Not My Mother

[Guest guest]

On 10 Jan 1999, Jatukarnya das wrote:

> > >Dear Srila Betaji,

> > Does Prabhupada say somewhere that in women should address men by their

name followed by betaji?

>

> Some times it seems pretty strange to me that we have to ask someone else

what to call each other. In how great a way is ISKCON supposed to control its

members? To even interrupt with the way we address each other?

> Especially if we know the other person. I get the "big Brother is watching

you" creeps from such an attitude.

 

Thank you, Jatukarnya, Prabhu, I was thinking along the same lines.

 

I personally think Hare Krsna dd and those of her avocation are over-blowing

this whole issue. I feel she hyperbolates Prabhupada's essential criticism of

"Bahinaji," or in other words, magnifies the form at the expense of the

substance: cultivating respectful relationships is the key.

 

As I understand it, Prabhupada's criticism was directed against Gandhi's

modernizing popular movement which in general was revamping, vulgarizing and

diluting Vedic culture -- ie, rubber-stamping any low-class person as a

"Harijan" and disposing of the respectful "Mataji" to the too casual and

familiar, "Sister" -- "Bahinaji".

 

I also want to point out that the "verse" Prabhupada keeps referring to is a

moral maxim from Canakya, not eternal scripture. Ie, it is *ethics*

not *revealed spiritual truth.* Ethical principles are contextual by nature.

 

Second of all, the reference itself, *matrvat sarva-daresu* is in regards

to **SEEING**. WHERE does it specifically say to *CALL* every woman as

"mother" (Mataji)? Do we then expunge all such words as sister, aunt (and in

Hindi, there are are specific words for younger sister, maternal/paternal

aunt, etc.) from our common usage and the dictionary? "Woman = mother,

bas."(?) We address a little girl 30 years our junior as "mother," heedless of

our personal relationship with her?

 

I respectfully submit that this proposal (another ISKCONism) is absurd:

categorically, CALLING every woman mother. The idea is as ridiculous as it

sounds. It was never done to this extreme in India, but like the rtvik

program, "Prabhupada can do what was never done before," and concoct something

new? I don't accept such a novel understanding of "what Prabhupada said..."

 

Unless there is solid precendent in Gaudiya Vaisnava culture, it is a new

Western flavor -- imitation.

 

On a more personal note, I don't appreciate being called "son" by those who

have no superior/maternal-like relationship with me. It is false affection

when none exists or when it is inappropriate and unrealistic. It is not only

superficial, it is perverted. We are going to the opposite extreme with this

Mataji cult that Gandhi went with his sister program. I reject it and anyone

who attempts to force me to conform to their personal (mistaken conception) of

morality.

 

I submit Hare Krsna dd is taking Prabhupada too literally and fanatically, and

as such misunderstanding his intent.

 

Forgive for speaking so frankly.

 

Sincerely,

 

Srila dasa

[Guest guest]

On 10 Jan 1999, Jatukarnya das wrote:

> > >Dear Srila Betaji,

> > Does Prabhupada say somewhere that in women should address men by their

name followed by betaji?

>

> Some times it seems pretty strange to me that we have to ask someone else

what to call each other. In how great a way is ISKCON supposed to control its

members? To even interrupt with the way we address each other?

> Especially if we know the other person. I get the "big Brother is watching

you" creeps from such an attitude.

 

Thank you, Jatukarnya, Prabhu, I was thinking along the same lines.

 

I personally think Hare Krsna dd and those of her avocation are over-blowing

this whole issue. I feel she hyperbolates Prabhupada's essential criticism of

"Bahinaji," or in other words, magnifies the form at the expense of the

substance: cultivating respectful relationships is the key.

 

As I understand it, Prabhupada's criticism was directed against Gandhi's

modernizing popular movement which in general was revamping, vulgarizing and

diluting Vedic culture -- ie, rubber-stamping any low-class person as a

"Harijan" and disposing of the respectful "Mataji" to the too casual and

familiar, "Sister" -- "Bahinaji".

 

I also want to point out that the "verse" Prabhupada keeps referring to is a

moral maxim from Canakya, not eternal scripture. Ie, it is *ethics*

not *revealed spiritual truth.* Ethical principles are contextual by nature.

 

Second of all, the reference itself, *matrvat sarva-daresu* is in regards

to **SEEING**. WHERE does it specifically say to *CALL* every woman as

"mother" (Mataji)? Do we then expunge all such words as sister, aunt (and in

Hindi, there are are specific words for younger sister, maternal/paternal

aunt, etc.) from our common usage and the dictionary? "Woman = mother,

bas."(?) We address a little girl 30 years our junior as "mother," heedless of

our personal relationship with her?

 

I respectfully submit that this proposal (another ISKCONism) is absurd:

categorically, CALLING every woman mother. The idea is as ridiculous as it

sounds. It was never done to this extreme in India, but like the rtvik

program, "Prabhupada can do what was never done before," and concoct something

new? I don't accept such a novel understanding of "what Prabhupada said..."

 

Unless there is solid precendent in Gaudiya Vaisnava culture, it is a new

Western flavor -- imitation.

 

On a more personal note, I don't appreciate being called "son" by those who

have no superior/maternal-like relationship with me. It is false affection

when none exists or when it is inappropriate and unrealistic. It is not only

superficial, it is perverted. We are going to the opposite extreme with this

Mataji cult that Gandhi went with his sister program. I reject it and anyone

who attempts to force me to conform to their personal (mistaken conception) of

morality.

 

I submit Hare Krsna dd is taking Prabhupada too literally and fanatically, and

as such misunderstanding his intent.

 

Forgive for speaking so frankly.

 

Sincerely,

 

Srila dasa

[Guest guest]

On 12 Jan 1999, Sita DD wrote:

(Conversation about Old Days in Calcutta

July 1, 1977, Vrndävana 770701r5.vrn)

Prabhupada: Then we began to... I used to call his wife *didi*, as my sister,

eldest sister...

 

Thank you, Sita Didi. You have verified my intuition with evidence from

genuine Vedic culture and in Prabhupada's own words and example, no less. I

close my case.

 

On the other hand, I want to apologize for being so blunt with Hare Krsna

Mataji (yes, I will address someone as they wish to be called, that is a

practical social dynamic). I was reacting more to the phenomenon than to her

personally. I beg everyone's forgiveness for my strong reply.

 

Daso'smi,

Srila dasa

 

> We are going to the opposite extreme with this Mataji cult that Gandhi went

with his sister program.

 

> I submit [Mataji-appellation cult] is taking Prabhupada too literally and

fanatically, and as such misunderstanding his intent.

> Forgive for speaking so frankly.

> Srila dasa

[Guest guest]

On 12 Jan 1999, Sita DD wrote:

(Conversation about Old Days in Calcutta

July 1, 1977, Vrndävana 770701r5.vrn)

Prabhupada: Then we began to... I used to call his wife *didi*, as my sister,

eldest sister...

 

Thank you, Sita Didi. You have verified my intuition with evidence from

genuine Vedic culture and in Prabhupada's own words and example, no less. I

close my case.

 

On the other hand, I want to apologize for being so blunt with Hare Krsna

Mataji (yes, I will address someone as they wish to be called, that is a

practical social dynamic). I was reacting more to the phenomenon than to her

personally. I beg everyone's forgiveness for my strong reply.

 

Daso'smi,

Srila dasa

 

> We are going to the opposite extreme with this Mataji cult that Gandhi went

with his sister program.

 

> I submit [Mataji-appellation cult] is taking Prabhupada too literally and

fanatically, and as such misunderstanding his intent.

> Forgive for speaking so frankly.

> Srila dasa

[Guest guest]

> Second of all, the reference itself, *matrvat sarva-daresu* is in regards

> to **SEEING**. WHERE does it specifically say to *CALL* every woman as

> "mother" (Mataji)? Do we then expunge all such words as sister, aunt (and

> in Hindi, there are are specific words for younger sister,

> maternal/paternal aunt, etc.) from our common usage and the dictionary?

> "Woman = mother, bas."(?) We address a little girl 30 years our junior as

> "mother," heedless of our personal relationship with her?

>

> I respectfully submit that this proposal (another ISKCONism) is absurd:

> categorically, CALLING every woman mother. The idea is as ridiculous as it

> sounds.

>

> On a more personal note, I don't appreciate being called "son" by those

> who have no superior/maternal-like relationship with me. It is false

> affection when none exists or when it is inappropriate and unrealistic. It

> is not only superficial, it is perverted. We are going to the opposite

> extreme with this Mataji cult that Gandhi went with his sister program. I

> reject it and anyone who attempts to force me to conform to their personal

> (mistaken conception) of morality.

 

It doesn't matter if she is younger or older, but she should be treated as

mother. Therefore it is the system in Vedic culture, as soon as one sees

another woman, she (he) addresses her, "mother," Mataji. Immediately,

"mother." That makes the relationship. The woman treats the unknown man as

son, and the unknown man treats the unknown woman as mother. This is Vedic

civilization.

REF. Srimad-Bhagavatam (Lecture) 1.3.13 -- Los Angeles, September 18, 1972

 

In India still, women, especially in asramas, any woman, visitor, she is

addressed as "Mother" by all the... She may be young girl, but she is

addressed as "Mother." This is the etiquette. "Mother, what can I help you?"

REF. Srimad-Bhagavatam (Lecture) 3.1.10 -- Dallas, May 21, 1973

 

And they used to call every woman from the beginning of life, "Mother." This

is training. Matrvat para-daresu. From the very beginning of life, all women

they are treated as mother. That is the system, Vedic system. Everyone will

call a woman as "Mother." Never mind whether she is younger or older. It

doesn't matter. Woman has to be addressed as "Mother." That is Canakya

Pandita's instruction. Who is learned scholar? Who has got three

qualification, he is learned scholar. What is that? Matrvat para-daresu: "To

treat all woman as mother." Nowadays it has been introduced in India,

"Bahinji." No. This is not the etiquette. The etiquette is to address every

woman, never mind whether she is young or old, as "Mother."

REF. Bhagavad-gita (Lecture) 4.16 -- Bombay, April 5, 1974

 

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."

REF. Srimad-Bhagavatam (Lecture) 1.16.23 -- Los Angeles, July 13, 1974

 

Dear Srila das,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to ®rila Prabhup€da.

 

These are just a few of the quotes from ®rila Prabhup€da on this subject. I

have more if you want them?

 

Your servant, Mithila das.

[Guest guest]

> Second of all, the reference itself, *matrvat sarva-daresu* is in regards

> to **SEEING**. WHERE does it specifically say to *CALL* every woman as

> "mother" (Mataji)? Do we then expunge all such words as sister, aunt (and

> in Hindi, there are are specific words for younger sister,

> maternal/paternal aunt, etc.) from our common usage and the dictionary?

> "Woman = mother, bas."(?) We address a little girl 30 years our junior as

> "mother," heedless of our personal relationship with her?

>

> I respectfully submit that this proposal (another ISKCONism) is absurd:

> categorically, CALLING every woman mother. The idea is as ridiculous as it

> sounds.

>

> On a more personal note, I don't appreciate being called "son" by those

> who have no superior/maternal-like relationship with me. It is false

> affection when none exists or when it is inappropriate and unrealistic. It

> is not only superficial, it is perverted. We are going to the opposite

> extreme with this Mataji cult that Gandhi went with his sister program. I

> reject it and anyone who attempts to force me to conform to their personal

> (mistaken conception) of morality.

 

It doesn't matter if she is younger or older, but she should be treated as

mother. Therefore it is the system in Vedic culture, as soon as one sees

another woman, she (he) addresses her, "mother," Mataji. Immediately,

"mother." That makes the relationship. The woman treats the unknown man as

son, and the unknown man treats the unknown woman as mother. This is Vedic

civilization.

REF. Srimad-Bhagavatam (Lecture) 1.3.13 -- Los Angeles, September 18, 1972

 

In India still, women, especially in asramas, any woman, visitor, she is

addressed as "Mother" by all the... She may be young girl, but she is

addressed as "Mother." This is the etiquette. "Mother, what can I help you?"

REF. Srimad-Bhagavatam (Lecture) 3.1.10 -- Dallas, May 21, 1973

 

And they used to call every woman from the beginning of life, "Mother." This

is training. Matrvat para-daresu. From the very beginning of life, all women

they are treated as mother. That is the system, Vedic system. Everyone will

call a woman as "Mother." Never mind whether she is younger or older. It

doesn't matter. Woman has to be addressed as "Mother." That is Canakya

Pandita's instruction. Who is learned scholar? Who has got three

qualification, he is learned scholar. What is that? Matrvat para-daresu: "To

treat all woman as mother." Nowadays it has been introduced in India,

"Bahinji." No. This is not the etiquette. The etiquette is to address every

woman, never mind whether she is young or old, as "Mother."

REF. Bhagavad-gita (Lecture) 4.16 -- Bombay, April 5, 1974

 

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."

REF. Srimad-Bhagavatam (Lecture) 1.16.23 -- Los Angeles, July 13, 1974

 

Dear Srila das,

Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to ®rila Prabhup€da.

 

These are just a few of the quotes from ®rila Prabhup€da on this subject. I

have more if you want them?

 

Your servant, Mithila das.

[Guest guest]

At 1:42 -0800 1/14/99, COM: Mithila (das) PVS (London - GB) wrote:

 

>Dear Srila das,

>Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to ®rila Prabhup*da.

>

>These are just a few of the quotes from ®rila Prabhup*da on this subject. I

>have more if you want them?

>

>Your servant, Mithila das.

 

I'm not sure that simply providing quotes addresses Srila Prabhu's

perceptions feelings at all. Thinking of and treating someone as mother

has to mean something beyond just saying the word. Just calling someone

"mother" doesn't mean you automatically treat them that way. And if you

don't treat soemone as mother, he certainly has the right to question using

the word too. I'm sure he already had all your quotes and more. lack of

quotes was probably not the reason for his text.

 

Taking this discussion a step further than labels: Can you men out there

say *honestly* that you are able to treat every 5 year old female as if she

were your mother?

 

Before answering reflexively that you indeed do this (because Prabhupada

told you to), please stop and think for a moment: What exactly does it

entail to treat someone as a mother? Do you *really* extend this treatment

to both 5 and 50 year old women? Really?

 

I have to say that I have *never* seen such treatment of pre-pubescent

girls by *any* grown men in my 26 years of coming to ISKCON temples. This

doesn't mean that they have behaved inappropriately (i.e. in any overt or

covert sexual way) around these little girls. What it has typically meant

is that the men treated these girls more like daughters or nieces, rather

than as mothers.

 

In light of the big problems facing ISKCON such as child abuse, our lack of

ability to attract temple devotees, the guru issue, lack of health

insurance etc., I don't think this one is a huge issue that I want to spend

much time or energy on.

 

However, I have to question what I see as lack of a realistic assessment of

what is actually going on and the reflexive "quote-attack" on a person who

is at least willing to take an honest look at things. The use of

quotes-as-a-weapon to silence dissent seems to be common in all the

discussions of sensitive topics.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

At 1:42 -0800 1/14/99, COM: Mithila (das) PVS (London - GB) wrote:

 

>Dear Srila das,

>Please accept my humble obeisances. All glories to ®rila Prabhup*da.

>

>These are just a few of the quotes from ®rila Prabhup*da on this subject. I

>have more if you want them?

>

>Your servant, Mithila das.

 

I'm not sure that simply providing quotes addresses Srila Prabhu's

perceptions feelings at all. Thinking of and treating someone as mother

has to mean something beyond just saying the word. Just calling someone

"mother" doesn't mean you automatically treat them that way. And if you

don't treat soemone as mother, he certainly has the right to question using

the word too. I'm sure he already had all your quotes and more. lack of

quotes was probably not the reason for his text.

 

Taking this discussion a step further than labels: Can you men out there

say *honestly* that you are able to treat every 5 year old female as if she

were your mother?

 

Before answering reflexively that you indeed do this (because Prabhupada

told you to), please stop and think for a moment: What exactly does it

entail to treat someone as a mother? Do you *really* extend this treatment

to both 5 and 50 year old women? Really?

 

I have to say that I have *never* seen such treatment of pre-pubescent

girls by *any* grown men in my 26 years of coming to ISKCON temples. This

doesn't mean that they have behaved inappropriately (i.e. in any overt or

covert sexual way) around these little girls. What it has typically meant

is that the men treated these girls more like daughters or nieces, rather

than as mothers.

 

In light of the big problems facing ISKCON such as child abuse, our lack of

ability to attract temple devotees, the guru issue, lack of health

insurance etc., I don't think this one is a huge issue that I want to spend

much time or energy on.

 

However, I have to question what I see as lack of a realistic assessment of

what is actually going on and the reflexive "quote-attack" on a person who

is at least willing to take an honest look at things. The use of

quotes-as-a-weapon to silence dissent seems to be common in all the

discussions of sensitive topics.

 

Ys,

Madhusudani dasi

[Guest guest]

On 14 Jan 1999, Mithila Prabhu wrote:

 

The woman treats the *unknown* man as son, and the *unknown* man treats

the *unknown* woman as mother. This is Vedic civilization.

(Srimad-Bhagavatam (Lecture) 1.3.13 -- Los Angeles, September 18, 1972)

[*emphasis* mine]

 

> > These are just a few of the quotes from Srila Prabhupada on this subject.

 

Madhusudani Didi wrote:

> I'm not sure that simply providing quotes addresses Srila Prabhu's

> perceptions feelings at all.

 

Actually, I stand corrected. Prabhupada has resolved this apparent moral

dilemma.

 

Hencefoward, I will address all UNKNOWN women as "Mataji" and those whom I

know I will address according to the ACKNOWLEDGED (viz KNOWN) relationship

between us, ie, "Didi," etc. If I have a sister, etc, I will not address her

as "Mother."

 

This is personalism.

 

Hare Krsna.

Srila dasa

[Guest guest]

On 14 Jan 1999, Mithila Prabhu wrote:

 

The woman treats the *unknown* man as son, and the *unknown* man treats

the *unknown* woman as mother. This is Vedic civilization.

(Srimad-Bhagavatam (Lecture) 1.3.13 -- Los Angeles, September 18, 1972)

[*emphasis* mine]

 

> > These are just a few of the quotes from Srila Prabhupada on this subject.

 

Madhusudani Didi wrote:

> I'm not sure that simply providing quotes addresses Srila Prabhu's

> perceptions feelings at all.

 

Actually, I stand corrected. Prabhupada has resolved this apparent moral

dilemma.

 

Hencefoward, I will address all UNKNOWN women as "Mataji" and those whom I

know I will address according to the ACKNOWLEDGED (viz KNOWN) relationship

between us, ie, "Didi," etc. If I have a sister, etc, I will not address her

as "Mother."

 

This is personalism.

 

Hare Krsna.

Srila dasa

[Guest guest]

On 14 Jan 1999, Mithila das wrote:

 

> It doesn't matter if she is younger or older, but she should be treated > as

mother. Therefore it is the system in Vedic culture, as soon as one > sees

another woman, she (he) addresses her, "mother," Mataji.

 

Nice in theory...

 

Ys,

BVD

[Guest guest]

On 14 Jan 1999, Mithila das wrote:

 

> It doesn't matter if she is younger or older, but she should be treated > as

mother. Therefore it is the system in Vedic culture, as soon as one > sees

another woman, she (he) addresses her, "mother," Mataji.

 

Nice in theory...

 

Ys,

BVD

[Guest guest]

On 14 Jan 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

> Thinking of and treating someone as mother has to mean something beyond >

just saying the word. Just calling someone "mother" doesn't mean you

automatically treat them that way...

 

Nice to see someone's being practical. Excellent. Most helpful.

 

> Taking this discussion a step further than labels: Can you men out > there

say *honestly* that you are able to treat every 5 year old female > as if she

were your mother?

 

They practical arguments are various. Nice example. It's also pretty hard for

a man to see all women as "mother" when they insist on dressing in sexually

provocative ways etc. Not very mother-like. Nice points "mataji." Well

founded.

 

Ys,

BVD

[Guest guest]

On 14 Jan 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

 

> Thinking of and treating someone as mother has to mean something beyond >

just saying the word. Just calling someone "mother" doesn't mean you

automatically treat them that way...

 

Nice to see someone's being practical. Excellent. Most helpful.

 

> Taking this discussion a step further than labels: Can you men out > there

say *honestly* that you are able to treat every 5 year old female > as if she

were your mother?

 

They practical arguments are various. Nice example. It's also pretty hard for

a man to see all women as "mother" when they insist on dressing in sexually

provocative ways etc. Not very mother-like. Nice points "mataji." Well

founded.

 

Ys,

BVD

[Guest guest]

On 14 Jan 1999, Srila Dasa wrote:

 

> Hencefoward, I will address all UNKNOWN women as "Mataji" and those > whom I

know I will address according to the ACKNOWLEDGED (viz KNOWN)

> relationship between us, ie, "Didi," etc. If I have a sister, etc, I > will

not address her as "Mother."

>

> This is personalism.

 

Again I have to express my appreeciation for yet another very rational and

practical point. Bravo and thankyou! Clarity of consciousness is such a

wonderful thing. Haribol!

 

Ys,

BVD

[Guest guest]

On 14 Jan 1999, Srila Dasa wrote:

 

> Hencefoward, I will address all UNKNOWN women as "Mataji" and those > whom I

know I will address according to the ACKNOWLEDGED (viz KNOWN)

> relationship between us, ie, "Didi," etc. If I have a sister, etc, I > will

not address her as "Mother."

>

> This is personalism.

 

Again I have to express my appreeciation for yet another very rational and

practical point. Bravo and thankyou! Clarity of consciousness is such a

wonderful thing. Haribol!

 

Ys,

BVD

[Guest guest]

> They practical arguments are various. Nice example. It's also pretty hard

> for a man to see all women as "mother" when they insist on dressing in

> sexually provocative ways etc. Not very mother-like. Nice points "mataji."

> Well founded.

 

So because some men become lusty after nicely dressed women, women should

dress wery unattractively? Why not punish those lusty men instead of the

innocent

women? It is not Vedic, and it was not Prabhupada's system for women to

dress unattractively.

 

Apart from that, it is the men's fault why women have to dress like they

do, sexually provoking. I saw some very young girls, on the tram, the other

day. They were going to a party, or something. They had extremely short

skirts,

and mostly bare legs, in the cold of the Swedish winter. Do think it is

their

fault they have to go dressed like that? No, it just have became the fashion

that young girls should be dressed like that, when dressed "up". The poor

girls are victims of the lusty desires of men. Men who cannot see them as

young mothers, but as sexual objects. They simply get exploited.

 

ys Prisni

[Guest guest]

> They practical arguments are various. Nice example. It's also pretty hard

> for a man to see all women as "mother" when they insist on dressing in

> sexually provocative ways etc. Not very mother-like. Nice points "mataji."

> Well founded.

 

So because some men become lusty after nicely dressed women, women should

dress wery unattractively? Why not punish those lusty men instead of the

innocent

women? It is not Vedic, and it was not Prabhupada's system for women to

dress unattractively.

 

Apart from that, it is the men's fault why women have to dress like they

do, sexually provoking. I saw some very young girls, on the tram, the other

day. They were going to a party, or something. They had extremely short

skirts,

and mostly bare legs, in the cold of the Swedish winter. Do think it is

their

fault they have to go dressed like that? No, it just have became the fashion

that young girls should be dressed like that, when dressed "up". The poor

girls are victims of the lusty desires of men. Men who cannot see them as

young mothers, but as sexual objects. They simply get exploited.

 

ys Prisni

[Guest guest]

> Apart from that, it is the men's fault why women have to dress like they

> do, sexually provoking. ... Do you

> think it is their fault they have to go dressed like that? No, it just

> have became the fashion that young girls should be dressed like that, when

> dressed "up". The poor girls are victims of the lusty desires of men. Men

> who cannot see them as young mothers, but as sexual objects. They simply

> get exploited.

 

But many of them also enjoy it. Most women who dress in a sexually provoking

way do so out of their own accord and to know that a man is aroused by

glancing at their body gives them a tremendous kick. This has been pointed

out to me by more than one member of the fair sex. So its not just that the

poor girls are victims of the lusty men. They are equally lusty.

Men are in maya and women are in maya. It is a fact though that, nowadays,

women are under enormous social pressure to either look like vamps or

supermodels. This idea is put in their minds by the media, that is the

movies they see or the magazines they read and these are usually made by

men. Probably many a girl or woman would not dress in mini skirt, high heels

or see-through blouse if her boyfriend would not push her to do so or if the

media would not give her the idea that this is what men want.

 

So it is a fact that lusty men influence women to dress in a sexually

provocative way but the women also like it when the men stare at them. It

gives them a sense of being powerful and attractive and that makes them feel

good about themselves. This feeling is an essential ingredient for material

enjoyment and that's why men do not need to force women to dress

provocatively. They do so voluntarily because it is their main weapon to

capture a man to supply them with love, sex, money and prestige.

 

ys Anantarupa das

[Guest guest]

> Apart from that, it is the men's fault why women have to dress like they

> do, sexually provoking. ... Do you

> think it is their fault they have to go dressed like that? No, it just

> have became the fashion that young girls should be dressed like that, when

> dressed "up". The poor girls are victims of the lusty desires of men. Men

> who cannot see them as young mothers, but as sexual objects. They simply

> get exploited.

 

But many of them also enjoy it. Most women who dress in a sexually provoking

way do so out of their own accord and to know that a man is aroused by

glancing at their body gives them a tremendous kick. This has been pointed

out to me by more than one member of the fair sex. So its not just that the

poor girls are victims of the lusty men. They are equally lusty.

Men are in maya and women are in maya. It is a fact though that, nowadays,

women are under enormous social pressure to either look like vamps or

supermodels. This idea is put in their minds by the media, that is the

movies they see or the magazines they read and these are usually made by

men. Probably many a girl or woman would not dress in mini skirt, high heels

or see-through blouse if her boyfriend would not push her to do so or if the

media would not give her the idea that this is what men want.

 

So it is a fact that lusty men influence women to dress in a sexually

provocative way but the women also like it when the men stare at them. It

gives them a sense of being powerful and attractive and that makes them feel

good about themselves. This feeling is an essential ingredient for material

enjoyment and that's why men do not need to force women to dress

provocatively. They do so voluntarily because it is their main weapon to

capture a man to supply them with love, sex, money and prestige.

 

ys Anantarupa das

[Guest guest]

On 14 Jan 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

> I'm not sure that simply providing quotes addresses Srila Prabhu's

> perceptions feelings at all. Thinking of and treating someone as mother has

to mean something beyond just saying the word. Just calling someone "mother"

doesn't mean you automatically treat them that way. And if you don't treat

soemone as mother, he certainly has the right to question using the word too.

I'm sure he already had all your quotes and more.

 

> Taking this discussion a step further than labels: Can you men out there

say *honestly* that you are able to treat every 5 year old female as if she

were your mother?

 

I was rereading these old texts on this "Mataji" issue and trying to

understand why I had retorted so strongly ("emoted") to Mother Hare Krsna dasi

on this point.

 

I now understand that because of my insecure status where I am unmarried, I

see every woman as a potential mate, thus I am unable to put the standard

Vedic aphorism of "seeing every woman *except one's wife* as mother" into

practice. Therefore, I minimize or decry it's importance, because seeing every

woman as "mother" is simply not relevant for my present psychological needs.

 

Therefore, if we ever hope to establish Vedic culture and the scientific

system of varnasram, there must be social arrangements to ensure the

progressive development of the grhastha asram to make men's and women's minds

peaceful for spiritual life. Without proper marriages and solid family life,

the Vedic philosophy and all of its corollaries will simply fall apart for

lack of practical substance.

 

Please forgive me for me strong and unruly remarks.

 

Humbly,

 

Srila dasa

 

> > On a more personal note, I don't appreciate being called "son" by those

who have no superior/maternal-like relationship with me. It is false affection

when none exists or when it is inappropriate and unrealistic. It is not only

superficial, it is perverted. We are going to the opposite extreme with this

Mataji cult that Gandhi went with his sister program. I reject it and anyone

who attempts to force me to conform to their personal (mistaken conception) of

morality.

[Guest guest]

On 14 Jan 1999, Madhusudani Radha wrote:

> I'm not sure that simply providing quotes addresses Srila Prabhu's

> perceptions feelings at all. Thinking of and treating someone as mother has

to mean something beyond just saying the word. Just calling someone "mother"

doesn't mean you automatically treat them that way. And if you don't treat

soemone as mother, he certainly has the right to question using the word too.

I'm sure he already had all your quotes and more.

 

> Taking this discussion a step further than labels: Can you men out there

say *honestly* that you are able to treat every 5 year old female as if she

were your mother?

 

I was rereading these old texts on this "Mataji" issue and trying to

understand why I had retorted so strongly ("emoted") to Mother Hare Krsna dasi

on this point.

 

I now understand that because of my insecure status where I am unmarried, I

see every woman as a potential mate, thus I am unable to put the standard

Vedic aphorism of "seeing every woman *except one's wife* as mother" into

practice. Therefore, I minimize or decry it's importance, because seeing every

woman as "mother" is simply not relevant for my present psychological needs.

 

Therefore, if we ever hope to establish Vedic culture and the scientific

system of varnasram, there must be social arrangements to ensure the

progressive development of the grhastha asram to make men's and women's minds

peaceful for spiritual life. Without proper marriages and solid family life,

the Vedic philosophy and all of its corollaries will simply fall apart for

lack of practical substance.

 

Please forgive me for me strong and unruly remarks.

 

Humbly,

 

Srila dasa

 

> > On a more personal note, I don't appreciate being called "son" by those

who have no superior/maternal-like relationship with me. It is false affection

when none exists or when it is inappropriate and unrealistic. It is not only

superficial, it is perverted. We are going to the opposite extreme with this

Mataji cult that Gandhi went with his sister program. I reject it and anyone

who attempts to force me to conform to their personal (mistaken conception) of

morality.

[Guest guest]

On 12 Feb 1999, Srila Dasa wrote:

 

> I was rereading these old texts on this "Mataji" issue and trying to

> understand why I had retorted so strongly ("emoted") to Mother Hare Krsna

dasi

> on this point.

> I now understand that because of my insecure status where I am unmarried, I

> see every woman as a potential mate, thus I am unable to put the standard

> Vedic aphorism of "seeing every woman *except one's wife* as mother" into

> practice. Therefore, I minimize or decry it's importance, because seeing

every

> woman as "mother" is simply not relevant for my present psychological needs.

 

 

 

Aside from the usual scholarly vocabulary, a nice honest response. I had a

similar feeling about the subject when it came out previously but thought I

would withhold my response, until my big mouth has to open again. Like now.

 

There are definitely women that I show motherly respect to, but most of the

rest I first look at as a potential sexual partner with the hope that a more

meaningful and fulfilling relationship might develop. If I couldn't have

enjoyable sex with a woman I wouldn't want her as a wife - I'm low, I know,

but I'm not stupid. It (SEX)doesn't mean only gross sex but naturally includes

the more emotional and "romantic" aspects of love between two people. Like

sharing personal beliefs and goals. I like the Vedic cultural approach of

determining sexual compatibility as well the approach to living successfully

with a woman. After all, the Vedic culture invented real sex and made a

scripture for it. Though, I've found it incredibly difficult to live with one

woman successfully - I can't imagine trying to be in a relationship with

several women as wives!!! Lots of bangles!

 

 

 

> Therefore, if we ever hope to establish Vedic culture and the scientific

> system of varnasram, there must be social arrangements to ensure the

> progressive development of the grhastha asram to make men's and women's

minds

> peaceful for spiritual life.

 

 

I think this is putting the cart before the horse? Varnasrama-dharma IS the

social arrangement for progressive development to make people peaceful. If we

are trying to invent some new method of social development which will then

make us more qualified to take up VAD we will be here in the material world

forever.

 

VAD, to me, is a huge occupational therapy/social human resource halfway-house

for human bodied jivas to start on the path to pure devotional service and

re-establishment in our original constitutional position of Krsna-nitya-dasa.

In that halfway house there is sufficient room for a very gradual path of

steady improvement towards the goal. The key element is that every participant

is conscious of Godhead, in the smallest or highest degree, and that,

fortunately, Godhead has a Personality (and a very nice one at that!) and that

our position is to become a cooperator within the grand plan of the Lord.

 

Varnasrama-dharma allows, nay, welcomes, every human being to take even the

tiniest step towards God, Krsna, and once that step is taken in humble

earnestness Krsna grabs that soul and never lets him go. He is always with

them in their hearts and directs them towards all things associated with Him

over a gradual, but sure, period of advancement. Krsna, I think, is big

believer in the story of the tortoise and the hare.

 

 

Vedic culture is simply a coming together of such human bodied jivas to

associate together in a big friendly group of whatever size. Each member

respects and appreciates that the other members are in the group because Krsna

put them there and is directing their progress, Personally. The best way to

encourage another member to continue to advance is through heartfelt

friendliness and encouragment no matter what their apparent material

disqualifications may reflect from time to time. Material positions or

occupations are given under the direction of the Lord and His material modes

of nature and each person can accept his or her position as given and engage

their particular body in the service of the Lord through their consciousness.

Krsna did not discourage the prostitutes in His city from their given

occupation, He only wanted them to do it in Krsna consciousness. Co-operators.

Like Vivasvan, who gets up every morning for millions and millions of years to

do his duty for his Lord as a pure devotee and shine on all people and living

things regardless of their activities, good or bad. Co-operator.

 

 

Varnasrama-dharma does not require prequalifications other than being a human

being interested in spiritual questions and goals of life. We start VAD on the

lowest platform and continue through the whole process and end up at pure

VAD - sanatana dharma.

[Guest guest]

On 12 Feb 1999, Srila Dasa wrote:

 

> I was rereading these old texts on this "Mataji" issue and trying to

> understand why I had retorted so strongly ("emoted") to Mother Hare Krsna

dasi

> on this point.

> I now understand that because of my insecure status where I am unmarried, I

> see every woman as a potential mate, thus I am unable to put the standard

> Vedic aphorism of "seeing every woman *except one's wife* as mother" into

> practice. Therefore, I minimize or decry it's importance, because seeing

every

> woman as "mother" is simply not relevant for my present psychological needs.

 

 

 

Aside from the usual scholarly vocabulary, a nice honest response. I had a

similar feeling about the subject when it came out previously but thought I

would withhold my response, until my big mouth has to open again. Like now.

 

There are definitely women that I show motherly respect to, but most of the

rest I first look at as a potential sexual partner with the hope that a more

meaningful and fulfilling relationship might develop. If I couldn't have

enjoyable sex with a woman I wouldn't want her as a wife - I'm low, I know,

but I'm not stupid. It (SEX)doesn't mean only gross sex but naturally includes

the more emotional and "romantic" aspects of love between two people. Like

sharing personal beliefs and goals. I like the Vedic cultural approach of

determining sexual compatibility as well the approach to living successfully

with a woman. After all, the Vedic culture invented real sex and made a

scripture for it. Though, I've found it incredibly difficult to live with one

woman successfully - I can't imagine trying to be in a relationship with

several women as wives!!! Lots of bangles!

 

 

 

> Therefore, if we ever hope to establish Vedic culture and the scientific

> system of varnasram, there must be social arrangements to ensure the

> progressive development of the grhastha asram to make men's and women's

minds

> peaceful for spiritual life.

 

 

I think this is putting the cart before the horse? Varnasrama-dharma IS the

social arrangement for progressive development to make people peaceful. If we

are trying to invent some new method of social development which will then

make us more qualified to take up VAD we will be here in the material world

forever.

 

VAD, to me, is a huge occupational therapy/social human resource halfway-house

for human bodied jivas to start on the path to pure devotional service and

re-establishment in our original constitutional position of Krsna-nitya-dasa.

In that halfway house there is sufficient room for a very gradual path of

steady improvement towards the goal. The key element is that every participant

is conscious of Godhead, in the smallest or highest degree, and that,

fortunately, Godhead has a Personality (and a very nice one at that!) and that

our position is to become a cooperator within the grand plan of the Lord.

 

Varnasrama-dharma allows, nay, welcomes, every human being to take even the

tiniest step towards God, Krsna, and once that step is taken in humble

earnestness Krsna grabs that soul and never lets him go. He is always with

them in their hearts and directs them towards all things associated with Him

over a gradual, but sure, period of advancement. Krsna, I think, is big

believer in the story of the tortoise and the hare.

 

 

Vedic culture is simply a coming together of such human bodied jivas to

associate together in a big friendly group of whatever size. Each member

respects and appreciates that the other members are in the group because Krsna

put them there and is directing their progress, Personally. The best way to

encourage another member to continue to advance is through heartfelt

friendliness and encouragment no matter what their apparent material

disqualifications may reflect from time to time. Material positions or

occupations are given under the direction of the Lord and His material modes

of nature and each person can accept his or her position as given and engage

their particular body in the service of the Lord through their consciousness.

Krsna did not discourage the prostitutes in His city from their given

occupation, He only wanted them to do it in Krsna consciousness. Co-operators.

Like Vivasvan, who gets up every morning for millions and millions of years to

do his duty for his Lord as a pure devotee and shine on all people and living

things regardless of their activities, good or bad. Co-operator.

 

 

Varnasrama-dharma does not require prequalifications other than being a human

being interested in spiritual questions and goals of life. We start VAD on the

lowest platform and continue through the whole process and end up at pure

VAD - sanatana dharma.

[Guest guest]

> There are definitely women that I show motherly respect to, but most of the

> rest I first look at as a potential sexual partner with the hope that a more

> meaningful and fulfilling relationship might develop. If I couldn't have

> enjoyable sex with a woman I wouldn't want her as a wife - I'm low, I know,

> but I'm not stupid.

 

Sigmund Freid would say that your controversial desires to

have sex with a woman and to see her as a mother in the same time

are caused by your inner desire of your subconsciousness to

have sex with your mother. ))

 

Franky saying, I have doubts that such deep psychoanalisis

will be beneficial for anyone - especially sex analisis.

If in result you'll find the truth, it will not change anything,

but more likely that you'll come to wrong conclusuions

and you'll be convinced in something wrong. Or you may stuck

with your analisis and analyse everything - beginning from

yourself and then everyone. You can come to your friend,

and think 'Hm, he cleaned his room pretty well, and put his dress

nicely. But why he puts it so nicely? He wants to look attractive

for opposite sex. He is definitely sexually unstable person'.

And your may look at some sannyasi, who smiles and makes

jokes with some child, and you can consider him pervert and

definitely fallen.

 

Janesvara Prabhu, I didn't mean by 'you' your side, I spoke in more

broader meaning. Anyway, psychoanalisis is a favorite game for

intravert persons and autics, and I think that you are mostly

an extravert.

 

> It (SEX)doesn't mean only gross sex but naturally includes

> the more emotional and "romantic" aspects of love between two people. Like

> sharing personal beliefs and goals.

 

So if share my personal believes and reveal my mind and

realizations to someone in same gender, you will consider

me as a gay? I had no idea about that. Now I have to watch out.

You just watched 'Basic Instinct' or what?

 

>Varnasrama-dharma allows, nay, welcomes, every human being to take even the

> tiniest step towards God, Krsna, and once that step is taken in humble

> earnestness Krsna grabs that soul and never lets him go. He is always with

> them in their hearts and directs them towards all things associated with Him

> over a gradual, but sure, period of advancement. Krsna, I think, is big

> believer in the story of the tortoise and the hare.

 

Great words! I remember when one young man said to mother Abygel,

that he doesn't beleive in God, she laughed and said

'It doesn't matter. HE believes in you'.

So let us hope that Krishna believes in us.