Guest guest Posted November 9, 1999 Report Share Posted November 9, 1999 Dear members of VMS Board, At the outset let me make a request: Please do not use " trash " or " delete " button. I think it is important for you to consider my suggestions at the next Board Meeting. I am not going to repond to Sri Keshava Rao's or anyone's emails. I believe that most of the VMS members understood under what circumstances or what prompted me to send that email, what was the meaning of those simple sentences, what it was intended to convey, what was the purpose of sending that emails and is it benefacial to adopt those suggestions and so on. That is all. As we all know, Jan.8th weekend, there is the " thulabhara " for our HH Sri Puthige Swamiji in NY and I am sure that most of the board members, if not all, will be attending that event. My suggestion is to have a board meeting, of course, Sri Swamiji being the chairperson, and discuss these issues(please request Sri Swamiji to review the US Madhva Scholars' write up and make appropriate comments and send it back within 2-4 weeks) and also how VMS should grow in the future. My suggestions are: 1. There should be a membership fee of $ 100.00 which will generate say $ 50,000(provided say 500 US members; Indian members free). This will also indicate how many members are serious about VMS since all of us can afford $ 100 per year for this cause. 2. Now we have seed funds to operate and how we want to spend this funds. Should we concentrate on our philosophical growth or our children's basic knowledge of Madhva Philosophy and their well being. 3. We had talked about coming with a CD-ram on Sri Madhvacharya for sometime and I do not know what stage that project is now. If it has not started, I suggest, we should use a portion of this fund to complete that project and this CD should be produced at the highest quality possible preferably in this country and becomes available to each member at the cost price. This will recover some of the funds invested at the begining. We can also advertise and sell this CD to nonmembers and University Libraries where Hindu religion is taught in a seriuos manner and recover the entire cost plus. 4. The contents of CD is designed in such a way with different levels of knowledge that it becomes more useful to our children. 5. We should be less concerned about printing text books and building " manuments " and more into projects involving elimination of human sufferings especially in India. 6. To give an example, we had email sometimes back from a VMS member requesting donation for a Mutt in Bombay or Delhi where the Madhva boys learning Vedanta do not have enough blankets to use when the night gets cold during winter time. If we had these seed funds, we could easily donate say $5,000 so that their quality of life will be improved substantially and VMS could be very proud of that donation. 7. We should have a " GOD " loving person as a member of VMS Chapter in India to identify this type of small projects where $ 5000 means a lot to them. 8. Another project which I think is a good one, is the work of Nethralaya Eye Institute in Madras where Dr. Badrinath and his group travel around the country and have camp on eye surgery and give eye sight to hundreds and thouasands of people all over India. A ten thousand dollars can give eye sight to a lot of blind people in India. In this respect, Sri J.V. Acharya of Rockville, MD has a non-profit organization raising capital for this project. 9. We all contribute to charity in several ways for projects in India as well as here. But a $100 membership fee is nothing as far as our quality of life is concerned. But that seed funds will do a lot of good for so many people's lives in India. So I kindly request you all to pass a resolution authorizing collection of $100 from all VMS members except from members in India. As years pass, we will have more funds and then get into senior citizens projects, " Annadana " scheme in needy places,health related areas in India including sponsoring a new wing for a specific disease in an existing hospital or GOD willing a new hosptital(may be we should request all swamijies of Udupi together to construct a hospital in a needy place and VMS should support for that project every year). As you know, I was asked to serve as a board director of VMS at its inception. But with due respect to our Sri Puthige Swamiji, I had declined that offer. I was not sure at that time and I am not sure at this time what direction the VMS is leaning towards, more philosophical or more practical charity related projects. Looking forward for your decision and may " GOD " bless all of us. Regards to all, Gopal Krishna Potti Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 1999 Report Share Posted November 9, 1999 Potti: I think it is a great idea. You have my support. Regards Krishna Bappanad Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 1999 Report Share Posted November 9, 1999 Dear Shri Potti, I too very much support your idea and I am sure many of us have similar kind of ideas. So it would be very much nice if a meeting is convened under Swamiji's direction and guidance to discuss all these issues. It would be nice if all the VMS directors and karyakarthas come together one day. Probably Jan 7th or 8th would be ideal. Keshavaraja --- Kbappanad wrote: > > > > Potti: > > I think it is a great idea. You have my support. > > Regards > > Krishna Bappanad > > > > ------ > nAham kartA hariH kartA tatpUjA karmachaakhilam.h| > taThaapi matkR^itaa pUja tatprasaadhEna naanyaThaa| > tadbhakti tadphalam.h mahyam.h tatprasaadaat.h punaH > punaH | > karmanyaasO harAvevam.h vishNOsthR^iptikaraH sadhA > || > > " I am not the doer, shri Hari is the doer, all the > actions that I do are His worship. Even then, the > worship I do is through His grace and not otherwise. > That devotion and the fruits of the actions that > come to me are due to His recurring grace " > If one always practices to do actions with a > dedicated spirit to Hari, in this way, it pleases > Vishnu. > --- Quoted by Sri madhvAchArya in > GitA tAtparya > > <HR> <html> > ===== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 9, 1999 Report Share Posted November 9, 1999 I fully agree with Gopal Potti. I have been reading all the internet correspondences. We should not be debating the philosophical issues on the internet. We should project ourselves as a group, respect everyone's views, analyze and do comparative studies. If we need to debate the issues, we need a separate forum where the authorities from different schools of thought should be invited and Swamiji should be invited to moderate the debates, if He is willing to do so. We could arrange such things in future. Swamiji should define the mission, goals and objectives of Vishwa Madhwa Sangha and we should execute them in a positive and constructive manner. This is my personal opinion . Dr.S.Narasinga Rao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 1999 Report Share Posted November 10, 1999 Gopal Potti wrote: > Gopal Potti <gpotti > > Dear members of VMS Board, > > At the outset let me make a request: Please do not use " trash " or > " delete " button. I think it is important for you to consider my suggestions > at the next Board Meeting. I am not going to repond to Sri Keshava Rao's or > anyone's emails. I believe that most of the VMS members understood under > what circumstances or what prompted me to send that email, what was the > meaning of those simple sentences, what it was intended to convey, what was > the purpose of sending that emails and is it benefacial to adopt those > suggestions > and so on. That is all. > ....... > Dear Gopal Potti and others, Thanks for your good suggestions and input on the various things VMS should undertake. Feedback from the members is very important to see where the organization should focus its efforts. I welcome such postings and urge more members to make their views known on these and similar issues. Some of the issues were discussed in a recent executive meeting of the VMS. BTW, we used online chat technology for that meeting!. Sri Puthige swamiji also participated in the online chat! So, VMS is using all the modern communication technology at its disposal for its working ! I will be making a detailed posting over the next couple of days addressing these issues. Thanks for your input and suggestions. pAlise padhumAlaye sri mahAlakshmi... > Regards to all, > > Gopal Krishna Potti > Regards, Vasudeva Murthy -- ================================= Vasu Murthy Bell Atlantic Global Networks web page: members.xoom.com/vmurthy vmurthy W:703-247-7314 Fax:703-247-7359 ================================== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 10, 1999 Report Share Posted November 10, 1999 Respected friends, >Sri. Manish wrote ... >The very purpose of this forum is to have >discussions. No one is trying to project himself/herself as a Madhva >scholar. We are all trying to share what little we know and also >learn something along the way. Mr. Manish's points are fully agreeable. A series of interesting discussions were conducted, on the issues brought forward by Mr. Mani. But suddenly there seems to be a halt. Few of the Sri. Gopal potti's comments seems to be not in good taste. Especially about people projecting themselves as madhva scholars. Probably no one was trying to project himself as a madhva scholar. Why such wild guesses ? This was not warranted. There are better ways to format discussions, but not to annoy few scholars with us. Definitely, it will bring down the spirit of discussion. Hope, a true discussions will start and lead us to understand other school of thoughts in a right way along with our great madhva shastra. Sri Haraye namah Badarinath Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 1999 Report Share Posted November 11, 1999 sorry but I disagree with Sri Rao. I suppose this may be one of those generation gap things... The very purpose of this forum is to have discussions. No one is trying to project himself/herself as a Madhva scholar. We are all trying to share what little we know and also learn something along the way. To say that internet is not a place for philosophical discussions is to greatly undermine the usefulness of this wonderful medium. Sri Potti and Chavle also made some similar strange comments along with the threats of using " delete buttons " . I think this is very unhealthy but of course everyone is entitled to their personal opinions! regards, Manish Dr.S.Narasinga Rao wrote: > > I fully agree with Gopal Potti. I have been reading all the internet > correspondences. We should not be debating the philosophical issues on the > internet. We should project ourselves as a group, respect everyone's views, > analyze and do comparative studies. If we need to debate the issues, we > need a separate forum where the authorities from different schools of > thought should be invited and Swamiji should be invited to moderate the > debates, if He is willing to do so. We could arrange such things in future. > Swamiji should define the mission, goals and objectives of Vishwa Madhwa > Sangha and we should execute them in a positive and constructive manner. > This is my personal opinion . > > Dr.S.Narasinga Rao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 1999 Report Share Posted November 11, 1999 Dear fellow students of Shastra, I got very busy with my mundane life during the last few days and also I was waiting to see the response from VMS group members as to whether we should continue the debate here or take it elsewhere. I agree with NAPS Rao when he says that the growth of knowledge consists in " Ayathaarthasya Nindaam Cha... " . Unless one recognises what is not correct and rejects it, there is no chance of getting correct knowledge. So we can not say it is not healthy for harmony and peace to do so. In fact at the vyavahaarika level, we are all same and all of us are equal irrespective of colour, creed, sect, our beliefs, religion etc.,. Once the fact that all of us are paratantras be a hindu, muslim, christian etc is recognised, no one can claim superiority over anybody else, all being paratantras. So also in the case of various religious groups within Hindus, within muslims etc. But when it comes to " paaramarthika issues " there will be distinction between one school of thought and another, and a student of shastra need to know how and why a position in shastra is not sound as opposed to another. So the internal inconsistencies that may be present in various " samayas " have to be brought out to light, not to ridicule a particular group of people, but to be aware that " Mithyaajnanam Anarthadam " ( Wrong knowledge breeds evil) and not to be in a state of " Vidyaayaagum Rathaaha " . For this reason I think debates and email exchanges about schools of thought need not be stopped as long as they don't instigate personal attacks. I would like VMS members who have been silent listeners so far, to come out and express how they feel about this, so that VMS can move the forum elsewhere if majority of people feel so. By keeping silent, contributing members are left wondering as to how much their long winding emails are welcome!! Jayakrishna Nelamangala ---------- ---------- RJAY Consultants Inc., Tel: (703)430-8090 Fax: (703)904-8496 Email: jay ---------- ---------- napsrao <napsrao Badari Devanahalli <badari67 Cc: < > Thursday, November 11, 1999 11:52 AM Re: Re: Humble Request/Suggestion >napsrao <napsrao > >Friends, >I have observed with a great deal of interest the further >developments on the L'affaire Vishishtadvaita criticism of >Dvaita, with claims (yet to be established, I am afraid) of some >ascetic of the Dvaita schhol having been defeated. I had been >rather severely tied up with private responsibilities and have >essentially held my peace, though I have tried to read all the >interesting comments by VMS correspondents. >The points raised by Mr. Badari and Manish Tandon is very >important. You can not just understand Tatva by any of the >following combinations of approaches : >1. All schools are equally valid as they were preached by great >and honourable teachers who are held in great respect by their >own followers. If there are differences and contradictions >amongst them, which unfortunately for us, there are, they should >either be reserved for intellectuals and scholars (other than >us, of course), or accepted without CASTING ANY ASPERSIONS on >the school whose opinions are found unacceptable by us. Thus >open debates have to be discouraged so as to maintain harmony in >society and with constant efforts to find the points of >agreements rather than differences. >2. If there are debates or even attempts to call into question >any conclusions, they should be with due consideration of the >level of the persons attempting the debate. >3. All personal criticisms should be avoided and instead one >should keep oneself on track on Tatva only. > I would like to give some answers to these points based on what >the Shasthras themselves say or our respected reachers have said >or done : >1. The Ishavsya says - > " Andhamthamah pravishanthi ye avidyaam upaasathe > thatho bhuya iva the thamo ya u vidyaayaam rathah " >This is commented by Acharya Madhva to mean that worship of God >in a manner that He is really Not will lead to the eternal hell. >Not only does it do so, but not rejecting openly such worship or >knowledge will also surely lead to eternal hell. The word used >for such open rejection in the Bhashya by Acharya Madhva is >Nindaa - condemnation. So much for those who feel that we should >tread softly not to annoy other schools when we debate their >philosophical issues. >Any one who has had even a casual acquiantance with the manner >in which Shasthras are organised are familiar with the >Purvapaksha, Siddhantha concepts. All schools which are rejected >are Purvapakshas, whether explicit or implicit. A great >analytical scholar like Sri Vyasaraja has refined the system to >the point that ALL purvapakshas possible with different >interpretations of word meanings and their combinations are >considered and each is analysed in depth based on the evidence >and rejected. The opponent is not given any quarter and is >forced to offer various explanations and take different >positions to explain away the contradictions in his own position >and conflicting shruthi and other evidence. The Siddhantha >follows as a consequence, being the ONLY possible position which >explains the facts and evidence fully and correctly. It is easy >to see that this very method MUST necessarily offend some >schools which take the positions indicated in the PUrvapakshas. >Coming to the arguments that persons like us are not competent >to delve into such subjects, I think that Manish has answered >the point very well. It is persons like us who need the learning >and anaytical process involved, and there can be no better >method than to get into debate in the manner suggested. >Having said this, I feel that we can observe some restraints >voluntarily so as to have the debate be a Vaadakathaa rather >than a Vithanda Vaada. >1. Let us avoid criticisms on a personal level, what ever may be >the provokation. >2. Let us use gentle, inoffensive, but clear language when we >seek to condemn some position. >3. Let us stick to one point at a time and avoid rambling >omnibus criticisms. >4. We need not seek to convert each other even if one side can >not get out of the adverse position. But if the debate helps >clarify our undestanding and creates fresh thinking in the >opponents, it should be deemed as a victory. > Best wishes, > NAPSRao > >>nAham kartA hariH kartA tatpUjA karmachaakhilam.h| >taThaapi matkR^itaa pUja tatprasaadhEna naanyaThaa| >tadbhakti tadphalam.h mahyam.h tatprasaadaat.h punaH punaH | >karmanyaasO harAvevam.h vishNOsthR^iptikaraH sadhA || > > " I am not the doer, shri Hari is the doer, all the actions that I do are His worship. Even then, the worship I do is through His grace and not otherwise. That devotion and the fruits of the actions that come to me are due to His recurring grace " >If one always practices to do actions with a dedicated spirit to Hari, in this way, it pleases Vishnu. > --- Quoted by Sri madhvAchArya in GitA tAtparya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 1999 Report Share Posted November 11, 1999 Friends, I have observed with a great deal of interest the further developments on the L'affaire Vishishtadvaita criticism of Dvaita, with claims (yet to be established, I am afraid) of some ascetic of the Dvaita schhol having been defeated. I had been rather severely tied up with private responsibilities and have essentially held my peace, though I have tried to read all the interesting comments by VMS correspondents. The points raised by Mr. Badari and Manish Tandon is very important. You can not just understand Tatva by any of the following combinations of approaches : 1. All schools are equally valid as they were preached by great and honourable teachers who are held in great respect by their own followers. If there are differences and contradictions amongst them, which unfortunately for us, there are, they should either be reserved for intellectuals and scholars (other than us, of course), or accepted without CASTING ANY ASPERSIONS on the school whose opinions are found unacceptable by us. Thus open debates have to be discouraged so as to maintain harmony in society and with constant efforts to find the points of agreements rather than differences. 2. If there are debates or even attempts to call into question any conclusions, they should be with due consideration of the level of the persons attempting the debate. 3. All personal criticisms should be avoided and instead one should keep oneself on track on Tatva only. I would like to give some answers to these points based on what the Shasthras themselves say or our respected reachers have said or done : 1. The Ishavsya says - " Andhamthamah pravishanthi ye avidyaam upaasathe thatho bhuya iva the thamo ya u vidyaayaam rathah " This is commented by Acharya Madhva to mean that worship of God in a manner that He is really Not will lead to the eternal hell. Not only does it do so, but not rejecting openly such worship or knowledge will also surely lead to eternal hell. The word used for such open rejection in the Bhashya by Acharya Madhva is Nindaa - condemnation. So much for those who feel that we should tread softly not to annoy other schools when we debate their philosophical issues. Any one who has had even a casual acquiantance with the manner in which Shasthras are organised are familiar with the Purvapaksha, Siddhantha concepts. All schools which are rejected are Purvapakshas, whether explicit or implicit. A great analytical scholar like Sri Vyasaraja has refined the system to the point that ALL purvapakshas possible with different interpretations of word meanings and their combinations are considered and each is analysed in depth based on the evidence and rejected. The opponent is not given any quarter and is forced to offer various explanations and take different positions to explain away the contradictions in his own position and conflicting shruthi and other evidence. The Siddhantha follows as a consequence, being the ONLY possible position which explains the facts and evidence fully and correctly. It is easy to see that this very method MUST necessarily offend some schools which take the positions indicated in the PUrvapakshas. Coming to the arguments that persons like us are not competent to delve into such subjects, I think that Manish has answered the point very well. It is persons like us who need the learning and anaytical process involved, and there can be no better method than to get into debate in the manner suggested. Having said this, I feel that we can observe some restraints voluntarily so as to have the debate be a Vaadakathaa rather than a Vithanda Vaada. 1. Let us avoid criticisms on a personal level, what ever may be the provokation. 2. Let us use gentle, inoffensive, but clear language when we seek to condemn some position. 3. Let us stick to one point at a time and avoid rambling omnibus criticisms. 4. We need not seek to convert each other even if one side can not get out of the adverse position. But if the debate helps clarify our undestanding and creates fresh thinking in the opponents, it should be deemed as a victory. Best wishes, NAPSRao Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 11, 1999 Report Share Posted November 11, 1999 I agree with Manish Tandon , Badri, Jay & NAPSRAO. Part of what appears to be happening is what in Western Philosophy is sometimes called the CATEGORY ERROR i.e. putting wrong things in the wrong category. There is no one in the Philosophy category who in this forum has ever said that Charity is not important. Ofcourse not. All are agreed on that. It's a given. There is no argument what so ever on that. Gopal Potti is right in that VMS should give charitable causes a high priority but that is no argument to put an end to Philosophy. Some body has said that for human beings the choice is not " Philosophy or not but between a good Philosophy or a bad one " . Correct knowledge being the summum bonum of all Indian Philosophical Systems especially Vedantic ones, for those of us who are working ( unfortunately) & do not have the time or resources to learn in the traditional way this VMS group is a good way to learn. There you are Jay, I broke my Silence.It's not that I am silent, being an Architect I can draw a lot faster than I can type, which I avoid as much as I can. - nAham kartA hariH kartA tatpUjA karmachaakhilam.h| taThaapi matkR^itaa pUja tatprasaadhEna naanyaThaa| tadbhakti tadphalam.h mahyam.h tatprasaadaat.h punaH punaH | karmanyaasO harAvevam.h vishNOsthR^iptikaraH sadhA || " I am not the doer, shri Hari is the doer, all the actions that I do are His worship. Even then, the worship I do is through His grace and not otherwise. That devotion and the fruits of the actions that come to me are due to His recurring grace " If one always practices to do actions with a dedicated spirit to Hari, in this way, it pleases Vishnu. --- Quoted by Sri madhvAchArya in GitA tAtparya Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Guest guest Posted November 12, 1999 Report Share Posted November 12, 1999 Dear Fellow Madhvas >Gopi Boray <GBoray >>I agree with Manish Tandon , Badri, Jay & NAPSRAO. Part of what appears to And Keshavrao. It is good to debate/discuss/exchange ideas ..etc. While I have not been silent my posts have been somewhat tangential coming from a modern scientific viewpoint. ONe of things attractive things about Madhva siddhanta for me is the emphasis it lays upon the reality of the world - parikshita Pratyaksha .... >ERROR i.e. putting wrong things in the wrong category. There is no one in >the Philosophy category who in this forum has ever said that Charity is not >important. Ofcourse not. All are agreed on that. It's a given. There is no >argument what so ever on that. Gopal Potti is right in that VMS should give >charitable causes a high priority but that is no argument to put an end to >Philosophy. Some body has said that for human beings the choice is not I also find myself in agreement with the sentiments of Gopal Potti in that we should also act as a charitable organisation. ONly I do not see one as precluding the other - so lets have both philosophy and charity. Now I would like touch briefly upon Mani's reply to my earlier post and touch upon his objections: He says ( i am quoting from memory here) that when it comes to atIndriya only shrutis should be our guide. Not so. Hiriyanna in his " outlines.. " (pp180) points out revelation from the shruits should fulfill 3 conditions: 1. alaukika - that is it must be new and extra-empirical 2. abAbhadita - that it should not be contradicted by other pramaNas. 3. reason should foreshadow revealation, i.e " a rough forecast of truth under consideration by means of analogies drawn from the empirical sphere. They are not proofs of revealed truth; yet they are not useless since they serve to remove any 'antecedent improbability' " Also Radhakrishnan in his introduction to " Principal upanishads... " says " the wish to know the Real implies that we know it to some extent. If we do not know anything about it, we cannot even say that it is and that we wish to know it. .... If we have a knowldege of Brahman, it is due to the working of Brahman within us. ... The thinkers of the upanishads based the reality of Brahman ON THE FACT OF SPIRITUAL EXPERIENCE,.... " pp53 These two quotes should serve to emphasize the point i was trying to make (when i used the phrase " defies logic " referrring to local and universal presence simultaneously of an electron I did not imply Ramanuja's system defied logic but the electron did!) which was logic alone is not sufficient- indeed one can say that logic never reveals anything but merely affirms or denies what " revealtion " , experimentation ... finds. Because logically a thing cannot be here and everywhere at the same time. But in REALITY it is So. That's what defies logic. So ultimately brahmasAkshAtkara is a real experience. The different descriptions and systems are proof that such an experience must be incredibly difficult to convey in human/intellecutal terminology. regards, Shri ====================================================================== Shri Kanekal phone: (301)286-6517 Code 696 FAX : (301)286-1648 Goddard Space Flight Center Greenbelt Road Greenbelt, MD 20771 ====================================================================== Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You are posting as a guest. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.