Format for discussion

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Keshava Rao,

 

With due respect for your comments, my intention of suggesting a format and

guidelines is to avoid personal attacks, to reduce email traffic and

accuracy

of postings.

 

As you know, in the past, we have postings by members on subject where there

is considerable difference in interpretation of the subject without coming to

a satisfactory conclusion. So one of the persons or both may be wrong.

So we need an authority, a madhva scholar, to review the postings especially

when it goes to another sampradaya for response.

 

If these postings were done accurately and without any personal attacks ,

perhaps, these proceedings could be published by VMS and gets some funds for

some charity purpose.

 

Now swamiji was suggested since most of them have internet address and a

five page documents review should not take much time and reply back in no time.

This is one way of spreading Madhva Philosophy by swamijies. If swamijies

are tied up, I suggested other Madhva Scholars in India for a quick review.

If there is a will, there is a way.

 

Assume that I am a Madhva Scholar, I still would like another great one

(better than me) to review my documents before I send for publication. This

will not undermine one's ability by any means.

 

The main problem, I see that everyone wants to rush with response to show that

the person knows Madhva Philosophy well enough to call himself an authority

and all these so called knowledge had hardly wiped the word " ego " from

their system.

 

Of course, as you and others suggested, always a delete button is there and

I can bet that most of the members will start using it more frequently if

this trend is continued.

 

Regards,

 

Gopal Krishna Potti

[Guest guest]

Dear Sri Gopal Krishna Potti,

As the letter is addressed to me, I am compelled to answer.

 

Sri Gopal Potti wrote on Sat, Nov. 06:

 

> Dear Sri Keshava Rao,

>

> With due respect for your comments, my intention of suggesting a format

> and guidelines is to avoid personal attacks, to reduce email traffic and

> accuracy of postings.

 

Likewise, with due respect for your comments, I fail to understand how your

format achieves any of the above. Instead, it can be said that the guideline

should be 1. Avoid personal attacks 2. Think many times before posting

As far as accuracy goes, it is a nice thought, but this is a mailing list

where exchange of thoughts is the main goal.

 

> As you know, in the past, we have postings by members on subject where there

> is considerable difference in interpretation of the subject without coming

> to a satisfactory conclusion. So one of the persons or both may be wrong.

 

I will be very curious to know on which tattva topic in this list, was there

a considerable difference in interpretation...

 

> So we need an authority, a madhva scholar, to review the postings especially

> when it goes to another sampradaya for response.

 

For your information, we don't have any authority or madhva scholar around

here. If it has to be sent else where (even though electronically), we have

to wait a long time for a response and the whole purpose of mailing list is

gone.

 

> If these postings were done accurately and without any personal attacks ,

> perhaps, these proceedings could be published by VMS and gets some funds

> for some charity purpose.

 

Again, I fail to see a connection between your format and your goal. Also

there are many great works which are ready for publication in DVSRF and

other such institutions and they are heavily dependent on Government funds.

 

> Now swamiji was suggested since most of them have internet address and a

> five page documents review should not take much time and reply back in

> no time. This is one way of spreading Madhva Philosophy by swamijies. If

> swamijies are tied up, I suggested other Madhva Scholars in India for a

> quick review. If there is a will, there is a way.

 

I don't think the kind of topic and discussion that we have, the subject

can be fitted in five or ten pages. Then,there would not have been several

works and several commentaries. As I already mentioned, each school has

several layers of its philosophy. Through mailing list, we can only

scratch the surface. The objective must be clear before any action. This

is only a mailing list and not an authoritative problem-resolving

institution.

 

I very much doubt if a quick response can be gotten from Madhva Scholars

in India. More over variety is spice of life. Why should the spontaneous

flow of thought be curtailed? Why should the Madhva community here be

deprived of the down-to-earth comments from Sri Nataraj, the staright-

forward comment from Sri GV Srinivasan, The fervor of logic from Sri

Manish Tandon, the knowledge of Sri NAPS Rao, the informative excerpts

from Sri Jayakrishna, the logical spright of Sri Shrisha Rao and other

such inputs from others along with the informative snaps from Sri Balaji

Hebbar because of the uni-channel approach which can be achieved even

with a home-page with no need for a mailing list?

 

As far as getting help from scholars in India and preparing a document

with one person spearheading it, that can be done as a parallel process.

But meanwhile, the people must be free to post.

 

In another letter same day you said about Sri Mani

 

> I am sure that he is getting input from others and his Guru.

 

Sri Mani has nicely presented his thoughts, though we all don't agree

with him. Certainly for our level of discussions, he is capable of doing

himself. I don't think for a moment that he is getting help for any of

his postings. Of course, just as we all learn tiny tit-bits from our

gurus, he has learnt whatever he knows from his gurus coupled with his

adhyayana. I thank him for opening doors for this line of " tattva

discussion " .

 

> Assume that I am a Madhva Scholar, I still would like another great one

> (better than me) to review my documents before I send for publication.

> This will not undermine one's ability by any means.

 

Posting in a mailing list is not a publication. Posting and publication

are two diffrent things. Posting is an iterative learning process where

even if there are errors, they get pointed out and discussed until the

best of the ability of the participants. Publication is almost one time

process (some times new editions with improvements and additions do come

out) and not much scope for discussions (Criticisms etc. may get printed

subsequently). Publication is a serious stuff and is better to be left

to the experts.

 

Every one who posts is not gripped with a fear of being undermined. The

main intent is obviously a strong desire to exchange thoughts and to

know(jij~nAsa) and share.

 

> The main problem, I see that everyone wants to rush with response to show

> that the person knows Madhva Philosophy well enough to call himself an

> authority and all these so called knowledge had hardly wiped the word

> " ego " from their system.

 

For your information, my response was my first posting after the advent

of Sri Mani into this list.

I am not tired of repeating the following quote of shri jayatIrtha.

 

" na shabdabdhau gADhA, na cha nigama charchAsu chaturA |

na cha nyAye prauDhA, na cha vidita vedyA api vayam |

param shrImatpUrnapramati guru kArunya saraNim |

prapannAmAnyAsmaH, kimapi cha vadanto.api mahatAM || "

 

which in brief means " We can not fathom the ocean of words of knowledge. We

are not experts in the discussions of vEdAs. We seek the grace of shrI

pUrnaprGYa and subsequent great gurUs. "

 

If tIkAcArya himself says that, where do we stand ?

Any one who tries to show off can only show off his/her ignorance.

I am fully aware of my short-comings and still go ahead by recollecting

 

" karmanyevA.adhikAraste mA phaleshhu kadAchana |

mA karmaphala heturbhUrmAte saN^go.astvakarmaNi || "

 

" Thou has right only for the action and never for the fruit of the action.

Thou can not be the cause of the fruit and thou shall not have affinity

to inaction " .

 

" sahajaM karma kaunteya sadoshhamapi na tyajet.h |

sarvArambhA hi doshheNa dhUmenAgnirivAmbhasA || "

 

" Oh Arjuna, one must not give up one's action that is intrinsic, even if

it were faulty. All actions are covered by fault just as the fire is

by smoke. "

 

Please don't play judge and jury to decide who has " ego " and who does not.

We are all beginners only, trying to share information.

I have explicitly stated in my response the following:

" This is supposed to be informal, simple, plain-hearted and beginner-level

philosophical discussion. "

" No matter how humble we are, we are not humble enough. "

" We in our discussions may scratch the surface. "

 

> Of course, as you and others suggested, always a delete button is there and

> I can bet that most of the members will start using it more frequently if

> this trend is continued.

 

Which trend ? The people posting freely ? Those who are not interested in

philosophy will delete whether it is one posting or ten. Those who are,

will read and enjoy. Have we not heard about this " delete button "

episode before?

 

Regards,

Keshava Rao

 

> Regards,

>

> Gopal Krishna Potti