Term “mataji”

7 years, 4 months ago by Namacarya das in Hot Topics

Term “mataji”

Hits in SP Folio.

 

In books there are no hits for the term mataji.

In lectures 10, conversations 11, letters 21 hits. Total 42.

 

~

 

This question was raised by Pariksit Maharaja when Sukadeva Gosvami described the rasa-lila. So that... "Krsna appeared on this material world, dharma-samsthapanarthaya, paritranaya sadhunam [Bg. 4.8], dharma-samsthapanarthaya. So why He violated these rules of dharma?" Violation because, according to Vedic civilization, nobody can mix with other's wife or other woman. 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

 

 

Devotee: When you address a woman do you use the word "Mataji"? Is that the right, proper word for her?

Prabhupada: Mataji. Yes, very good. "Mother." All right. Chant. (end)

 

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

 

 

So senses are so strong. Balavan indriya-gramah. It is prohibited. What to speak of others. Therefore, the common moral teachings and the Vedic civilization is to accept any woman except his own wife as mother. Matrvat para-daresu. Para-daresu. Everyone is supposed to be married. Dara means wife. Para-daresu, other's wife. It doesn't matter if she is younger or older, but she should be treated as mother. Therefore it is the system in Vedic culture, as soon as one sees another woman, she (he) addresses her, "mother," Mataji. Immediately, "mother." That makes the relationship. The woman treats the unknown man as son, and the unknown man treats the unknown woman as mother. This is Vedic civilization. So we should be very careful. In our society, you are all Godbrothers, Godsisters. Or those who are married, they are like mothers. So you should be very careful. Then you will remain dhira, sober. That is brahminical qualification, brahminical culture. Not that "Because I have got facilities to intermingle with nice girls, so I shall take advantage and exploit them." Or the girls should take... No. Therefore our restriction: no illicit sex.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.3.13 -- Los Angeles, September 18, 1972

 

 

That is the system still in India, any unknown woman who has no introduction with you, (s)he is addressed "Mataji." Address her. She may be just like daughter or granddaughter, but one would address, as a respect to the woman, as "Mother, Mataji." This is Indian system. Now some rascals have introduced "Bhaginiji, sister." But that is not shastric. In the sastra, all the woman, except one's wife, should be addressed as "Mother."

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Srimad-Bhagavatam 1.16.10 -- Los Angeles, January 7, 1974

 

 

Except his own wife, he should treat all women outside, taking them as mother. Therefore, still in Hindu society, every woman is addressed by an unknown man, "mother." It doesn't matter if a person is unknown. He can speak with another woman, addressing him first..., addressing her first, "mother," "mataji." Then nobody will be offended. This is the etiquette.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Srimad-Bhagavatam 6.1.56-57 -- Bombay, August 14, 1975

 

 

Woman should be looked as mother. Still in India, a unknown woman should be addressed, "Mother." They have introduced now in the northern India, bahinji (?). No, this was not the etiquette. "Mataji." This is Indian culture, not bahinji (?).

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Srimad-Bhagavatam 7.9.9 -- Mayapur, February 16, 1976

 

 

Now Mataji requested me to explain one verse, so I have tried to explain.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Radhastami, Srimati Radharani's Appearance Day -- Montreal, August 30, 1968

 

 

Perhaps Mataji knows this. (chuckles)

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => His Divine Grace Srila Bhaktisiddhanta Sarasvati Gosvami Prabhupada's Appearance Day, Evening -- Gorakhpur, February 15, 1971

 

 

Boliya mataji. Prasna boliya? There should be question. (another long silence)

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Lecture Engagement at Birla House -- Bombay, December 17, 1975

 

 

No, she is different. I know one Mataji. She came to see me from Vrndavana in Los Angeles. She's in London.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Room Conversation with Allen Ginsberg -- May 11, 1969, Columbus, Ohio

 

 

Prabhupada: Mataji?

Allen Ginsberg: Srimata Krsnaji.

Guest (1): Mathura, I think this Mataji lives so(?).

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Room Conversation with Allen Ginsberg -- May 13, 1969, Columbus, Ohio

 

 

(chuckles) And that Mataji, she has taken land.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Meeting with Devotees -- June 9, 1969, New Vrindaban

 

 

In Bombay we can go to you..."Mataji we have no more money, please give me some."

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Room Conversation -- July 5, 1972, London

 

 

But why a woman should be refused? This is not authentic. Why Rupa Gosvami should refuse her? They were bhiksu, madhukari. So when one goes for bhiksa, so how he can check that he will not see any woman? How it is possible? He has to go to the householder, "Mataji, a capati lijiye."(?) Or he'll stand. Generally woman comes to give capati. So how it is possible to restrict the eyes? That is, he does not...I think I cannot accept this, that Rupa Gosvami refused. Why he should refuse? Vaisnava is kind. But we must mix with women cautiously. Caitanya Mahaprabhu says yare dekha tare kaha krsna-upadesa [Cc. Madhya 7.128]. He never says, "Only to the men."

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Room Conversation -- December 26, 1976, Bombay

 

 

My Dear Kedar Mataji,

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Kedar Mataji -- Los Angeles 25 January, 1969

 

 

Regarding this Syama-Mataji Dasi from Vrindaban, does she sing Hare Krishna Mantra or not?

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Malati -- Los Angeles 28 January, 1969

 

 

I understand that Mataji Syama Devi is back there in London, so she will also help in your efforts.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Syamasundara -- San Francisco 5 April, 1969

 

 

And what about Mataji? When she was here she assured me so many things hopeful that she wants to work conjointly. I understand that Syamasundara. has gone to Mataji to build an altar. This means that she has already started the temple. She wanted me also to go to London, and I told her that as soon as opening of temple is assured, I shall go to London, leaving aside all other engagements here. But since she has departed she has not written me anything, although I have written her one letter forwarded through Malati, acknowledging receipt of her book, Mataji Charitavali.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Gurudasa -- Allston, Mass 27 April, 1969

 

 

If you have no place to live together immediately, ask Mataji to give you a place.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Gurudasa -- Allston, Mass 27 April, 1969

 

 

Regarding Mataji, she must have some trouble because she has done something which is nescience.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Gurudasa -- Columbus, Ohio 15 May, 1969

 

 

… as well as one letter from Mataji Syamadevi in Hindi.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Mukunda -- New Vrindaban 22 May, 1969

 

 

 

When Mataji Syamadevi came to see me...

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Mukunda -- New Vrindaban 22 May, 1969

 

 

 

On the whole, Mataji Syamadevi is ready to cooperate with me...

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Mukunda -- New Vrindaban 22 May, 1969

 

 

...either send it yourself or through Mataji, ...

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Mukunda -- New Vrindaban 22 May, 1969

 

 

Mataji Syamadevi has invited ….

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Syamasundara -- New Vrindaban 26 May, 1969

 

 

 

I am writing Mataji Syamadasi in Hindi,… …. on the principles of Mataji,

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Yamuna -- New Vrindaban 27 May, 1969

 

 

Regarding Mataji, I have noted your remarks...

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Syamasundara -- New Vrindaban 3 June, 1969

 

 

 

Regarding Mataji Syamadevi's temple ...

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Mukunda -- New Vrindaban 10 June, 1969

 

 

I understand that Mataji is going to donate one pair of Sri Murtis.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Yamuna -- New Vrindaban 21 June, 1969

 

 

I learned that Mataji has arranged for the Radha-Krishna Deities for our temple.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Syamasundara -- Los Angeles 29 June, 1969

 

 

Regarding Mataji Syamadevi, she cannot live there at any circumstance.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Mukunda -- Los Angeles 2 July, 1969

 

 

Regarding Mataji Syamadevi, she wanted to give us some pairs of Deities, but since she has left the USA she has not mentioned what she is going to do. … In any case, if Mataji does not contribute the Deities, I shall take with me some Deities when I go to London.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Yamuna -- Los Angeles 3 July, 1969

 

 

 

I am pleased to learn that you now have Radha-Krishna Murtis given to you by Mataji Syamadevi.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Yamuna -- Los Angeles 5 August, 1969

 

 

You were very much anxious to worship Radha Krsna Deity and you took one pair from Mataji. At that time I advised you to wait. Now when the pair of Deities were taken by Mataji again and you were little bit sorry...

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Yamuna, Gurudasa -- Los Angeles 16 April, 1970

 

 

Hoping this will meet you and your good wife, Mataji, in strong health and lively mood.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Hamsaduta -- Bombay 10 January, 1972

 

 

Mataji Himavati can train your wife or someone how to worship the deities nicely, and you both stay there for the time being.

 

>>> Ref. VedaBase => Letter to: Krsna dasa -- Bombay 10 January, 1972

 

 

====================

 

HpS - We also remember where Prabhupada was talking about Narayani Devi Dasi and said, "Mother Narayani".   We feel it is just as respectable a title as Maharaja for a Sannyasi.  Of course, there is not resticition to say, Narayani Mataji, Prabhu, no?