Mothers

[Guest guest]

> > I wonder then: does this mean all the women in ISKCON?

>

> I don't know the context here, but it appears to be referring to one's own

> mother (atma-mata). Still, if one truly sees all women, including those in

> ISKCON, as one's mother then it applies to all.

 

That seems to be the point of Srila Prabhupada's emphasizing that men should

"see all women as mother." But it's not a stand alone instruction, it has

two other parts to it: women should see all men as sons, and everyone should

treat each other as "prabhu." But what we seem to have here is an insistence

that the women see men only as "prabhu", and if they desire anything else

then they're degraded. It's not only "all women should see men as prabhu"

That's a method for domination, a 'master / servant' set up. The formula

above is designed to regulate *relationships*. That's the key word here.

There is a natural, eternal method for dealing with each other, and when

it's distorted, there is disruption and unrest. And here we seem to have an

emphasis on distortion. Some of the men think all women want "equal rights",

and the women are tired of the distortion that they've been victims of. As

you say further down, and as Babhru prabhu has pointed out also, respect for

the individual needs to be there. If a man can't even handle the *thought*

that a woman is "prabhu", then who is the one with the problem?

 

And if the men really see women as mother, then here is one of their

mothers, a senior, respectable, honored and very dear disciple of Srila

Prabhupada, Visakha Devi, telling them "see your mothers as prabhu." That

constitutes an instruction from mother--and it's being rejected! Visakha has

presented scriptural references to support her point, and it's a very simple

one, but the rejection is based simply on the fact that she's a woman.

Nothing else. It's embarrassing that dealings are taking place on this

level. Excruciatingly embarrassing.

>

> Well, that may be, but please ensure that you too don't fall into Aldous

> Huxley's description.

 

No chance...personally I find more positive than negative in ISKCON, despite

the flaws that some seem to consider 'terminal.'

>

> I've had rough exchanges along the way as well, but I try to stay positive

> and deal with devotees on an individual basis. Otherwise, it's like trying

> to ascertain which came first---the chicken or the egg.

 

I agree. It seems this is the failing that lies at the heart of matters such

as this.

 

> In any case,

> mleccha "culture" is not favorable for Vaisnavism, either for men or

> ladies. Both sides need to be more respectful. Ultimately, it seems that

> the male devotees are responsible since they are the leaders. In this

> regard, one might read Tolstoy's short story, "An Opportunity Lost". I can

> post it to those who write to me personally.

 

I'd be interested to read that.

 

> In short, we will all

> hopefully come to a point where we just don't want to fight anymore.

> Prabhu or Mataji---what is the point? If I address you (as an example

> only) as "Prabhu" but treat you like dirt, then what is the benefit? (btw,

> that is sometimes done within the men's circles) If I address you as

> "Mother" or "Mataji" but say it with respect, love and really mean it,

> then isn't that better? So it seems that the bhavana is more important

> than the terminolgy. The term is suppose to help to invoke the feeling.

 

I think you'll find that this is what the driving force is behind the

complaints of any woman in ISKCON. I've been called mataji and felt like I

was being spat on; I've been called mataji and felt affection and respect

for the one speaking. It's all a matter of the energy used...

>

> Love and respect conquers all. If they tried to do so, the ladies would

> then not accept it, due to FEELING the respect. That's enough for them.

> It's not a matter of one-upmanship. Correct me if I'm wrong.

 

No you're not.

 

Your servant

Braja Sevaki dd