important

[Guest guest]

I don't think that anyone would argue against your premise in this posting.

Many are not coming up to the standard. I would think that is inarguable.

 

So we can see we have a problem here. In troubleshooting, my understanding is

that the first step is to find out the problem. So we can see that by your

criticism of the GBC and sanyasis, that you are agreeing that the standard to

be followed for our movement is that set by Srila Prabhupada. So if we are

going to fix things, then let us go back and find out what Prabhupada had to

say about these issues. Then let us decide how to get there. Together!

 

 

> Wandering mendicant? Which ones don't have bank accounts? How many are on

> special diets? What about the ones who have purchased homes? Is this not a

> contradiction? In our society today it is usually the householders who are

> mendicants not the sannyasis. You are still expecting women to come up to

> some ideal standard but you do not expect the sannyasis to do the same. If

> their goal was simply to serve Krsna in a mood of renounciation, why not

just

> stay lifelong bramacari? It is a humble and renounced position in society

> with no confusion about power and prestige. yhs, Kanti dasi

[Guest guest]

>

> WIthin my approaching 26 years in the movement, I have never, ever heard

> anyone use that expression with any such connotations.

 

Well, you have just had at least four persons here confirming,

in this short period of time, how the term "mataji" has been used

in ISCKON slang as a derogatory term. So, you haven't, but many

oter have.

 

 

 

> This is completely

> new to me and referring back to the initial posting on this conference, I

> cannot agree that such usage of the term was employed as you are

> suggesting. Perhaps all of our emotions are running too high.

 

Prabhuji, I was not suggesting you that such usage of the term

was indeed employed here, no. I tried to "think loudly" why,

for God's sake, some devotees would react negatively on such

usage of "mataji, mataji, mataji.."

 

You see, you will refuse to take in consideration the *direct*

testimony from the side of the devotees about their bad experience

regarding the usage of the expression on *them* (not on you, for

sure). Someone comes to you and tells you "I was abused", and you react

"But I wasn't, so I don't accept it". And on top of that, your first

conclusion is simply an accusation "Why are you trying to change the

Acharya's teachings?". And when someone else comes and confirms that,

indeed, the abuses happened, you accuse all for some emotional flop.

 

That's how you are ready to her other people. You don't even try.

 

 

 

 

>

> I cannot agree that my using the term mataji is ISKCON slang. I am online

> now but am certain that Srila Prabhupada authorized its usage. Even if

> wrong, I cannot see how this can be interpreted in such a negative manner.

 

I did not say that the using the term "mataji" is ISCKON slang. No.

I told you that *in ISCKON slang* this, otherwise *Vedic* term, yes,

often carries another derogative meaning.

 

And I am neither asking nor expecting you to agree. Just

telling you that other people here might have different life

experiences than Vyapaka das, believe it or not, accept it

or not.

 

 

>

> I think this is partially Ameyatma's prabhus point. He is suggesting that

> we try to evolve ourselves to the standard set out in Srila Prabhupada

> books for both varnasrama and spiritual direction. ON this, I am very much

> in agreement with him.

 

 

*ON this*, I am myself very much in agreement with both you

and him.

 

Now please try to think for a moment, What a fool here would be

suggesting anything else than the above mentioned "Ameyatma's

point"? What you are telling us here about Ameyatma with this

above "point of his" is, in basic, that he is not a "mudha".

And that you also are not a "mudha".

 

 

 

- Mahanidhi das

[Guest guest]

Vyapaka dasa:

> WIthin my approaching 26 years in the movement, I have never, ever heard

>> anyone use that expression with any such connotations.

Mahanidhi das:

>Well, you have just had at least four persons here confirming,

>in this short period of time, how the term "mataji" has been used

>in ISCKON slang as a derogatory term. So, you haven't, but many

>oter have.

Likely in Iskcon, every sanskrit term has been bastardized. But it isn't the

term that is wrong but the attitude of those using it and possibly the

attitude of the hearer, as well.

 

>> This is completely

>> new to me and referring back to the initial posting on this conference, I

>> cannot agree that such usage of the term was employed as you are

>> suggesting. Perhaps all of our emotions are running too high.

>

>Prabhuji, I was not suggesting you that such usage of the term

>was indeed employed here, no. I tried to "think loudly" why,

>for God's sake, some devotees would react negatively on such

>usage of "mataji, mataji, mataji.."

>

 

>

>That's how you are ready to her other people. You don't even try.

Everyone but you has agreed that the term "mataji" is a proper term. I never

criticized anyone for having a different experience than mine in using the

term. If so, that is unfortunate but the proper usage has been identified

and accepted here so let us get on with the discussion.

>

>> I cannot agree that my using the term mataji is ISKCON slang. I am online

>> now but am certain that Srila Prabhupada authorized its usage. Even if

>> wrong, I cannot see how this can be interpreted in such a negative

manner.

>

>I did not say that the using the term "mataji" is ISCKON slang. No.

>I told you that *in ISCKON slang* this, otherwise *Vedic* term, yes,

>often carries another derogative meaning.

>

>And I am neither asking nor expecting you to agree. Just

>telling you that other people here might have different life

>experiences than Vyapaka das, believe it or not, accept it

>or not.

I guess I will just have to accept it. It is a new idea to me but I guess I

will just have to grow.

>>

>> I think this is partially Ameyatma's prabhus point. He is suggesting that

>> we try to evolve ourselves to the standard set out in Srila Prabhupada

>> books for both varnasrama and spiritual direction. ON this, I am very

much

>> in agreement with him.

>

>*ON this*, I am myself very much in agreement with both you

>and him.

That is very nice. However, many are not using Prabhupada's instructions as

a base for discussion. One example would be the Topical Discussions

conference. But let us not suggest that devotees who quote Srila

Prabhupada's writings are "hurling (I am not saying you did, but someone did

on this conference)," This is very counterproductive.

>

>Now please try to think for a moment, What a fool here would be

>suggesting anything else than the above mentioned "Ameyatma's

>point"? What you are telling us here about Ameyatma with this

>above "point of his" is, in basic, that he is not a "mudha".

>And that you also are not a "mudha".

Ameyatma Prabhu could never be considered a mudha; however, on my part I am

still working on it. Please give me some more time.

But at the same time, many of our respected matajis on this conference have

revealed to me that some individuals have used the term disparingly. That

certainly would be against Srila Prabhupada's teachings. Guru-Krsna Prabhu

just sent me many quotes from Srila Prabhupada where he authorized the term

mataji. But the ladies tell us a different usage has been employed. That is

definitely a shame and should be stopped. I would also suggest footnoting

Srila Prabhupada's writings would be considered amongst foolish activities.

 

For the benefit of all, I think I have said everything I really want to say

on the usage of the word mataji and am not going to spend more time

discussing it. If I use the word mataji to the ladies on this conference, I

pray that you do not think that I am being negative in any way.

[Guest guest]

>You misunderstand my meaning. I am not criticising anyone. In response to a

>previous post by Guru-Krsna dasa, I was asking rhetorical questions of

>someone who has been very critical of the standards for women in this

society

>but seems to overlook others who are not meeting the "vedic" standards of

>their ashram or varna. But in fact Guru-Krsna dasa is not alone in his

>critical campaign and some of these critical finger pointers are sannyasis,

>rather like the sieve pointing out another's holes, don't you think? My

>point is that this critical outlook is demoralizing and non productive no

>matter who it is directed at and that we should treat each other with more

>gentleness. yhs, Kanti dasi

>

I apologize for missing your meaning. Due to my recent travels I haven't

been logging onto COM at all and upon my return there were 1,000 postings on

the varn. conf. which I just erased. Too much for me, I must admit.

 

For the time that I have been reading these texts since then, I have found

Guru-Krsna Prabhu to be very gentlemanly and vaisnava-like. That doesn't

mean that you have to agree with his opinion but I haven't found his

presentations to be offensive.

 

In regards to the sieve pointing out another's holes, the point is a good

one though I am not directing this comment to anyone in particular. However,

even more important is your point of treating each other with

respect/gentleness. I think we all have something to learn from such wise

advice. Especially myself.

 

Back to the "holey" thing: there is no question that we all have a long way

to go on our spiritual journey. Faults are evident everywhere. However, we

really need to establish the standard of what proper action is and the form

of social development to be aimed for. This should be the focus of the

discussions on this conference but unfortunately there is a lack of respect

for others who don't share one's perspective. What can be done? Well,

firstly, it would be best if we all started to chant better rounds, read the

books more thoroughly and intently while praying to Srila Prabhupada to give

us the understanding of how to implement his teachings. That would be a good

first step.

 

Mother Sraddha d.d. has made some very good points on how marriage and

varnas work. She has set a good tone for the discussion and we all should

follow it. In regards to her request for the quote where Srila Prabhupada

said that the wife takes up the varna designation of her husband--well, I

have definitely seen this also. I fired up the Folio but couldn't get it on

my first try. I'll try again.

 

In regards to this discussion, there seems to be two ways to do it. The

first premise should be that I am not a pure devotee and I don't have all

the answers. On my part, to remedy this situation I have decided some time

ago to take Srila Prabhupada as my teacher and guide and, considering that

he is the acarya of the movement, that this should be a given for us all. So

it seems that we should first understand the form of the society Srila

Prabhupada wants us to set out and then to strategize how to get there. But

to develop the direction is very important otherwise we could end setting

out on the wrong course. Even if we cannot immediately achieve the goal due

to our lackings, at least let it be well defined so we can set our sights

properly.

 

The women's issue has generated a lot of emotion and discussion (as it

should be) but my feeling is that the way the movement has acted towards our

lady-folk is symptomatic of deeper difficulties. I say this because it has

been my own experience of being marginalized in the movement and I am not

alone on that count (in regards to other males). Many men have been

prejudiced against and my guess is that the real cause is that we are all

still mired in the mode of passion and continue to be situated on the

kanishta platform of devotional service. I personally feel this to be my

situation but also that of many others.

 

Have you read the article of the gurukuli on Chakra in regards to his

experience with Srila Prabhupada and S.P.'s concern for the welfare of the

young devotees? Srila Prabhupada was concerned about us both on the

spiritual and material level. In fact, it could be argued that there is no

material in the sense that he was concerened about their facilities so they

could better absorb themselves in learning about Krsna. However, at the same

time there was obviously a discipline being established. This could be seen

with the quality of cleanliness where Srila Pda was concerend about the

condition of the boy's clothing. Both are there simultaneously and hopefully

this will prove Madhusudani Radha's claim that Srila Prabhupada was at least

part to blame about the conditions in the gurukula.

 

I apologize for the length of this posting.

 

Respectfully,

 

Vyapaka dasa

[Guest guest]

> Everyone but you has agreed that the term "mataji" is a proper term.

 

I did not even discuss wether the term "mataji" is a proper

term or not. Only that this term has been misused in ISCKON.

 

I've seen many using this term with respect, and I have seen

many using this term with "put-down" connotaion. That's all

I am saying.

 

 

> Ameyatma Prabhu could never be considered a mudha; however, on my part I

> am still working on it. Please give me some more time.

 

I was simply making the point how much those kinds of assessments

might be impressive. There is some minimum intelligence level for

any sane follower of Srila Prabhupada. Like that one, "suggesting

that we try to evolve ourselves to the standard set out in Srila

Prabhupada books".

(a fish trying to impress the other fellow fishes in the

aquarium with his ability to push back and forth the water

with the tail

 

 

- Mahanidhi das