important

[Guest guest]

> 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

[Guest guest]

Vyapaka dasa 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

 

 

We have had different experiences. Obviously, I am not of the female gender

so cannot know if the term has been used in a derogatory manner towards

women. To me, being a mother is a great responsibility.

 

In the mid-eighties, after trying to become a devotee and failing, I

returned to college. While there, some of the ladies in the class spoke

disparagingly of motherhood. My point to them was what more important role

could there be than nurturing a child and investing in the youngster

spiritual and moral values on top of course caring for his/her body. I don't

want to get too sentimental but the direction of society depends on mothers

to take up this great responsibility. It isn't a small thing.

 

Of course, in the movement, Srila Prabhupada instructed us to use the term

for any lady except one's wife with the idea that refering to another woman

as mother/mataji would minimize the physical attraction. I think it is also

traditionally a part of Krsna conscious culture to do so. Hopefully, no one

reads any harm into this. So we shouldn't allow the use of such a term to be

bastardized.

 

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. Not just in regards

to the ladies (you've all got me afraid to use the M-word now).

 

Let us address another example that will hopefully draw fewer strong

opinions. I think that we all have had the experience that if someone is

less than capable or whatever they are called a sudra. Personally, I have

very few skills in this area and since I am actively farming, I really wish

it was otherwise. Machinery is constantly breaking down or definitely in

need of maintenance. So now when people speak about sudras I get a little

wishful that I was more inclined in that way. I can definitely see their

important role in a functioning society. However, we must be careful not to

designate the term sudra, even if it is used in a pejorative sense, to

somehow say that that person is any less capable spiritually. That is not

necessarily the case.

 

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!

[Guest guest]

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.