Should women also be called "Prabhu"?

A great number of Srila Prabhupada disciples remember that at the beginning of our movement, all devotees used to call each other "Prabhu", regardless of gender.

A great number of Srila Prabhupada disciples remember that at the beginning of Iskcon, all devotees used to call each other "Prabhu", regardless of gender. The men were "Prabhus" and the ladies were also "Prabhus". According to them, that was the way Srila Prabhupada established it, and the system was changed to the Prabhu/Mataji style of address only later.

On the other hand, other Srila Prabhupada's disciples say that to call ladies "Prabhu" doesn't make sense, and as far as they remember, ladies were always "Mataji's".

How can we reconcile these different opinions?

If we examine Srila Prabhupada's letters, there is quite a number of letters where Prabhupada addresses lady disciples as "Prabhu".

On 25/03/1971, for example, he wrote:

"I am so glad to note how nicely your Sankirtana activities are going on there in Laguna Beach center. You write to say that you are considering the possibility of celebrating feast days with festivals on the street. That is very good program, so do it nicely. Aratik ceremony may be done also, if possible. Otherwise, it is not necessary. So long as there is Guru-Gauranga worship, Yamuna Prabhu may act as pujari. Otherwise, one must be initiated to tend the Deity."

Similarly, on 04/07/1971, he wrote:

"Here in L.A. things are going on very nicely and just this week 40 new devotees were initiated. So the stock of japa beads I brought with me has been depleted. Malati Prabhu was supposed to have brought some beads with her from India, and so I would like that those beads be sent immediately to N.Y. center by air. I have instructed Tamala Krsna in Calcutta and he soon will be sending more beads to London, for distribution in Europe. So take care of this matter right away so that the beads will be there upon my arrival in N.Y."

Some will argue that he did this only to senior lady disciples who were spiritually advanced, like Mother Yamuna or Mother Malati, but other letters suggest that was not the case. On 13/04/1971, for example, he wrote:

"Since it is uncertain when I shall arrive, the devotees recommended by you for initiation in a previous letter may now be initiated. Presently I am securing wooden beads from here and as soon as I receive them, I shall send them to the respective devotees, duly chanted on. Anna Prabhu may be initiated also and she has my blessings for being married to Puranda at the earliest convenience."

Here he is calling a new lady, being recommended for initiation as Prabhu, just like the others.

Some will argue that it was in the early years of our movement, and later it was changed, but letters dated from later years maintain the same trend. On 15/10/1976, for example, he wrote:

"My Dear Sacimata Prabhu,

Please accept my blessings. I am in receipt of your letter dated 3rd October 1976 and I have noted the contents carefully.

There is nothing mystical about getting Gaura Nitai deities for worshiping. The Lord is all powerful and omnipresent, he knows the heart of the devotee and reciprocates with the devotee accordingly. So now the Lord has come to your home and agreed to be worshiped by you, therefore everything should be clean and neat. Nice prasadam should be offered regularly and distributed to guests. Kirtana may be performed morning and evening and some discussion from Bhagavad-gita as it is, or other books from our publications."

Some could argue that these are mistakes, that Prabhupada just called ladies "Prabhu" on certain occasions due to inattention, simple human mistakes. However, this also doesn't seem to be the case. On 16/02/1971 he blessed a marriage between "Haladhara Prabhu" and "Joan Prabhu". It doesn't seem he was blessing a marriage between two men ("Joan" is the feminine for John in English-speaking countries).

"Please accept my blessings. I am in due receipt of your telegram received by me on 11th February, 1971. Yes, I have all blessings for the happy marriage of Haladhara Prabhu and Joan Prabhu, so you may immediately do the needful in this regards.

How are things going on there in Pittsburgh? I have reports that the temple there is doing very nicely and that our Spiritual Sky incense business is expanding in volume very rapidly. So please keep me informed."

There is a whole page on Vaniquotes (Srila Prabhupada addressing his female disciples as "Prabhu") with references that go as far as 1976. Based on these references from Srila Prabhupada and the remembrances of some of his early disciples it appears that it was indeed the fact.

On the other hand, in some of his commentaries, Srila Prabhupada mentions that men should call all ladies except his wife "Mataji". This seems to be one of these cases where both sides are correct. Yes, Prabhupada established the use of "Prabhu" for both genders and he himself was addressing his lady disciples in this way, at least in private correspondence, and yes, he also said that men should address ladies other than his wife as Mataji.

If we consider this point from an inclusive perspective, it appears that both standards are applicable, possibly in different circumstances, and they should somehow coexist. How exactly it would be is the subject of discussion. It seems however that it is not appropriate to completely dismiss the use of Prabhu regardless of gender in some circumstances when Srila Prabhupada himself was using it.

A possible key to understanding this controversial topic is the comments Srila Prabhupada made on a few occasions about the possibility of a transcendental standard of society, superior to the varnasrama standard. For example, on January 22, 1977, Bubanesvara, Srila Prabhupada mentioned:

"So a systematic society means varṇāśrama-dharma. But there is another way. That is another way, that is called transcendental society, or Vaiṣṇava society. As it is stated in the Śrīmad-Bhāgavatam: kecit kevalayā bhaktyā Vāsudeva-parāyaṇāḥ aghaṁ dhunvanti kārtsnyena nīhāram iva bhāskaraḥ [SB 6.1.15]

Simply by becoming devotees of Vāsudeva, vāsudeva-parāyaṇa, everything can be adjusted. When Rāmānanda Rāya answered Caitanya Mahāprabhu about the systematic society of human beings, Caitanya Mahāprabhu rejected (it). He said eho bāhya āge kaha āra."

So, there is varnasrama society, which is important and desirable for the good of all human beings, but there is also something even higher which is a transcendental society composed of pure Vaishnavas.

Varnasrama society is strongly based on bodily identification since it teaches people who are still in a conditioned state to behave in ways that are not contradictory to their spiritual advancement. In a varnasrama society, a man is profoundly different from a lady, and thus they are addressed and related to in diverse ways.

In a pure Vaishnava society, however, we are supposed to see each other as souls and relate in ways that transcend bodily identification. Prabhupada explains this distinction in several parts of his teachings, including the history of Ajamila, described both in the Srimad Bhagavatam and in the book A Second Chance. This society of pure Vaishnavas, beyond even the standards of Varnasrama, seems to be what Srila Prabhupada originally envisioned for his movement.

This is supported by a passage by HG Govinda Dasi, one of the first disciples of Srila Prabhupada:

“Actually Srila Prabhupada NEVER addressed his disciples as Mataji. Maybe some Indian ladies, guests, but there are plenty of letters he wrote to Himavati Prabhu, Yamuna Prabhu, and Malati Prabhu, and others wherein he called them Prabhu, or addressed the letter as prabhu. Indisputable fact.

But the deeper and real truth of this matter is even more significant. In Boston, in May of 1968, the day Srila Prabhupada chose to accept the title, “Srila Prabhupada” is the day he ordered us all, both male and female, to address one another as Prabhu. His explanation of this was, “As I am the Prabhupada, you are all the Prabhus taking shelter of the Prabhupada. I am your Prabhupada, and you are my Prabhus who have taken shelter at my pada, lotus feet“.

It was more or less a title for those devotees who had accepted his shelter as their all in all. He then had my husband Goursundar bow down and call me “Govinda dasi Prabhu,”. and he had me bow down and call Goursundar “Goursundar Prabhu.”

Nowadays we often use the Vedas as an excuse to see things in the bodily platform, forgetting that the ultimate purpose of the Vedas is to push us out of this bodily conception. The Vedas explain many topics for different levels of people, that's why in the Bhagavad-Gita (2.45) Krsna proclaims: "The Vedas deal mainly with the subject of the three modes of material nature. O Arjuna, become transcendental to these three modes. Be free from all dualities and from all anxieties for gain and safety, and be established in the self."

Yet another dimension to this topic is that frequently we use "Prabhu" and "Mataji" as some kind of caste designation, giving the idea that Prabhus are better and Matajis are worse. The term "Mataji", which is supposed to be an honorific form of address is often used as a derogatory. We even see Prabhu and Mataji being used as titles, which is completely absurd, neophyte, and childish. These are obviously abuses of the term, and the source of many misunderstandings.