The real question is why Mother is considered offensive.

[Guest guest]

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

hope he responds...

 

> 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

[Guest guest]

I have been included in this communication by mistake and would like to be

removed.

 

Thank you

 

ys

Bhima 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:

> >

> > 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

 

Sorry, but the object of doubt is his secretaries.

 

Maybe there were times he didn't check them over?

 

Maybe he didn't consider that it would be used in posterity thus?

 

Maybe... even if he did see the word "Prabhu" being used to address women he

didn't think it so important?

 

And maybe, just maybe, the evidence that we have that:

 

1. He spoke so clearly, time & again - and wrote about it in purports - is

that all women (except ones wife & close relations) are to be addressed as

mother.

 

2. Indian culture teaches society to address women as mother

 

is enough to convince us that it ought to be so?

 

Did you ever consider that? You've seen the SP quotes to that effect that

have been introduced by several devotees, and the testimony of devotees who

reside here at Bharata [and don't say "aloha" because we don't live in

Hawaii :-)] to that effect.

 

It's not an ego trip. Honestly. It's not a baseball game (over here it's

"cricket") that we're trying to win.

 

It's an attempt to imbibe the instructions of both the guru - in this case

SP - and the shastras.

 

Another point made by a godbrother is that SP's later instructions supercede

his earlier one's. By an objective study in that light - if you accept that

logic - it's again clear that SP wanted us to address women as "mother" or

"mataji". Not "Prabhu".

 

And yes, addressing a man as "Prabhu" as one rather emotional member of this

discussion pointed out, is also not a part of regular indian "culture".

 

It's "Gaudiya Math culture", introduced by Srila Saraswati Thakur to attempt

to inculcate humility in his followers, by seeing others as our superiors

and viewing ourselves as "fallen souls".