Guest guest Posted December 29, 1999 Report Share Posted December 29, 1999 Robert Cope wrote: > [Text 2891312 from COM] > > Vyapaka dasa wrote: > > Unfortunately, there are many opinions on the role of women, etc. in the > movement and we should try to sort that out for everyone's benefit. But we > also must be careful to allow prejudices and bad experiences rule the day. I > am talking about all aspects of social development here. I am assuming that the above > must be careful to allow prejudices and bad experiences rule > is a typo and not a Freudian slip. I am sure you meant to say "must be careful to NOT allow". > > In the same sense, let us not allow the term mataji to become an insult. And > if any male uses the term in such a sense, then obviously he must be a > sudra. oops! I agree with you 100% here, that the term mataji should not be allowed to be misused. It would certainly show a lack of understanding of Srila Prabhupada's intentions to do so. As for someone to doing so, that has less with being a sudra and more with not being a Vasinava. Someone could be a pujari, writer of books, teacher, thus by varna a brahmana, but if they were disrespectful, then they would be a nonVaisnava. Being a vaisnava or a nonvaisnava is only loosely correlated with varna. Actually, even from a varnic perspective, sudra isn't the bottom of the barrel, there are all sorts of lesser designations. Someone using the term disrespectful would probably be more correctly termed a yavanna or a mleccha. Don't really know the technical definitions of those terms. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted December 30, 1999 Report Share Posted December 30, 1999 > On 29 Dec 1999, Sraddha dd wrote: > > > > I won't disagree that there has been improper application of Srila > > > Prabhupada's teachings on the role of women in the movement. But > > > addressing a lady as "Mataji", ie. mother, is a sign of respect. Why > > > are you trying to change that? These two postings seem to lack any > > > understanding of Vedic culture. > > > > > Because it was already changed and it wasn't the sign of respect. I > > get > > really a bad feeling when somebody calls me a mataji. > > Ys. Sraddha dd > > So you should control that bad feeling (a function of the material mind) > with your superior intelligence. Otherwise, why should we get a bad > feeling upon being addressed with all due and genuine respect? And you > should know that "prabhu" has also been sufficiently misused by male > devotees addressing "prabhus" disrespectfully. In these cases, it's the > consciousness, not the honorifics, that needs to be changed, isn't it? like there are certain bhajans that are okey, but because they are chanted by sahajiyas it is not recommended to chant them. Bhajans are still okey but we do not want to be in the same boat with these people. Same here. I would never call a person who feels uncomfortable with mataji or prabhu with these names. Just out of respect. You can find so many quotes but being personal and respectful appropriately to what peoples feeling are is more important than thousand of quotes. asva no prabhu Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.