Devaki Devi Dasi: A woman who has deep insights into the sweetness and beauty of spiritual culture would not be so pleased to be addressed as ‘Prabhu’. She understands, that ‘Mother’ always includes being a master, but it expresses so much more than that: it also includes the selfless, affectionate mood of service which a true mother embodies. As vatsalya rasa is considered to be higher than dasya rasa, we can find the same principles in a somewhat perverted reflection within our relationships in this material world. A mother is always considered to be much higher than a master. Are the demigods in female forms addressed as ‘Prabhu’? Is mother Yasoda addressed as ‘Prabhu’? Is Laxmi Devi addressed as ‘Prabhu’? Is Srimati Radharani addressed as ‘Prabhu’? After all she controls even the Supreme Controller, so maybe she should be addressed as ‘Prabhu’! No, they are all seen and addressed as Mother, with Sri or Srimati being offered as the most respectful address.
In spiritual life and its culture mothers are honored and respected as the topmost personalities within human society. Whatever the mother says goes. The father is the official head of the family, but ultimately the mother runs the show and controls everybody – through her selfless service. This is the power of mother’s love. Prabhupada often explains how mother’s love is the purest love to be found in the material world.
Mothers are the first Gurus for the living entity. In the Manu Samhita it is said: “The teacher (akarya) is ten times more venerable than a sub-teacher
(upadhyaya), the father a hundred times more than the teacher, but the mother a thousand times more than the father.” No chance for equality – the mother is a thousand times more important than the father! (Too bad, dear fathers….!)
The mother is the one who creates the spiritual atmosphere in the home, and thus within society at large. This is her most valuable contribution to human society. The mother is the actual servant-leader and backbone of the family and thus of society at large, since society is built of many families: she is the one who creates the caring and harmonizing atmosphere within society – the relationship manager and selfless care giver.
A woman who understands this deeply will feel very honored to be addressed as mother – for her it is the most respectful and affectionate way to be addressed as. Maybe our wonderful ISKCON society would be a more caring and affectionate one, if we women would play our roles of mothers with more dedication and deeper understanding. Sometimes I have heard the opinion that ‘ISKCON needs more mothers and grand-mothers’, and I tend to agree with it.
Once a very senior and educated brahmacari in Bangladesh shared the following with me, saying: “Mataji, my Guru Maharaja is our father, and you are our mother.” And with an affectionate smile he added: “And mother is more important than father – yes, mother is more important! Mother means more affection….!” We women are meant to play such an important role. Therefore already at very young age a girl is trained in this way. Prabhupada explains this in a BG lecture on April 5th 1974: “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.”
Obviously it will be very difficult for men to come to this platform of fulfilling Canakya Pandit’s instruction of seeing every woman except his wife as mother, if we don’t allow them to address us as mothers. Infact, even a father will address his two year old daughter as ‘Mother’. This is spiritual culture. Obviously it is not meant to be understood on the bodily platform, but on much deeper levels: she is trained to serve in the mood of a mother. And at the same time it can protect the father from child abuse if he calls and sees his daughter and any other girl as mother. Also being in the mood of a mother means there is no room for sexual vibrations and agitations. This is spiritual culture: it is designed to subdue the fever of lust. And women are trained from very young age to conduct themselves like this, which keeps the atmosphere pure and conducive to spiritual practice.
Being seen and addressed as mother does certainly not mean that a woman is confined to the home and cannot do other services such as preaching or managing. Even in those capacities we women can have the mood of serving as selfless mothers – keeping ourselves in the background, and assisting the men to become good leaders, and letting them take the credit. Throughout the Bhavagatam Prabhupada describes the role of a woman as being the power of inspiration to men (4.26.15.,1.9.27.) and an always auspicious source of energy to men (4.21.4.). This is in a nutshell her precious position within human society – indeed a very beautiful and invaluable contribution.
In materialistic ways of life and its culture things are quite the opposite: sense enjoyment is the goal of life, and to be a mother is considered a pittiful condition since she has to be at home and serve, and can’t go out to enjoy life. Mothers are considered to be losers in the race for sense gratification, and they are reduced to being the cook and cleaner within the family – not a very respected and valued position, but rather a downtrodden one. They have lost this most significant contribution to human society of being the very first Guru and creating the spiritual atmosphere within the family, and thus they are searching for other venues to be valued and respected. Therefore they have entered the working world and are seeking satisfaction in professional career. And thus the highly important role of mothers has gradually been more and more lost and forgotten.
The idea of addressing a woman as ‘Prabhu’ seems to me a feeble attempt to re-establish the lost and forgotten value and respect which a woman ought to be given. In Manu Samhita it is said in Vers 3.56: “Where women are honoured, there the gods are pleased; but where they are not honoured, no sacred rite yields rewards.” Wouldn’t it be so much more beautiful if we can restore the precious value of true mothers? This would be according to spiritual culture, whereas addressing a woman as ‘Prabhu’ simply brings us further and further away from it…. More insights can be received in our courses “Exploring the Roots of Spiritual Culture”. For further information please see www.therootsofspiritualculture.net
If I may, I would like to emphasise the fact that we shouldn’t view the respective position of man and woman in terms of competition (which is not completely absent in the approach of the above article), but in terms of being complementary to each other.
By doing so, we will by-pass the ego problem, which often ends up being the main issue!
Nevertheless, I would agree with the gist of this article, about the fact that being called “Mother”, ‘Mataji” or “Ma” is a very honorific title. As it is, each and every man starts his life, being dependant on a woman for his survival, may it be in the womb only.
Moreover, small children embodied as girls tend to play with dolls and seem to naturally prepare themselves for this inbuilt role they are likely to play in the future. So, to even call a child or one’s daughter “Ma”, is not far-fetched…!
Yet, in our society of devotees, as a result of having imbibed some higher knowledge, I do not think we should over emphasise, nor minimise, the respective position of each gender, in the sense that we should not identify ourselves with the body we are temporarily inhabiting.
Hence, out of etiquette and respect for the laws of God and nature, we may behave accordingly, but what we cherish above all, is spiritual advancement and spiritual qualities, which are the ornaments of a saintly person, saddhu bhusana.
In that regard, it is no more a matter of gender.
Both men and women and particularly husband and wife, are there to help each other make progress on the spiritual path, as loving and caring brothers and sisters ought to, in a pacified and unified spiritual family, under the loving care of Srila Prabhupada and our Parampara.
Thus, we are mutually serving each other, don’t we…?
When the cook cooks for the temple devotees, does he or she cook for men or women only…?
When the pujari dresses and decorates beautifully the Deities, is it not for the pleasure of Their Lordships and for the whole assembly, or is it for the pleasure of men or women only…?
In this way, we should be careful not to promote, directly or indirectly, a rivalry in between men and women.
Men are meant to protect women when they’re grown up and women are meant to protect men till then.
Yet, through their love and devotion and spiritual qualities, both genders keep assisting and protecting each other throughout their lives, be it in running society, families or temples.
Jaya Sacinandana…!
Awesome article Mataji!
In Bangladesh, moms and dads call their daughters “mother” from the very childhood!!
My parents hardly ever called me by my name, they always addressed me as “ma”.
Puskaraksa said:
I would have to agree him, the competitive spirit was very alive and well in this article and basically ruined it for me even though I support women being called mother.
Devaki Mataji wrote:
Interesting, now we want to be respected. I prefer the views of Gaurangadeva:
Mataji wrote:
I would like to propose that a completely different meaning to this verse from Manu will arise if we take it in context. Here is the complete quote:
“They call that Brahmana who initiates a pupil and teaches him the Veda together with the Kalpa and the Rahasyas, the teacher (acarya, of the latter). But he who for his livelihood teaches a portion only of the Veda, or also the Angas of the Veda, is called the sub-teacher (upadhyaya). That Brahmana, who performs in accordance with the rules (of the Veda) the rites, the Garbhadhana (conception-rite), and so forth, and gives food (to the child), is called the Guru (the venerable one). He who, being (duly) chosen (for the purpose), performs the Agnyadheya, the Pakayagnas, (and) the (Srauta) sacrifices, such as the Agnishtoma (for another man), is called (his) officiating priest. That (man) who truthfully fills both his ears with the Veda, (the pupil) shall consider as his father and mother; he must never offend him.
“The teacher (acarya) is ten times more venerable than a sub-teacher (upadhyaya), the father a hundred times more than the teacher, but the mother a thousand times more than the father. Of him who gives natural birth and him who gives (the knowledge of) the Veda, the giver of the Veda is the more venerable father; for the birth for the sake of the Veda (ensures) eternal (rewards) both in this (life) and after death.
“Let him consider that (he received) a (mere animal) existence, when his parents begat him through mutual affection, and when he was born from the womb (of his mother). But that birth which a teacher acquainted with the whole Veda, in accordance with the law, procures for him through the Savitri, is real, exempt from age and death. (The pupil) must know that that man also who benefits him by (instruction in) the Veda, be it little or much, is called in these (Institutes) his Guru, in consequence of that benefit (conferred by instruction in) the Veda.
continued:
part 2:
That Brahmana who is the giver of the birth for the sake of the Veda and the teacher of the prescribed duties becomes by law the father of an aged man, even though he himself be a child. Young Kavi, the son of Angiras, taught his (relatives who were old enough to be) fathers, and, as he excelled them in (sacred) knowledge, he called them ‘Little sons.’’’
Manu Samhita 2.140 -151
The idea is that those who impart material knowledge from the Vedas (karma kandha) are not as important as those who gave us animal birth, and of those who gave us animal birth, the mother is more important. But, the guru who gives eternal spiritual knowledge of the soul is considered to be both spiritual father and mother so how much more is he to be honored.
Otherwise, I would have to consider my karmi mother to be worthy of a million times more worshipable than my spiritual master. While I certainly respect my mother and try to serve her she is not on the level of my guru. She did deliver me into this world but she is not delivering me from this material world.
I agree with Puskaraksa there was a decidedly uncomfortable competitive spirit in this text that mothers are more important than fathers etc. That is exactly what the secular world is telling us, that fathers are not important only mothers hence we now have a serious problem in the west of single parent families where the father is absent leading to a myriad of problems and the break down of society. Who needs fathers, after all mother is 1000 times more important than father. Is this what we really want to tell devotees?
This was not a balanced article.
What our words express ultimately depends on the consciousness with which we are saying it, and the audience also understands things according to their own consciousness with which they are reading those words.
I was not expressing my words with the consciousness of competition, but simply pointing out that there is hierarchy in Krsna’s system. Yes, the word hierarchy comes from Greek and means ‘Divine Order’, with Krsna being on the very top of this order. So Krsna has set up a Divine order, so that everything functions in harmony and peace, and all living entities are perfectly taken care off. The equality is there on the level of the soul being the driver of different vehicles. But the vehicles we are driving have very different qualities and natures, in order to fulfull different roles and functions. To consider them to be equal is absurd.
Once we understand that Krsna is on the top of the hierarchy, then the terms of ‘higher’ or ‘lower’ will not create a competitive mood. The brahmanas are considered to be ‘higher’ than the sudras, the Sannyasis are considered to be ‘higher’ than the other ashrams. Are they competing with each other? Of course not, because being ‘higher’ means giving protection, care and shelter to those who are ‘lower’. However, when Krsna is removed from the top of the hierarchy, then somebody else is trying to take His place, and the Divine order turns into exploitation, suppression, and of course the aspects of envy and competition enter. So then the terms of ‘higher’ and ‘lower’ create the mood of competition.
In Krsna’s Divine order the male vehicle is considered to be ‘higher’, therefore they are meant to protect the women. And once women are protected by submitting to men, they become the auspicious source of energy to men (SB.4.21.4.), and thus even become somewhat ‘higher’ than men. The same principle is there in a perfect and absolute way between Krsna and Radharani: she submits to Krsna, but is ultimately the controller of Him – through Her selfless service. So the same principle is there in a somewhat perverted reflection in regards to Mother.
In materialistic life and its culture the valuable role and function of Mother is lost and forgotten. This is the essence of my article.
The comment I made in brackets (Too bad, dear fathers…) was simply a joke, in order to turn around the widely discussed topic of equality between men and women.
The competitive mood comes in when we allow the false ego to enter the discussion – identifying with the vehicle we are driving, and disrespecting the drivers of other vehicles, which means we are not servant of the ultimate top of the hierarchy – Krsna. So let us simply try to receive insights into Krsna’s Divine order, and understand the timeless treasures to be discovered in Krsna’s culture.
Your servant, Devaki dd
@ Devaki dd
Dear Mataji,
Hare Krsna.
Please don’t mind my saying this. But you can count me as one of those who thought there was “sand mixed with the sweet rice” in your text.
If you are saying one thing and others are hearing something else, then another option than the one you proposed (that the hearers are defective and have anarthas – at least that is what I understood from what you wrote – it was the readers fault) is that perhaps you didn’t express yourself properly. My brother who is in the military sometimes quotes a saying from the army “if it can be misunderstood it will be misunderstood” and that is the reason the army takes special precautions that instructions are clearly understood because a mistake can literally kill many people.
It appears that English is not your first language and you live in a country where English is also not the first language. And you are writing not speaking so people can not see your body language or hear the inflections in your voice. So you have to be more careful in your writing and editing of your texts. And, then read out loud your own texts to hear how they come across and have others read it also. It is really the responsibility of the writer to make themselves understood and not to blame the reader if they are not.
yhs
Rukmini dasi
The question one may ask oneself is: “Would I write or think the same thing, if I was in the other person’s position or, in the present case, in the opposite gender’s body…?”
This generally gives one a fairly good idea of how biaised one can be and inclined to preach for one’s own parish, clan or club, so to speak.
This also draws a line and defines a limit to one’s own impartiality and capacity to approach the Absolute Truth, which is by nature, impartial and unbiaised.
This approach may of course, also apply to varied situations. Thus, by trying to understand and possibly sympathise with the other’s position, one may become more fair of a judge.
Ottherwise, partisanship is likely to mislead one and confine one to most often promote and defend, with limited vision, some self-motivated so-called causes, which often boil down to some form of self-promotion, with the intent of serving some personal agenda.
I thought Devaki mataji’s article was well thought out and did not indicate any spirit of competition between the sexes as she was accused of. Her further explanations of her article were to the point and well stated. I also agree with her following statement:
“What our words express ultimately depends on the consciousness with which we are saying it, and the audience also understands things according to their own consciousness with which they are reading those words.”
The latter part of this statement is known as “atmavan manyate jagat” which Srila Prabhupada quoted often. Recently on Dandavats Mahatma prabhu wrote an article expanding on the hisory of Cyavana Muni and Sukanya, and he discussed the responsibility of men in marital relationships. Afterwards there were a backlash of comments and accusations by devotees who thought Mahatma was way off. Later Mahatma spelled out the “controversial” statements he had made for those who misconstrued them, and it seemed to pacify the situation. So it can be seen with controversial topics (such as male and female concerns), people can misunderstand information which doesn’t click with their conceptions. Or they can become the instructor to the experienced devotee rather than going further to try to understand what the experienced devotee is saying. The tendency to trump a qualified presenter, as if they are not aware of the depth of a subject, is not a good quality, and it can be offensive. It’s much better to ask respectfully for further explanations of a point which is not understood or agreed on.