Prabhu for women, Mataji for men

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 09/26/2003 1:45:10 PM Eastern Daylight Time,

Basu.Ghosh.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net writes:

 

> > >it is interesting that

> > >no one seems to have come up with a folio quote in which Srila Prabhpada

> > >stated that the term prabhu was categorically not to be used when

> > >addressing

> > >women.

> >

> > Probably because this critieria represents a formal fallacy in logic: P

is

> > true because it has not been proven false, or P is false because it has

> > not been proven true. With this bad reasoning, anything can be "proven"

> > to be true or false. For example, "No one seems to have come up with a

> > folio quote in which Srila Prabhupada stated that categorically no one

> > should take initiation from the ghost of a dead snake."

> >

> > ys KK das(HDG)

>

> This type of false logic has a name in Nyaya philosophy, "virodh abhas", if

> I'm not mistaken. Unfortunately my copy of Nyaya-sutras has been stolen

> TWICE! So I can't refer to it offhand... )-:

>

> das,

>

> Basu Ghosh Das

>

 

Prabhus,

 

Please accept my humble obeisances, all glories to His Divine Grace, Srila

Prabhupada. Touche. A very clever example, I hope that it gave you a chuckle

when writing it, as it gave me one when reading it. However your example is a

bit

shocking and for that reason gets us off point. The arguments you have made

would be appropriate in this case, if Srila Prabhupada had at some point tried

to take initiation from the ghost of a dead snake himself. I will assume that

he did not, but we do know that he has in fact called some women at some time

by prabhu. Since he has himself done it, did not expressly speak or write

against it, it seems you are making an issue where there is none. Again, I

remain

your humble servant and mataji, Kanti dasi

[Guest guest]

> but we do know that he has in fact called some women at some time

> by prabhu. Since he has himself done it, did not expressly speak or write

> against it, it seems you are making an issue where there is none.

 

To be fair, on a few occaisions Srila Prabhupada addressed some of his

female disciples as "Prabhu". This was very exceptional, however. No one

disagrees that this was very exceptional. The argument presented above is

very one-sided because it fails to consider the overwhelming evidence that

Srila Prabhupada not only wanted his disciples to address women as "Mother",

but that he also instructed us to do so. The argument presented above

excludes much that is relevant and significant.

 

%%%%%%%%%

 

'Even in moral principle, as Canakya Pandita said, matrvat para-daresu. "All

women should be treated just like mother." Not like the present society.

Formerly, every woman should be addressed as "mother," Mataji. And now they

have invented "Bahinji." No. Woman should be addressed as "mother." Matrvat

para-daresu.'

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bhagavad-gita 4.14 -- Vrndavana, August 6, 1974

 

%%%%%%%%%

 

If we accept the conclusion that it doesn' matter what you call women as

long as it is respectful, then we have inadvertantly minimized Srila

Prabhupada and the Vedas as well. Srila Prabhupada is an acharya and

therefore teaches by example. The idea that women should be addressed as

"Mother" came from Vedic literature, and Srila Prabhupada demonstrated this

Vedic precept by addressing devotee women by the title "Mother". By far

this was Srila Prabhupada's normal behavior. Concluding that it doesn't

matter how women are addressed when it obviously mattered to Srila

Prabhupada--not as a matter of personal taste but as a matter of

demonstrating a Vedic precept--means concluding that a particular Vedic

precept is meaningless and the acharya's demonstration of that precept is

therefore also meaningless.

 

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG)

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/27/2003 12:23:55 AM Eastern Standard Time,

krishna_kirti (AT) hotmail (DOT) com writes:

 

> Concluding that it doesn't

> matter how women are addressed when it obviously mattered to Srila

> Prabhupada--not as a matter of personal taste but as a matter of

> demonstrating a Vedic precept--means concluding that a particular Vedic

> precept is meaningless and the acharya's demonstration of that precept is

> therefore also meaningless.

>

 

 

Prabhu,

Please accept my humble obeisances, all glories to Srila Prabhupada.

 

I still do not understand your objections in this situation. I do not think

any one in this discussion would agree that any of Srila Prabhupada's actions

are meaningless or should be minimized. Do you think the few women that Srila

Prabhupada addressed as prabhu were confused and actually thought they were

indeed his prabhu? It is hardly likely. Rather than pointing out Srila

Prabhupada's use of the term "prabhu" for even one woman, as only happening on

a few

occassions and trying to minimize the Spirtual Master in that regard, perhaps

we

should all take some intrinsic value in the lesson and message of humility

that Srila Prabhupada has kindly offered us. Just a thought.

 

My original point was and still is, that it should not matter to you or

anyone else for that matter, how another individual addresses a specific woman.

No

one is ordering you to address women as "prabhu" and most women in ISKCON

don't give a fig either way. In spite of the protests to the contrary, these

really are not matters of great importance..... in this thread it is being

touted

as a matter of extreme significance and even as if it is an indication that

our whole of IsKcon is heading straight for hell, or even... Krsna

forbid....mayavadi impersonalism, but that is certainly not the case.

 

Almost in spite of ourselves, by Srila Prabhupada's mercy, we are learning,

growing and and evolving into the disciples we hope to be, into the lovers of

Krsna we are meant to be. That is a very personal process and legislation is us

eless in this process. An arguably misspoken word here or there is not a

catastrophe and hardly worth a comment in the big picture. It is certainly not

an

indication of anything devious or heinous or impersonal in our society. Letting

 

it go by without fingerpointing commentary, is part of the magnanimous nature

of a Vaisnava we aspire to. These details will be worked out... if the heart

is in the right place.

 

I think we can all agree that from the Vaisnava perspective, there is never

any harm in taking the humblest position possible for oneself. If one takes

such a humble position, Krsna will see to it that he or she is rightly situated

 

with all the due respect he or she deserves. Certainly, no one is requiring you

 

or anyone else to take that humble position, but if someone personally

chooses to address another living entity, who happens to be in a woman's body,

from

that humble perspective, who are you or anyone else to object? In the larger

picture, how an individual evolves spiritually and adopts "proper" behavior is

a personal matter and all the extraneous chatter and criticism from the

various camps is nothing but a distraction from the real goals of Srila

Prabhupada's

broad and inclusive vision. Such strident protestation could possibly even

reveal impersonal tendancies in the protestors or personal doubts about Krsna's

 

omnipotence in the scheme of things.

 

No one is making any argument that implementing the Vedic tradition is not a

laudable goal for our ISKCON society. But (to use your term) in fairness,

general society and even in our own, many do not treat even their mothers with

high regard, or even minimum respect for that matter. It is highly probable for

 

that reason alone, this seems to be a hot button issue for some. IsKcon's

inconsistent implementation of the Vedic tradition does not have such a good

track

record so far. That may or may not work itself out in time, either way it is

not an impediment to spreading the Holy Name around.

 

With all these negative comments and strident protests, the question must be

asked, are those who are protesting actually considering women as mothers, or

simple using a form of address and considering women as inferior creatures who

apparently don't know their place. That is where the heart comes in. How do

you really feel about your mataji or matajis in general. What is the internal

motive in this situation? Only you can say.

 

Whether or not we will recreate the Vedic era on this planet, in this age, in

any forseeable future remains in doubt. This discussion is basically

rearranging the deck chairs on the Titanic. Has Lord Chaitanya predicted the

renewal

of the Vedic tradition or the spread of the Holy Name? What is our fundamental

goal? Whatever the outcome in this regard, the fact remains, what someone

else is doing is not really of great importance in your life or ultimate

surrender to the Lord. If all who are making this mountain out of an obvious

molehill,

are sincerely trying offer all respect to the matajis in ISKCON, and every

other living entity on the planet for that matter, their objections on this

detail, would perhaps not be so strenous. In the final analysis, accusing

others

of disrespecting the order of the Spiritual Master or impersonal tendancies

because they do not agree with your assessment of the situation, is clutching

at

straws. Again, I remain your humble servant and mataji if you so desire, Kanti

dasi

[Guest guest]

In Vedic literature, we never find the word "Prabhu" used to address a

woman--any woman. The word "prabhu" itself is a masculine word, and

whereever it is used in Vedic literature it is used only to refer to men.

Beside that, calling women "prabhu" would be something like addressing a

woman as "Sir" instead of "Madame". What to speak of men, in Vedic

literature you also will not find women addressing each other as "Prabhu".

 

Your servant, Krishna-kirti das (HDG)

[Guest guest]

-----------------------

[Kanti Mataji said]:

My original point was and still is, that it should not matter to you or

anyone else for that matter, how another individual addresses a specific

woman.

-----------------------

 

Our standard of understanding is guru, sadhu and sastra, not "guru guru

guru", which is a personality cult. That's the point of difference between

what you say and what Srila Prabhupada has said. I don't deny that Srila

Prabhupada, in some exceptional situations, has addressed a few women as

"Prabhu". However, Prabhupada has never offered sastric support that such a

thing is proper. Rather, he has offered sastric support in favor of

addressing women as "Mother". Especially when an acharya says or does

something and refers to sastra as support for his action, then we accept

that.

 

In your conclusions there is no room for such statements as this:

 

'Even in moral principle, as Canakya Pandita said, matrvat para-daresu. "All

women should be treated just like mother." Not like the present society.

Formerly, every woman should be addressed as "mother," Mataji. And now they

have invented "Bahinji." No. Woman should be addressed as "mother." Matrvat

para-daresu.'

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Bhagavad-gita 4.14 -- Vrndavana, August 6, 197

[Guest guest]

In a message dated 9/27/2003 11:20:44 PM Eastern Standard Time,

Basu.Ghosh.ACBSP (AT) pamho (DOT) net writes:

 

> I think you can get few quotes where SP denounces this "heart and feeling

> stuff" she is just a sentimentalist. Here is a quote from a previous text I

> wrote that you could use:

>

>

 

It is not clear who is actually writing this about me, but who ever it is I

thank them for even considering me as any kind of bhakta at all, it is a

gracious and generous vision that includes me in the ranks of sentimentalist.

Sentimental bhakti is more than I hoped for in this lifetime.

 

My only supplication to the assembly is that we learn to treat each other

with more kindness and compassion than we have in the past. The tendency to

smash

and rectify is not required, the material energy will do more than enough of

that. yhs, Kanti dasi