Praghosh Prabhu as a receiver of your text, Babhruji, and let's

> hope he responds...

 

 

Yes, let's do. But failing that, do you have a clue to how I was not a

receiver of a note ostensibly addressed to me?

 

And don't get me wrong. I have always considered Praghosha a friend and

valued the time I've spent with him. One of my favorite stories about the

mentality behind sankirtan has him as the hero. And I'm delighted that the

Lord saw fit to leave him in our company, and so healthy and vigorous at

that. But the tone evident in too many of the discussions of some of these

issues distresses me and, I believe, tells a lot about why our society is in

the state it's in. We have grown a culture of Vaishnava aparadha, one in

which too many of us believe that our firm belief in one proposition or

another give us license--perhaps even a mandate--to say any damned thing we

can think of to score points. It's not the kind of interaction we see among

Vaishnavas in any of our acharyas' writings.

 

And let me state my determination to resist being drawn any further into

this discussion, primarily because of its tenor. I didn't enter it as a

partisan of either "side," since I think both sides are set on ignoring or

minimizing evidence that doesn't support their proposition. This discussion,

as are so many others, seems focused on winning, or at least the illusion of

winning. I have little to no interest in such discussions as they are

counterproductive in terms of our real goals. And if it will get me out of

any of the tit-for-tat chatter that may ensue, let me say that anyone, from

either side of the issue, who feels that he or she requires some certificate

that I have been defeated in this discussion may have it for the asking.

 

And now, since it's ekadashi, I feel myself drawn to chant some more japa.

Aloha.

 

Yours in service,

Babhru das