Official rebukes directed at Sri. Sampath Kumar

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavatas

Namo Narayana:

 

I am writing in response to the recent flurry of official rebukes

directed at Sri. Sampath Kumar.

 

I have the following Question for the issuers of these rebukes:

 

1. Hvae any of you posted material that is speculative in nature? I would

advice each of you to search the archives long and hard before

answering this question (there are postings in the archives authored by

the rebuke issuers questioning the authenticity of episodes in puranas

and ithihasas and the relevance of varnAshrama dharma.)

 

Truth is immutable. One may feel the need to defend truth; however, in

defending truth one should focus rebuttals on the ideas opposed to truth

and not on the individuals expressing these ideas.

 

ramanuja dasan,

venkat

[Guest guest]

--- sampath kumar <sampathkumar_2000 wrote:

> Wed, 5 Jan 2000 22:21:35 -0800 (PST)

> sampath kumar <sampathkumar_2000

> Re: Official rebukes directed at Sri.

> Sampath Kumar

> Venkat Nagarajan <NAGARAVE

>

> --- Venkat Nagarajan <NAGARAVE wrote:

> > Dear Bhagavatas

> > Namo Narayana:

> >

> > I am writing in response to the recent flurry of

> > official rebukes

> > directed at Sri. Sampath Kumar.

> > venkat

>

> Dear Sri.Venkat,

> I saw only a few "rebukes" on the list but you talk

> of

> a "flurry"?!

>

> Can you please mail me copies of those please, if

> you

> don't mind.

> Thank you and regards,

> Sampathkumaran

>

>

>

> Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

> http://im.

>

 

 

 

Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

http://im.

[Guest guest]

Dear Bhagavatas

 

I am sorry that the reply of Sri Sampathkumar in response to an innocuous

query of a bhagavata (which I forwarded to him) on the apparent redundancy of

the word "methenra" followed by "pancha sayanathin", had created some

resentment.

 

Even the Vyakhyana Chakravarthi would not have ventured to stifle further

interpretations by researchers of posterity, as if, his was the last say in

the matter.

 

In fact, numerous Achrayas and research scholars after the times of PV Pillai

have added and are continuing to add to the richness of interpretations

almost perennially.

 

This fact does not trivialize or detract from the eminence of PV Pillai's

thoughtful inputs.

 

I think that it was Abraham Lincoln who said something like this:

" I hate your views but I will fight the whole world to see that your views

are heard"

Let us develop this tolerance in listening to what others have to say.

 

I am one of those who appreciates a different view point that is ORIGINAL*so

long as it is NOT REPUGNANT to the established Vyakhyanams of Poorva and

Prakritam Acharyas*. This latter part is important.

 

And, Sri Sampathkumar's explanations do just this and I would like to thank

him for this.

 

Dear Sri Sampthkumar, Please carry on, but remember the rider mentioned above.

 

Dasoham

Anbil Ramaswamy

[Guest guest]

--- Ramanbil wrote:

> Dear Bhagavatas

> Dear Sri Sampthkumar, Please carry on, but remember>

the rider mentioned above.

> Dasoham

> Anbil Ramaswamy

>

Dear and respected Sriman. Anbil Ramaswamy,

 

Adiyen must first express his apologies to all

concerned for the agitation that seems to have been

caused amongst "bhAgavatA-s".

 

Adiyen is also sorry that revered Sri.Anbil swamy has

had to suffer some embarrassment. Adiyen's actions may

be called to question but never Sriman Anbil's who had

merely shared a random thought privately with adiyen.

He and I both indulge in cyber-conversations

occasionally. Adiyen's indiscretions are adiyen's

alone and no part of them should ever be even slightly

deflected towards either the person or the high

stature of blameless Sriman Anbil.

 

As far as adiyen's views on tiruppAvai are concerned

let me please clarify:

 

(1) adiyen has not and never ever even once written

anything that is even remotely disrespectful of the

great "purvAchAryA-s" like Sri.PVPillai or anyone

else. Adiyen's concience is clear on this and if

adiyen is untruthful about this, let our "perumAl" sri

tiruvengadamudaiyAn Himself take adiyen to task for

this;

 

(2) adiyen has not written anything disrespectful of

any member on the bhakti-list; adiyen perhaps may have

reacted a shade sharply to some comments which adiyen

thought were irrelevant to the context of on-going

discussions on the tiruppAvai; sharp perhaps, but

never disrespectful;

 

(3) adiyen is no tiruppAvai scholar in the traditional

mould; this was made loud and clear right at the

beginning itself; and adiyen even openly begged

members not to start comparing adiyen's "siru"

attempts at appreciating the tiruppAvai with the great

commentators of old and present times;

 

(4) adiyen was simply sharing some thoughts on the

poetry of tiruppAvai with the lay and less erudite

members of the bhakti-list ("arivonrum-iilAda-

aaykulam..."). So adiyen did keep a tight leash on his

own personal interpretations and shared only those he

thought were more or less in line with strict and

orthodox SriVaishnava catechism. Here and there adiyen

did add a sprinkling of personal ("colourful", it was

called!) observations but that was only for the sake

of good, harmless humour;

 

Now, if adiyen must apologise for all that has been

stated above and if that will please all members of

the bhakti-list if I do so, then adiyen has no

hesitation to do so rightaway and submit hereby his

"sAshtAnga- danda-samarpaNams" to one and all! That is

the "srivaishnava" dharma and adiyen will abide by it

fully.

 

dAsan,

Sampathkumaran

 

 

 

 

 

Talk to your friends online with Messenger.

http://im.